FLOOD04566

• County: Boulder
• Community: Boulder
• Stream Name: Gregory, Bear Can, Bluebell Can Creeks, Viele Chan
• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Major Drainageway Planning Volume 1, Part C
• Date: 9/1/1970
• Prepared For: Boulder County
• Prepared By: CWCB
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Floodplain Report/Masterplan

II
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I

63

c. A third bond method would be a revenue bond issue which
could be predicated on earmarking a certain portion of
the one cent sales tax (this is the approach Denver took
in 1964 to finance Harvard Gulch, Denver General Hospital,
and the Convention Center). A revenue bond issue could
also be predicated on the aforementioned user charge.

B. COUNTY

1. The County has more financial resources than it would first
appear. Again, this is a job of convincing county commis-
sioners and county budget officers that drainaqe is a problem
or a function separate and apart from roads and bridges. It
is in fact an independent public works type of problem. There-
fore, from a Boulder County road and bridge mill levy of 3.75
mills, which produces approximately $1,000,000 in tax money,
it would seem very conservative to attribute 10 per cent of
the need for repairs and maintenance of roads and bridges to
drainage. Even the building of new roads and new bridges
needs to have an increment which takes into account the design
of adequate drainage facilities for that new bridge and new
road. Ten per cent is a conservative figure which would pro-
duce $100,000 which could be again identified in a separate
"drainage fund." The county commissioners, if they were con-
vinced that adequate drainage was an economic way of preserv-
ing their roads and bridges and avoiding maintenance costs,
might be willing to add 0.25 mills to the road and bridge mill
levy and earmark it for additional drainage improvements.
This would raise $65,000 for Boulder. Boulder County receives
approximately $500,000 as its share of highway users taxes
from the State. Again, 10 per cent of this money could be
attributed to the need for adequate drainage which would per-
mit the addition of another $50,000 to a "drainage fund."

2. The County has the authori ty to levy up to 3 mill s for pub 1 i c
works. Certainly drainage is a public works, and the com-
missioners, if sold on the need for drainage, could put on
an additional mill levy for this purpose.

3. The commissioners might be able to issue anticipation war-
rants for drain,ge purposes based on a repayment from a
public works levy that was made for drainage purposes.

4. The County could also require a development agreement from
a subdivider such as suggested in connection with city sub-
dividers, the receipts to go into the "drainage fund."

5. If the County decides to Implement a park and recreation
district with a mill levy, once again this source can be
used to acquire open space which can be used in connection
with drainage proJects.