HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 06/28/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
June 28, 2011
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Boards and Commissions Periodic Review. (1 hour discussion)
Each year Council meets with several boards and commissions to review their functions
and goals. This year Council will review the following boards and commissions:
• Commission on Disability
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Parks and Recreation Board
3. Electric Transmission Update. (staff: Brian Janonis, Brian Moeck, PRPA; 1 hour
discussion)
Brian Moeck, General Manager of Platte River Power Authority, will provide an update
on the reconstruction of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe 230 kV transmission line, along
with a general discussion on undergrounding transmission facilities. Additionally, Mr.
Moeck will provide information on the proposed construction of walls around the Dixon
Creek Substation at Overland Trail and Drake and the Timberline Substation, just south
of Prospect on Timberline
4. Electric Assisted Bicycles (Ebikes) on the City Trails. (staff: Marty Heffernan; 1 hour
discussion)
The City Code currently prohibits electric assisted bikes (ebikes) on City trails.
Members of Council have expressed interest in considering allowing ebikes on City
paved trails. Staff conducted an extensive outreach process with six City
boards/commissions, conducted a survey of citizen opinions, and gathered information
from a number of other cities. Recently, staff was asked to include unpaved trails in the
discussion as well as Segways, longboards and similar electric devices.
Boards and commissions have carefully reviewed the issues, some at multiple meetings.
Their recommendations are varied, with some not supporting ebikes on trails at this time,
some recommending a trial period and one board supporting ebikes on paved trails. The
citizen input (202 responses) was equally varied with 49% opposed to ebikes on paved
trails and 47% in favor. Comments from those who do not favor ebikes on paved trails
noted concerns regarding safety, speed, compatibility with other trail users and a desire to
keep trail use non-motorized. Comments from respondents who favor ebikes on paved
trails noted ebikes are not significantly different from non-motorized bikes, are useful for
commuting, and do not create safety problems if used responsibly.
The results of the survey of other cities were also mixed. Twelve out of the twenty
communities surveyed do not allow ebikes on their trails and the prohibition has
generally not been controversial. However, some platinum bike cities (Davis, Portland,
Seattle) do allow ebikes on their trails.
Information is provided on other types of electric vehicles. If Council wishes to allow
ebikes on trails, but exclude other types of electric vehicles and devices, the current
definition of “electrical assisted bicycle” in the City Code would need to be amended to
add a weight limit and/or a size limit on the width of the frame. Additionally, the City’s
ability to enforce regulations on the use of City trails is quite limited.
Allowing ebikes on unpaved trails presents unique issues, primarily concerning use on
narrow, single-track trails and related safety and trail user conflicts, trail damage and
erosion, and impacts on wildlife and the environment.
The City Manager is recommending Council consideration of a trial period to allow
ebikes on City paved trails for up to three years. During that time, staff will gather
information on safety issues, user conflicts, public opinion and related issues.
Information will be gathered by Rangers through their observations and contact with trail
users, through citizen reporting and by follow-up surveys. Council would assess the
situation at the end of the trial period and decide the best course of action.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
DATE: June 28, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Boards and Commissions Periodic Review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each year Council meets with several boards and commissions to review their functions and goals.
This year Council will review the following boards and commissions:
• Commission on Disability
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Parks and Recreation Board
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The work session will conclude with either:
1. A statement that the board should continue without alteration; or
2. Direction to staff to prepare legislation making any changes (number of members, duties,
etc.).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At its January 25, 2000 Work Session, Council discussed several procedures regarding its boards
and commissions. A portion of the discussion focused on the establishment and scope of a process
to periodically review the purpose and functions of the City's boards and commissions. At Council’s
request, staff developed a Periodic Review Process which was adopted on February 20, 2001 by
Resolution 2001-026 as a part of the Boards and Commissions Manual. The review dates have been
staggered; each board or commission will be reviewed approximately every six years. The 2011
review includes the following boards and commissions:
• Commission on Disability
• Economic Advisory Commission
• Parks and Recreation Board
In accordance with the adopted review process, each of the boards listed above completed a self-
assessment questionnaire. Attached to each questionnaire is the City Code description of the board’s
June 28, 2011 Page 2
duties, the most recent work plan, annual report, and bylaws. The Role of Council Liaisons to
Boards and Commissions is also attached to define the description of the Council Liaison as it
relates to direction, communication, facilitation and meeting attendance for boards and commissions.
The Council’s review will consist of the following questions:
- What does the board do? (current functions)
- Does the City need a board that does this?
- If so, should any of the duties of the board be changed?
- Can any of the duties of this board be consolidated with another board?
- Is the size of the board appropriate?
- Is the work done by the board beneficial and useful to the Council?
The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from each of the boards and commissions have been invited
to join the Council during the review of each board or commission. The discussion at the work
session is intended to assist the Council in determining whether it should:
- Continue the board without alteration of duties or composition.
- Continue the board with amendment to duties and/or composition.
- Eliminate the board and its duties.
- Eliminate the board and transfer of some or all duties to other existing board(s).
The work session will conclude either with:
1. A statement that the board should continue without alteration; or
2. Direction to staff to prepare legislation making any changes (number of members, duties,
etc.).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Commission on Disability Periodic Review Questionnaire – (with attachments)
2. Economic Advisory Commission Periodic Review Questionnaire (with attachments)
3. Parks and Recreation Board Periodic Review Questionnaire – (with attachments)
4. Periodic Review Process adopted February 20, 2001
5. The Role of Council Liaisons to Boards and Commissions adopted on May 17, 1988 and
revised on June 6, 2000
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
PERIODIC REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
DATE PREPARED: 6/15/11
BOARD/COMMISSION NAME: Economic Advisory Commission
LIST OF MEMBERS:
Bill Timpson Kevin Shaw Stuart MacMillan
Blue Hovatter Channing Arndt Christophe Febvre
Jim Clark Michael Kulisheck Rick Price
1. Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not, what
duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
We continue to develop our role in the City under the scope that has been defined by City
Council and, at this time, we don’t see any major additions or deletions needed.
2. Is the board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
The Economic Advisory Commission meets monthly to review and discuss topics and
events that are important to Economic Development and the City Council. Based on
need, additional special meetings may be scheduled as needed. Our workload is focused
and we have found a reasonable balance.
3. Does the board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
The Economic Advisory Commission work plan is prepared annually based on current
and known needs, and is adjusted accordingly throughout the year. Our plan is revisited
monthly to address current and future issues.
4. Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done to
improve board meetings?
The Economic Advisory Commission meetings are conducted in a manner that is
procedurally correct and recommended in the 2011 Boards and Commission Manual.
Agendas are prepared in advance and modified as necessary and quorum requirements
are determined prior to each meeting. We continue to improve, and it works well now.
1
5. Is the current size of the board appropriate?
Yes, we believe the current size of the board is appropriate.
6. Are communications between the board and Council effective? What could be done
to improve these communications?
Communication between the Commission and Council has been primarily by
memorandum, and occasionally in person when the Council Liaison was requested to
attend a meeting. The Economic Advisory Commission would like to have the Council
Liaison attend the meetings more regularly and would like to have the various council
members visit with the EAC on a rotational basis.
7. Other comments:
The EAC believes that we have been useful in our role, although we would welcome
regular feedback from Council as to what is useful, and what is not.
Attachments:
City Code description of duties
Current Work Plan
Current Annual Report
2
Economic Advisory Commission
Sec. 2-222. Functions.
The duties and functions of the Commission shall be:
(1) To advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the economic health and
sustainability of the City, includ-ing but not limited to: (a) events and trends
occurring outside the Fort Collins community that may affect the local economy;
(b) immediate and long-term threats to the local economy; (c) ways in which to
enhance the City's competitive position in relation to other communities; and (d)
possible partnerships with other public and private entities;
(2) To recommend programs and strategies that may enhance the economic health
and sustainability of the City;
(3) To be aware of and coordinate with other City boards and commissions whose
actions may affect the eco-nomic health and sustainability of the City;
(4) To advise the City Council on existing or proposed policies, practices or
regulations of the City that may affect the local economy; and
(5) To perform other such duties and functions as provided by the City Council.
(Ord. No. 021, 2007, 2-20-07)
3
Economic Advisory Commission – 2011 Workplan
The duties and functions of the Commission are:
1. to advise City Council on matters pertaining to the economic health and sustainability of the
city, including, but not limited to, (a) events and trends occurring outside the Fort Collins
community that may affect the local economy; (b) immediate and long-term threats to the
local economy; (c) ways in which to enhance the City's competitive position in relation to
other communities; and (d) possible partnerships with other public and private entities;
2. to recommend programs and strategies that may enhance the economic health and
sustainability of the city;
3. to be aware of and coordinate with other City boards and commissions whose actions may
affect the economic health and sustainability of the City;
4. to advise Council on existing or proposed policies, practices or regulations of the City that
may affect the local economy; and
5. to perform other such duties and functions as provided by the City Council.
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) met in November of 2010 to discuss goals for the
upcoming year; following is a summary of the 2011 workplan.
The EAC identified four (4) key areas that support overall economic health in Fort Collins and
will use these themes to organize their workplan. The EAC will be actively engaged in each area,
assessing plans and results, and will make recommendations to Council as necessary.
Four (4) Key Areas
• Participate in the Updating of the Economic Health Action Plan
• Discuss and evaluate the ongoing efforts to redevelop the Midtown Corridor – and
Leveraging the Mason Corridor Project
• Discuss and evaluate the Community’s Ongoing Incubation Program and Services
• Discuss and evaluate the City’s Economic Clusters Approach
Other continued areas for 2011
Economic/Finance Policies
• Discuss City incentives and approaches for retaining and attracting businesses
• Discuss City revenue and tax policies to evaluate opportunities for diversifying revenue
streams
Land use and Long Range Planning
• Review the buildable lands inventory
• URA Existing Conditions Study (Blight Study)
• General Improvement Districts
• Green Building Standards
• Floodplain Regulations
• East/West Neighborhood Standards
4
1
Economic Advisory Commission
2010 Annual Report
The EAC consists of nine members meeting regularly on the third Wednesday of every month.
The board receives regular updates from staff and advises City Council on matters pertaining to
the economic health and sustainability of the city. The board continues to gather community
input on economic issues and represent the ideas expressed.
Members who served in 2010 include Chair, Christophe Febvre, Vice-chair, Bill Timpson, Beena
Bawa, Blue Hovatter, Stu MacMillan, Jim Clark, Kevin Shaw, Tom Clevenger, and Rick Price.
2010 Year in Review:
The following are items the Economic Advisory Commission were briefed upon, and formal
action was taken with a recommendation forwarded to the City Council:
Transportation Safety
The Economic Advisory Commission, as part of our 2009 and 2010 Work Plans, has had
discussions regarding the fact that Fort Collins has been recognized as a "bike friendly
community" and that there is a positive economic benefit to this based on marketing and quality-
of-life. In light of the pending February 9 Council work session on transportation safety, the
EAC, at our January 6th, 2010 meeting, discussed the issue of bicycle safety and education and
the impact on the overall viability of being a "bike friendly community." It is in this context that
the EAC has unanimously voted on and agreed to the following recommendation to Council:
The EAC finds that Bicycle Safety Education is an important part of being recognized as a "bike
friendly community," and that this recognition plays an important role in the Economic Health of
Fort Collins.
Accolades that Fort Collins receives as a great place to retire, work, raise a family or locate a
business are jeopardized by twenty-five serious injuries or fatal bike/car crashes involving
cyclists since 2007. Incidents such as these may seriously jeopardize our image as a bicycle
friendly community and our ability to continue to receive such recognition.
Therefore, we encourage you to ask staff to explore best practice solutions to take bicycle safety
education to the community.
Manufacturing Use Tax
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) held their regular meeting on March 3, 2010
During the course of the meeting, the EAC reviewed and discussed several tax base options for
the City of Fort Collins. In light of the discussion, the EAC makes the following
recommendation to Council:
The EAC recommends the elimination of the manufacturing use tax if any sales tax increase is
enacted for the City of Fort Collins.
5
2
Resourcing Our Future
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) held a special meeting on March 12, 2010 to hear a
presentation by Mike Freeman on "Resourcing our Future." During the course of the meeting,
the EAC had the opportunity to ask in depth questions and had extensive
discussions surrounding the economic trade-offs and the issues presented by
current City Revenue and the various needs around the City. In light of the
presentation and discussions, the EAC makes the following recommendation to
Council:
The EAC unanimously recommends that the long term needs of Police Services, Poudre Fire
Authority, Parks and Recreation, and Streets Maintenance are important to the viability and
economic health of Fort Collins, and we urge City Council to support the need to raise revenues.
Midtown Redevelopment Study
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) has reviewed the Midtown Redevelopment Study,
received several updates from staff, and discussed the merits of the Planning Concepts, Action
Plan, and Recommendations. On August 4, 2010, the EAC held a regular meeting to discuss,
amongst other topics, a formal recommendation in support of the Midtown Redevelopment
Study.
The EAC, by unanimous approval (five in favor and four absent), makes the following
recommendation to City Council:
The inherent value of the Midtown Study area combined with the retail vacancies
and aging properties represent a valuable opportunity for positive evolution and
reinvention of the community’s core regional retail asset. The suggested Corridor
Planning Concepts provide the basis for transformation through redevelopment
introducing new uses alongside existing retail development. Furthermore, the
Action Plan provides strategic direction to guide the City forward in facilitating
the redevelopment of both the Corridor and Foothills Mall. The EAC supports the
Study and looks forward to the many opportunities that will come as a result of
the City Council’s support of redevelopment in the Midtown Area.
Minutes from the August 4, 2010 EAC meeting are attached for your review.
Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101
After a thorough review, the Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) unanimously recommends
to City Council that it come out strongly against Amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101. The
EAC feels that there will be a severe economic impact to our community if any one, or any
combination, of the initiatives passes. The EAC feels that the economic impacts of these
initiatives include, but are not limited to, the loss of a significant number of jobs and an increase
in utilities fees. Passage of these initiatives would seriously affect our ability to attract and retain
businesses at the State, County, and local levels.
Long Range Financial Planning
In the spirit of City Plan which is currently underway, the Economic Advisory Commission
(EAC) recommends to City Council that city staff make forecasts of the city budget,
6
3
governmental funds, and expenditures out 10, 20 and 30 years. Furthermore, the EAC
recommends to City Council that a sensitivity analysis be conducted on those items deemed most
likely to impact those forecasts and update these as appropriate.
This recommendation was passed by a 3-2 vote.
Economic Health Budget
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) recommends to City Council that the funding for
the bicycle safety program ($50,000) be restored to the 2011 and 2012 budget. The EAC
believes the bicycling culture and environment that has been developed in Fort Collins has had a
positive impact on the City’s economy and the quality-of-life that is a valuable element of the
economy. The EAC feels that bicycle safety, and its coordination and promotion, is an important
component of the City’s bike-friendly environment which is worth funding.
