Rachel Zenzinger
Jeffco County Commissioner District 1

What is the greatest single problem you see facing Jeffco residents today? How would you solve this problem?

There are several pressing issues that are affecting Jeffco residents ranging from affordable housing to the rising cost of living, but I think the greatest problem that I see facing Jeffco residents, particularly in the mountain and foothill regions (but not exclusively), is the threat of wildfire. We cannot really “solve” this problem (even though addressing climate change would go a long way toward helping), but we can implement a series of smart strategies to help mitigate wildfire. Here are four ideas on how I would address the problem of wildfires in Jeffco:

1. Jefferson County must continue their involvement with the Wildfire Commission. We literally have a “seat” at the table where careful planning and preparation is currently taking place.
2. Second, we must write and successfully implement strategic forest management plans, as well as a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). We also must be proactive about working with residents in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) to create defensible space and help residents who may financially need assistance (because fire doesn’t care about your economic status).
3. Next, we need to ensure the county is in a stable place financially to be able to properly resource our planning, mitigation, and post-response efforts.
4. And finally, we all know that, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” therefore we must make sure to have a robust citizen engagement and education effort to ensure every Jeffco resident is prepared in the event of wildfire.

As more and more unincorporated land is bought with an eye toward development, how would you ensure adequate Open Space?

Jeffco prioritized the establishment of open space beginning in 1972 when the Jeffco League of Women Voters and PLAN Jeffco came together and formed Jeffco Open Space. This is a land conservation organization funded through a voter approved tax. In many respects, Jeffco Open Space has become our crown jewel. Nevertheless, as you noted in your question, we must consider the future of open space given pressures to develop the land, especially considering the lack of housing in the Denver Metro area. Here are four strategies that I would look to for preserving open space in Jefferson County:

1. Implement stronger zoning regulations that require developers to set aside land for open space, parks, or greenbelts.
2. Offer incentives for conservation easements on private land.
3. Prioritize land acquisitions by the county or local land trusts.
4. Encourage urban infill and redevelopment within existing communities.

How do you plan to help citizens have a voice in decisions about that development?

This is an excellent question, and one that is not theoretical to me. Making sure citizens have a voice in decisions about development was the driving force behind legislation that I wrote, sponsored and passed this past legislative session. In the 2023 session, the Governor led an effort to increase affordable housing known as SB 23-213. While I appreciated the strategies outlined in SB213, I could not support the preemption of local control that he sought, specifically the elimination of citizen input in the planning process. That bill would have pushed all the decision-making to a state board of unelected bureaucrats and local input would have been completely eliminated. Thankfully the bill failed, but it became the catalyst and the inspiration for Senate Bill 24-174 on Sustainable Affordable Housing Assistance.

The act requires each local government to conduct and publish a local housing needs assessment. The act also outlines the process for engaging with the public on land use decisions, when conducting the housing needs assessment, and in developing the housing action plans. A “housing action plan” is an advisory document that demonstrates a local government’s commitment to address housing needs and that guides a local government in developing legislative actions, promoting regional coordination, and informing the public of the local government’s efforts to address housing needs in the local government’s jurisdiction. In the legislation, we mandated a process for gathering feedback through community engagement and we specifically required local governments to consult with affordable housing advocates, the disability community, tenants’ rights groups, and others. We also wrote an entire section of the bill dedicated to the assessment methodology and displacement risk mitigation strategies that, again, required outreach to citizens, and to specifically focus on historically under-consulted and disproportionately impacted stakeholders, residents, and businesses.

What is your thinking about the Jefferson Parkway at this time?

Ever since my involvement with the Arvada Citizens Transportation Committee, I have been a supporter of the parkway. I was appointed to the Committee by the Arvada City Council, and I participated in many study sessions, public meetings, and retreats to create a long-term vision for transportation infrastructure. The Committee unanimously recommended to the City Council that we adopt a plan to construct the last unbuilt portion of the metro beltway, and the Council voted unanimously in favor of our recommendation.

Later, after I was elected to the Arvada City Council, I served as an appointee to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA). During my involvement with council, DRCOG, and the JPPHA, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot afford to complete the beltway without assistance, which is why the authority pursued a public-private partnership. However, it is my understanding that no private entity has stepped up and the project has stalled. That particular stretch of highway was designated by the U.S. Congress, in large part thanks to Congressman Perlmutter and Senator Bennet, as a transportation corridor. I am convinced, and they agreed, that if completed, there would be significant benefits to the region such as improved air quality, greater regional connectivity, and better local traffic flows.

Unfortunately, the delay has led to tension with residents from nearby developments, and I fear the withdrawal of Broomfield County will prove to be fatal for the project. After I transitioned to the Senate, I largely moved on from thinking about or involving myself in the Parkway discussions, as it had nothing to do with the State. If I am elected as Commissioner, and since Jefferson County is one of the main entities involved with the JPPHA, I will need to get up to speed with what has transpired over the last 10 years. I suspect that the project may not be in a position to move forward and I fear that we may need to go back to the drawing board.

