HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/23/2006 - NORTHERN COLORADO TRUCK MOBILITY STRATEGIES: FOLL DATE: May23, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Mark Jackson FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Strategies: Follow up from February 28th Work Session.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
At the work session on February 28,2006,Council directed staff to develop ballot language options
to amend the language contained within Ballot Initiative 200 (1999). Option I is a ballot measure
that would amend Ballot Initiative 200 language to enable NEPA-level analysis of all reasonable
alternatives. Option 2 is an alternative ballot measure that would allow the City to use remaining
project funds (estimate $1.6 million dollars) for other transportation infrastructure uses, including
needs in the North College Avenue area. In addition to these ballot language options, staff has
developed another strategy, namely,requesting Larimer County and CDOT to sponsor this project
for inclusion on the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan. Staff met with the Board of
Larimer County Commissioners, the Director of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Region 4,and representatives of the Council For a True Bypass(CFTB)on two occasions to discuss
issues, concerns and positions.
1. Staff has developed ballot language Options per Council's February 28th request. Should
the City pursue placing one of these options on the November 2006 election ballot?
2. Should Council direct staff to request that Larimer County and CDOT pursue placing this
project on the Regional Transportation Plan in order to move this project forward and in the
hopes of gaining a NEPA analysis at some future point?
3. CFTB has expressed to City officials a willingness to support future NEPA analysis of all
potential routes including those located south of County Road 58. If the preferred route is
located in an area prohibited by Ballot Initiative 200, CFTB recommends that Council then
put a question on the ballot to see if Fort Collins voters would amend the restrictions
contained in the 1999 Initiative. Does Council support this strategy?
BACKGROUND
Following Council direction at the February 28 work session, staff developed two ballot language
options and one additional strategy designed to move this project forward in some meaningful
manner. Project staff and the City Attorney have developed the following options for Council's
J Y Y P g P
consideration:
May 23, 2006 Page 2
Option 1 —Ballot Measure Eliminating Prohibited Routes
CITY-INITIATED ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING CITIZEN-INITIATED ORDINANCE NO.
142, 1999
An ordinance amending citizen-initiated Ordinance No. 142, 1999,which requires the City to pursue
the relocation of the Colorado Highway 14 Truck Route to a location outside the City's Urban
Growth Area boundaries,to eliminate the section of that ordinance that presently prohibits the City
from considering any alternative location between Colorado Highway 14 and two miles north of
Douglas Road, so that the City would then be able to cooperate with the Colorado Department of
Transportation in sponsoring a study of all reasonable alternative routes in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Option 2 — Ballot Measure Authorizing Remaining Revenues to be Used for Other
Transportation Purposes
CITY-INITIATED ORDINANCE NO. CHANGING THE USE OF FUNDS PREVIOUSLY
EARMARKED FOR RELOCATION OF THE HIGHWAY 14 TRUCK ROUTE AND
AUTHORIZING SUCH FUNDS TO BE USED INSTEAD FOR OTHER TRANSPORTATION
CAPITAL PROJECTS
An ordinance amending citizen-initiated Ordinance No. 142, 1999 so that approximately $1.4
million of revenues derived from the Building Community Choices quarter-cent sales and use tax,
which expired December 31, 2005, shall no longer be used for purposes related to the relocation of
the Colorado Highway 14 Truck Route but shall be used instead for such other Fort Collins
transportation capital projects as may be determined by the City Council,including,but not limited
to, street improvements to North College Avenue, city-wide intersection improvements, and
bicycle/pedestrian facility improvements.
Option 3 —No Ballot Measure
Request of Larimer County and CDOT
Following discussions with Larimer County Commissioners,CDOT and CFTB, staff developed an
additional option that would allow necessary next steps to occur without violating Ballot Initiative
200. If Council feels it is important to work towards an eventual NEPA analysis,they can ask staff
to request of Larimer County and CDOT that they pursue placing this project on the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). Placing this project on the RTP is the next necessary step to ultimately
studying this issue in a NEPA context. No location will be specified, pending the results of the
NEPA Study. A cost estimate can be attached to give a relative sense of magnitude. The City of
Fort Collins will support the need and benefit of reducing trick traffic along the existing SH-14
corridor,but will not take a formal position as to preferred location and no City funds will be used
for NEPA. Following placement of the project on the RTP, the project will be prioritized by the
North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the NEPA analysis will be
considered by CDOT when the project has risen to a level of importance warranting discussion of
construction funding.
May 23, 2006 Page 3
OUTREACH:
Board of Larimer County Commissioners
Staff met with the Board of Larimer County Commissioners (BCC) on May 9 to update them on
project progress and to fulfill the request from CFTB that the City request the cooperation of
Larimer County in solving the truck route question. Commissioners Wagner and Rennels were in
attendance;Commissioner Gibson was absent but sent staffhis comments later that day.Attachment
I details key points of this conversation. The BCC's maintains its 2001 position on this issue
(Attachment 2).
Staff posed two questions to the BCC:
1. Does the Board of County Commissioners support the effort to pursue the relocation of SH-
14 to a location in northern Larimer County in order to alleviate concerns of long-haul truck
traffic through the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, per the geographic parameters
dictated in Ballot Initiative 200?
2. Would the Board of County Commissioners support the effort to pursue the relocation of
SH-14 to a location in northern Larimer County in order to alleviate concerns of long-haul
truck traffic through the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, if all feasible route
alternatives,including those contained within the Fort Collins GMA,were considered as part
of a NEPA analysis?
Both Commissioners Wagner and Rennels stressed that, in order for Larimer County to be a true
partner with Fort Collins inthis effort,all options and alternatives must be considered notj�ust those
in northern Larimer County. They believe it is not fair to only look at a portion of the options at the
behest of Fort Collins. The Commissioners felt all alternatives should be considered. Commissioner
Rennels stated this needs to be a "partnership on all levels." Commissioner Gibson felt the limits
of the ballot language restricts further steps,and supports staff s efforts to date. The Commissioners
suggested they would be amenable to a future NEPA analysis that examined all potential routes.
