Home / Articles / News / Vote 2013 /  Election Guide 2013: Boulder County Subdivision Paving Public Improvement District Issue 5C
. . . . . . .
Give Through iGivefirst
Thursday, October 17,2013

Election Guide 2013: Boulder County Subdivision Paving Public Improvement District Issue 5C

By Boulder Weekly Staff

Boulder County Subdivision Paving Public Improvement District Issue 5C
Formation, Mill Levy and Debt Authorization

Vote Yes

If you’ve ever been in a trailer park, you’ve seen the signs: Privately Managed Road, End of City Maintenance, things like that. Within that little subdivision, the city isn’t maintaining the roads because the residents of that subdivision should pay to keep up what are basically their private roads.

This ballot issue is asking the same thing about subdivisions in unincorporated Boulder County. Roads in these subdivisions are aging and haven’t been kept up adequately; now, saying they lack money for repairs, the Boulder County Commissioners have referred this question about creating a new paving district to voters.

A yes vote means a new Public Improvement District (PID) is created, putting all those subdivisions together and raising taxes on them to repair the roads. A no vote means the same thing. See, the commissioners also have the power to create a Local Improvement District (LID) themselves and implement fees — shaky ground, TABOR-wise, but it does have precedent — to repair the roads. The commissioners’ website says a PID is the wiser choice to assure long-term upkeep and is a “permanent solution” over the “temporary fix” of the LID, and it says there’s no avoiding a new district: A LID is coming if voters reject the PID.

So like it or not, these subdivisions are being placed in a district and are being charged to repair their roads. It’s just like the trailer parks with their signs — except this is something residents probably didn’t know they’d have to do at some point. LID payments aren’t tax-deductible, and PID payments typically are. We recommend a yes vote to avoid these voters having to pay twice to two different levels of government.

View all of Boulder Weekly's endorsements here.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Registration Required

Thank you for explaining the ballot issues!  Your endorsements and explanations are tremedously helpful.



You are flat wrong about this.  If a subdivision has to pay for it's own repaving, shouldn't the roads be private?  Why don't folks in Newlands or Martin Acres have to pay for their own road maintainance?  Those roads are just as publicly used as unincorporated subdivisions.  

Folks in the County pay the same property tax as folks in the City: property taxes are what pays for road maintainance.  The County Govenrment has not maintained the roads as well as the City (Look at the figures), now they want us to.  If you folks at the Weekly would spend more than 10 minutes looking at this you would understand the issues.  



Hey John! Thanks for your comment. I can assure you I spent a lot more than 10 minutes with this endorsement.


The question here is not whether there should be a district, as I said, because a district is coming no matter what. Commissioners have said so here: http://www.bouldercounty.org/roads/plans/pages/subpavingfaqs.aspx


The question is what kind of district it should be, and we believe a PID is better for residents than an LID. Thus the endorsement. Voting no on this question, commissioners have said, will not prevent a district from forming.



This article and endorsement completely misses the point.

The sub division roads are not private roads and are routinely used by the general public. The County has legal responsibility to maintain the roads and already collects tax revenue, including gas tax revenue, to pay for the upkeep of the roads. The County's share of the gas tax is directly proportional to the length of road it maintains and currently includes all the sub division roads.

If the County is unable to pay for the upkeep of the roads then the correct solution is to place a county wide measure on the ballot asking for tax revenue from all County residents. 

Intimidating local voters with the threat of a LID (which is a violation of TABOR) destroys trust and is probably criminal intimidation.

Not a very well thought out endorsement.