On Monday, March 4, 2024, at 5 p.m. at the Nederland Community Center, The Mountain-Ear hosted the 2024 Meet the Candidates Forum. The candidates for the four vacancies on the Board of Trustees (BOT) and for Mayor of Nederland answered questions asked by the community.

Of the seven total candidates for Trustee, six were present for the forum. Candidate Riley McCallister expressed to The Mountain-Ear that, although he would not be able to attend, he would later answer any of the questions asked during the forum.

Both Mayoral candidates, Mayor Billy Giblin and Mayor Pro Tem Tom Mahowald, were also present.

Barbara Hardt, Managing Editor of The Mountain-Ear, presided over the forum and began by informing all present how the questions were curated from the public. Questions were submitted through email, and questions that contained similar themes or were about the same topic were edited and prioritized as a single question.

According to the 60+ questions submitted, the issues the community is most concerned or inquisitive about are: downtown infill redevelopment, annexation and development sprawl, a second bridge, an emergency egress for the Big Springs neighborhood, Town officials’ conduct, and wildfire preparedness and mitigation.

To the first question, “How have you, and/or how will you, operate with transparency and honesty in your role as Mayor and/or Trustee?” Trustee candidate John Stevens was in favor of complete transparency and spoke against having any closed meetings, such as executive sessions, whatsoever.

Former Mayor and Trustee candidate Kristopher Larsen stated that, if elected, he desired to return to a personal philosophy of being available to speak with anyone in the public. Larsen stated that he believed in open meetings, in meetings being scheduled for times when residents are available to attend, and that meetings not run too long.

Trustee Jesse Seavers, who is seeking reelection, stated that in the matter of being honest, he will just continue to “be himself.” Seavers stated his belief that having meetings available online live has helped to improve transparency between the public and the BOT. He also noted that the process of open debate has been utilized by all of the Trustees on the current Board.

Mahowald joked about a saying that “you’re not a local here until everybody hates you,” and stated that, despite transparency, someone will always disagree with a decision made by the Board. Mahowald mentioned that he responds to hundreds of emails and always strives to meet residents in person one on one.

Trustee Nichole Sterling, who is also seeking reelection, stated the importance of explaining one’s point of view in addition to expressing it. Sterling added that newer technology can be integrated into local government to help improve engagement with the community.

Trustee Luke Miller, who was recently appointed to complete the term of former Trustee John Mountain, expressed his thoughts on transparency. “Letting the people know where you stand, and to listen,” Miller said, referring to the tools which he uses to assure honesty and transparency. “Have conversations with people and get their input. We (Trustees) need to represent decisions that the Town makes to them in an honest way, even if it’s hard.”

Trustee candidate Aaron Tye described himself as an “open book” who is open to meeting and speaking with people in person, and stated that he is an “honest and straightforward person.”

Giblin stated that the democratic process of the BOT needs to be “in the public eye” in order to erase the perception that Trustees make decisions behind closed doors and arrive at meetings with their minds made up. He mentioned that he sometimes shares a “natural distrust” for government, and reiterated Sterling’s point of the importance of giving an accountable explanation as to why a Mayor or Trustee is voting a particular way.

The next question asked for candidates to, first, disclose any current personal and/or professional relationships with Nederland Central Business District Redevelopment LLC, which represents property owner Ron Mitchell and his Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposing a complete redevelopment of Nederland’s downtown.

The question also asked each candidate to explain why they were either in favor of, or opposed to, Mitchell’s proposal.

Tye answered first, stating that he had no professional or personal relationship with Mitchell, and that he was in favor of downtown redevelopment as long as Nederland’s charm was maintained.

Miller also stated that he had no professional or personal relationship with Mitchell, and, after reiterating that a decision on such a plan should not be made lightly, expressed that he had some personal concerns about the project regarding the Town’s infrastructure and utilities capacity.

Sterling has had a professional relationship with Mitchell through her service on the BOT. She specified how the revitalization of Nederland’s downtown is the key to sustainable growth, and reminded the public that a sub area plan was currently being drafted by SE Group, which would focus primarily on the downtown area and requires engagement from the community.

Mahowald answered that he had no affiliation with Mitchell professionally, and spoke about how Mitchell’s plan was currently the only downtown redevelopment plan to be presented to the Town.

“We’re in a corner of Boulder County, we’re the center of the Peak to Peak region, we have to start with what do we really want in that position,” Mahowald said. “Ron is the only guy who’s taken the time to put his thoughts on paper; I think there’s a lot of knee-jerk reactions. I think we need to stop rejecting everybody’s ideas and work on this as a group.”

Seavers noted that he considered Mitchell a personal friend and that he has worked several jobs with and for Mitchell. Seavers also affirmed that the concept of downtown redevelopment has been a “50 year discussion” and that he would love to see a proposal come before the BOT.