Colorado Department of Transportation
P P
Staff met with CDOT Region 4 Director Karla Harding and key CDOT staff on May 9 to provide
a project update, discuss CFTB's issues and position, and to get a clear picture of CDOT's stance
on this issue. Attachment 1 details key points of this conversation. Similar to the Larimer County
Commissioners, Ms. Harding clearly stated that CDOT's position has not changed on this matter.
CDOT will not pursue this project or issue until such time as the City of Fort Collins and Larimer
County can come to some agreement on the importance of this project and submit to the North Front
Range MPO and/or Upper Front Range Regional Planning Council an earmarked project for
inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). Following this,the MPO Council(s)must then
agree to prioritize the project to a high enough level where discussions about construction funding
take place. The federal government will not allow a NEPA study to proceed without a plan for
construction money(due to the limited shelf life of a NEPA document). This means, in effect,the
MPO must agree to divert funds from other currently prioritized RTP projects to elevate the Truck
Route in priority. This issue simply is not CDOT Region 4's greatest need right now. The feel it
P Y P Y � �' Y
May 23, 2006 Page 4
is not worth undertaking without regional consensus. In their minds the road (SH-14) is safe and
functional right now, with many higher priorities in Region 4.
Other items of note and interest from the CDOT meeting:
• Regardless of previous Fort Collins studies or alleged comments attributed to CDOT
Executive Director Tom Norton, if a NEPA analysis were undertaken, the analysis cannot
leave out potential alternatives. They must be examined per NEPA protocol.
• Even if Tom Norton did say that Vine Drive was "not feasible,"it could not be taken off the
list of potential alignments to be examined because of NEPA regulations.
• Even if this project is put into the NFR RTP,there are so many other regional priorities that
the NEPA analysis might be 10+years down the road.
• Karla Harding stressed that, even if Larimer County and the City were to get on the same
page on this issue, there are many, many more hurdles to overcome (e.g., regional
prioritization, identification of construction funding, etc.)
Council For A True Bypass
Council asked staff to meet with the CFTB before returning to Council with ballot language options.
Several communications took place between staff and management and CFTB representatives prior
to this work session.
1. CFTB Letter to City Council and Management:
CFTB submitted a letter on April 21 detailing their position regarding future steps in relocating SH-
14(Attachment 4). Contrary to statements made to Council by CFTB representative Dick Dunn at
the February 28 work session,CFTB's letter reinforced its commitment to the original mandates and
language of Ballot Initiative 200 and asked that Council direct staff to meet with Larimer County
and request their cooperation in solving the truck route question. The letter opposed any attempt
to violate the voter-approved vision of the 1999 Initiative.
2. Conference Call with CFTB Representative Dick Dunn:
CFTB Representative Dick Dunn participated in a conference phone conversation with City
Manager Darin Atteberry and Project Manager Mark Jackson on Tuesday,May 2 to discuss CFTB's
letter to Council and their position. This discussion led to the scheduling of an additional face-face
meeting with CFTB Representatives Dick Dunn and David Dwyer on Wednesday, May 10.
3. Meeting with CFTB Representatives:
CFTB Representatives Dick Dunn, Kathy and David Dwyer, Prof. Maury Albertson, Swede
Andersen, and Betty Aragon met with City Manager Darin Atteberry, Deputy City Attorney Paul
Eckman,Transportation Services Director Ron Phillips,and Project Manager Mark Jackson for over
two hours on May 10 to discuss in-depth CFTB's position on moving forward with the relocation
of SH-14. CFTB agreed in principle to support a NEPA analysis with all potential routes examined,
May 23, 2006 Page 5
but did not support a ballot measure amending Ballot Initiative 200 restrictions at this time. If a
NEPA analysis resulted in a preferred route located in the area prohibited by Ballot Initiative 200
(south of County Road 58), they would support Council placing an item on the ballot asking Fort
Collins voters to change the restrictions of the 1999 Initiative (but did not say whether they would
support or oppose the measure). They hoped this would be enough to convince Larimer County to
support moving forward with placing this project into the North Front Range Regional
Transportation Plan. This is first necessary step in moving forward to a NEPA analysis. CFTB was
to provide City Manager Atteberry with a letter formally stating their position as a result of this
discussion.
NEXT STEPS
Staff feels there are two directions Council should consider:
Ballot Options:
Staff feels the only reason to go to the voters regarding this issue is if Council wishes to use
remaining Truck Route funds for purposes other than those specified in Ballot Initiative 200. If so,
then a version of Option 2 as presented in this report should be considered for inclusion on an
upcoming ballot. Staff feels that pursuit of amending the ballot language as shown in Option 1 is
inadvisable at this time, as it would likely be vigorously opposed by the CFTB.
Request of Larimer County and CDOT:
If Council feels it is important to work towards an eventual NEPA analysis, they could ask staff to
request of Larimer County and CDOT that they pursue placing this project on the Regional
Transportation Plan(RTP). Placing this project on the RTP is the next necessary step to ultimately
studying this issue in a NEPA context. No location will be specified, pending the results of the
NEPA Study. A cost estimate can be attached to give a relative sense of magnitude. The City will
support the need and benefit of reducing truck traffic along the existing SH-14 corridor,but will not
take a formal position as to preferred location and no City funds will be used for NEPA. Following
placement of the project on the RTP, the project will be prioritized by the North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)Council and NEPA will be considered by CDOT when
the project has risen to a level of importance warranting discussion of construction funding.
Council For A True Bypass Alternative:
CFTB has expressed to City officials a willingness to support future NEPA analysis of all potential
routes including those located south of County Road 58. If the preferred route, as determined by
NEPA, is located in an area prohibited by Ballot Initiative 200, CFTB recommends that Council
then put a question on the ballot to see if Fort Collins voters would amend the restrictions contained
in the 1999 Initiative. Staff recommends against this strategy. This could be very risky. Delaying
a vote until after the results of NEPA means that CDOT would agree to fund a very expensive,
resource intense,complex analysis process with the caveat that Fort Collins voters may likely"veto'
the preferred alignment should it fall within the areas prohibited by Ballot Initiative 200.
