Dear Editor, Nederland BOT members and citizens of Nederland,

I write to you as a concerned citizen, alarmed by the recent Mountain-Ear article detailing the Nederland BOT efforts to craft an annexation policy.

I have a few comments I’d like the town to consider:

The town of Nederland should renew the expiring Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). This important agreement was mutually decided on by the town and Boulder County. All of the considerations for why this IGA was originally put in place still exist today. The IGA created the Comprehensive Development Plan. The purpose of the Comprehensive Development Plan is to minimize negative impacts on surrounding areas, protect the environment, preclude urban sprawl, and promote orderly growth of the town. The agreement was also struck … “in order to ensure that the unique and individual character of Nederland is preserved…”.

Are these goals any less appropriate today? If not, there is no reason not to pursue the renewal of this agreement.

The former Nederland BOT members were wise enough to know that Nederland is surrounded by land important enough to conserve and be thoughtful about its development. They also recognized that the town is small, has limited resources, and would benefit from the guidance and partnership of the county - which brings its deep knowledge on sustainable and thoughtful development and its vast resources to help in development decisions.

As a small community, we need not only the checks and balances system the county and IGA provides, but we need their support on how to avoid development that stands to hurt the town and the natural landscape around us.1

If the IGA is not renewed, any annexation policy should adopt the same mission and values that underpinned the IGA and the creation of a Comprehensive Development Plan, as listed above. Any deviation from these goals should be debated and clearly articulated to the citizens of the town. If the IGA is not going to be renewed, we have a right to understand what factors are contributing to the town not pursuing these same goals, as structured and protected in the current agreement.

If the town does not renew the IGA, the BOT should materially retain the process by which annexation decisions are considered within the IGA. he current process within the IGA calls for annexation decisions to pass through the following groups:

Planning Commission - reviews referral, makes a recommendation on action, forwards to the County Commissioners;

County Commissioners - reviews Planning Commission recommendations, takes a decision action, forwards to Nederland Planning Commission.;

Nederland Planning Commission - if forwarded by the Commissioners, Planning Commission reviews referral, makes recommendation on action, forwards to the Nederland BOT;

Board of Trustees - reviews Planning Commission recommendation, takes a decision action, forwards to qualified electors of Nederland for a vote. A denial action by BOT terminates the review;

Qualified Town Electors - if approved by BOT, proposal is referred for a vote to qualified electors of Nederland to approve or deny application.2

This process is very very important. It is the means by which every group with an important say in the matter has a chance to weigh in on the decision. It is the means by which a system of checks and balances ensures a fair review of all considerations.

I, and several other citizens, are concerned about direct conflicts of interest with BOT members and certain forthcoming annexation and development plans.

If the town is planning on truncating the process for annexation reviews, the BOT owes an answer to the citizens of the town on why this process, which was previously deemed important, is no longer important to uphold. Without a proper annexation process that passes through important and relevant departments, commissions, and the public opinion of the citizens of Nederland, the decision making process is flawed and exposes BOT members to undue influence which can call into question their objectivity in analyzing these types of decisions.

Any annexation policy should absolutely include the vote of the citizens of Nederland. The town itself agreed to designate all the surrounding land outside the town limits as a Rural Preservation Area (RPA). This designation precluded rezoning or other discretionary land use approvals, which would be contrary to that designation. In other words, “No density increase beyond the [town] limits currently permissible under the Boulder County Land Use Code shall be approved for any parcel in the Rural Preservation Area.”

The town of Nederland previously agreed that any expansion of the Town boundaries into the Rural Preservation Area through annexation would require a process for gaining approval from the county, the Town, and finally the qualified electors of Nederland via a vote.2

Why is the town going back on its prior promise to give its citizens a vote about such important matters as expanding the town limits and changing the use of land?

The town should honor its previous commitments and give the citizens a say in such an important matter.

The BOT should honor the results and conclusions of prior annexation attempts. Any applications previously denied should not be considered again unless the conclusions and results from the previous denial are appropriately addressed.

For instance, the prior application for annexation in 2014 (IGA-14-0001, also known as “Aspen Trails, or re-branded as Bobcat Ridge”) offers a unique opportunity to help shape sound annexation policy.

The prior annexation application was denied because it was outside the scope of responsible town development. The conclusions were that the town should focus on infill development (keeping development from sprawling and promoting a compact and sustainable land use pattern), should avoid developing important wildlife habitats, avoid contributing to already untenable traffic and town congestion, and avoid strain the town’s already limited resources. 2

For instance, one independent study at the time (from ‘The Bowen Report’) found that 276 housing units could be developed without the need for additional land acquisition. The conclusion was that there were far more opportunities for development within town limits than the current need or demand for housing.

As a matter of annexation policy, any repeat applications should demonstrate that all prior reasons for denial are properly addressed.

As a matter of sound annexation policy, the town should not rezone land or change land-use in a manner that promotes higher density unless that land shares a contiguous border of similar or higher density land use. In other words, responsible town development generally includes a high density zoning center or core, then a high-to-medium density circle around that center, and then a lower density zoned outer circle.This is how the current Nederland town Zoning is structured - and properly so. It is very poor town planning and policy to allow a high or medium density land use outside of a low density zoned perimeter. Thus, as a matter of responsible annexation policy, no annexation and change of land-use should occur if the change is to higher density zoning than what that land is already contiguous to. In other words, land should only be annexed and changed if it is contiguous (sharing a border) to at least the same level or higher density zoned land.

As a matter of sound annexation policy, the town should separate out annexation considerations for utility needs (such as water security) with applications to change land-use for further development. Failure to discern the difference between annexation policy for utility security and annexation proposals for individual landowners’ development goals conflates different issues and opens the town to negative externalities in pursuit of utility protection.

Of particular concern, is the conflict of interest that arises when the town pursues legitimate utility protection, but is ‘held hostage’ to approve an individual owner’s development plans in conjunction with utility protection.

It is not fair to the citizens of the town to be subject to such package deals demanded by landowners in exchange for a public good. Without a process to review such proposals that pass through independent commissions and the public voting process, we cannot have faith as citizens of the town that our best interests are being looked out for by the town.

Thank you,

Eric Davis

Nederland