What would you do as a County Commissioner to bolster both mental and physical health in Jefferson County?

I believe county commissioners have the ability to significantly improve both mental and physical health and I believe it is essential in order to improve our quality of life, enhance productivity, reduce healthcare costs, and create a stronger community. Here are four ideas on how we might accomplish this:

1. Increase funding for mental health services, including expanding access to counseling, therapy and support groups.
2. Enhance public parks and trails to encourage physical activity and access to nature, which can improve both mental and physical well-being. For example, we can promote healthy lifestyles through initiatives like community gardens, farmers’ markets, and bike-friendly infrastructure.
3. Collaborate with local healthcare providers, such as the Jefferson Center for Mental Health or FQHCs (Federally Qualified Health Centers) like Stride Community Health Centers, to offer health education programs, screenings, and preventive care services.
4. Work closely with Jeffco Public Health on co-planning and co-budgeting to help break down barriers to access. (One recent example of this is the new mobile clinic van.) Also, since state grants count toward our revenue cap, I would pursue more federal funding options. In fact, I sponsored a bill that enables this very thing: HB24-1384 on Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics. (The bill allows entities like JCMH to apply for federal grants related to certified community behavioral health clinics which can draw down more federal funding.)

What is your position regarding the ballot issue related to revenue retention, and how would you communicate that position to voters and persuade them that your position should influence how they vote?

I support the revenue retention measure. I listened to the hearing online, I read the report issued by the consultants, and I participated in the most recent county town hall. I understand the situation that has created our current budget pressures and I believe asking the voters of Jefferson County to retain the excess revenue is not only beneficial, it’s in keeping with the guidance of TABOR. Retaining excess revenues is NOT some sort of anathema or conspiracy to get rid of TABOR. In fact, 51 of the 64 counties in Colorado (including conservative counties such as El Paso and Douglas) have already taken these steps. Jeffco’s ballot measure is appropriate and I hope that it passes.

As to the second part of your question, however, I do not believe it is appropriate to try and persuade voters to vote for or against the measure. As a candidate, I am not permitted to utilize my funds to campaign for or against a ballot measure (including posting positions on my literature or website). That said, I certainly have an opinion (which I will outline in detail below), and I freely share my opinion when asked. My main goal as a candidate for office is to focus on my qualifications to serve as commissioner first and foremost. I believe that my years of experience in balancing the state budget–in good times, and in bad–makes me the most qualified candidate to responsibly steward the budget regardless if the measure passes or not. Admittedly, the job will be much easier and the citizens will benefit much more if we can craft a budget utilizing the revenue we have already collected. But, if the measure does not pass, I am exactly the kind of person you want on the commission to exercise sound judgment when making tough budget decisions.

Here are the reasons why I believe passing 1A is the right thing to do:

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, is an amendment to the Colorado Constitution enacted by voters in 1992 that limits the amount of revenue governments in Colorado can retain and spend, including the state, counties, cities, schools and special districts. The formula that makes this determination, however, is deeply flawed, which is why the overwhelming majority of counties (51 out of 64) already voted for measures similar to Jeffco’s. Large counties like El Paso, medium-sized counties such as Douglas, and even smaller counties, like Yuma–all conservative leaning and represented by Republican Commissioners–have already approved revenue retention measures.

How is the revenue cap flawed? Well, as any person with experience in government budgeting will tell you, the formula invokes an artificial ceiling on government spending. TABOR’s population-plus-inflation formula is not backed by any credible economics or fiscal policy research, and it constrains policymakers’ abilities to make prudent budget choices. The main problem is that the growth in the formula does not actually reflect the growth in the needs of the population, nor the unique costs of running a government. The Consumer Price Index, which is how TABOR measures inflation, does not accurately measure the cost of providing government services. And lastly, Jeffco’s cap was significantly lowered during the pandemic due to the economic shutdown, which became a permanent reduction that does not reflect today’s reality.

TABOR makes it clear that any tax policy change that increases revenue for a government must be voted on at the ballot; that government spending is limited by a formula, and any tax revenue collected over that formula has to be sent to taxpayers or must seek permission from the voters to retain it–which is EXACTLY WHAT JEFFCO IS DOING.

Given the flaws with the revenue formula, and the artificial cap that was established during COVID, I support asking the voters for permission to retain the excess revenue over the cap. I also support the two areas in which the revenue will be directed–public safety and transportation. Recently, the Colorado Health Foundation conducted a Pulse poll where they asked citizens in Colorado what they think are the state’s biggest challenges. Homelessness and affordable housing were top concerns, along with drug overdoses and crime coming in at a close second, followed by wildfires and natural disasters. This appears to be true of Jeffco residents as well. So it seems to me that directing the revenue that we have already collected toward the top concerns of voters is a good idea. When voters share their concerns with me about transportation or public safety, I usually point out to them that it will be difficult addressing their priorities if we must cut $15-$20 million from the county budget. Conversely, we could make huge positive progress toward improving public safety and protecting their homes from wildfire if we had the proper resources to do so.