May 23, 2006 Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Memo to Darin Atteberry summarizing discussions with BCC and CDOT.
2. October 11, 2001 letter from BCC to the City of Fort Collins expressing its position.
3. October 11, 2001 letter from CDOT to the City of Fort Collins expressing its position.
4. CFTB letter to City Council and City Management dated April 21, 2006.
5. CFTB letter to City Management dated May 15, 2006.
6. Powerpoint slides.
ATTACHMENT
Transportation Services
Transportation Planning
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 9, 2006
TO: Darin Attebeny, City Manager
FROM: Ron Phillips, Transportation Services Director
Mark Jackson,transportation Planning&Policy Director
RE: Update: Truck Mobility Meetings with Larimer County Commissioners and
CDOT Region 4 Staff
City of Fort Collins staff met with the Board of Larimer County Commissioners as well as the
Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)Region 4 Director and key Staff on May 9'"to
j discuss issues and gain feedback from each agency as to their position on the relocation of State
Highway 14 as it relates to the Truck Route Ballot Initiative 200.This memo serves as a brief
update on these meetings with Larimer County Board of County Commissioners and CDOT's
Karla Harding and Staff:
Ron Phillips and Mark Jackson appeared before the Board of County Commissioners this
morning during their Administrative Matters session. Staff had prepared and submitted to them a
packet of materials and information last week in anticipation of this meeting. Commissioners
Wagner and Rennels were in attendance; Commissioner Gibson was absent but submitted his
comments to Staff later. Staff posed the following two questions to the BCC:
• Does the Board of County Commissioners support the effort to pursue the relocation of
SH-14 to a location in northern Larimer County in order to alleviate concerns of long-
haul truck traffic through the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, per the geographic
parameters dictated in Ballot Initiative 200?
• Would the Board of County Commissioners support the effort to pursue the relocation of
SH-14 to a location in northern Larimer County in order to alleviate concerns of long-
haul truck traffic through the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, if all feasible route
alternatives, including those contained within the Fort Collins GMA, were considered as
part of a NEPA analysis?
Both Commissioners Wagner and Rennels stressed that in order for Larimer County to be
a true partner with Fort Collins in this effort,all options and alternatives must be
considered, not just those in northern Larimer County. It was not fair to only look at a
portion of the options at the behest of Fort Collins. The Commissioners felt that voters
should be posed with the question of whether all alternatives should be considered.
Commissioner Rennels stated that this needs to be a "partnership on all levels."
Commissioner Gibson felt that the limits of the ballot language restricts further steps, and
supports Staff's efforts to date.
Later on Tuesday, Mark Jackson met with CDOT Region 4 Director Karla Harding and several of
her key management staff to ascertain if CDOT's position had changed since their 2001 memo to
Truck Route Update memo
May 9`h, 2006
Page 2 of 2
the City. Similarly,Ms. Harding clearly stated that CDOT's position has not changed on this
matter.
CDOT will not pursue this project or issue until such time as the City of FC and Larimer
County can come to some agreement on the importance of this project, and submit to the
North Front Range MPO and/or Upper Front Range Regional Planning Council an
earmarked project for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). Following this,
the MPO Council(s)must then agree to prioritize the project to a high enough level where
discussions about construction funding take place. The federal government will not allow a
NEPA study to proceed without a plan for construction money(due to the limited shelf life
of a NEPA document).This means in effect that the MPO must agree to divert funds from
other currently prioritized RTP projects to elevate the Truck Route in priority.This issue
simply is not CDOT R4's greatest need right now.They feel it is not worth undertaking
without regional consensus. In their minds the road(SH-14)is safe and functional right
now,with many higher priorities in Region 4.
Other items of note and interest from the CDOT meeting:
• Regardless of previous Fort Collins studies or alleged comments attributed to CDOT
Executive Director Tom Norton, if a NEPA analysis were undertaken, you cannot leave
out potential alternatives. They must be examined per NEPA protocol.
• Even if Tom Norton did say that Vine Drive was "not feasible," it could not be taken off
the list of potential alignments to be examined because of NEPA regulations.
• Even if this project is put into the NFR RTP, there are so many other regional priorities
that the NEPA analysis might be 10+years down the road.
• Karla Harding stressed that even if Larimer County and the City were to get on the same
page on this issue,there are many, many more hurdles to overcome(e.g. Regional
prioritization, identification of construction funding, etc.)
Staff is available to answer questions or provide additional information.
Cc: Frank Lancaster, Larimer County Manager
Neil Gluckman, Assistant Larimer County Manager
Marc Engemoen, Larimer County Public Works Director
Glenn Gibson,BCC
Kathay Rennels, BCC
Karen Wagner, BCC
Karla Harding, CDOT Region 4 Director
Rick Gabel, CDOT Region 4 North Program Engineer
Stan Elmquist, CDOT Region 4
Myron Hora, CDOT Region 4
Carol Parr, CDOT Region 4
ATTACHMENT
OCT-15-2001 MON 08:47 AM TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FAX NO, 9702216239 P. 02
tAPJMER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY Fog uxaea Bw 1190
Fort Co",Cdomdo$0522-1190
(970)A96&7010
Fax(970)489-7006
October 11,2001
Mr.Mark Jackson
City of Fort Collins
Transportation Planning
P.O.Box 580
Fort Collins,Colorado 80522-0580
Re: Northern Colorado Truck Mobihty,Ntate Highway 14 Relocation Study
Dear Mark
The Board of County Commissioners received your letter dated September 25,2001 requesting direction regarding
the analysis and reconendations of the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/State Highway 14 Relocation Study.
