NEDERLAND — After a full year spent restructuring its own official bylaws and redefining its collaborative relationship with the Town of Nederland’s Board of Trustees (BOT), the Nederland Downtown Development Authority (NDDA) has found itself having to justify its continued existence as the Mayor and Trustees have begun discussions about possibly dissolving the organization completely. 

On August 18, 2026, the BOT discussed the “structure, purpose, and options” for the NDDA, with the “options” pertaining specifically to whether the organization should continue on its current course, be integrated more under the Town’s administrative structure, or be dissolved. 

The Mayor and BOT have held closed-door executive sessions regarding the NDDA and the downtown district over the last several weeks, including on July 21. Officially, these were to “receive legal advice on specific legal questions concerning Colorado law on downtown development authorities.” 

This follows two prior executive sessions on July 7 and June 2, during which the Town discussed its “potential acquisition of property in the downtown area.” The details as to what property in the NDDA’s district the Town was eyeing to acquire—and what, if any, connection it has to the Town’s recent consideration to dissolve the Authority—have not yet been made public. 

According to the report prepared by Town Manager Jonathan Cain, the reason for these discussions is that the Town and NDDA have “substantially overlapping interests” when it comes to the area within the Authority’s district boundaries, which include most commercial properties in Nederland’s downtown area. 

“This overlap raises the question of whether maintaining separate governance structures continues to provide sufficient value, particularly where many of the functions performed through the NDDA may also be undertaken by the Town,” the report reads. 

In order to assess which of the Town’s options for the future of the NDDA would be best, it was proposed that the BOT’s considerations center on how the Authority’s list of projects and priorities would best be incorporated into the Town’s own planning. 

This, according to the Town’s report, would require “coordination” in deciding the scope, intended outcome, funding avenues, and ownership of each project. It would also determine the schedules and milestone goals, and the responsible party for contracting, procurement, operation, and maintenance.   

“Without that clarity, even organizations acting with positive intent can experience difficulty coordinating priorities and delivering projects,” the report explained. 

A lot of this assessment work was done throughout 2025, when the Authority was tasked with completing an update of their bylaws, as their 2018 iteration had never been officially approved by the BOT.

The NDDA also worked in collaboration with Town staff to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to clarify the Town’s role in the financial management of the Authority, in administrative and project oversight, on the process for BOT approvals of NDDA matters, and on the best practices for collaboration between the two entities.

Much of this work revolved around finalizing the Town’s Subarea Plan as the NDDA’s Plan of Development. The Subarea Plan is a downtown-focused guiding document that was created in conjunction with Nederland’s Comprehensive Plan update.

Acceptance of the Subarea Plan as their Plan of Development led to language within the MOU that the Authority felt was restrictive, authoritative, and presented as a form of acquiescence to the BOT. 

“They do have the power to tell you what you should be working on; that’s why they have the approval of the Plan of Development,” Cain explained to the NDDA in 2025 regarding the BOT’s “veto-power” over the Authority.

“That’s what one of the problems with the relationship has been. It’s been confusing, but that is what the truth is, is the BOT has that approval power.”

After incorporating the Subarea Plan and approving the revised bylaws and MOU with the Town, the NDDA immediately began work on implementing their new Plan of Development and developing an 18-Month Plan. 

Some recommendations for direction within the Subarea Plan include installing wayfinding signage, converting sidewalks in the downtown area, creating a Downtown Parking Management Plan and a Downtown Parking Map, working on implementing “desired improvements” to the downtown area, implementing a Public Arts Master Plan, and creating a Downtown Maintenance District and a Trash Maintenance Plan.

For 2026, the NDDA continued to experience many of the same issues with Board retention and engagement with the public that they faced throughout 2025, with seats remaining empty, making quorum impossible to reach on multiple occasions and stalling progress on their major projects. 

Those projects include continuing the success of the Summer Concert Series; funding local events, beautification, and public art initiatives; and completing their Wayfinding project, which is currently in its final stages.

However, it was mentioned by both Cain and a member of the NDDA that the Authority’s current focus might be part of the broader issue. 

Cain noted that much of what the Authority has focused on is reminiscent of the actions of a chamber of commerce, specifically naming the Summer Concert Series as an example.

In an Organizational Assessment created by NDDA Chair Andrew Dewart, the issue of the Authority’s mission and financing structure is outlined, where it is stated that—as described by a former NDDA Chair—the Authority is named as a “statutory entity and financing vehicle” aimed at “reducing blight through public-private development that strengthens the downtown tax base.” 

Ron Mitchell, former NDDA Chair and Treasurer and current board member, was instrumental in the organization’s inception. He also owns many of the commercial properties within the Authority’s district.