“There is not a proposal before the BOT at the moment. I would love to see something that we can negotiate and vote on,” Seavers said. “When we do feel that we’ve agreed with something or not, and we vote to either approve something or don’t, I think that there’s a good chance that it will go to public referendum at that point regardless.”

Larsen confirmed that he had a professional relationship with Mitchell as a former Mayor, and also confirmed that the project had yet to be officially proposed. Larsen expressed that Nederland’s downtown was “underperforming” and was in need of renovation, though he would prefer any redevelopment to be “scaled to Nederland,” as opposed to Mitchell’s current plan designs, which Larsen said he felt were “too large and too generic.”

Stevens said that the only interaction he has had with Mitchell was giving him a ride out of the canyon once when Mitchell suffered a flat tire. Stevens stated that any redevelopment of the suggested size would need to be heavily reviewed in every aspect.

Giblin stated that he had no personal or professional relationship with Mitchell other than in his service as Mayor, and that he did not always find himself “on the same page” with Mitchell. Giblin expressed that with the cost of the development, the housing and retail rents are going to be set too high for locals and will only be affordable for corporate chains.

Hardt asked candidates to state their approval or opposition to another large development which also has yet to be officially proposed before the BOT.

The Bobcat Ridge project proposes that the Town of Nederland annex 17 acres of land located on the south side of County Road 130 for the creation of housing and an “early outdoor education facility.”

Miller affirmed that he was not as familiar with the Bobcat Ridge project as much as with Mitchell’s project, but because of the Town’s need for affordable housing and more housing stock, he would be supportive of the project if there was enough momentum from the community and the Board.

Sterling spoke of infill versus sprawling development, before adamantly stating that she would not support any project that could create any public safety issues, much like the Big Springs neighborhood and their need for an egress.

“You can’t really argue with the numbers,” Sterling began. “You do the analysis of what it costs to do infill versus if you were to continue to just sprawl; but I would also say there’s a safety issue too. I do not want to do to any other development what has been done to Big Springs. That was because it was a development that was not well planned out and now we are having to pay the cost of that.”

Mahowald referred to the Town’s recently completed housing needs assessment, which indicates Nederland’s gaps in housing availability. Mahowald also expressed that he has personally reviewed every available lot in the Town and that developing outward might be necessary.

Seavers noted that a proposal for the Bobcat Ridge project has yet to come to the Board’s table, but that he will keep an open mind and consider the proposal when it comes before him.

Larsen mentioned how such an annexation would need to meet the Town’s needs, and would need to mitigate any possible impacts to traffic, wildlife corridors, the watershed, and current infrastructure capacity. Larsen also inquired whether the annexation would come with water rights.

Stevens said that the land in question appears to be “ideal” for Town’s housing needs, and that he would not be against the project as long as the impacts to Nederland’s infrastructure were resolved by the developers.

Giblin expressed that he would be open to annexation, especially considering that the Town has its own annexation ordinance. He otherwise stated that he was neutral on the project.

Tye also specified that he would be remaining neutral until more information was brought forward, though he also mentioned that he was excited to hear more about the proposal and how it could create much-needed workforce housing.

To the question as to whether each candidate would “support or oppose the use of tax dollars to subsidize mortgage loans so that those who qualify for affordable housing could better afford to purchase existing homes in Nederland,” Sterling began by stating that her answer would require more specific information.

Sterling said that she was in favor of providing affordable housing, and invoked Proposition 123, which requires the Town to create 13 new affordable housing units and which Sterling approved along with fellow Trustees.

Mahowald stated that he would not, on principle, advocate using his taxes to subsidize housing for someone else.

Seavers expressed that he would need more detail in order to sufficiently answer the question, but that he was generally in favor of affordable housing and was open to any and all ideas.

Larsen felt that, though housing is an important issue, Nederland was too small a community for taxes to make enough of an impact in the housing sector. Larsen reiterated that creative solutions were essential to finding opportunities for affordable housing development, and that funding at a state or federal level should be sought.

Stevens stated that he could not support leveraging taxes to subsidize mortgage loans when there were “other avenues” to acquiring funding. He expressed that he supported affordable housing, and that providing incentives to contractors was a more efficient solution.

Giblin answered that he would pay more taxes to help someone, but that he would not mandate anyone else to do so.

“We’re at a 9.45% sales tax, we just got such a big jump in property tax that everybody is just adjusting to that, so I don’t see a place to raise taxes that I would feel comfortable with even though I personally feel it’s a good thing to pay more taxes for,” Giblin said.

Tye stated that he required more information before being able to answer the question.

Miller agreed with Larsen that the Town was too small to make a big enough impact through this particular method of tax leveraging, and that the BOT would have to be creative with where the money for affordable housing development comes from.