You have asked us whether one of the alternative routes considered in the study appears more feasible than the
others and whether any of the alternative routes should be carried forward to the next level of analysis, You have
also asked whether the Board of County Commissioners supports a relocation of State Highway 14 to a location in
northern Lara rrer County outside of the Fort Collins growth management area(GMA).
At this time, the Board of County Commissioners does not believe it is appropriate to express a preference for any
of the alternative routes developed by the study. We believe the study was limited to only a portion of the potential
alwmatives to the current situation—chose alternatives in northern Latimer County outside the Fort Collins GMA.
The study does not compare any of these alternatives to alternatives within the GMA such as modifications of the
existing route,Vine Drive,Douglas Road,or the development of a new route south of County Road 58. We canna
support further analysis of one of the limited number of alternatives because to do so would presume that none of
the alwmatives that were excluded from consideration in the study would be feasible or preferable.
The Board of County Commissioners is not prepared at this time to support the relocation of State Highway 14 to a
location in northern Latimer County. Again,to do so would presurne that all alternatives to a route in northern
Larimer County have been thoroughly analyzed and found to be infeasible,and we do not believe that such a
finding has been made.
We appreciate your efforts to make us aware of the analysis and recommendations of the study. We look forward
to the opportunity to have our assessment of the study included in the final report.
Sincerely,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION>ERS
Ka~tliay Rennels 7
Chair
j PRINTER ON RECYCLEO PAPER
ATTACHMENT
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1420 2r°Street
Greeley,Colorado 80631
(970)353-1232
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility(
October 11,2001 SH 14 Relocation Study
Mr.Mark A.Jackson
Project Manager
City of Fort Collins—Transportation Services
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr.Jackson:
On September 26, it was a Measure for my staff and 1 to discuss the"Northern Colorado Truck MobilitylSH
14 Relocation Study'with you and Mr. R. A. Plummer(PBS&J consultant staft). it was very apparent that
the consultant team,you,and your staff have conducted some valuable,in-depth studies of various
alternatives.
This was a good opportunity to see the evaluation materials and consider your request for input,as outlined
in your September 26,2001,letter to me. Of particular interest and concern to CDOT would be the various
alternative routes for relocating State Highway 14. It is my opinion that to find consistency between a pro-
posed"'SH 14 Relocation"project and the long-range statewide transportation plan,and then move toward
implementation,it will eventually be necessary for the City of Fort Collins to:
1. Reach Agreement with Lorimer County about a Preferred Solution and its Priority:
We are anticipating that the City may request state and federal funds to be programmed for
implementation of one of the various alternatives or for some other non-monetary action to be taken
by CDOT. If so,CDOT will need to be shown that the City and County have reached agreement on a
desired solution, at least in concept. It is nay view that the best way to show CDOT that local
governments agree on a proposed solution is to take it through CDOT's Project Priority Programming
Process and find success at assigning it a high priority in the financially-constrained 20-year regional
transportation plans of both the Upper Front Range and North Front Range Transportation Planning
Regions. It would seem helpful toward reaching success if a certain level of agreement about the
proposed solution could be reached first between the City and Latimer County prior to submitting the
project for the consideration of the two Regional Planning Commissions. The involvement of both
Regional Planning Commissions seems imperative because many of the proposed solutions are located
in the Upper Front Range TPR while many of the problems exist in the North Front Range TPR.
2. Recognize CDOT's Policies on the Environment and Quality of Life:
CDOT's policy on the environment says that with the active participation of the general public,fed-
eral,state and local agencies,we will objectively consider all reasonable alternatives to avoid or
minimize adverse impacts. The analyses performed during this most recent study provide decision
makers with valuable insights about various alternatives north of Latimer County Road 58, However,
in order for CDOT to take action on any particular alternative and accept any assessment of its envi-
ronmental impacts under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)the various
Mr.Mark A. Jackson
Northern Colorado Truck MobilityiSfl 14 Relocation Study
Weber 11, 2001
Page 2of3
alternatives north of Larimer County Road 58 would need to be compared to a "no action"alternative
and to any other reasonable alternatives which might exist on routes or in corridors south of Larimer
County Road 58. including potential improvements to the existing SH 14 and US 287 routes.
3. Address CDOT's Policy on New or Improved Interchanges:
If the City pursues the implementation of any of the alternatives which would relocate the SH 14 route
and require a new interchange or modification of an existing interchange on Interstate 25,CDOT's
Policy Directive No. 1601,the"Interchange Approval Process,"must be followed. The concerns
noted in Items I and 2 above would each be addressed in various ways as part of this process. Also
included in this process would be a comparison to long-standing guidelines for desirable and miW-
mum interchange spacing on Interstate Highways.
4, Address Guidance on "Growth in the State Transportation System":
The 2020 Statewide Transport tion Plan: Investing in Colorado's FjLgg , which was completed in
November 2000 by CDOT,includes guidance by the Colorado Transportation Commission which
states that, "Additions to the state system are contingent on the availability of funds,an exchange of
facilities with local governments or partnerships with public and private entities. Any additions to the
state system must be consistent with the role and function of the state highway system." Essentially,
this means that the Transportation Commission will avoid the addition of centerline miles to the state
highway system unless a comparable number of miles can be removed from some other part of the
system As an example,when Longmont decided to pursue the construction of a new southeastern
bypass and requested that it eventually be designated as State Highway 11.9,similar mileage of exist-
ing Sit 119 on the Yd Avenue route was designated to be transferred to the local (Longmont)street
system upon completion of the bypass,
At this time,without the benefit of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental impact Statement,
making any statements or comparisons about the feasibility to implement any of the various alternatives
would be premature.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important study.