Economic Health Budget
Due to the importance of economic development in fostering a healthy local economy,
particularly within a local, regional, and national economy that has significantly and negatively
impacted local employment and City revenues, the Economic Advisory Commission (EAC)
STRONGLY RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE BUDGET FOR
ECONOMIC HEALTH BE INCREASED BY $150,000 with the purpose of enhancing
development of the City's targeted industries and assisting in primary job creation/strategies for
2011 and 2012. The EAC believes that investing this additional money for these purposes will
have a vital positive effect on short term economic development strategies and long term
economic results for the City.
Section 108 Loan Program
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) recommends to City Council that the Section 108
Loan Program be supported with emphasis toward primary manufacturing employment.
Gateway Standards
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) has had discussions during the course of several
meetings about the opportunity for positive economic impact from the I-25 corridor. The EAC
feels signage would have a positive economic impact on the City of Fort Collins by bringing in
additional traffic that might otherwise bypass the City for lack of awareness.
The EAC, by unanimous approval (six in favor, three absent), makes the following
recommendation to City Council:
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) recommends to City Council that one or more signs
be placed along I-25 welcoming visitors to Fort Collins, and that this be integrated with the
proposed Gateway Standards.
City Procurement Policy
Throughout the year, the Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) has received various reports
including the City Manager’s Monthly Report, the Monthly Sales Tax Report, and the Monthly
7
4
Financial Report and several updates from Staff. After review and discussion, the EAC feels
that a local preference policy would positively affect the City’s economy.
The EAC, by unanimous approval (six in favor, three absent), makes the following
recommendation to City Council:
The Economic Advisory Commission (EAC) recommends to City Council that the City explore
the benefits of a local preference policy for City procurement.
8
9
1
Attachment 3
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
PERIODIC REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
DATE PREPARED: 4/27/11
BOARD/COMMISSION NAME: Park & Recreation Board
LIST OF MEMBERS: Chair, Michael Chalona; Vice Chair, Rob Cagen; Board Members:
Brian Carroll, Shirley Christian, Bruce Henderson, Greg Miller, Danna Ortiz, Selena Paulsen and
Dawn Theis
1. Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not, what
duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
Yes.
However, the Parks & Recreation Board knows there are limited staff resources available in
CPRE’s Public Relations Department and feels there could be more outreach and education on
behalf of Parks. The Board would like to be an active participant in this effort.
2. Is the board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
The Parks & Recreation workload and work plan are just about right. As is typical, unexpected
things come up that take priority, so backlog is natural way of working; however, it’s nice to have
backlog of possible work plan items to work on. We get through most of our work plan in some
form throughout the year.
3. Does the board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
Yes.
We also feel that our Board had a proactive roll in helping 2B to pass.
4. Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done to
improve board meetings?
Yes, our Chair does good job in bringing Members and/or citizens back to subject/task for time
management. Also, having meetings at different parks and recreation facilities has been
beneficial.
Improvements:
Meetings with other Boards would be helpful, when there is a need of collaboration on
recommendations and/or projects.
2
5. Is the current size of the board appropriate?
Yes.
6. Are communications between the board and Council effective? What could be done
to improve these communications?
Yes.
We have responded as a Board when asked to give recommendations.
When we have a question, Staff get answers to the Board.
Writing letters and showing up at Council meetings, when necessary, has been effective.
Improvements:
Staff keeping us apprised of Council meetings we should be involved with, has been helpful. We
would like this to continue.
7. Other comments:
We have a good Parks & Recreation Board; we set our own destiny and work plan and it’s up to
us to get going.
The City does great job with staff resources. Having the Recreation Supervisors attending each
meeting has been valuable. Staff supports what we need as Board.
Attachments:
City Code description of duties
Current Work Plan
Current Annual Report
Current Bylaws
Parks and Recreation Board
Sec. 2-338. Functions.
The Board shall act as an advisory board and shall have the following functions:
(1) To advise and make recommendations to the Cultural, Library and
Recreational Services and the City Council for their approval as to rules,
regulations, policies, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the
Department excluding matters relating to the operation and maintenance of City-
owned golf courses and cemeteries;
(2) To assist the City in cooperating with the Poudre R-1 School District and other
organizations and individuals interested in the City's parks and recreation
programs.
(Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 18, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 92, 1992, § 15, 9-15-92)
3
4
2011 WORK PLAN AND MEETING SCHEDULE
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
The Parks and Recreation Board consist of nine citizen members appointed by the City Council.
The Board acts as an advisory board and advises and makes recommendations to the Cultural,
Parks, Recreation and Environment Service Unit and the City Council for their approval as to
rules, regulations, policies, and administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to Parks and
Recreation, excluding matters relating to the operation and maintenance of City-owned golf
courses and cemeteries. The Board assists the City in cooperating with the Poudre School District
and other organizations and individuals interested in the City's parks and recreation programs.
Members serve four-year terms, and they serve without compensation.
All regular Parks and Recreation Board meetings are scheduled for the fourth Wednesday of each
month, except for the meetings in September and November/December. The location of the
meetings are held throughout the City at various Park & Recreation venues at 5:30pm. Please
check the public calendar at fcgov.com for location information or contact Carol Rankin at the
Park Shop at 970-221-6261. The 2011 meeting schedule is as follows:
2011 Proposed Agenda Items
• Work on sustainable funding source options for O&M in Parks & Recreation.
• Review matters associated with the 2011 and 2012 City budget process.
• Develop an outreach/marketing program in education/stewardship of Parks & Recreation
Facilities.
• Explore promoting Parks & Recreation accomplishments through media.
• Review the pedestrian bridge relocation project along the Poudre.
• Review NISP Revisions.
• Review matters associated with the development of disc golf courses.
• Review matters associated with the Environmental Best Management Practices Manual.
• Review matters associated with the Parks Maintenance Plan update.
• Review matters, including scholarship funding, associated with Recreation’s Strategic Plan.
• Review matters associated with park and trail impacts of the Museum/Science Center project.
Neighborhood Parks
• Review matters related to the construction of Provincetown Park.
• Review matters related to the construction of Registry Ridge Park.
January 26 May 25 September 14
February 23 June 22 October 26
March 23 July 27 December 7 (November/December)
April 27 August 24
5
• Review matters related to the design of Staley Park
• Review recommendations on parkland acquisition options.
• Review Management Plans for neighborhood parks.
Community Parks
• Review Management Plans for community parks.
• Review community parkland acquisition options.
Trails
• Continue to review the location and construction of new trails, including the expansion of
the Poudre River Trail, Fossil Creek Trail, and Power Trail.
• Support trail funding through Conservation Trust Funds, Natural Areas Sales tax, grants,
and other funding sources.
• Review regional trail plans.
Other Projects/Programs
• Provide input on natural area issues as they relate to Parks and Recreation.
• Provide recommendations for regional recreational opportunities related to the Open
Lands Program.
• Provide recommendations for the Water Craft Course design.
• Support grants and other outside funding opportunities for P&R programs and facilities.
• Provide input on Park and Recreation fees.
6
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
2010 ANNUAL REPORT
The City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Advisory Board held 10 Regular Meetings in 2010,
with a Special Meeting held February 22 to discuss Plan Fort Collins. The 2010 Board Members
were Fred Bitting (resigned April), Rob Cagen (replaced Fred in April), Brian Carroll, Michael
Chalona, Shirley Christian, Jessica MacMillan, Greg Miller, Danna Ortiz, William Pickering and
Dawn Theis. Annually in February the Board elects its officers, and Danna Ortiz and Jessica
MacMillan were elected as Board Co-Presidents along with William Pickering elected as Board
Vice President and Dawn Theis as Secretary. Kelly Ohlson served as City Council Liaison to the
Board in 2010. Craig Foreman, Park Planning & Development Director, and J.R. Schnelzer,
Director of Parks, served as Staff Liaison to the Board, with Carol Rankin, Administrative
Support Supervisor, providing staff support to the Board.
2010 Budget
The Board was updated on budget issues affecting Parks and Recreation throughout 2010.
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) 2011 and 2012
The Board was very active in the development of the 2011 and 2012 budgets for Parks and
Recreation.
Resourcing Our Future
The Board was informed of the community’s effort to pass a 0.85% sales tax that included new
funding for parks and recreation.
Parks, Park Planning and Recreation Updates & Accomplishments
The Board was updated monthly on projects and programs occurring in Park Maintenance, Park
Planning and Development, and Recreation.
Plan Fort Collins
The Board was active attending meetings and focus groups for the update to City Plan and the
City’s Transportation Master Plan. Numerous presentations were made to the Board throughout
the year.
Discovery/Museum Center
The Board supported the development of the Discovery/Museum Center at Lee Martinez Park.
Northern Integrated Supply Project
The Board was updated on the status of the project by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District.
Parks Department
• Forestry Tree Pruning, Removal & Pesticide Application Standards
The Board supported the new document “Tree Pruning, Removal and Pesticide
Application Standards and Best Management Practices” for regulating tree trimming
standards on City property and licenses for arborists.
• Gardens on Spring Creek
7
The Board was updated on the new additions, including the outdoor kitchen and success
of the Gardens in 2010 with increased visitation and revenue.
• Richard’s Lake
Board was informed of agreement with Richard’s Lake neighborhood and the placement
of playground equipment. Several members attended the neighborhood meeting.
• Archery Range
Board was made aware of the changes in operations to include a fee area to help cover the
costs of operations. Representatives from the archery range also spoke at one of the Board
meetings.
Recreation Department
• Advertising at Recreation Facilities
The Board discussed this issue and supported the proposed advertisement plan for
recreation facilities as requested by Recreation in accordance with current advertising
done at EPIC and designated for target audiences.
Park Planning and Development
• Waters Way Neighborhood Park
Board members were supportive of the design for the park and the coordination with the
rehab of Benson Reservoir Dam and supported delaying construction due to budget
issues.
• Registry Neighborhood Park
The Board was informed of the park’s final design and supported delaying construction
due to budget issues.
• Edora Community Park Disc Golf and BMX Course
The Board was active in discussions about disc golf options at the park and the potential
partnership with CSU at Hughes Stadium; and was supportive of the relocation of the
BMX Course to Southeast Community Park.
• Poudre Trail
The Board was also advised about the continued effort to remove the remaining sections
old asphalt trail and replacement with concrete.
The plans to adjust the Poudre Trail at Lemay Avenue and avoid the steep ramps at
Riverside Avenue were discussed with the Board. The project is a partnership with
Colorado Department of Transportation as they construct a new bridge across the
Poudre River on Highway # 14.
The Board was informed of the preliminary planning effort to develop the trail from the
historical Strauss Cabin area to Timnath including an underpass of I-25.
• Fossil Creek Trail
Staff updated the Board on the trail to connect with Spring Canyon Community Park
with the underpass of County Road #38E. Also plans connecting the Power Trail to the
Fossil Creek Trail at Trilby Road were discussed with the Board. This trail segment will
include an underpass of Trilby Road and will complete the trail to Carpenter Road.
• Power Trail
The Board was informed of the construction schedule of the trail from Keenland Drive
to Trilby Road; and the City’s effort to obtain an underpass of the Union Pacific
Railroad at Keenland Drive.
8
BYLAWS
OF THE FORT COLLINS
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
ARTICLE I - Introduction
Section 1. These bylaws have been adopted by the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation
Board and shall become effective upon approval of the City Council and shall supersede any
bylaws previously in effect.
Section 2. The name of this organization shall be the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation
Board.
ARTICLE II - Purpose; Power and Duty
The purpose of this Board shall be to advise the City Council regarding all matters
affecting the parks and recreation program of the City of Fort Collins and regarding the
implementation of Article X of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins.
The Board shall further have the power and duty to cooperate with the Poudre R-1 School
District and other organizations and individuals interested in the parks and recreation program in
the Fort Collins area.
ARTICLE III - Membership
Section 1. The Board shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council.
Section 2. One member of the Poudre R-1 School District staff may be appointed as an ex-
officio member of the Board by the Poudre R-1 Board of Education to act as a liaison between the
City and the School District.
Section 3. Members of the Board shall serve for four (4) years or until their successors are
appointed. Members of the Board may serve no more than two successive terms.
Section 4. The President is responsible for officially notifying the City Council (with
copies to the City Manager) when a member resigns or a vacancy exists for other reasons.
Council will appoint replacements by official resolution as needed. Replacements will be
expected to serve to the end of the term to which they are appointed.
Section 5. Members of the Board shall be subject to removal by the City Council.
Section 6. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation.
9
ARTICLE IV - Officers
Section 1. The officers of this Board shall be a President, Vice President and Secretary.
Section 2. Election of officers shall occur at the February meeting each year.
Section 3. The elected officers shall assume office immediately upon election and shall
serve for a period of one year.
ARTICLE V - Committees
Section 1. Committees shall be appointed by the President as needed for specific tasks.
Section 2. Committees shall be dissolved by the President upon completion of the
assigned task and submission of a report.
ARTICLE VI - Meetings
Section 1. Meetings shall be held as approved by the Board.
Section 2. Special meetings may be called by the President at his/her discretion.
Section 3. All meetings shall be open to the public.
Section 4. A quorum of the Board shall consist of five (5) voting members and no official
action may be taken by the Board on any matter unless a quorum is present.
Section 5. Executive sessions may be called for the purpose of discussing privileged
information relating to personnel or land acquisition. No formal action shall be taken by the
Board at such sessions.
ARTICLE VII - Attendance
Section 1. Newly elected members shall attend the next regular meeting of the Board after
appointment.
Section 2. Regular attendance at meetings is required. Therefore, either of the following
shall automatically cause a member's appointment to terminate:
10
a. Three (3) consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings of the
Board not approved by the President.
b. Four (4) absences from regularly scheduled meetings of the Board in any
calendar year not approved by the President.
ARTICLE VIII - Procedures
The Board shall operate pursuant to the procedures established by the City of Fort Collins
and the State of Colorado for such Boards.
ARTICLE IX - Rules of Order
All questions of order not answered in these bylaws shall be decided by Roberts Rules of
Order, latest edition.
ARTICLE X - Amendments to Bylaws
Amendments to these bylaws may be proposed by any member at any regularly
scheduled Board meeting. Proposed amendments shall be voted upon at the next regularly
scheduled Board meeting. Amendments must be approved by a majority of the voting members
of the Board. No amendment shall be valid if objected to by the City Council.
Attachment 4
PERIODIC REVIEW PROCESS
! A periodic review will be conducted for all boards except the Downtown
Development Authority, Housing Authority, Liquor Licensing Authority, and Massage
Licensing Authority.
! The initial review dates will be staggered. Thereafter, review will occur every 6
years.
! The reviews will be conducted at an annual work session (3-5 boards per year).
Study session materials should include self-assessment completed by each board.
The study session will conclude either with (a) a statement that the board should
continue without alteration, or (b) direction to staff to prepare legislation making any
Council-requested changes (number of members, duties, etc.). Review and formal
action, if any, should be completed at least one (1) month prior to beginning the
annual recruitment process.
! Self-assessment by each board should consist of the following questions:
- Are the current duties of the board, as defined by City Code, realistic? If not,
what duties would you suggest be added and/or deleted?
