just as culpable. The blame also lies on the board before them, and before them, and so on. These collective decisions of previous boards have now put Erie into a position where the population has outpaced the threshold at which the Town can facilitate it properly. This is due to previous boards that have looked to growing Erie as quickly as possible, essentially signing as many residential development agreements as they could, so that they could eventually attract commercial developments for sales tax revenues. As was
, Erie stood at a fork in the road, specifically relating to one singular decision, the water department: “It’s that chicken-and-the-egg argument: Do you get the water to be able to have the growth? Or do you grow and then scramble to find the water?” As the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for!” Erie selected the "grow and scramble" path, just as it has for all of their other infrastructure elements, which in turn, resulted in them last year requiring an immediate need to
due to their capacity thresholds becoming met.
Now, the Town has come to this new fork in the road, and the question between growth or infrastructure arises yet again: which path do we follow? This time, however, the decision isn't as simple. The path of "growth" is still moving before our eyes, and very rapidly at that. If the town does not make a decision quickly, we will be stuck at a fork in the road which leads to dead ends on whichever path we take. The answer? Forge our own path which converges where the two paths meet!
Let's face it - the current and previous boards have made tentative or hard agreements which will lead to a population of 60,000 to 75,000 residents in the next 25 years. While there is the potential for certain agreements to be renegotiated, others can not, else we open Pandora's box of lawsuits and litigation for breach of contract. Certain and specific agreements may be soft and would have room for new negotiations, but what do we do about new or future development agreements? Some have mentioned that a way to resolve this is to place a moratorium on new developments . I do not believe that this is immediately necessary, but at the same time, it isn’t to say that it can’t be a tool which could be potentially used in the future for an immediate and temporary “freeze”. I believe that a development moratorium would only be an immediate band-aid, effecting one singular symptom – the number of residential developments – and would ultimately hurt the Town more than help it, since there would be a very large chain reaction of events which would occur if that decision were made. Among others, a development moratorium would greatly effect various partners within our community – financial institutions, developers, home builders, etc. – as well as the Town itself in the way of current and future Town Budgets or forecasts of revenues, which the Town needs to be able to count on for additional projects Town-wide. This could also erode these relationships, which the town greatly needs. This would then potentially lead to unforeseen negative outcomes, such as developers refusing to work with our Town again in the future, which is something that actually has already been occurring with specific developers.
So how do we forge our own path then, without placing actions into motion which would prove detrimental for the Town's future success? Well, it's simple: the Town, specifically the Board of Trustees, has to become smarter, as it relates to the development agreements which it signs. Specifically relating to residential developments: current development agreements include “milestone” clauses where infrastructure improvements only occur after X% of dwellings have become finished within a development. While this might be great, when you have the sheer volume of developments occurring at or around the same time, as is currently the case, the Town basically creates a "one step forward, two steps back" situation. While the developments, might have milestone clauses individually, collectively the infrastructure becomes strained before these thresholds are in-fact met. Instead, the Town should take a proactive step, rather than solely relying on developers to be “contractually obligated” to improve our own infrastructure.
Regarding road and intersection widening, there are certain areas which are within Erie's purview, which can be addressed immediately. Specifically pertaining to US-287 and Hwy-7: this is not just an issue for Erie to address as the projects must also be taken on in conjunction with other jurisdictions: Weld County, Boulder County, the City and County of Broomfield, the City of Lafayette, and more importantly at a State level with CDOT. Since CDOT actually "controls" and has final say on any state highways (including CO-7, US-287, I-25, etc.), they are the ones who would actually need to make the call on when, how, and the costs associated with these projects. Now, with that said, Erie must do a better job of working
with their local, regional, and state partners to plan for the future better. There are some very specific issues which must be addressed, and they absolutely require these partners in order to resolve them. Some of the Town’s relationships with our partners and largest allies have become corroded, and quite frankly need to be restored. Unless this occurs with the next board, Erie will continue to be stuck in limbo, handcuffed by the interests of surrounding agencies and municipalities.
Ultimately, the solution first starts by analyzing all town activities, and then to create the next-steps forward, while at the same time and in conjunction with a plan-of-action for the future: where have we been, where are we now, where will be in the future, where do we want
to be in the future. This means that the Board, Town employees, Town departments, and Erie residents – from the very top to the very bottom – need to be on the same page. There needs to be a common and singular path for the community, which lays out exactly what we have done, what is currently being done, what needs to be done next, while also planning what will need to be done in the future. In the business world, this is called a “business plan”, which is constantly monitored and updated, and from which develops the vision, goals, objectives, strategies, and action items for future and day-to-day planning.
Since the priority regarding the Town’s growth is not to necessarily curtail it, it rather becomes to ensure that the supporting infrastructure becomes sustainable in order to always stay one step ahead of the increasing growth rate. To do this, the following questions must be answered: What is our current population? What will our population be based on the number of development agreements in place? What is the capacity for our infrastructure and resources? When, and more specifically where, will our capacity levels be met based on these agreements? If we know that there are going to be areas where large communities will be built, or multiple communities will be in-progress and occurring at the same time, we must become forward thinking and have the infrastructure in place before the population from these becomes too large to handle.
For starters, every piece of infrastructure within the Town should be monitored based on active levels and capacity thresholds or limits. For example, in the situation of Erie's North Water facility expansion mentioned earlier, town staff should have been actively monitoring the capacity limits better, identifying precisely when
the capacity levels were necessary to being their exploratory and planning phase. The State mandates that at 80% capacity, expansion planning must begin, and that expansion construction must begin at 95%. However, to be proactive, the town should set better threshold limits and reporting practices (ex: at 75%, begin planning, not state mandated 80%), in order to stave off any potential maximum capacity issues. One basic determinant that could be used (although does not account for commercial growth) would be based on something similar to the "Number of Residential Dwellings", and graphing out exactly when current activity levels initiate specific planning and expansion responses.