Sincerely,
Karla Harding
Region Transportation Director
ICH:soc
Attachments
cc: (see distribution on next page)
Mr. Mark A.Jackson
Northern Colorado Truck Mobility/SH 14 Relocation Study
October 11,2001
Page 3 of 3
cc: Charles Archibeque—Transportation Commissioner(District 5)
Glen Gibson--Larimer County Commissioner
Mike Geile--Chair,Upper Front Range RPC
Kathy Gilliland—Chair,NFRT&AQPC
C1iffDavidson---Executive Director,NFRT&AQPC
J. Unbewust--Chief Engineer
D. Hopkins/N. Shanks—CDOT Public Information Office
V. Brown—Policy Office
J. Finch---CDOT DTD
R. Gabel
D.Davis
R. Garcia
File: Elmquist'Myers via Manuel
ATTACHMENT
Council For A True Bypass RFC
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
APR 2
ana9e
lees
April 21,2006 � S Office
Fort Collins City Council
Doug Hutchinson, Mayor
Ben Manvel, Councilmember
Karen Weitkunat,Councilmember
Diggs Brown, Councilmember
Kurt Kastein,Councilmember
Kelly Ohlson; Councilmember
David Roy, Councilmember
Mr. Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Mr. Ron Phillips, Director of Transportation
Mr. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner
Dear Mayor Hutchinson, Ms. Weithmat and Gentlemen:
With regard to the Fort Collins Truck Bypass,the CFTB leadership has discussed the current
proposals communicated to us by the City. We appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with
the City Council and the City staff on these matters.
Although many opportunities for progress in finding a truck bypass solution seem to slip
through our fingers, we remain optimistic and vigilant, and hope that a long-term solution
can still be achieved. In 1999, Ballot Initiative 200 (the"Ordinance") passed by the largest
margin(66%)in the history of Fort Collins elections. We and thousands of citizens strongly
support the implementation of the Ordinance. It is very important to our constituents and to
us that the meaning and spirit of the Ordinance as approved be honored.
As way of background for those Councilmembers and staff who are new to these issues we
enclose a copy of Mr. David Dwyer's letter of November 30, 2001, which was provided in
response to a question from the City about the intent of the Ordinance.
j
With regard to the present discussion, we hold the following views and make the following
recommendations:
1. Without commenting on the effectiveness of the efforts to pursue non-route
based strategies to encourage trucks to remain on the Interstate system, we would agree that
further efforts and expenditures would not be an efficient use of the funds remaining.
(Section 2 of the Ordinance)
2. We further support renewed efforts by the City to ask for the County's
cooperation in solving the truck route question. We believe this directive was not properly
or wisely pursued during the past 15 years, yet it offers the best hope for a solution that
permanently solves the problem. As far back as 1991-92, City Council directed staff to
April 21, 2006
Page 2 of 2
pursue a bypass route north of the City. Yet, hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as
countless transportation and other staff hours were spent in 1997-98 on a resurrection of the
Vine Drive concept, which City Council eliminated in 1991-92. With the pending Glade
Reservoir being seriously.considered, it would seem to be a particularly opportune time to
provide access to north 287 from I-25 north of the City of Fort Collins. We stand by the
Ordinance and would oppose any attempt to violate its voter-approved vision.
3. We were advised in 1998 by CDOT Executive Director Mr. Tom Norton that
Vine Drive is not a'reasonable route for the truck bypass or route through the City. Further,
City Transportation Staff acknowledged in 1998 that other routes north of Vine within the
UGA were not feasible or reasonable. Hence, our position is that Vine Drive and other
routes in the UGA should not and could not be considered in a NEPA study of available
reasonable routes. We urge Council to once again confirm to the City Staff this view as
Staff.initiates the process of requesting the NEPA Study of reasonable routes identified
north of the UGA.
The CFTB respectfully requests the City Council to instruct the Mayor and City Manager to:
"Formally approach the Larimer County Commissioners to request their agreement
that a NEPA Study is likely the next step in the relocation of the truck bypass. With
agreement by the Latimer County Commissioners, both entities can then request
CDOT to conduct an independent NEPA Study with consideration given to
relocating State Highway 14 to a reasonable bypass route that will conform to the
City of Fort Collins Ballot Initiative 200. When a NEPA Study recommends a State
Highway relocation outside the Fort Collins UGA, the balance of the truck route
funds (approximately$1.7 million)will be earmarked for acquiring right-of-way and
planning." (It is understood that the City would not pay for the NEPA Study.)
Although we do not believe at this time any more money should be spent on hiring outside
consultants, we support the concept that the remaining funds in `Building Community
Choices" Capital Improvement Program earmarked for this project will be dedicated to
serious and fruitful furtherance of Sections 1 and 3 of the Ordinance.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Swede Anderson
Mr. Dick Dunn
Ms. Betty Aragon
Dr. Maury Albertson
Ms. Kathy Dwyer
Ms. Judy Dunn
Ms. Margaret Guzman Out of town and didn't et to read letter,but verbally has expressed
Y P( g
support for this position.)
Mr. David Dwyer
CITIZENS FOR.A TRUE BYPASS RECEW.
P. O. Drawer J
Fort Collins,Colorado 80522 NOV 3 0 2001
November 30, 2001 CR Al 1v HNEN �
Members of City Council 1 71
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins,Colorado 80521
Stephen A. Roy, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins,Colorado 80521
Re: Truck Bypass Ordinance
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It has come to my attention that questions have been asked and comments made by
members of the City Council and staff members that may be aided by clarification as to the
meaning and intent of the truck bypass Ordinance (Ballot Issue #200) that was adopted by the
City electorate on November 2, 1999, a copy of which is attached. The electors of Fort Collins
adopted this Ordinance into law as a result of an overwhelming 66% majority votc. This is the
largest margin of approval of any issue ever voted on in the City and was approved in every
precinct in Fort Collins. The task at hand is to implement the Ordinance in accordance with its
meaning and the City government's legal and ethical obligations to uphold and enforce the laws
of the City.
As an author of this Ordinance, 1 gathered the intentions and goals reflected in the
Ordinance from various interested parties, including members of the City's staff. As a result, the
Ordinance was drafted to reflect this intent. So that there will be no misunderstanding as to the
intent of the Ordinance, this letter will express that intent. References below are to sections of the
Ordinance.