- Is the board’s workload (annual work plan) too much; too little; about right?
Explain.
- Does the board effectively accomplish its annual work plan?
- Are board meetings conducted in an effective manner? What could be done
to improve board meetings?
- Is the current size of the board appropriate?
- Are communications between the board and Council effective? What could
be done to improve these communications?
- Required attachments: City Code description of duties, recent work plan,
annual report, bylaws
! Council review would consist of the following questions:
- What does the board do? (Current functions)
- Does the City need a board that does this?
- If so, should any of the duties of the board be changed?
- Can any of the duties of this board be consolidated with another board?
- Is the size of the board appropriate?
- Is the work done by the board beneficial and useful to the Council?
! Possible outcomes of review include:
- Continuation of the board without alteration of duties or composition.
- Continuation of the board with amendment to duties and/or composition.
- Elimination of the board and its duties.
- Elimination of the board and transfer of some or all duties to other existing
board(s).
Resolution 2001-26 adopted February 20, 2001
Attachment 5
ROLE OF COUNCIL LIAISONS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Every two years, following the election of Councilmembers, the Council selects its liaisons to the boards
and commissions. Council has defined the role of Council liaisons as follows:
1. To communicate with the board or commission when Council
communication is needed and to serve as the primary two-way
communications channel between Council and the board or commission.
2. To take the lead in filling vacancies, reviewing applications, and interviewing
candidates for the board or commission.
3. To serve as the primary informal Council contact for the board or
commission.
4. To help resolve questions the board or commission may have about the role
of Council, municipal government, and the board or commission.
5. To establish formal or informal contact with the chairperson of the board or
commission and effectively communicate the role of the liaison.
6. To provide procedural direction and relay Council's position to the board or
commission, and to communicate to the board or commission that the
liaison's role is not to direct the board in its activities or work.
7. To serve as Council contact rather than an advocate for or ex-officio
member of the board or commission.
8. To review the annual work plan of the board or commission and make
recommendations to the City Council regarding the work plan.
9. To identify and help resolve any problems that may exist with respect to the
functioning of the board or commission.
10. To facilitate the training of new board and commission members by
providing suggestions and relevant information to the City staff members
responsible for providing such training.
Council liaisons do not normally attend monthly meetings of boards and commissions. Liaisons are informed
of boards and commissions activities through agendas and minutes, work plans, and annual reports. Liaisons
may attend meetings due to an interest in a specific agenda topic, or may “pop in” just to observe. Attendance
by a Council liaison should not affect the normal structure of a board meeting. Attention should not be
focused on the Council liaison and his or her input.
If Council liaison participation is critical to a particular item, a direct invitation should be made to the Council
liaison, explaining why participation is deemed to be critical. If appropriate, discuss with the liaison prior to
the meeting what expectations are and whether the liaison can meet those expectations.
Adopted by Resolution 88-78 on May 17, 1988
Revised by Resolution 2000-76 on June 6, 2000
DATE: June 28, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis
Brian Moeck, PRPA
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Electric Transmission Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brian Moeck, General Manager of Platte River Power Authority, will provide an update on the
reconstruction of the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe 230 kV transmission line, along with a general
discussion on undergrounding transmission facilities. Additionally, Mr. Moeck will provide
information on the proposed construction of walls around the Dixon Creek Substation at Overland
Trail and Drake and the Timberline Substation, just south of Prospect on Timberline
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
This work session is for information purposes upon request of City Council. No specific direction
from Council is being sought at this time.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Platte River is currently in the process of reconstructing the Dixon Creek to Horseshoe line. Dixon
Creek Substation is located at the west end of Drake Road and Horseshoe Substation is just north
of 57th Avenue on Shields/North Taft Avenue in Loveland. The project is being completed in three
segments. The first segment built for the project was the new 2.5 mile-long underground section
that runs from Trilby and Shields in Fort Collins to the Horseshoe Substation in Loveland. That
segment of the project was completed in late summer 2010.
The second segment of the project is the rebuilding of an existing 115kV wood pole overhead
transmission line owned by Tri-State that connects a small switching station at the south end of
Horsetooth Reservoir to the Trilby Substation at Shields and Trilby. Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association owns the 115kV transmission line which was installed in the early 1970s.
Platte River and Tri-State agreed on a contract which allows Platte River to rebuild the four-mile
overhead transmission line and convert it to a double circuit 230kV design. Platte River will own
the 230kV circuit for the connection to the underground transmission segment to Loveland and pay
for the rebuilding. Tri-State will own the 115kV circuit connecting the Horsetooth Tap Switching
Station to the Trilby Substation. No new right-of-way was needed for this segment of the project,
which was completed three months ago.
June 28, 2011 Page 2
The final transmission segment to be installed for the project is the rebuild of the existing Western
Area Power Transmission 115kV transmission line from Dixon Creek Substation to the south end
of Horsetooth Reservoir. Platte River plans to rebuild this almost four mile long transmission
segment within the existing right-of-way using overhead poles that are identical to the poles
installed several years ago along Overland Trail when Platte River rebuilt that portion of Western’s
transmission line. The rebuilt transmission line will support two transmission circuits: one will be
the replacement for an existing Western transmission line using a slightly larger conductor size; the
second circuit will be the Platte River 230kV circuit.
As noted in the attached Platte River ten-year transmission study (Attachment 1), the next
transmission line project Platte River has planned in the Fort Collins area will be construction of a
new line to connect a new substation in the Northeast portion of the City. This is not anticipated to
occur until after 2015 when the City advises Platte River that transmission support is needed for a
new NE Fort Collins distribution substation.
Undergrounding Transmission Lines
Questions have been raised about the feasibility of undergrounding transmission lines in Fort
Collins. Utilities staff, along with PRPA, have developed a very rough non-engineered estimate of
the cost of undergrounding the transmission lines within the city. A map detailing the area
transmission lines along with ownership information is attached (Attachment 2). The roughly
estimated cost to underground the lines within the city is approximately $350 million. PRPA
estimates that it would take approximately 10 years to underground all of the lines within the city.
NOTE: Western Area Power Authority and Tri-State share many of the transmission poles in the
City. They would have to be consulted and their approval gained to underground their lines.
Staff has calculated the approximate rate impact if the project were financed over a 30-year period
at 5%. The table below reflects the approximate rate increases required. As noted, costs are a very
rough estimate. Engineered plans will be required to determine actual pricing.
Rate Class Rate Increase
R Residential 18.3%
RD Residential Demand 20.2%
GS General Service 21.7%
GS50 Small Commercial 24.5%
GS750
Large Commercial
Industrial 30.2%
CONTRACT Contract Customer 36.1%
FLOOD LIGHTS Flood Lights 7.1%
TRAFFIC Traffic signals 27.7%
Since no customer benefits more than any other from undergrounding the transmission line then the
cost could also be allocated as a fixed cost. The increase per customer would be $29 per month per
account.
June 28, 2011 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. PRPA Ten-Year Transmission Plan 2011-2020 Study Report
2. Foothills Area Map
3. 2011-2020 Transmission Plan
Platte River Power Authority
Ten-Year Transmission Plan
(2011-2020)
Prepared by
PRPA System Planning
January 27, 2011
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Scope
III. Assumptions
IV. Criteria
V. Procedure
VI. Results
o Operating Horizon
o Near-Term Planning Horizon
o Longer-Term Planning Horizon
o Transient Stability Analysis
o Prior Outage Initial Conditions
o PRPA Sub-Area Reactive Power Assessment
o Short-Circuit Analysis
VII. Conclusions
VIII. Additional Reports
Exhibit 1 2011-2020 Transmission System Map and 2011-2020 Plan of Service Diagrams
Exhibit 2 Foothills Study Area
Exhibit 3 PRPA 10-year Load Forecast by Substation
Exhibit 4 PRPA Load and Resource Allocations
Exhibit 5 Study Procedure
Exhibit 6 Forced Outage Contingencies
Exhibit 7 Transient Stability Fault Descriptions
Exhibit 8 PRPA Sub-Area Reactive Power Assessment
Exhibit 9 Matrix Power Flow Study Results
Exhibit 10 Transient Stability Study Tabular Results
Exhibit 11 Transient Stability Study Plots
Page 2 of 881
I. Executive Summary
The Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Ten-Year Transmission Plan (2011-2020) is developed
to ensure the reliable delivery of electricity to its municipal owners in Estes Park, Fort Collins,
Longmont, and Loveland, Colorado and to other PRPA transmission customers. The planning
studies and reliability assessments for the near-term and longer-term planning horizons
demonstrate that the PRPA transmission system meets the performance requirements of the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) and of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) Standards TPL-001 through -004. PRPA transmission projects
planned for the next ten years are listed in the following Table 1 in order of in-service date, and
are illustrated on the 2011-2020 Transmission System Map and 2011-2020 Plan of Service
Diagrams in Exhibit 1.
Table 1: PRPA Planned Transmission Projects
In-Service Project Name Description Purpose
March
2011
Richard Lake 115kV
Substation
Interconnection
Addition of Richard Lake-Waverly 115kV
Line.
New delivery point to serve
growing load for TSGT.
April
2011
Loveland East 115kV
Substation Expansion
Add 115/12.47kV transformer T3 and
complete ring bus configuration.
New delivery point to serve
growing load.
May
2011
College Lake 230kV
Substation
Sectionalize Dixon-Laporte Tap 230kV Line
section with new substation and 0.5 mile of
double-circuit 230 kV line.
New delivery point to serve
growing load for PSCo.
July
2011
Fordham-Fort St.
Vrain 230kV Line
Approximately 21.4 miles of
underground/overhead sections. Expansion
of Fordham to 230/115kV Substation with
two 230/115kV transformers. Rebuild Del
Camino Tap-Meadow-LongmontNW-
Fordham 115kV Lines to double-circuit
230kV capability. Create LongmontNW-
Rogers-Terry 115kV 3-Terminal Line.
Upgrade Longs Peak-Fort St.Vrain 230kV
Line.
Necessary to meet WECC
and NERC performance
requirements. Provide a
second 230kV source to the
Longmont area.
December
2011
Table 1 (Continued)
In-Service Project Name Description Purpose
May
2012
Fordham 115kV
Substation Expansion
Add 115/12.47kV transformer T3. New delivery point to serve
growing load.
November
2013
Crossroads 115kV
Substation Expansion
Add 115/12.47kV transformer T2 and a Ring
Breaker.
New delivery point to serve
growing load.
November
2013
Rebuild
LongmontNW-
Harvard 115kV Line
Connect Harvard 115/12.47 kV transformers
T1 & T2 to different bays at LongmontNW
Substation. Create two 115kV underground
lines to cross Harvard Street.
Improve reliability to each
transformer. Meet PRPA
design criteria.
May
2013
Timberline 230/115kV
Substation Expansion
Add 230/115kV transformer T2. Improve system reliability in
the Fort Collins area.
May
2015
Boyd 230/115kV
Substation Expansion
Add 230/115kV transformer T2. Improve system reliability in
the Loveland area.
August
2015
Fort Collins Northeast
115/13.8kV Substation
Rebuild TSGT’s Timnath-Boxelder 115 kV
Line double-circuit. Create Richard Lake-
Boxelder/FortNE 115 kV Line. (Alternative
site near Cobb Lake 115 kV Substation.)
New delivery point to serve
growing load.
May
2016
Timberline 230/115kV
T1 Replacement
Replace 230/115kV transformer T1 with new
transformer.
Improve system reliability in
the Fort Collins area.
Existing transformer
installed 1976.
IV. Criteria
PRPA adheres to NERC Transmission Planning Standards and WECC Reliability Criteria, as
well as internal company criteria for planning studies. PRPA’s power flow simulation criteria:
Category A – System Normal
“N-0” System Performance Under Normal (No Contingency) Conditions (Category A)
NERC Standard TPL-001-0
Voltage: 0.95 to 1.05 per unit
Line Loading: 100 percent of continuous rating
Transformer Loading: 100% of highest 65 °C rating
Category B – Loss of generator, line, or transformer (Forced Outage)
“N-1” System Performance Following Loss of a Single Element (Category B)
NERC Standard TPL-002-0
Voltage: 0.92 to 1.07 per unit (PRPA)
0.90 to 1.10 per unit (all others)
Line Loading: 100 percent of continuous rating or emergency rating if
applicable
Transformer Loading: 100% of highest 65 °C rating
Category C – Loss of Bus or a Breaker Failure (Forced Outage)
“N-2 or More” System Performance Following Loss of Two or More Elements (Category C)
NERC Standard TPL-003-0
Voltage and Thermal: Allowable emergency limits will be considered as
determined by the affected parties and the available
emergency mitigation plan. Curtailment of firm transfers,
generation redispatch, and load shedding will be
considered if necessary.
Category D – Extreme Events (Forced Outages)
“N-2 or More” System Performance Following Extreme Events (Category D)
NERC Standard TPL-004-0
Voltage and Thermal: Evaluate for risks and consequences. If applicable, use
allowable emergency limits as determined by available
emergency mitigation plan. Curtailment of firm transfers,
generation redispatch, and load shedding will be
considered if necessary.
Transient stability criteria require that all generating machines remain in synchronism and all
power swings should be well damped. Also, transient voltage performance should meet the
following criteria:
• Following fault clearing for Category B contingencies, voltage may not dip more
than 25% of the pre-fault voltage at load buses, more than 30% at non-load
buses, or more than 20% for more than 20 cycles at load buses.
• Following fault clearing for Category C contingencies, voltage may not dip more
than 30% of the pre-fault voltage at any bus or more than 20% for more than 40
cycles at load buses.
Page 5 of 881
In addition, transient frequency performance should meet the following criteria:
• Following fault clearing for Category B contingencies, frequency should not dip
below 59.6 Hz for 6 cycles or more at a load bus.
• Following fault clearing for Category C contingencies, frequency should not dip
below 59.0 Hz for 6 cycles or more at a load bus.
Note that load buses include generating unit auxiliary loads.
NERC Standards require that the system remain stable and no Cascading occurs for Category
A, B, and C disturbances. Cascading is defined in the NERC Glossary as “The uncontrolled
successive loss of system elements triggered by an incident at any location. Cascading……
cannot be restrained from sequentially spreading beyond an area predetermined by studies.” A
potential triggering event for Cascading will be investigated upon one of the following results:
• A generator pulls out of synchronism in transient stability simulations. Loss of
synchronism occurs when a rotor angle swing is greater than 180 degrees. Rotor angle
swings greater than 180 degrees may also be the result of a generator becoming
disconnected from the BES; or
• A transmission element experiences thermal overload and its transmission relay
loadability is exceeded. (PRPA sets its transmission relays so they do not operate below
150% of the continuous rating of a circuit.)
V. Procedure
The studies were performed by PRPA System Planning using the Siemens-PTI PSS/E computer
simulation software versions 30.3.2 and 32.0.1. The transmission system models were
developed from models prepared by WECC. Previous planning studies by PRPA, the Foothills
Planning Group, and the Colorado Coordinated Planning Group (CCPG) have concluded the
heavy summer loading scenarios cover the most critical system conditions over the range of
forecasted system demand levels. Both heavy and light load scenarios were studied for each the
near-term and longer-term planning horizons to conduct a thorough assessment for all seasons.