He has maintained over the years that Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which funds the NDDA, is meant to be spent on projects that specifically increase business revenue. 

The NDDA is funded through incremental property tax revenue generated from the increase in property value of the surrounding area, which is directly influenced by decisions made by the NDDA itself.

TIF funds are generated from the difference between the value of an improved property and the base value of properties, which is, within a TIF district, frozen for a period of 20 to 30 years. The base value of properties within the CBD is frozen at the 2005 value, the year that the NDDA was formed. 

The issue of what projects should be funded by TIF funds has been raised before, as the BOT and NDDA continue to argue over who should be responsible for initiating and financing infrastructure-based and general repair projects, and what determines a project to be financially beneficial for the downtown area as a whole. 

“Structural evaluation should not begin with administrative burden alone,” states Dewart’s Organizational Assessment, which was not included in the BOT’s August 18 agenda packet.

“It must compare the value of district focus, dedicated governance, TIF and mill-levy capacity, and public-private development tools against the costs of coordination and duplicated administration.

“The effect of dissolution on each funding source, obligation, and committed project must be modeled rather than assumed.”

The Town’s report for the August 18 discussion again raised the question of what role the NDDA should play in managing and financing the Town’s downtown infrastructure projects.

“The Board may wish to consider whether NDDA resources should increasingly be aligned with larger Town-led infrastructure projects, used to fill funding or implementation gaps within those projects, focused on smaller district-specific improvements and programming, or some combination of those approaches,” the report reads. 

Highlighted in the report is the NDDA’s 2026 budget and their forecast revenue of $41,600 in property tax, $400,000 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF), $423,500 in loan proceeds, and $3,200 in interest income, all of which the Town labels as a “significant source of funding for downtown improvements.” 

NDDA Executive Director Kate Masingale provided clarification on what she described as a “significant misunderstanding” about the Authority’s funds should the organization be dissolved. 

“Based on the position of NDDA legal counsel, district funds would not simply revert to the Town of Nederland for unrestricted economic development purposes, nor would they be returned directly to taxpayers,” Masingale explained in an email.

“Rather, the disposition of funds would be governed by applicable law and funding-source restrictions, with revenues returning to the respective taxing entities as required.

“Any discussion about dissolution should therefore be based on a complete legal and financial analysis rather than assumptions about the future use of TIF revenues.”

In addition to determining that the Authority’s update to the bylaws and MOU already served as a foundational course correction for the organization, Dewart’s Organizational Assessment concluded that the Town should consider the option of dissolution as premature, as it would require a significant amount of “legal, financial, contractual, staffing, and project analysis.”

The assessment also concluded that the NDDA’s turnover, vacancies, and “weak institutional handoffs” are issues that the BOT and Town of Nederland also experience, which often exacerbates the Authority’s issues.

The loss of the town manager to the City of Lakewood and the inevitable search for a new Nederland town manager was presented as an example of another difficult “handoff” to come. 

“The smaller, dependent entity often experienced the visible consequences of instability, but the causes were distributed across both organizations. Future reporting should avoid assigning all delay to either body and should instead identify the actual decision owner and dependency,” the assessment states.

Dewart and Masingale spoke on behalf of the NDDA during the August 18 meeting and made their case that the BOT should consider a combination of their first two options: strengthening and continuing the NDDA in its current form, and implementing greater integration with the Town’s administrative process. 

Other suggestions from the NDDA include scheduling a joint meeting between the Authority and the BOT within 60 days in order to prioritize the suggestions made within the Subarea Plan/Plan of Development: to adopt a shared annual work plan, to consider hiring a dedicated project manager to implement that work plan, and establish a 12-month window for monitoring progress on NDDA restabilization before considering dissolution. 

Trustees were mixed on providing Town staff with a clear direction on how to move forward, as some felt that the Authority presented both a level of local business acumen and a financial resource that the Town lacked.

But just as some expressed that now might not be the right time to consider dissolving the NDDA, Mayor Nichole Sterling added that there will never be a “right time” for such a discussion, and urged the Board to consider whether the Authority’s “complicated” financial structure was too much for the “tiny town.” 

Ultimately, the BOT directed Town staff to release a survey to the Nederland business community and gather feedback on their thoughts regarding the fate of the NDDA. They tentatively planned to discuss the issue during a public “Town Talk” event.

The Town Talk has yet to be scheduled, nor has the survey been released.

Though the discussion touched upon all the aspects of this complex matter the BOT should look into before considering dissolution, Mayor Sterling still directed Town staff to begin researching the process for dissolving the NDDA.