Section 1. The intent of this section is to encourage the City, particularly its staff, to
work hand in hand with the County and other affected parties to relocate the truck route as soon
as possible. Another intent of this Section is that the City and its staff do everything possible in
the near future to create a truck bypass by taking a leadership role in solving a regional
transportation need. The populace passed the Ordinance at a time when the City's transportation
department was most anxious to move the route and had selected Vine Drive as their preferred
location. Staff was citing many reasons why this was critical. Since then and at a cost of
approximately $400,000, City staff and a consulting firm have studied the issue for two years
and, contrary to the scope of work requested by the City and the purpose of the Ordinance, the
consulting firm and City staff have not yet selected a route. Section I does not impose a time
November 30, 2001
Page 2 of 4
limit for such required work. The clear intent is that such effort will be pursued until the goal of
route selection and relocation is accomplished. If financial constraints prevent the building of
such a route in the near term, the designation of a route and acquisition of right of way would
still be expected to occur in a timely manner to the extent possible with exiting and future
funding.
Section 2. Because some people believe the logical solution to the truck issues in Fort
Collins is to encourage through truck traffic to remain on the Interstate system, Section 2 was
included as a means of directing the City to pursue such a solution. The provision requires the
City to "cause by all reasonably available legal means" trucks to stay on the Interstate system.
which could include such activities as proposing and actively lobbying for state legislation to this
effect, engaging in a marketing campaign, strictly enforcing municipal laws that penalize
unauthorized use by trucks of non-through truck route streets, strictly enforcing existing speed,
traffic control and weight limitation laws and all other steps that a staff intent on implementing
the Ordinance could certainly devise. To my knowledge, the City has not vet taken any
significant steps along these lines in the intervening two years since the Ordinance was adopted
into law. Despite this, City staff members currently working on the project have, expressed
optimism that Non-Route Based Strategies developed during the study will be effective.
Section 3. The intent is for the City to pursue with other involved parties a funding plan
to implement a relocated truck bypass mute. There are no limitations on time or effort for this
activity. The intent of Section 3 will be fulfilled when the funding is secured, whether that takes
12 months or 22 years. There is clearly no intent to limit such efforts to funds in the Building
Community Choices Capital Program. The goal of this section is for the City to identify possible
funding sources and to aggressively pursue funding for this project so that the ever increasing
through traffic (roughly 1,0M large trucks and thousands of cars and smaller trucks daily) will
not continue to pass through Fort Collins. In the process of researching this ballot measure, it
became apparent that construction funding is not generally preexisting for this type of project but
rather is obtained after the selection of the route.
Section 4. This section authorizes and directs the use of funds remaining in the Building
Community Choices Capital Program to be used in furtherance of the purposes of Sections 1, 2
and 3 of the Ordinance. All parties involved realize that the approximately $3 million in such
fund as of the time of the election, plus accrued interest thereon, will be inadequate to achieve all
goals of the Ordinance. Rather, such funds were intended as seed funding to start the project.
The intent is certainly not to limit the work on this project to such funds. Among the anticipated
uses include completion of the necessary studies, implementation of strategies and acquisition of
right of way to the extent money is available. This section is enabling not limiting.
Section 5. The intent of this section is to focus the City on a true bypass location outside
of the City and at least two miles north of the northern boundary of the City Urban Growth Area
("UGA"). This section addresses the fact that (1) within the prior seven years (1992-1999), two
City Councils voter) down on three separate occasions a truck relocation within the UGA and (2)
November 30,2001
Page 3 of 4
although City staff was directed after the first City Council vote to find a route outside the City;
after a few years of iron-activity the staff again proposed intra-City routes. By considering both
the rejection of the use of all routes within the region of Vine Drive by two City Councils and the
City staff's arguments during previous studies that routes other than Vine Drive within the UGA
are clearly unacceptable, the bypass region was defined as being at least 2 miles north of the
northern UGA boundary.
Section 5 was included so that the City's staff would understand the citizens' desire was
that staff abandon the idea of moving the existing truck route to a location within the UGA. and
begin working earnestly towards a tare bypass. The intent of the Ordinance is to focus attention
on securing now a bypass route and related right of way so that when the northern bypass is
needed and funding is available, which population and traffic growth projections show to be the
case, the City, County and CDOT will be in a position to provide for this important conduit
through our region. This provision has no time limit and will remain effective regardless of the
level of activity on the bypass project.
Sections 6 and 7. These sections are typical for ordinances. Presumably their intent is
clear.
NEPA Study. Recent discussions have occurred regarding the need for a NEPA study
and whether this may occur within the parameters of the Ordinance. During meetings in late
1999 and early 2000 with the City Manager, the Director of Transportation Planning and others
people regarding the project work in light of the Ordinance, none of the City personnel ever
indicated there would he a problem regarding the required NEPA study. No NEPA study was
performed in connection with the 1998-99 Balloffet study. Yet City staff had then selected and
strongly urged Council to approve Vine Drive as the route. Furthermore, during its formal
presentation just prior to the Council vote in June 1998 rejecting the use of Vine Drive, the
City's Director of Transportation Planning informed City Council that the staff was ready to
proceed within two weeks with the acquisition of the Vine Drive right of way. At that time, the
City was most willing to select a route and acquire right of way prior to the required NEPA
study. The Ordinance anticipates that the City will follow the same procedures in achieving the
goal set forth by the City's residence in approving the Ordinance.