Transmission topology and system demand were modified according to which season and year
are studied. Light load scenarios apply to Spring and Fall system conditions and heavy load
scenarios apply to Summer and Winter system conditions.
WECC Approved base cases were selected accordingly and load, generation, and transmission
topologies were updated as necessary with the most recent modeling representations of the
planned PRPA and Foothills systems. The study cases include both existing and planned
facilities, the expected system conditions, and the effects of any Bulk Electric System (BES)
equipment planned to be out-of-service during the critical demand levels.1
1 PRPA makes every effort to avoid removing a BES facility or equipment including protection systems from service for planned
maintenance or construction during the summer peak demand levels or during other high-risk system conditions when PRPA may
implement “No Touch” procedures. PRPA performs system studies when a BES facility is scheduled to be removed from service.
All normal
operating procedures and the effects of all control devices and protection systems are modeled.
Page 6 of 881
Reactive power resources are included in the model to ensure adequate reactive resources are
available to meet system performance.
The PRPA 10-year Load Forecast by Substation is listed in Exhibit 3. PRPA uses its “high” load
forecast for reliability margin to reflect uncertainties in projected BES conditions. The PRPA
Load and Resource Allocations for each base case studied are provided in Exhibit 4. These
exhibits represent the projected PRPA customer demands, firm transfers, and generation
dispatch modeled in the bases cases. All projected firm transfers are modeled according to the
data for loads, resources, obligations, and interchanges described in the “Associated Material”
document provided with each approved WECC base case. The generation dispatch in each base
case was modified to fully stress the PRPA system by setting Rawhide to its maximum output.
See Exhibit 5 for the study procedure where the modified generation dispatch values are
documented.
All Category A and B contingencies and certain Category C and D contingencies were
simulated using the Matrix routine written for contingency analysis on the PSS/E computer
simulation software.
The Category C and D multiple contingencies studied are those that would produce more
severe system results or impacts based on the Transmission Planners knowledge of the system
and engineering judgment. The rationale for selection considers facilities at significant
substations, large generation stations, and lines involved with large bulk transfer paths,
common rights-of-way, common structures, and shared circuit breakers.
Computer simulation software solution methods are as follows:
Pre-contingency Post-Contingency
Area Interchange Control Off Off
Phase-Shifter Lock Lock
TFMR LTC Adjust Adjust
Switched Shunt Reactor/Capacitor Adjust Lock
DC Taps Adjust Adjust
All busses and branches in Zones 706 and 754 of the WECC base cases are monitored for criteria
violations. A list of simulated forced outage contingencies is provided in Exhibit 6. The PRPA
transmission system is fully contained within Zones 706 and 754 and completely studied by the
list of contingencies.
Study results were reviewed and assessed for compliance with the WECC and NERC standards.
Planned upgrades, additions, or corrective actions needed to meet the performance
requirements are identified and included in the transmission plan for Category A, B, and C
contingency conditions which cause a criteria violation. System performance problems
associated with Category D extreme events are evaluated for possible actions to reduce the
likelihood or mitigate the consequences of the extreme event.
Page 7 of 881
VI. Results
Operating Horizon (2010)
Powerflow and transient stability studies were performed for the operating horizon. The
results and mitigating actions are documented in the Foothills Area 2010 Summer Assessment
report dated July 12, 2010, and in several planned outage study reports conducted throughout
2010 for the Foothills Area.
The summer season has system performance problems that may occur for contingencies during
higher load levels and lower CBT generation levels. The winter season has fewer problems than
the summer season for contingencies during higher load levels and lower CBT levels. The
difference between these summer and winter study results is typical for the PRPA transmission
system, the Foothills System, and the CCPG footprint, and also demonstrates the historical
pattern of why the summer season representation is the most critical system condition studied
over a range of forecasted system demand levels in these areas.
With the Rawhide Plant generating at its maximum capacity, mitigating actions are necessary to
reduce Rawhide generation for two NERC Category C contingencies and for one NERC
Category D extreme event involving two or more of the four 230kV transmission lines
connected to the generation facility. The findings are documented in the Rawhide Operating
Limitations Study Report dated July 12, 2010. These symptoms continue into the near and
longer term planning horizons. In past Ten-Year Transmission Plan study reports these
conditions were mitigated by the Laporte 230 kV Substation Expansion Project. However, for
financial reasons in 2010 this project was removed from PRPA’s ten-year capital budget in favor
of allowable mitigating actions.
Transient stability studies were performed for the operating horizon in a 2010 Heavy Summer
scenario and the results documented in the TOT 7 Transfer Path Transient Stability Study dated
November 8, 2010 (TOT 7 Study).
The TOT 7 Study showed the TOT 7 transfer path and the surrounding Foothills transmission
system remains stable with satisfactory damping characteristics. Also the transient voltage dip
and frequency results from the study show the system responds adequately to the simulated
disturbances.
Near-Term Planning Horizon (2011-2015)
PRPA has transmission plans to achieve the required system performance throughout the
planning horizon. In 2004 the 2004-2014 Ten-Year Transmission Plan included two significant
230 kV projects necessary to meet system performance requirements in the near-term planning
horizon. These two projects are the Fordham-Fort St.Vrain 230 kV Line in the Longmont area
originally expected to be in service by Spring 2007, and the Dixon-Horseshoe 230 kV Line in the
Fort Collins/Loveland area originally expected to be in service by Spring 2008. PRPA has been
(and still is) working diligently to complete these projects as soon as possible but has
experienced a number of delays. Reasons for the delay have been the County land use “1041
Regulation” processes, right-of-way acquisitions, negotiations for rebuilds of transmission
facilities owned by others, changes in line routing, modifications to transmission line design, a
Page 8 of 881
delay in the issuance of long-term bonds due to uncertain financial markets, and occasional
construction delays.
At this time the expected completion dates for the Fordham-Fort St.Vrain 230 kV Line and the
Dixon-Horseshoe 230 kV Line are July 2011 and May 2012 respectively. The schedule for
implementation of these and all other PRPA transmission projects is given in Table 1 at the
beginning of this report. The lead times for the Fordham-Fort St.Vrain 230 kV Line and the
Dixon-Horseshoe 230 kV Line projects are designed for completion to occur as soon as possible
by coordinating multiple contractors for overhead and underground line construction activities
to work around each other simultaneously on both projects, while at the same time trying to
avoid activities that require line outages during the summer months. Detailed transmission
construction schedules for these and other near-term projects and a Ten-Year Capital
Transmission Budget for all PRPA transmission projects were developed by PRPA System
Engineering.
Each year since 2004 PRPA has addressed the criteria violations with mitigation actions in its
annual Operating Assessments provided to the WECC Reliability Coordinator, the
Transmission Operators, and the Balancing Authorities in the area so all affected parties are
prepared to respond to system problems that might occur. In the meantime until these
transmission projects can be completed, PRPA will continue to perform annual operating
assessments and provide the results and mitigating actions to affected parties. The majority of
performance problems appearing on the PRPA system in the 2010 Summer and 2010-2011
Winter construction operating assessments are due to the delay of these two significant 230 kV
line projects. As project in-service dates change PRPA makes the associated changes to system
topologies in the WECC base case models.
Power flow and transient stability studies were performed for the near-term planning horizon
and the results are documented in this report for the 2015 Heavy Summer and the 2014 Light
Autumn scenarios. The same seasons were studied in the CCPG NERC/WECC Compliance
Report and Reactive Margin Analysis dated December 28, 2010 (CCPG Study). All but one of
the criteria violations are associated with the Rawhide Plant generating at its maximum
capacity and can be mitigated by a reduction of generation levels. There were no transient
stability criteria violations for the PRPA transmission system. (See the Transient Stability
Analysis section for details.)
Voltage stability studies were performed for the near-term planning horizon and the results
documented in the CCPG Study for the 2015 Heavy Summer and 2014 Light Autumn scenarios.
There were no criteria violations for the PRPA transmission system.
Power flow results of the near-term planning horizon studies for the PRPA transmission system
are summarized in the following Table 2. The primary reasons for the more favorable near-
term results, as compared to the 2010 Summer operating horizon results, are the additions of
the Fordham-Fort St.Vrain 230 kV Line and the Dixon-Horseshoe 230 kV Line.
Page 9 of 881
Table 2: Near-Term Planning Horizon (2011-2015)
Case Criteria Violations Mitigation Plan
2014 Light
Autumn2
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide-Ault & Rawhide-
Timberline 230kV lines overloads Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline
3-terminal 230kV line by 103% of 472MVA rating.
Reduce Rawhide Generation
to 640MW (net) in 15 minutes
from time of forced outage to
avoid conductor sag limit.
NERC Category D extreme event for loss of Ault-Timberline &
Rawhide-Timberline & Ault-Rawhide 230kV lines overloads
Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline 3-terminal 230kV line by 103% of
472MVA rating.
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide – Timberline &
Dixon – Rawhide – Timberline 3-terminal 230kV lines
(Timberline BKRFAIL 1186) overloads Ault – Rawhide 230kV
line by 123% of 378 MVA rating.
Evaluate the Ault-Rawhide
terminal equipment for rating
increase to 472 MVA
conductor sag limit. In the
meantime, reduce Rawhide
Generation to 560MW (net) in
6 minutes from time of forced
outage to avoid conductor
sag limit.
2015 Heavy
Summer3
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide-Ault & Rawhide-
Timberline 230kV lines overloads Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline
3-terminal 230kV line by 102% of 472MVA rating.
Reduce Rawhide Generation
to 640MW (net) in 15 minutes
from time of forced outage to
avoid conductor sag limit.
NERC Category D extreme event for loss of Ault-Timberline &
Rawhide-Timberline & Ault-Rawhide 230kV lines overloads
Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline 3-terminal 230kV line by 103% of
472MVA rating.
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide – Timberline &
Dixon – Rawhide – Timberline 3-terminal 230kV lines
(Timberline BKRFAIL 1186) overloads Ault – Rawhide 230kV
line by 116% of its 378 MVA rating and the Laporte
230/115kV Transformer by 115% of 184MVA rating.
Evaluate the Ault-Rawhide
terminal equipment for rating
increase to 472 MVA
conductor sag limit, allowing
more time for generation
reduction to unload the
transformer. In the
meantime, reduce Rawhide
Generation to 575MW (net) in
7 minutes from time of forced
outage to avoid conductor
sag limit.
NERC Category C forced outage of Longs Peak–County Line
& Slater-Longs Peak-Meadow 3-terminal 115kV line causes
Longer-Term Planning Horizon (2016-2020)
Power flow and transient stability studies were performed for the longer-term planning horizon
and the results documented in this report for the 2018 Light Autumn and the 2020 Heavy
Summer scenarios, and in the CCPG Study for the 2020 Heavy Summer scenario. All criteria
violations are associated with the Rawhide Plant generating at its maximum capacity and can
be mitigated by a reduction of generation levels. There were no transient stability criteria
violations for the PRPA transmission system. (See the Transient Stability Analysis section for
details.)
In the 2020 Heavy Summer scenario it was determined there was one criteria violation
associated with TSGT facilities. For a NERC Category B forced outage of Slater-Longs Peak-
Meadow 3-terminal 115kV line there is an overload on the Dacono-Erie 115kV line of 111% of
109MVA rating. After conferring with TSGT, this criteria violation can be mitigated by
adjusting or replacing metering equipment at the Erie Substation thus increasing the facility
rating of the Dacono-Erie 115kV line to 166MVA.
The Weld-Promontory 230 kV Project was removed from the study cases due to lack of support
for the project. A similar form of this project remains in the TSGT planning stages and PRPA
will monitor the progress of this 230 kV project through the Foothills Planning Group where
coordinated transmission planning occurs with three other interconnected transmission owners.
Voltage stability studies were performed for the longer-term planning horizon and the results
documented in the CCPG Study for the 2020 Heavy Summer scenario. There were no criteria
violations for the PRPA transmission system.
Results of the longer-term planning horizon studies for the PRPA transmission system are
summarized in the following Table 3 and indicate favorable system improvements from
planned transmission projects added to the system.
Page 11 of 881
Table 3: Longer-Term Planning Horizon (2016-2020)
Case Criteria Violations Mitigation Plan
2018 Light
Autumn4
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide-Ault & Rawhide-
Timberline 230kV lines overloads Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline
3-terminal 230kV line by 103% of 472MVA rating.
Reduce Rawhide Generation
to 640MW (net) in 15 minutes
from time of forced outage to
avoid conductor sag limit.
NERC Category D extreme event for loss of Ault-Timberline &
Rawhide-Timberline & Ault-Rawhide 230kV lines overloads
Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline 3-terminal 230kV line by 103% of
472MVA rating.
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide – Timberline &
Dixon – Rawhide – Timberline 3-terminal 230kV lines
(Timberline BKRFAIL 1186) overloads Ault – Rawhide 230kV
line by 123% of 378 MVA rating.
Evaluate the Ault-Rawhide
terminal equipment for rating
increase to 472 MVA
conductor sag limit. In the
meantime, reduce Rawhide
Generation to 560MW (net) in
6 minutes from time of forced
outage to avoid conductor
sag limit.
2020 Heavy
Summer5
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide-Ault & Rawhide-
Timberline 230kV lines overloads Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline
3-terminal 230kV line by 102% of 472MVA rating.
Reduce Rawhide Generation
to 640MW (net) in 15 minutes
from time of forced outage to
avoid conductor sag limit.
NERC Category D extreme event for loss of Ault-Timberline &
Rawhide-Timberline & Ault-Rawhide 230kV lines overloads
Dixon-Rawhide-Timberline 3-terminal 230kV line by 103% of
472MVA rating.
NERC Category C forced outage of Rawhide – Timberline &
Dixon – Rawhide – Timberline 3-terminal 230kV lines
(Timberline BKRFAIL 1186) overloads Ault – Rawhide 230kV
line by 116% of its 378 MVA rating and the Laporte
230/115kV Transformer by 119% of 184MVA rating.
Evaluate the Ault-Rawhide
terminal equipment for rating
increase to 472 MVA
conductor sag limit, allowing
more time for generation
reduction to unload the
transformer. In the
meantime, reduce Rawhide
Generation to 575MW (net) in
7 minutes from time of forced
outage to avoid conductor
sag limit.
4 Study case used was “ C:\ Study_Program_2010\ Projects\ Transplan\ 2018LA_PRPA\ 18LA_PRPA.sav” which was created from
the CCPG derived case which originated from the WECC 14LA1 approved case “ 14la1sa1p.sav” that was posted to
Transient Stability Analysis
The purpose of the Transient Stability analysis is to evaluate the stability performance of the
PRPA transmission system and of generators at the Rawhide Power Plant and surrounding
area. This analysis was performed for the near-term and longer-term planning horizons to
evaluate how the system responds to SLG and 3 faults with various clearing times and forced
outages. The rationale for the selection of contingencies and extreme events to be evaluated
considers facilities at significant substations and power plants, lines involved with large bulk
transfer paths, common rights-of-way, common structures, and shared circuit breakers to
satisfy all contingency conditions and types of faults defined in NERC Table 1 of the TPL
standards. A list and description of the disturbances run in the transient stability simulations
are provided in Exhibit 7.