Due to time constraints, Hardt decided to ask candidates one final question from the public, and noted that the topic of the question had been raised several times in the candidates’ answers to the other questions.

Each candidate was asked to express their views on the tabled Big Springs egress project, as well as the possibility of a second bridge across Middle Boulder Creek, and to address how they would prioritize these projects.

Mahowald referred to a recent motor vehicle crash on the bridge as a “preview” to things to come if a second bridge is not constructed, but added that the project needs to be “shovel ready” in order for funding to be provided. Mahowald also expressed embarrassment that the BOT did not successfully utilize congressional funding to create an egress route for Big Springs.

Seavers said that he was in support of both projects and believes that the BOT can complete them within a few years. Seavers also expressed a desire to build on the Town’s wildfire preparation and mitigation efforts.

Larsen admitted that the failure to complete an egress route was one of his “greatest frustrations” from his service as Mayor. Larsen also expressed his belief that a second bridge across Middle Boulder Creek should be for emergency use only.

“We have to do it. When I was Mayor that was the nightmare scenario, the “trapped neighborhood,” and it’s one of the big reasons why I’m running again is to try and get that project moving and get it completed because we absolutely have to have a Big Springs egress.”

“A second bridge across the river does not solve any of the traffic problems we see in town. There’ll still be the same issue we’re always going to have, and there is absolutely no way around this, is that we have three entrances in and out of town.”

Stevens agreed that both projects were necessary for successful wildfire preparedness and mitigation.

“I witnessed the car wreck, and if there was an emergency someone would’ve been in dire straits” Stevens began, before moving on to his ideas for wildfire mitigation techniques. “Let people come up and if they want to collect firewood, let them collect firewood. That’s the easy way to mitigate that.”

“We have a city cleanup every year; we can have a wildfire mitigation every year.”

Giblin spoke about how he has discussed the suggested egress routes with Big Springs residents, and noted that the routes are located in areas that would attract fire in the event of a wildfire. Giblin expressed how working with the City of Boulder concerning a route across the Barker Dam was frustratingly difficult.

As for a second bridge across the creek, Giblin stated that a second bridge would not help to control Nederland’s traffic issues and would just create another “pinch point” where traffic could collect.

Tye stated that the Big Springs egress project was an immediate concern, as was the need for a second bridge for emergency uses.

“When I was still a police officer I would patrol the whole town twice daily if I could, and any time it snows, [Big Springs] was the first place I would go because I knew a car would be off the road and would most definitely block people from going in or out,” Tye continued.

“I work up in that neighborhood as a handyman and I had an instance of a truck getting stuck coming off Alpine, and it was there for over a week. I can’t even imagine what you would do in a fire emergency.”

Miller answered that he felt both projects were a priority in terms of emergency preparedness and that the Town needs to be better prepared than it currently is. Miller also reiterated how both projects will require property owners to make “sacrifices for the greater good.”

Sterling strongly expressed that both projects are within her purview, and stated how, when prioritizing public safety, someone will always be left “pissed off.” As for the second bridge, Sterling preferred to wait for the results from the Multimodal Transportation Plan currently being conducted, and to remain open to having the bridge be available for all traffic use.

During a brief open Q&A session with the public in attendance, the Mayoral candidates were asked what they each plan to do, if elected, to address the Town’s need for infrastructure improvements and protection of the Town’s water rights.

Commissioner Jim Reis of the Planning Commission asked specifically about needed sewer infrastructure for Big Springs, to which Giblin expressed that the project needs to be approached in phases. Mahowald noted that, though improvements have been made to the Town’s sewer system in the previous year, improvements to Big Springs’ infrastructure is not reflected in the current budget.

Former Trustee Jonathan Baumhover asked the Mayoral candidates about when the BOT will start developing infrastructure that will earn the Town much-needed revenue, referring specifically to paid parking and Nederland’s watershed.

Giblin stated that Nederland has applied for diligence at water court, in an effort to eventually be able to develop the Nederland reservoir, begin actual storage construction, and move into selling our water yearly. He also mentioned that he still was not in favor of paid parking; however, the BOT did agree to create a budget line item for paid parking for 2024.

Mahowald agreed with Baumhover’s summation that the BOT had “kicked this can down the road a long time,” and noted that the Town has done a good job at determining their current water storage and water use, and that he looks forward to sharing the data with the public once the case with water court has been adjudicated.

The next Nederland municipal election is scheduled for April 2, 2024. Electors should begin receiving ballots on March 11; the last day to request an absentee ballot is March 29.

To view the Candidates Profiles, visit: https://www.themtnear.com/category/governement/.

Follow The Mountain-Ear for more updates on Nederland government and the upcoming election, including Trustee candidate Riley McCallister’s answers to the community’s questions.