Once the City and County agree on the best route(s) within the designated area as
prescribed by the Ordinance and wish to move forward, which will require additional discussions
among present and future City and County elected leaders until agreement can be reached,
CDOT or other appropriate governmental entities may request, participate in or fund as
necessary the successful completion of the project, including the NEPA study. Of course, as all
informed parties involved already know, until such routes are selected, any discussion or pursuit
of a NEPA study is premature. The intent of the Ballot measure was for the City and its partners
to select and construct the bypass in the designated area described in the Ordinance. To the
extent that achieving this objective requires studies encompassing all feasible routes (including
those within the UGA), the City is not restricted from allowing the NEPA study to go forth. The
November 30, 2001
Page 4 of 4
City does not perform the NEPA study. It is expected that City staff would exercise all
reasonable effort during the NEPA process to document any and all foreseeable current and
future negative impacts of the use of routes within the UGA.
Finally, the Ordinance sets forth the goals of the City regarding the bypass project, and it
is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and improper for Council to reconsider the directives
contained in the Ordinance. Council's role is to provide leadership and hold the City's
management accountable to implement the law of the City as embodied in the Ordinance. The
City's managers promised they would do so after the November 1999 election. The Ordinance
directs the City's vision towards long-range solutions, rather than shortsighted and less than
optimal planning_ A goal of the Ordinance is that a truck bypass route will be designated and
right of way will be obtained now before the areas involved experience substantial growth. The
Ordinance seeks to solve a growing problem by taking action before it is too late and with a
solution for which the City's residents have expressed their approval. The fact that the study
team selected by staff for this first phase has not gained the confidence or support of the County
government, which may not fully appreciate that it represents all people of Latimer County,
whether inside or outside of municipal boundaries, simply means that more work is needed by
the City to accomplish the important goals of the Ordinance.
As persons present ideas and comments to or within Council and as a means of furthering
the intent of the Ordinance, we suggest Council ask a simple,but fundamental,question: "Is this
person trying to move the bypass project forward as the people overwhelmingly urged by
adopting the Ordinance, or is this person attempting to thwart the law enacted by the Ordinance."
Yours very truly,
David E. Dwyer
cc: Mr. John Fischbach
ATTACHMENT 5
Council For A True Bypass
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
May 15, 2006
Mr. Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Mr, Ron Phillips, Director of Transportation
Mr. Paul Eckman, City Attorneys Office
Mr. Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner
Dear Gentlemen:
The CFTB leadership appreciates the helpful meeting and open dialogue we had with you on
May 10. We particularly appreciated the thoughts expressed by Mr. Atteberry in proposing
solutions that could lead to a process that would eliminate our concerns of a premature or
unnecessary election before meaningful and reasonable alternatives are known.
As we discussed the information exchanged at that meeting, we concluded that we have
several unanswered questions and a need for a greater understanding of some of the general
statements made by Ron and Mark, particularly as those comments concerned the County's
position and the NEPA study. We also need to resolve some questions we have about the
process, scope and timing of the NEPA study discussed at the meeting. In that regard and
with our previous experience regarding information received from the City Transportation
staff we plan to research on our own these questions.
We take seriously our responsibility to the citizens of our community who voted on Ballot
Issue 200 and until we are able to clarify these issues, it is not possible for us to give you a
definitive statement regarding our position on your proposed broad scope of the project and
NEPA study. We will attempt to get those questions answered in a timely manner.
However, we want you to know we will be unable to meet your May 23 meeting deadline.
We will be in touch as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Swede Anderson
Mr. Dick Dunn
Ms. Betty Aragon
Dr, Maury Albertson
Ms. Kathy Dwyer
Mr. David Dwyer
cc: Mayor Doug Hutchinson
Z
O � Z
� = o
mo
CD z
Oo
T � o
O O c
� ^ co
I m -
O n Q m �
� o �
O � o
Q
� a
D
n M C
i-r ^ G) t
0� CL M C
0 N0 CA) - O
mn
n N
_. O
a Q 0
O
C
M 1 O
N
rMOL
rMF
a
CL
K
M�
0
pm� 4
-o a
cn
IT
co
zn
00
C• � � �' 00
r"- �Q O rD Q m -4
OD
� o 0
O -Hcr
tD m
W• r-Il-C = ma
!"1`
CD
fD
Imw
Q Moll
"Z MI woo OD
� aeD y J� � eD N
� • �' pNy � 00
*
K �
r"
U =
Q Q d C/) �
m CD
n �• 0 0
o0
p s 0
n "I m
"OEM. O 77
09
M�■d ■ ■ w c
M■+ 0 t Mrr�
hh`■■■■rrlot
CD
`'.. ►� '� n �Q
O mCL
m co
ML
o 3
to
~•
o �
. r
FFR
� z
IS
d0 mCD
o � �� ,y t�1 b �• ,� a, o �D o 0
to
n ��fD
M
M co
O• D rO* � CCL CA
� Q
p Ors rm n � -� O rMIL � a
^* a04. "t ■■r C ... ■
• rD � ; O = p 0 a`C O
01
fD
ONOOTQ
TO = M.
�•
rD
"S A�
to
� eD
�.�"Q v�
rD
.0 "rJ
� o 0
000 00 7a � a
oA g na o � ''� ►� I'll ' -0z
y e� K 2 O
v, O `3 M��r . U
OEM
OMW 0 a 0
`r O O O GL ` ♦A eD
o y �0r *NOW03
em, CT .» O � Z
�J .� M•C
.Or sv C "C �, R Z G) .
O C p 0 0 K
n p n 0 y p O
n C A 7Q O A O
�O O �' �-. � n• �IQ• p .7.i �M
A^ _
ft
O Y IJ n Mom!
o � �
0 o y Z
on
CD
fD
� -� o o �, � c ►-3
ao•. �
P4
=o o
moo
rD � Cr R I-�- (A rM� m cc
� v � o0
�"� • • p cf
21
A n .0�eD
m fD YC7 m �
t-' e 2 ° p m e
L"A � a n0 O CD M`�—+ 03
cr
.
v�m
n C C• C 'O f" p cn„fl
eD
eD
7Q = a. H
.r
¢ n
7Q rr
OOz �
el
* " �
5 a o Cj
�' n
p tOD O V� cC n O � o
kin
p `�' C cC• � O ''�' A� � � v' � f o
z0 n
0
O• `a � =.r O O A� r� o
rA m c
m pr
CL 0 o
O tD rD
ut
f5 CD fD
fD
c o c ¢ UCL
N Cs7 Z3 0. W� :5 0.. CCD
CD
-s C
CL v O
CD 04.