There were no transient stability criteria violations for the PRPA transmission system which
remains stable with satisfactory damping characteristics for all NERC Category A, B, and C
events.
The following two NERC Category D extreme events resulted in Rawhide generator instability
for all cases studied:
1. Category D2 – a 3 fault at the Ault end of the Ault-Rawhide 230 kV line with
failure of a pilot protection system and operation of a backup Zone 2 relay with a
delayed clearing6
a) All 230kV transmission lines exiting the Rawhide plant have redundant pilot
relaying schemes and therefore will reduce the likelihood of this extreme
event from occurring.
time of 30 cycles. The Rawhide units pulled out of synchronism
for this extreme event. In order to evaluate these results as a potential triggering
event for cascading, a follow-up analysis was performed along with tripping all
Rawhide generators which pulled out of synchronism. The follow-up analysis
demonstrated a stable system with satisfactory damping characteristics and no
cascading. (The critical clearing time for Rawhide generation to remain stable for
this extreme event is 20 cycles for the 2020 Heavy Summer case.) Simulating the
same disturbance but with a 30-cycle SLG fault, which changes this event to a
Category C8, results in a stable system with satisfactory damping characteristics.
2. Category D4 – a 3 fault on the Rawhide 230 kV bus with a stuck breaker (BKR 2122)
and a Breaker Failure (BF) delayed clearing time of 18 cycles. BKR 2122 BF relaying
disconnects all Rawhide peaking Units A, B, C, D, and F from the 230 kV bus.
Rawhide Unit 1 pulled out of synchronism for this extreme event. In order to
evaluate these results as a potential triggering event for cascading, a follow-up
analysis was performed along with tripping Rawhide Unit 1 which pulled out of
synchronism. The follow-up analysis demonstrated a stable system with satisfactory
damping characteristics and no cascading. (The critical clearing time for Rawhide
Unit 1 to remain stable for this extreme event is 15 cycles for the 2020 Heavy
Summer case.) Simulating the same disturbance but with an 18-cycle SLG fault,
6 Delayed Clearing is defined in the NERC Glossary of Terms as “ Fault clearing consistent with correct operation of a breaker failure
protection system and its associated breakers, or of a backup protection system with an intentional time delay.”
Page 13 of 881
which changes this event to a Category C9, results in a stable system with
satisfactory damping characteristics.
a) Possible action to reduce the likelihood of the event – Evaluate reducing the
clearing times for both BF and Circuit Switcher Failure relaying at Rawhide.
Prior Outage Initial Conditions
The purpose of the Prior Outage Initial Conditions (POIC) analysis is to evaluate the strength of
the transmission system to withstand forced outage contingencies during the prior outage of a
facility susceptible to a long-term repair period that might span across a summer peak in the
planning horizon. Powerflow studies were performed and the results documented herein for
the 2020 Heavy Summer scenario to assess the impacts of a damaged underground
transmission cable, a damaged autotransformer, or a damaged generator for which longer
repair periods could occur in the PRPA transmission system.
Four 230 kV underground transmission cable circuits, one 345/230 kV transformer, nine
230/115 kV transformers, and Rawhide Unit 1 were studied for prior outage scenarios. The
same Category A, B, C and D contingencies simulated for the near-term and longer-term
planning horizon assessments were also simulated for this POIC assessment. There were no “N-
1-0” Category A problems. The system performance for “N-1-1” Category B contingencies had a
small number of criteria violations which could be mitigated by monitoring transformer alarms
or by shedding some load if necessary. The worst “N-1-2 or More” Category C problem was the
prior outage of a Fordham-Fort St.Vrain 230 kV Line underground cable section followed by the
forced double-circuit tower outage of the Longs Peak-County Line 115 kV Line and the Longs
Peak-Meadow-Del Camino 3-Terminal 115 kV Line which reduced the Longmont/Del
Camino/Brighton area voltages to 0.50 per unit supported only by the Beaver Creek-Erie 230
kV Line and the Estes-Longmont Northwest 115kV Line.
PRPA Sub-Area Reactive Power Assessment
The purpose of this reactive power assessment is to verify that PRPA will continue to satisfy the
requirements of its Reactive Power Supply Guidelines in the planning horizon. The PRPA Sub-
Area is a boundary metering system within the PSCo Balancing Authority Area necessary for
the operations and measurement of load and losses on a real-time basis in the PRPA system. A
PRPA Sub-Area reactive power assessment was performed and the results documented herein
for the 2020 Heavy Summer scenario. The results demonstrate PRPA has the capability to meet
the peak Sub-Area reactive power demand in the ten-year planning horizon with a margin for
dynamic reserve using its own reactive power supply facilities installed inside the Sub-Area
metered boundaries. The greatest reactive power demand occurs in the summer season.
During off-peak times the Sub-Area may be importing vars from elsewhere but internal reactive
power facilities are available if necessary to adjust the interchange within safe voltage operating
limits.
The following new PRPA reactive power supply facilities are included in the Ten-Year
Transmission Plan:
• 70 Mvar from two 35-Mvar 115 kV shunt capacitors at the Horseshoe 230/115 kV
Substation in 2012
• 90 Mvar of charging from underground cable on three 230 kV line projects in
Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins in 2011
Page 14 of 881
In the 2020 Heavy Summer scenario the PRPA Sub-Area is exporting 87 Mvar with all shunt
capacitors in-service and Rawhide generating a net plant 84 Mvar. See Exhibit 8 for the PRPA
Sub-Area reactive power assessment results.
Short-Circuit Analysis
The purpose of a short-circuit analysis in the planning horizon is to determine whether planned
facilities will cause the short-circuit rating of existing BES equipment to be exceeded. Short-
circuit studies were performed by PRPA System Engineering for the 2018 Heavy Summer
system topology and the results documented in a PRPA 2018 System Forecast Fault Current
Study memo dated December 4, 2009. All fault currents are within BES equipment ratings. The
planned system topology in the 2018 Heavy Summer scenario studied in 2009 is similar to the
2020 Heavy Summer planned system topology in 2010 for the Foothills Area.
Other Exhibits
See Exhibit 9 for all steady-state thermal and voltage Matrix study results for each planning
horizon assessment and for the POIC assessment. For all transient stability results7
reference
Exhibit 10 for a tabular summary and Exhibit 11 for plots of generator angles and rotor speeds,
bus voltages and bus frequencies for all simulated disturbances.
VII. Conclusions
The PRPA Ten-Year Transmission Plan (2011-2020) ensures a transmission system designed for
the reliable delivery of electricity to its municipal owners in Estes Park, Fort Collins, Longmont,
and Loveland, Colorado and to other PRPA transmission customers.
The PRPA transmission system is planned such that it will meet the NERC and WECC
performance requirements and can be operated to supply projected customer demands and
firm transfers at all demand levels over the range of forecasted system demands under the
conditions defined for Categories A, B, C, and D of the NERC Standards TPL-001 through -004.
The PRPA and Foothills transmission systems are steady-state thermal or steady-state voltage
limited systems (not stability limited) in the operating horizon and throughout the ten-year
planning horizon.
7 Transient Stability results are provided in both tables and graphical plots. Stability results for machines which are disconnected
from the transmission system may appear similar to those of a machine that pulls out of synchronism and should be disregarded.
Page 15 of 881
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
DATE: June 28, 2011
STAFF: Marty Heffernan
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Electric Assisted Bicycles (Ebikes) on the City Trails.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Code currently prohibits electric assisted bikes (ebikes) on City trails. Members of Council
have expressed interest in considering allowing ebikes on City paved trails. Staff conducted an
extensive outreach process with six City boards/commissions, conducted a survey of citizen
opinions, and gathered information from a number of other cities. Recently, staff was asked to
include unpaved trails in the discussion as well as Segways, longboards and similar electric devices.
Boards and commissions have carefully reviewed the issues, some at multiple meetings. Their
recommendations are varied, with some not supporting ebikes on trails at this time, some
recommending a trial period and one board supporting ebikes on paved trails. The citizen input (202
responses) was equally varied with 49% opposed to ebikes on paved trails and 47% in favor.
Comments from those who do not favor ebikes on paved trails noted concerns regarding safety,
speed, compatibility with other trail users and a desire to keep trail use non-motorized. Comments
from respondents who favor ebikes on paved trails noted ebikes are not significantly different from
non-motorized bikes, are useful for commuting, and do not create safety problems if used
responsibly.
The results of the survey of other cities were also mixed. Twelve out of the twenty communities
surveyed do not allow ebikes on their trails and the prohibition has generally not been controversial.
However, some platinum bike cities (Davis, Portland, Seattle) do allow ebikes on their trails.
Information is provided on other types of electric vehicles. If Council wishes to allow ebikes on
trails, but exclude other types of electric vehicles and devices, the current definition of “electrical
assisted bicycle” in the City Code would need to be amended to add a weight limit and/or a size
limit on the width of the frame. Additionally, the City’s ability to enforce regulations on the use of
City trails is quite limited.
Allowing ebikes on unpaved trails presents unique issues, primarily concerning use on narrow,
single-track trails and related safety and trail user conflicts, trail damage and erosion, and impacts
on wildlife and the environment.
The City Manager is recommending Council consideration of a trial period to allow ebikes on City
paved trails for up to three years. During that time, staff will gather information on safety issues,
user conflicts, public opinion and related issues. Information will be gathered by Rangers through
their observations and contact with trail users, through citizen reporting and by follow-up surveys.
Council would assess the situation at the end of the trial period and decide the best course of action.
June 28, 2011 Page 2
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council wish to consider an amendment to the City Code to allow ebikes on the City’s
paved trail system?
2. Does Council wish to consider an amendment to the City Code to allow ebikes on the City’s
unpaved trails?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Introduction
Councilmembers have expressed interest in considering allowing ebikes on City paved trails. In
response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to investigate the relevant issues, gain
input from associated boards and commissions, conduct a public opinion survey, and find out how
other cities are managing ebikes on their trails. More recently, Councilmembers asked to include
non-paved trails and other electric devices, like Segways, in the discussion. The Ebike Team is
comprised of representatives from Transportation, Police Services, Natural Areas, the Bicycle
Coordinator, Park Planning, Culture, Parks, Recreation and Environment (CPRE), Communications
and Public Involvement, and the City Attorney’s Office.
Current Regulations
The City Code, at § 23-203 (a) (1) and § 23-193 (d) (18), prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle
or other motorized means of conveyance on City trails. Electrical assisted bicycles are a “motorized
means of conveyance” and consequently are prohibited on City paved and unpaved trails. The Code
allows people with mobility impairments to use a motorized wheelchair or similar assistive device
on trails.
Recent changes to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) allow individuals with mobility
disabilities to use ebikes (and other power-driven mobility devices) on City trails and in other public
places. The ADA regulations supersede the City Code. Consequently, ebikes are allowed on City
trails when operated by people with mobility disabilities. The City is entitled to regulate the use of
these mobility devices to protect public safety and prevent damage to public property and the
environment. City administrative regulations of mobility devices to protect public safety, property
and the environment have been adopted.
The City Traffic Code (§ 2002 (11)) defines an “electrical assisted bicycle” as a vehicle having two
tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, with an electric
motor not exceeding 750 watts of power and a top speed of 20 mph. The Traffic Code (§ 1412 (15))
states that a rider of an electrical assisted bicycle shall not use the electrical motor on a bike or
pedestrian path.
State law also defines electrical assisted bicycles (C.R.S. § 42-1-102 (28.5)), using the same
definition as the City Code. State law (C.R.S. § 42-4-1412 (14)) prohibits the rider of an electrical
June 28, 2011 Page 3
assisted bicycle from using the electrical motor while on a bike or pedestrian path unless allowed
by the local jurisdiction.
Federal law (23 U.S.C. § 217 (h)) prohibits motorized vehicles on non-motorized trails and
pedestrian walkways constructed with Federal transportation funds but authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to permit electric bicycles where appropriate. The Federal Consumer Products
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. § 2051) also defines and regulates electric bicycles but only in the context of
product safety; it does not regulate their operation.
Board and Commission Outreach
City staff presented the question of allowing ebikes on paved trails to the following boards and
commissions:
Air Quality Board
Commission on Disability
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation Board
Senior Advisory Board
Transportation Board (including the Bicycle Advisory Subcommittee)
The boards discussed the question in depth and were asked to provide their recommendations for
Council consideration. Memos or minutes containing the board recommendations are included
(Attachment 1). Board members were provided an opportunity to test ride ebikes at City Park on
March 26 and at the May Land Conservation and Stewardship Board meeting. The following is a
summary of the recommendations:
Air Quality Advisory Board: Given the uncertainty and concerns on how e-bikes will/will not
work on trails, the AQAB recommends allowing e-bikes on the Spring Creek and Mason Corridor
trails for a 1-year trial period following the establishment of a comprehensive operational plan, at
which time Council should re-consider the matter.
Commission on Disability: Discussed the issue at its meeting on May 26th and June 23rd, and will
provide its recommendation prior to the Council work session.
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board: Does not support allowing ebikes on paved trails
at this time. The Board would like more information on how the public views the issue and a
comprehensive analysis of the impacts. The Board noted people with mobility disabilities are
already allowed to use ebikes on the trails and ebikes are also allowed in street bike lanes.
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Recommends allowing ebikes on paved trails for a trial
period of up to 3 years. The Board suggests staff monitor conflicts, safety issues, and impacts to
natural areas and wildlife.
Parks and Recreation Board: Recommends allowing ebikes on paved trails for a 3 year trial
period. The Board suggests staff determine if ebikes should be limited to certain trail segments or
June 28, 2011 Page 4
allowed on the entire paved trail system during the trial period and suggests staff monitor conflicts,
safety issues, and public opinion during the trial period.
Senior Advisory Board: Does not support allowing ebikes on paved trails. The Board did not see
any compelling reason to allow ebikes on trails and expressed concern about safety and conflicts
with other trail users.
Transportation Board: In November 2010, the Bicycle Advisory Committee (a subcommittee of
the Transportation Board) recommended that ebikes be allowed on City multi-use trails. The
Transportation Board adopted the recommendation of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, noting
ebikes are an alternative method of transportation.
Citizen Survey
Staff developed a survey to find out what interested citizens thought about allowing ebikes on paved
trails. The survey (Attachment 2) explained that ebikes are currently not allowed on City paved
trails (except for people with mobility disabilities), noted a few prominent issues and asked if ebikes
should be allowed on paved trails.
The survey was posted on the City’s web page (Your Voice) and on the City’s Facebook page.
There were 202 total comments (Attachment 3) including 3 letters to the Coloradoan and 8 emails
to City staff. 49% were not in favor of allowing ebikes on paved trails and 47% were in favor of
allowing them. The remaining 4% did not take a position.
Comments from respondents who do not favor ebikes on paved trails noted concerns regarding
safety, speed, compatibility with other trail users and a desire to keep trail use non-motorized.
Comments from respondents who favor ebikes on paved trails noted ebikes are not significantly
different from non-motorized bikes, are useful for commuting, and do not create safety problems
if used responsibly.
Survey of Other Cities
Staff contacted several other communities to find out if they allow or prohibit ebikes on their trails
and to discover problems or issues they have experienced and how they have tried to address them.
Staff focused on other Front Range communities, other bike friendly cities and communities where
staff had contacts. A summary of survey results is included (Attachment 4). Unfortunately, the
community representatives contacted were largely unaware of their ebike regulations as they pertain
to use on trails. It was generally not an issue with which they were dealing.
As seen from the survey summary, 12 out of the 20 communities surveyed do not allow ebikes on
their trails and the prohibition has generally not been controversial. However, some platinum bike
cities (Davis, Portland, Seattle) do allow ebikes on their trails. The situation is further complicated
by state laws. Like Colorado, some states (Arizona, California, Massachusetts) prohibit ebikes from
recreational trails unless allowed by the local jurisdiction. Other states (Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
Washington) allow ebikes on recreational trails unless prohibited by the local jurisdiction.
June 28, 2011 Page 5
Other Types of Electric Vehicles
There are many types of electric vehicles, including Segways, longboards, mopeds, motorcycles and
scooters. There are also ebikes that are capable of going 50 miles per hour (Attachment 5). The
outreach staff conducted with citizens and City boards was limited to electric assisted bicycles with
operable pedals and an electric motor not exceeding 750 watts and a top speed of 20 mph.
Other types of electric vehicles could be allowed on trails but they may present unique safety issues
or additional conflicts with other trail users. Segways, mopeds, motorcycles and scooters are
generally larger, wider and heavier than ebikes. Ebikes typically weigh in the 50 to 60 pound range.
Segways weigh in the 100 to 120 pound range with mopeds ranging from 100 pounds to over 300
pounds. Segways generally have a top speed of less than 20 mph but mopeds and electric
motorcycles can have top speeds of well over 50 mph. Some electric skateboards, or longboards can
go from 0 to 20 mph in 4 seconds. A large skateboard traveling at 20 mph or more on City trails
presents unique safety issues.
Current Definition of E-bikes
The City Traffic Code (§ 2002 (11)) defines an “electrical assisted bicycle” as a vehicle having two
tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward wheel, fully operable pedals, with an electric
motor not exceeding 750 watts of power and a top speed of 20 mph. This definition may not be
adequate to limit ebikes to bicycles with electric motors. There are mopeds that fall within this
definition.
If Council wishes to consider allowing ebikes on paved trails, but does not wish to allow mopeds,
the definition of electrical assisted bicycle would need to be amended. Adding a weight limit of 75
pounds would exclude most mopeds. Limiting the width of the frame to 4 inches or less would also
create an effective exclusion.
Enforcement
The City’s current ability to enforce regulations on the use of City trails is quite limited. There are
7 Natural Area rangers who patrol over 33,000 acres and 103 miles of unpaved trails, from dawn
to dusk 7 days a week. The rangers also patrol the 30 mile paved trail system. Police Services does
not have the resources to patrol the trail system given the demand for higher priority calls.
Consequently, the City’s current ability to effectively enforce any regulations that may be adopted
regarding type, speed, or operation of ebikes or other electric vehicles is very modest.
Unpaved Trails
The City has 103 miles of unpaved trails in City natural areas. The City Code prohibits ebikes on
these trails. Allowing ebikes on unpaved trails that are open to bicycles would implicate a unique
set of issues. The unpaved trails are frequently narrow singletrack. The weight of ebikes (50 to 60
pounds) coupled with their ability to accelerate rapidly could exacerbate trail erosion problems. The
speed of ebikes on narrow, unpaved trails could also create safety issues with other trail users,
especially equestrians. Ebikes may also have unique impacts on the natural environment and
wildlife. Finally, ebikes would introduce a motorized vehicle into natural areas that are provided,
in part, to provide citizens with places to find respite from the mechanized world.
June 28, 2011 Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager is recommending Council consideration of a trial period to allow ebikes on City
paved trails for up to three years. During that time staff will gather information on safety issues,
user conflicts, public opinion and related issues. Information will be gathered by Rangers through
their observations and contact with trail users, through citizen reporting and by follow-up surveys.
Council would assess the situation at the end of the trial period and decide the best course of action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Board and Commission recommendations
2. Citizen Survey
3. Comments from Survey
4. Survey of other Cities
5. Other types of electric vehicles
6. Powerpoint presentation
Electric Assist Bicycle Board and Committee
Discussion and Recommendation Summary Index
Bicycle Advisory Committee
November 8, 2010 minutes attached on pages 1 through 7
Commission motion on page 6-7
Commission memo to Transportation Board on page 8
Transportation Board
November 17, 2010 minutes attached on pages 9 and 10
June15, 2011 Board minutes (draft) attached on pages 11 through 15
Board recommendation on page 14
Parks and Recreation Board
May 25, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 16 through 19
Board recommendation on page 19
Senior Advisory Board
May 11, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 20 and 21
Board recommendation on page 21
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
February 9, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 22 through 25
May 11, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 26 through 30
Board recommendation on page 30
Board memo to Council on pages 31 through 33
Natural Resources Advisory Board
March 16, 2011 Board minutes attached on pages 34 through 37
June 15, 2011 Board minutes not available
Board draft recommendation on page 38
Air Quality Advisory Board
March 21, 2011 meeting minutes attached on pages 39 through 41
Recommendation to be made at their June 20th meeting
Commission on Disability
May, 26, 2011 Board minutes not available
Recommendation to be made at their June 23rd meeting
Attachment 1
1
FINAL MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 8, 2010
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970-310-5238
Vice Chair: Cathy Mathis 970-217-9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970-224-6140
Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970-416-2411
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
UniverCity Connections: Rick Reider
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Fort Collins Bicycle Co-Op: Doug Cutter
Parks and Recreation Board: Dawn Theis
Air Quality Board: Greg McMaster
Poudre School District: John Holcombe
Bike Fort Collins: Jeff Morrell
AT LARGE MEMBERS PRESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
At Large: Kim Sharpe
ABSENT
Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona
Colorado State University: David Hansen
At Large: Cathy Mathis
Land Conservation & Steward Board: Paul Mills
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Clint Skutchan
Senior Advisory Board: Vacant
Transportation Board: Vacant
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Citizen: Michael Craft
Citizen: Michael Eade
Citizen: Elana Hurwitz
Citizen: Josh Kerson
Citizen: Tommy Klender
Citizen: Leroy Cynkar
Citizen: Sylvia Cranmer
Citizen: Chad Moyer
2
City of Fort Collins: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director
City of Fort Collins: Gail Neben, Transportation Planning Administrative Assistant
City of Fort Collins: Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner
Call to order
Meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM.
Agenda review:
Chair Rick Price reviewed the agenda. Members and guests viewed a video on the
prepared for the Oregon Legislature on the “Idaho Stop Law” for bicyclists: Bicycles,
Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop by Spencer Boomhower (http://vimeo.com/4140910)
Approval of minutes:
Morrell: One visitor was not listed on last minutes.
Motion to approve the October 2010 Meeting Minutes as amended was made by
Kim Sharpe.
Motion was seconded by Dan Gould.
Minutes were approved.
Public Comments:
Michael Craft, New Belgium Tour de Fat Coordinator: I will have more of a recap
next month. Right now we are collecting short films. We raised about $300,000 this year.
I will also present the recap to the brewery. The next Tour de Fat is scheduled on Labor
Day weekend for Fort Collins in 2011. I am happy to share this information as it gets
closer.
Josh Kerson: I am speaking from the electric bicycle industry. I have been in the electric
assist bike industry 10 years. Our opinion is that the majority of electric assist bike users
are the crowd that is about to retire. They are using this assistive technology to climb hills
and go a little further faster. I am asking the City to please reflect the Federal and the
State point of view in that the DOT has determined these to be bicycles, not motorized
vehicles. They have put restrictions on speed and strength and allow them on trails. It is
up to local government to make decisions on whether to allow these on paths. We’re
looking for access to the multi-use paths with assisted bicycles.
Reider: Did you say that these bikes are excluded from the non-motorized rulings on
Federally funded rail trails and multiuse paths.
Kerson: Yes sir, they are not included if the path says “no motorized vehicles” on the
path. They should be permitted. It is a bicycle, not a motorized vehicle.
Morrell: What are the requirements?
Kerson: They are 750 watt and 1 hp that propels with a 170 pound rider up to 20 mph. If
it passes that it is governed by national safety products bike law not the DOT.
Action items:
Electric Bike Use (part 2) Update - David Kemp
3
Kemp: The staff has been researching with the City’s Police Services, Parks, and Natural
Resources departments and the Colorado Department of Transportation. All of the
stakeholders are concerned about electric assist bikes due to safety concerns. A regular
bike can go up to 20-25 MPH. However, this speed cannot be maintained like an electric
assist bike could. The City Ordinance states the use of electric assist bikes on bike paths
is not acceptable, and the Parks Department has reviewed the ordinances pertaining to
electric assist bikes. The Fort Collins Municipal Code reads as follows: (read code)
PLEASE INSERT THE CODE THAT WAS READ Sec. 23-203. . Parks has allowed
electric assist bikes for those with temporary or permanent mobility impairment on all
bike trails. They are recognizing electric assist bikes are allowed as assistance for the
special needs group. It does not apply to a rider trying to keep up as usual. This pertains
to impairment that prohibits them to use a regular bike. The process for enforcement is
under review and refinement to help those who have impairments.
Price: We are talking about it tonight because the Transportation Board Chair, Gary
Thomas, and others have been asked by Council for an opinion and they are looking for
public input.
Leroy Cynkar: As to the park and recreation law, it does not state the electric assist bike
is not be classed as motorized. For local law to not allow it is not correct. This
interpretation is not correct.
Elana Hurwitz: As to stopping on time, most electric assist bikes are equipped with
brakes that are stronger than regular bikes.
Michael Eade: I have an invisible impairment. Before three weeks of riding I was kicked
off of the path. As far as enforcement, the question is bigger than electric assist bikes for
disabled people. It would probably also apply for elderly. I appreciate that they are
working on this. I would intend to continue to attend these meetings. Just to clarify,
legally I can ride as a disabled person, but there is no way to differentiate me from non-
disabled riders.
Price: Do we have the equivalent of a handicapped parking permit or sticker to give to
Michael to prove to the rangers that he has a mobility impairment?
Kemp: They are working on this process. There is more to come.
Holcombe: Is there a speed limit on trails?
Kemp: No
Kerson: It is a proportional power system. A full throttle you can average 20 mph. It is a
judgment call for safety.
Sharpe: Is that the maximum allowed – 20 mph?
Kerson: Yes. At 1 HP and 20 mph we are outside the mo-ped classification with a lower
amount of assist deemed safe on bike paths.
Price: Can I buy an electric assist bike that exceeds this limit.
Kerson: We don’t sell higher powered bikes.
Price: There are tinkerers or do-it-yourselfers making these. Do you see those on the
road?
Kerson: They are mostly used off-road to climb hills. Then it levels out on motor alone.
Price: So can I buy one of these or convert one myself?
4
Kerson: Yes.
Price: Can a ranger on the trail distinguish between these? Is this an enforceable rule?
Kerson: All manufacturers are running on these guidelines. We don’t see any companies
putting them out. Some tinkerers will have them.
Theis: They can be ridden on the bike lanes?
Kerson: Yes
Theis: As for the people, who supported it, is it a use for transport, or for enjoyment?
Cynkar: I use it every day and I ride to work. My wife rides a lot. We are using bike
lanes and bike paths occasionally for recreation at a lower speed. A lot are using them for
commuting on bike paths. A lot are for recreation. There are many who use it as more
than an assist. It is green transportation. In other parts of world there are many electric
assist bikes used. They have only recently started in the U.S. It is a great form of
transportation.
McMaster: Most clients are not impaired?
Kerson: About 80% are getting into them as low level exercise and recreation. In about
three to four weeks it becomes a mode of transportation.
Price: The outcome tonight I hope is a recommendation to the Transportation Board.
Eade: I would like to point out that a key point to emphasize is the law already classifies
these machines as bikes. We need to get through the perception problem. Then set the
city ordinance.
Kemp: Currently the local and state codes refer to electric assist bikes as motorized
vehicles. The City would not be passing a law to say they are not allowed. The Federal
code is a description only. States have individual rulings.
Price: I believe the statute uses the Federal definition in the state.
Kemp: (read the state statute 1412 )
Kerson: The first sentence is “Every person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle
upon a roadway where a bicycle or electrical shall be granted all of the rights and shall be
subject to all the duties and penalties applicable except for those provisions of this traffic
code that by their very nature . . . .”
Price: I think that is the case. Question, do we want electric assist vehicles on our trails?
Gould: The basic question is what kind of a conflict would there be. There would be
conflict if they don’t follow the rules. The electric assist bike is equal to a regular bike as
far as rules? I don’t see a difference between a regular bike and an electric assisted bike.
Speed is the problem with irresponsible riders.
Theis: Are there any ideas on how many we are talking about?
Kerson: I have 50 signatures to join the electric bike club.
Sharpe: There are just as many irresponsible bikers that don’t have electric assist and
they are a hazard. The more responsible riders will be riding these.
Morrell: Is there any reason we would not recommend this?
Price: I will support electric bikes on the trail because I see a picture of the future in
Europe where people who were going to market on bikes before are now going to them in
large numbers using electric bikes. E-bike users on the trails will all have lights – in some
cases day and night.
Kerson: Electric bike companies are offering a tail light to be seen when you hit the
brakes.
Price: How much do they weigh?
5
Kerson: 35-55 lbs.
Moyer: I think trails are made of concrete and they have the same wear and tear with a
regular bike and electric assist bikes. It is an efficient use of transportation.
Price: I need a motion.
Theis: Is there a noise factor?
Kerson: No more than any others.
Price: Motion?
Cutter: The comment that staff response is “it is a safety issue”. If we support and don’t
address safety there is no validity to our recommendation.
Kemp: It is about safety for everyone. This is a risk management approach that City staff
is taking.
Price: We are not making a final decision. Council will make the final decision.
Gould: There are parameters for a definition. There needs to be recognition of what
defines a legal vehicle.
Cynkar: I have a suggestion: You can get a 1000 and 1500 Watt bike. Is there some way
to have a license or sticker to say it passes as 750 Watt or below?
Holcombe: Speed is the issue on the trails. Is there something to have a speed limit on
the trails?
Kemp: Transportation Planning staff is the liaison between the BAC and other City
departments. At this point Parks feels bike trails do not need speed limits because they
are used for recreation. They are not designed for speeds.