O ft rp O O ��
c fD
�a
arc � WD
A �
c �
yfmlL m �°
� � i.�. �' ne-r � Nam- � � �D r� Q• � I�• � m �
O _ OeDD n O M A� r`j tD � aa
O p. WC
•� n � 0 �. 0 O O �. � O O l l Mw
Fn CL.
U)
PAL
o �a
IrD � A� reD CDA
vO ❑ "n C O OfD :�
eD A9 O cD O � � O
� e4 o' er �* �. 0
p ' � (A _ = � or � = �
�� � 0
tD r�
� � � � � fD
no :Eo
mw rook
Zn
o
�..
�• • ° rr• �• m 7c
CT
MOI
CO)
To w "" ♦V
ray, (A C W� f-+ . =
02.
O r-t ~'
04,
a l )
O
-CM CO
O V1 O D
rMIL
O
A� z 00
/1�
m zo
�r O o d
fl.
mo
0
m 2
d
W 0
m '
y co
co 0
m�c
V� O m CO)
e�f O G) �
a.
Poo O
r�
O
A�
K �
0
.p74Dr—o-M
O ��I`
�4
41
Z� Z
ve
m S
!F•��( r.. '� ,� or ID o
ow•
�� O O l V O 00
CDzo
i.r � � weeWr.� rp
woo n CM O � � 0 3
Qt
�• �•
m
eC CI n � O^ 0
Owes (D C ZD - m
� w „ ow. 0
�• 1. 0 0
�+ O y ►� � b o •� Cl)
Ut
ismis . .
ran C ►e
meeed mow*
We ft
n
O' �+ O moo V meei• o . .
O
_O
•
O �•h � O
O
.l 4
0 w is .
-um
= o
• • • • • • • 1 1 = cn rr
►�.�IIITI
m CO
b n n �• b n M� Oo
n CA
rA
m -4
D �D O rp 6 =
CO :117
cr
cool) b C7 y C _.
rD
co CL
5 N
c fD
n � (A " �,,
Q
C
eD
O C
O ■ ■
tv R° o eD `C
ex ° �m o
oD
on
cr
� N
eD
CL
K
0
5 mp:�
Ill +a .
� Z
2 O
't'I m
I.�n,yy m m
z C.)
00
n
UQ mo
N O �• N O 63
>
pr
CD �. �D ., ■ m o
v� rh a
O
eD /t��D e^D1 ►'� MO O m CO)
-.01 Woo
O C' rz
U�Q �. O tD o.
� N
40
CL rot
�• � n `"r CD �D � �
O T 6; O �•
� = � wwo �
�c �
� Z
mn mco
00
o SM
01
CO pr
cr
04
� CL
o . .
v
w rp �"'! O �, rD o Qo� D
�y C °
o P",
P-t. rMIL
�'
; o m
�
0
0
R
tee .
121' z O �e ° � ° c Ar � O y Do
m CD
O O O O 00
f DfD
�' � �"', �• r� °h . tea ►''S �y"�� o
eC ^ fDD �p fD fD rD O W W e
41
R A "� C �
r. Y� O fD �• per! S A VI m
"'" Mr• a' O O �' A O M%`
to� h C
OfDQM
rA
S eDrD fDfD _ � w +
A ° fD ? ° O C G'
r • — ..
CD
EA
O e4- trD141
Q
m rMIL
O I A fD y CD
A R'
C
Q � �' • o °
� � r
0
0 PA—
p
°C f f. CD m CD
on
o 0
M000l �- O' .Z C �O
a c
.�wom' a m —i
Cl) pr
0. fD on p■', Q
C• C O Qr r. Mete m'c
�'. �• a < _ ara O m Q
CL
ft 0 O Moo. "S �. Owe ■ ■
Pot
Wool.
o O "beeee
KW
meoul
O a C
bee w000l
tD rr Owepot � O 0
M
S
O Met 000�
Fri
poo. Woo
cm go S O w
A9 �ms• fD PM1`
Y � (�
0
=mn
o
C �
CD
f4. O rp o c.)
Mel
mpeem eeW CL
beme co
4 C m --4
oee* D coy
V ••r � �� CAD V I O
�■ c
Q
2' S� fm4L Z
a. � '� '•O C � � a
c
Wei'
Wow
o O
p "r�
Wft. ¢ rD �D O
e O
Oil to
oe
n r
C r-e ems`
�• CD
va
c�
z
D �
• • m m
M'rJ O o C 0
0o
04 fmm�l• r.+ v' , O ° o
O m �
D
cf) 7r
O Q me
' "'
rmlpL �c
PEIo, 0
40
O �
0
D o
• • • • • m CO
z O "A
ga
OEM 0 mmoo
-�
m
MEOW
=
mM
M
cn
*We CL
rD < O
c Cl)
N' l d �. . .
owe
b O n
CD O ow. C
CL bn
mow
owe
MOW
�. M . .
� Z
0
L D D
o n m =
O 0 oa
O ,� ,_,. rD M� m
I� O a
0 _
OEM, cm
nO e-r �--'
O p
moo
o
woo
fD � v� � ""• �D V�
Omni 0
►"] O O rZ
OEM 0 A
MW . .
0
'promp4l'.1
mz
"► CD p O G d 0 tD 00 m
'�' •� ,pr �� A� ? � p 'CS � "Q � z o
Zn
04.
00
C � d
,�• � C � Grr�i �C :� � C p C CL
m �
�. � OOp �. 0 � Np✓ O v Cl)
rA
A e� �. O O " cr n = = ) c
rMOL
A� `C O
O
IQ
oil
=
'D � py,
rmlpL
ppo 00 va � a. o "'r