Bracke: It is helpful to have this dialog. It is an issue that is coming forward with public
meetings on Plan Fort Collins/Transportation Master Plan. There are a lot of questions.
We have made a recommendation that is would be an important topic to explore. Our
current trail designs are primarily suited for recreation, but more riders are using them for
transportation. We are looking at the bigger picture. There could be helpful
recommendations from the BAC. Some suggestions we might be able to do in the near
future, and others that are more complex might need to be done later in the future.
Price: This might not be the only time we address this.
McMaster: I appreciate that the trails are not designed for high speeds. I take
considerable issue with the philosophy that they are recreation only. They are both for
recreation and transportation.
Price: I agree 100% with Greg. We also haven’t banked our roads for higher speeds. I
would not expect that on the trails. More and more people use the trails for
transportation. We should convey this to the Parks Dept. so they don’t think that they are
making trails just for recreation.
McMaster: Reality is that if they are going fast I don’t like it whether it is electric assist
or regular bikes. I worry about an electric assist bike zipping by at 20-25 MPH. That is
my big concern, especially for pedestrians, children and dogs. That is a big concern
about assisted bicycles on trails.
Holcombe: We can allow them to increase in numbers but as they grow, if there is abuse
maybe we should look at speed limits and signage down the road.
Price: Shall we say “we encourage electric assist bikes, but we foresee more abuse and
conflicts as they grow.”
Sharpe: Please use electric assisted trailers.
6
Holcombe: We encourage use on trails and bike paths with the understanding of the
Federal standards but we need to watch for conflicts and speed.
Reider: We need to be specific and approve the use of electric assist bikes on trails and
paths and an understanding of what constitutes an E-way.
We should use the definition of electric assist bikes.
Theis: Please include something about safety and speed.
Reider: I make a motion to approve the use of electric assist bikes as defined by state law
on trails and paths.
Motion seconded by Doug Cutter.
Discussion:
The motion was amended by Jeff Morrell to include safety.
McMaster: Speed and safety is a big concern and I would say we should address this.
Reider: How would we word it?
McMaster: In pursuing this we recognize there could be future concerns with speed and
safety that may need to be addressed in the future.
Price: Mr. Reider, would you like to propose a friendly amendment or would you accept
a friendly amendment?
Reider: We all agree that safety is a concern. How can we address this to council?
McMaster: We should make reference to issues of speed and safety for all trail users
“that may need to be addressed.”
Sharpe: Can we be sure to include electric assist trailers?
Price: Can we adopt the amendment by consent?
Discussion: Yes, amendment was adopted by consent.
Gould: Let’s include language that indicates that we don’t see any inherent conflict with
e-bikes except that conflicts may increase as general use increases.
McMaster: I think 20 mph e-bikes could be a problem.
Theis: Some people will be concerned with more users capable of going 20 mph. The
Parks and Rec board will have some concerns on this.
Cynkar: I can go 20 mph if I wish but it drains my battery. I’m not going to do that
often.
Price: Kim, you are testing an electric assisted trailer, correct?
Sharpe: Yes, and I find that I’m often passed on the trail. I don’t use the assist on the
trails but I use it in crossing intersections, or up hills. But I have 40 lbs. I’m pulling.
Price: Do you foresee issues with this on the trail?
Sharpe: No.
Neben: Read the following motion as amended:
“The Bicycle Advisory Committee recommends to the Transportation
Board that City Council approve the use of electric bicycles and bicycles
using electric assists, including electric assists on trailers, for use on multi-
use trails in Fort Collins. The BAC further suggests the definition of a bicycle
and /or an e-bicycle conform to the definitions and standards adopted
by the State of Colorado and federal governments. Users of such bicycles
7
or e-bicycles should be asked to conform to current trail rules, safety
norms and etiquette set forth for all bicyclists. The Bicycle Advisory
Committee recognizes there might be future concerns with speed and
safety that might need to be addressed in the future.”
Motion Passed unanimously.
MPO Call for Projects Update – Kathleen Bracke
I sent a short cover letter and a copy of the list of projects that the City has submitted for
the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) current call for
projects for year 2012- 2015. The list you have includes all of the transportation projects.
There is a max limit of projects (up to $16,000,000) that each community can submit. If
you would like to see the individual applications for the full list of projects, let me know
and I can provide them. The project includes applications for FC Bikes 2012-15 as well
as several bicycle related projects.
Wempe: There is a Grade Separated Crossing project at Horsetooth and Mason trail
north/south underpass under Horsetooth. It is consistent with the Mason Corridor plan.
The Poudre River Trail Extension project is a partnership with the City’s Transportation
and Parks departments, and Timnath. This is an important link in the regional trail
system. The other project is the first phase of implementation for the Jefferson Street
Project and it is still in the analysis stage. We had to submit it now to be in the queue for
2012-15 funding cycle. The call for projects is a four year call which is different from the
usual two year call. The first round submittals were due November 5, and then they will
be reviewed by MPO staff sent back to us for revisions. We will submit the final
applications on December 10. All the communities in Front Range are submitting
projects as well.
Price: I want to talk about infrastructure separately.
McMaster: I am confused on the $16,000,000 per community.
Bracke: All of our requests together cannot exceed $16,000,000.
Price: If we want to recommend or suggest we can, or we can go ahead on the agenda.
Cutter: It seems Drake would be a higher priority.
Wempe: Drake Road is planned to be a vehicle grade-separated underpass. The trail,
BNSF railroad tracks, and Mason Bus Rapid Transit would continue at grade. There is
no funding for Drake just now. Horsetooth is part of the Mason project and an underpass
is do-able because of safety. The concern has been heard.
Bracke: For clarification, the at-grade bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Prospect is funded
as part of the Mason Bus Rapid Transit and trail project, and it is currently going through
the approval process with the railroad.
Cutter: One of the stats is 3000 bike per day. I question that number at that location.
Where was it collected?
Wempe: The Mason Corridor plan determined the projected 20 year forecast daily use a
few years ago. It is based on traffic projections.
Theis: I have a question on the Poudre River trails extension. Would it connect to
Timnath? Are they also requesting funding?
Wempe: Yes, the trail will connect to Timnath. No, Timnath is not requesting additional
funding. The Timnath portion of the trail is funded by sales tax revenue.
MEETING MINUTES
of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
November 17, 2010
6:30 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Gary Thomas 482.7125
Vice Chair: Ed Robert 224.4864
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Gary Thomas Karen Cumbo, Interim PDT Director, 221.6287
Shane Miller Mark Jackson, PDT Budget, Policy & Communications Manager,
Scott VanTatenhove Board Liaison, 416.2029
Ed Robert Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Olga Duvall Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Manager, 221.6140
Sara Frazier Matt Wempe, Transportation Planner, 416.2040
Sid Simonson Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer, 221.6340
Garry Steen
Council Member Ben Manvel
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
John Lund Pat Jordan, Citizen, 226.1887
Aaron Fodge, NFRMPO
Josh Kerson, Citizen, 970.416.6803
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Thomas called the meeting to order with a quorum at 6:03pm.
2. AGENDA REVIEW
The Agenda was approved as written.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Pat Jordan: Volunteers of America depend upon Dial-A-Ride Service for their Foster Grandparents.
Also, Dial-A-Ride didn’t pick me up until 9:45pm last month. They claim I wasn’t out there at 8:30pm.
The driver was parked in the Justice Center lot.
Josh Kerson: Representing the electric bike industry as a builder of electric bikes. He wants the Board to
consider bringing electric bikes to the agenda to change the ordinance to allow electric bikes on bike
paths. By definition, electric bikes are not to exceed 750 watts, 20 mph on motor alone. All electric bikes
today follow those guidelines. Wants them considered to be bicycles, not motor vehicles and have the
City be in line with Federal and State rulings allowing them on multi-use trails. Most users are in the
retired age range and it is considered an assistive technology. Our current code allows them if the user has
a temporary or permanent impairment, which could be an invisible disability such as a heart condition,
breathing problem, etc.
Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2
November 17, 2010
Miller: Have you done research on safety issues with electric bikes?
Kerson: We haven’t found any statistics that say they cause a challenge on rail/trails.
Simonson: These are allowed on trails at a State and Federal level?
Kerson: Yes. Ordinances are in the handout he presented.
4. MINUTES REVIEW
Robert moved that the October 6 minutes be approved as written. Seconded by VanTatenhove. The
minutes were approved unanimously.
Frazier moved that the October 20 minutes be approved as written. Seconded by Steen. The minutes were
approved unanimously.
5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT – Council Member Manvel. Another alley opening tonight! Kathleen
and I were at the I-25 EIS last month and they are on track for the next 6 months. Spending a lot of time
talking to the MPO about emissions. I’m here tonight to hear what you think about Transportation
funding the City. The budget discussion last night was non-confrontational as we are having additional
meetings in December for the ROF money.
Robert: Can we make a recommendation on the North I-25 EIS?
Bracke: We can come give an update.
6. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BAC) – Rick Price was unable to attend.
We need to appoint a new liaison to the BAC. VanTatenhove will be primary. Miller will be the alternate.
The BAC supports the e-bike issue. We’ve requested information on the issue. Transportation Planning
will aim to provide that at the January meeting. Price submitted a letter to Council for the Board to send
forward.
Miller: What lead time will we have for preparing a recommendation and going to Council?
Thomas: Once we get a presentation we can move forward quickly.
Jackson: If there is alignment, we could bring it forward to Council in February.
Manvel: We also have other vehicles (long boards, wheelchairs) to consider.
Steen: Is there a requirement for electric bicycle accident reporting? Is there data available?
Jackson: It has historically been very difficult to document bicycle accidents. The Traffic Operations
Department and Police Department are doing a better job of recording data.
Wempe: DK also has a “close call” record.
Miller: I’d like to point out that when you record “West Nile Virus” you don’t record every mosquito
bite. Perhaps we only record injury accidents. It is the injury we are concerned about.
Thomas: I think it is the collision aspect we need to look at.
7. ACTION ITEMS
A. North Front Range MPO – Aaron Fodge
Fodge: Thank you for volunteering as Board Members. I appreciate what you do. I did an in-
depth presentation in August. Tonight I will do a brief update and ask for a letter of support. We
share the region-wide goal of reducing congestion. We do not have the resources to build us out
of congestion. With limited resources, how do we best reduce congestion and maximize
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
June 15, 2011
DRAFT MINUTE EXCERPT
6. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Shane Miller, Dan Gould
Gould: Action item to consider/reconsider the e-bike issue. No quorum for the item. A unanimous
recommendation was submitted to the Transportation in November 16, 2010 recommending that the City
Council approve the use of electric-assist bicycles on trails. The discussion covered the same issues and
reconsidered the user base of the trail system and included a caveat to consider whether e-bikes pose a
speed concern.
Robert: Did you discuss how to patrol/enforce their use?
Gould: It was discussed that it is a matter of etiquette, and all trail users can be subject to lapses in
etiquette.
Skutchan: Were there any new issues raised since the November discussion?
Gould: One person brought up the concern that it could be a slippery slope toward use of other motorized
vehicles on the trails.
Miller: The Committee also entertained the Downtown Parking Plan and the Jefferson Street Project as
Discussion Items.
Skutchan: Was there discussion about the addition of a bike lane?
Miller: Semi-trucks turning onto College don’t like to stop, so it might actually be a traffic calming issue.
7. ACTION ITEMS
A. Electric Bike Use on Trails – Craig Foreman
Electric bikes offer an alternative mode of transportation for Fort Collins citizens. ADA regulations
for “other mobility devices” would allow an e-bike to be used by a person whose disability meets the
ADA definition of someone who needs mobility assistance. This came out of Plan Fort Collins. Study
focus was electric bike use on the City’s paved recreation trail system. Does not include motorized
scooters, long boards, etc. The State of Colorado adopted federally mandated classifications and
allows e-bikes to be used along bike lanes and multi-use paths. The State regulations do not trump the
City Code (Ordinance 097-2009 and Natural Areas Code Sec 23-193).
Process:
Data gathering
Public input
Test ride
Boards & Commissions
Parks & Rec Board recommends a 3-year trial test period
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board – No (split vote 5/2)
Natural Resource Advisory Board – 3-year trial test period
Bicycle Advisory Committee - yes
Transportation Board – Tonight
Air Quality Board – June 20
Senior Advisory Board – No (split vote 5/3)
Comission on Disability – Sending recommendation to Council, no vote.
Council on June 28
Other Communities:
Locally – Aspen, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Greeley, Larimer County, Longmont,
Loveland, Windsor do not allow e-bikes on trails.
-DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2
June 15, 2011
Fayetteville, Arkansas has allowed them since 2008 with no problems
Very little information out there.
Skutchan: What is the allowable speed of an e-bike?
Foreman: 20 mph maximum
Public outreach results:
162 responses through fcgov.com/yourvoice
5 responses via email
26 responses from Facebook
171 people took a position: 86 yes, 85 no
Concerns:
Increase risk of accidents
E-bikes that are not legal or are ridden irresponsibility would be difficult to endorse
Will degrade the quality of natural areas, parks, trails as a place of respite from motorized devices
Could encourage more people to enjoy trails
Concerns about changing technology of these/similar devices
Miller: In the course of getting the data on bikes, were there tests on stopping distance and
minimum/maximum weights, speeds, etc. Is there a comparison of function compared to a regular
bike?
Foreman: 20 mph/750 watt, 100 pounds or less. Most are 55/65 pounds. They have great brakes and
stop quickly. They run around $2,000. The battery lasts about 4 hours at 20 mph.
Steen: Are the groups suggesting the 3-year trial period suggesting data collection?
Foreman: Yes. We’ll collect/create the data we are missing right now.
Bracke: DK is working with Natural Resources/Parks to develop some Trail Etiquette guidelines.
Skutchan moved that we support and endorse the recommendation of the Bicycle Advisory
Committee. Miller seconded the motion.
Miller: Does the verbiage allow an e-bike to go anywhere a bicycle can go?
Bracke: There was no discussion about use on non-paved trails.
Miller: If we accept an e-bike as a bicycle, would that allow them to go anywhere a bicycle can go?
Jackson: The ordinance would be drafted to specify paved trails only and e-bike specifications. A
change to City Code requires Council action.
The Board voted 6 in favor, 1 against. Robert expressed concern about enforcement.
Foreman explained that there are six rangers patrolling the trail system, mostly concentrating on
natural areas. Risk Management said there were 3 accidents on the trail system. Two were bicycles
hitting maintenance trucks.
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 1 of 18
BE A GOOD STEWARD: Protect & Respect your Parks, Trails & Recreation Facilities
Call Meeting to Order: Michael Chalona called the meeting to order 5:34pm
Agenda Review & Items of Note:
Agenda Review: None
Items of Note: Rob Cagen - Rugby representative sent a proposal to me, which I will forward to Carol for the
Board to review. They are here tonight to speak during citizen participation about their proposal.
Citizen Participation
Mitch Bower, coaches high school Rugby.
Mitch - Fort Collins Youth Rugby, Fort Collins Men’s Rugby and the Mathews Hammerdorfer Foundation has
a proposal (attached) asking the City to establish a permanent facility for Rugby. Greg Chvatal has coached
Rugby for 20 years and has played Rugby for 25 years and has helped to develop many rugby players who have
gone on to play in college and win championships. Rugby is a growing sport and we would like to work with
the City to identify a space that could accommodate at least two pitches.
Discussion:
Staff – Currently, we do not have the ability to offer exclusive use.
Mitch – We understand, but would like first use.
Board – The Soccer Club has their own facility with quite a bit of unused land; have your spoken to them about
the possibility of using a part of their facility?
Mitch – No, we’re in the early stages of our proposal and wanted to visit the idea with the City first.
Board – Have you talked with Poudre Schools to see if they would help you?
Mitch – Schools do not want us since we’re a club sport.
Board – Do you have a league?
Greg – Yes, there are 22 high school teams and two divisions.
Board – Are you associated with CHASA?
Greg – No, but we’ve been trying to get the girls teams into CHASA so they have better opportunities.
Board – Where were you playing before Timnath?
Greg – At Greenbriar Park in Fort Collins.
Board – Will Centera continue to let you play at their facility?
Greg – We’re hoping to be at Greenbriar this fall.
Board – You want to have a place, but have the City own and maintain it?
Mitch – I think we could have a working relationship with volunteers to help with maintenance. We should be
able to raise money to build.
Board – What’s a facility? Is it like a football field?
Mitch – Kind of like a football field, but wider.
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
5:30 p.m.
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: J.R. Schnelzer, 221-6301
Craig Foreman, 221-6618
President: Michael Chalona
Phone: 970-490-2335 (home) / 970-472-8954 x1 (work)
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 2 of 18
Board – So it’s like a level field with goal posts? Is this what you want as a facility?
Mitch – For future use, we would need exclusive use with three pitches; one for the league and two for the
town.
Board – Where does CSU play?
Mitch – At the CSU recreation center.
Board – Are there opportunities with CSU?
Mitch – No, they are concerned with liability of high school teams using their fields. It’s important to us to
have our own fields for team territory to give the teams a since of ownership.
Board – Where do the Denver teams play?
Mitch – Mostly in parks, some at high schools.
Board – Is there any room left at Spring Canyon to support Rugby?
Staff – Not for a rugby complex as proposed, and the turf areas need to be left multi-purpose. We monitor the
field usage and move the various sports around so that the turf doesn’t get overused.
Approval of Minutes: Rob Cagen made the Motion to approve the Parks & Recreation Board minutes of April
27, 2011, seconded by Brian Carroll – Minutes approved 8:0
AGENDA ITEMS:
Tour of the Farm at Lee Martinez
Bridget Brownell gave the Board a tour of The Farm. The Farm tries hard to represent how a farm operates.
They have 3 full-time employees who run the farm, caring for ponies, goats, pigs, chickens, horses and cows.
They have a museum that offers an historical look at farming equipment and a facility available to rent out for
birthday parties. Throughout the year they offer pony rides, hay rides, and place for kids of all ages to come
and explore.
Electric Bike Discussion & Recommendation
Craig Foreman presented information on the issue of allowing electronic bicycles (e-bikes) on the paved
recreation trails (attached PowerPoint). This issue should not be confused with the ADA regulation allowing
mobility devices on the trails.
The Department of Transportation has defined e-bikes as bicycles not motorized vehicles. Restricted to no
more than 1 hp, 20 mph for a 170 lb rider on flat ground. The State of Colorado has adopted these federally
mandated classifications. Currently, the City of Fort Collins does not allow the use of the e-bikes on the trails
Ordinance 097-2009 – The rider of an electrical assisted bicycle shall not use the electric motor on a bike or
pedestrian path. The City is now in the process of data gathering on this issue. We are looking for information
from other communities, public input, test rides for staff and Boards & Commissions and recommendations
from Boards & Commissions. Locally; Aspen, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Greeley, Larimer County,
Longmont, Loveland and Windsor do not allow e-bikes on trails; due to existing code language preventing any
motorized vehicles in parks and trails; same as the current code in Fort Collins. Communities allowing e-bikes
are Fayetteville AK, Foothills P&R, Lincoln NE and Norman OK, but there was very little data to collect from
these communities. Most of the communities didn’t have any data on enforcement or information on how the e-
bikes are working on their trails, other than no complaints filed. After conducting a public outreach on this
issue, of the 171 people that responded 86 were yes, 85 for no. General concerns were speed, safety and
compatibility. General support was encouraging alternative transportation and accessibility/fairness among
users. The staff has heard that with the heavily used trails, there may be an increased risk for accidents due to
speed and enforcement would be difficult. There are also concerns that the noise produced by e-bikes would
degrade the quality of trails as a place of respite. However, they could encourage more people to enjoy the
trails.
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 3 of 18
Discussion
Board – I see us as being on the front-line of this issue, and although I understand the concerns, I think that just
because of the possibilities of what could happen saying no without any real knowledge is not appropriate.
Board – What about a test period?
Board – I would feel better about this issue if it was not being proposed by a person who would profit by selling
the bikes. I feel that saying no is a way of saying we are keeping out trails safe.
Board – We can’t make constraints that only senior citizens would be using e-bikes, if they were in need of
assistance they could always fall into the ADA category. You have to assume that e-bikes may be used by
anyone from 13 years old to 80 years old.
Board – I think the trails are overused now; I’m concerned that this could open the door for other electrical
vehicles.
Board – I would like to see a test period. After test riding the bike, I can understand how it could help; but I
still think safety is an issue.
Board – If there were a way to license these bikes, so the City would know who the owner was, I would
consider giving them a chance.
Board – Anyone can sell an e-bike, I could see a place like Jax selling them for $400.00 so I don’t think we can
say that there would be limited number of e-bikes on the trail because of their expense.
Board – Regular bikes can go fast too. What’s the difference between the bikes, if a regular bike hits you it’s
going to hurt. I think we need to be talking about bike safety overall. Perhaps all people should be encouraged
to use proper speed and audible warnings.
Board – I think we become so fearful of litigation that we make decisions on what might happen. Why not
allow them? There are always safety concerns, but most of the trail system is good. There are portions on the
Spring Creek Trail that would be of a bigger concern, but I hate to say absolutely not. Again, perhaps a test.
Board – Things could be done to lesson the safety concerns, I would like to see us try with a trial period of 1
year with an evaluation done at the end of that period, and include an education program for trail users.
Board – I agree, I would like to make a decision with data.
Board – I don’t want to see scooters on the trails.
Board – I would want to see a sunset on the trial period to reevaluate and licensing is a good idea.
Board – Licensing sounds appropriate, but there’s an expense to the City, so I’m not sure it would be good to
have e-bikes licensed. I think they could also be on the streets.
Board – For the other communities that didn’t allow, did they offer any reasons?
Staff – No, they just referred to their code.
Board – Staff should work out the details, but I don’t think 1 year is enough time to gather good data. Perhaps 3
years with annual evaluations; whatever it takes to get good data.
Motion
A motion was made by Bruce Henderson: Approve e-bikes on trails on a three year trial basis with annual
reviews for both the use of e-bikes on trails with mandatory education as part of the e-bike license.
Motion seconded by Dana Ortiz
Amendments Proposed and approved by Bruce Henderson:
Amend – limiting trials to certain portions of the trail.
Amend – required license of e-bike operator.
Discussion
Board – What kind of data is there on regular bike accidents on the trails?
Staff – Only three accidents were reported.
Board – What about doing a speed analysis with recorders.
Staff – We did this about 10 years ago, it’s hard to capture, but perhaps an intern could do this.
Board – Do we have a consensus of the Board?
Parks & Recreation Board Meeting –May 25, 2011
Page 4 of 18
Board – I’m against for a variety of reasons, but as a runner I am always fending off speeding bikes. But, I like
the concept of getting data. I think it will be hard to gather, but I would vote in agreement with the amendments
of just certain portions of trail.
Board - I’m in the middle, I think if someone has mobility issues then ADA would cover. I would like an
amendment that if the trial doesn’t work out, that access on trails would be denied with a warning to the
consumer that this could sunset.
Board – Licensing is staff time which could be hard to manage. Education could be hard for staff also.
Board – Bike group will get some information out.
Board – Is there a definition of an e-bike?
Staff – We have to create, but there will be a weight and speed limit per Federal, and the frame of the bike will
not be allowed to be wider than say six inches which will keep scooters from being allowed.
Board – Education is good, but we can’t just limit it to e-bike rides.
Board – Do we just want to say we want a trial period and leave the rest out?
Board – Yes, let’s read a final motion.
Final Motion
Final Motion made by Greg Miller:
The Parks & Recreation Board approves the use of e-bikes on trails on a three year trial basis with
annual reviews, with the use of e-bikes on limited portions of the trails to be defined by staff with
analysis.
Seconded by Rob Cagen.
Vote: All in Favor 8:0
P&R Board Review Questionnaire for Final Approval
After review of the draft, the Board made some wording changes to number one, and eliminated a redundant
comment on number seven.
Carol will make adjustments and send the final draft out to Michael Chalona and Rob Cagen for their final
okay before submitting the document to the City Clerk’s office by June 17.
Staff Updates
Park Updates
Five of the six community parks, Spring Canyon, Rolland Moore, City Park, Fossil Creek and Edora are
all Audubon sanctioned. Lee Martinez will be Audubon sanctioned within a few months, which will
make Fort Collins the first community in the United States to have all of its community parks Audubon
sanctioned.
Recreation Updates
There were 240 applications submitted for the Recreation Director position. Staff is hoping to have
initial interviews set for June 21.
Park Planning Updates
The construction on the new trail underpass at 38E has slowed with weather, but 38E is now open again
for 2-way traffic.
We tentatively have a GoCo grant for the disc golf course at Hughes Stadium.
Board Members Present: Staff Present:
Jean Davis Peggy Bowers
Rusty Fletcher (in Barbara Schoenberger’s absence)
Rebecca Lindsey
Linda Gabel
Kathy Schuster
Cherrie Thornton Guests:
Diane Smith Elaine Boni
Wade Turner Craig Foreman
Al Van Nice
Excused absence: Unexcused absence:
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Wade Turner at 1:32 p.m.
II. Attendance
Attendance sheet was passed around for signatures.
III. Public Participation
None.
IV. Introduction of new Board Member
New member Diane Smith was introduced and welcomed to the Board.
V. Volunteer to recommend Key Topics of Meeting – Palmer Withrow
VI. Speaker
Craig Foreman, Park Planning Manager about Electric Assisted Bicycles on the City’s Paved Trails
The Issue: Electric bikes offer an alternative mode of transportation for Fort Collins citizens. Present
code restricts parks, natural areas, trails and recreation areas to “non-motorized” forms of transportation.
People who purchase electric bikes are interested in using them on the City’s paved trail system.
Currently under the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations allow disabled people to use e-bikes on
trails. Under action items from Plan Fort Collins, the city is looking at innovative transportation modes,
including e-bikes.
E-bikes are defined as bicycles, not motorized vehicles and are restricted to no more than 1hp, 20 mph
on motor alone. The State of Colorado has adopted these federally mandated classifications and allows
e-bikes to be used along bike paths and multi-use paths. Fort Collins can decide whether or not to go
along with this.
Senior Advisory Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
May 11, 2011
1:30 p.m.
1200 Raintree Drive
Craig is presenting this proposal to Boards and Commissions this month to solicit input. The City
Council will discuss this at their June 28th meeting. A team will identify stakeholders, gather data from
public outreach meetings, take test rides, develop a matrix of solutions and present options.
The SAB discussed pros and cons for e-bikes on paved trails as it would impact seniors. The Board's
primary concerns were over speed, safety and compatibility with others using the trails. People who may
not hear well, move slowly and may be unsteady might have difficulty encountering a faster moving
bike. How might this evolve in the future as technology changes? It was pointed out that people who
might not be able to use the trails could by using an e-bike. The Board was polled for yea or nay to
“support e-assist bikes to be used on paved City trails.”
Nays were 7, yeas 3.
VII. Approval of Minutes
Al Van Nice moved to accept the minutes of the April 13th SAB meeting as corrected. Linda Gabel
seconded the motion. Motion passed.
VIII. Correspondence
A. Wade Turner sent thank you notes to Sarah Kane, the Mayor and the three City Council
members who attended the Senior Center art Show Opening.
B. Diane Smith suggested that a thank you note be sent to the Senior Center staff for providing
the food and facility for the SAB to meet with City Council members at the Art Show.
C. Kathy Schuster sent information to two City engineers and the Chair of Art in Public Places
about the Troutman family, with a proposal that this history be included in the Mason Street
Corridor displays.
IX. Old Business
A. Communication committee report
Palmer Withrow’s designer at Columbine developed a quality pamphlet and posters to be
used at the April 20th Wellness Expo. 200 were printed with the Columbine logo. The Board
needs to make a decision about the funding and the logo for future printings.
B. Senior Center Expansion committee and project report
Diane Smith volunteered to be the new liaison to the Senior Center Expansion Committee,
which meets the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of the month from 4:30-6:00.
C. Liaison reports—highlights only (please turn in written reports)
1. Palmer Withrow reported he is still waiting to hear more about the PVH <-> MCR
transportation plan. Cherrie Thornton will email Kevin Unger to check-in about this.
2. Rusty Fletcher reported that the Human Relation Awards breakfast went well. Although
our nominee did not win, she was acknowledged for her contributions to the City.
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD
Regular Meeting
February 9, 2011
DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N Mason Street, Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
For Reference: Linsey DeBell - 217-7436
Aislinn Kottwitz - 692-9915
Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096
Board Members Present
K-Lynn Cameron, Linsey DeBell, Julie Germany, S. Kathryn Grimes, Michelle Grooms,
Trudy Haines, Linda Knowlton, Paul Mills, Linda Stanley
Board Members Excused
Council Liaison
Aislinn Kottwitz
Staff Present
Natural Resources / Natural Areas Department: Daylan Figgs, Chris Metz, Mark Sears,
John Stokes
Guests
Craig Foreman, City of Fort Collins, Director of Park Planning & Development
Josh Kerson, owner of “Run About Cycles”
Public Comments
• Josh Kerson: I’ve been hand building for the last ten years and in the bicycle
industry for the last twenty years. I am working towards trying to get the City Fort
Collins to be in line with the Federal rulings and with some of the State statutes
and possibly to enable the largest growing segment of our community, the about
to retire folks, to be able to continue to use bicycles on the bike path with an
electrical assist.
Kerson showed the Board pictures of sample electric bicycles. He went on to explain
the Federal rulings for electric bicycle and that the Department of Transportation has
deemed the electric bicycles to be regulated by the Safety Consumer Protection
Group. Kerson also mentioned that the Ice Tea Act (Intermodal Surface
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Transportation Efficiency Act) allows electric bikes on all bike paths across the
United States.
• Kerson: I’m asking different groups to consider voting yes when City Council
asks, will the City of Fort Collins adopt the state statute 42-4-111, which is in
place and allows each City to allow electric bikes to be used on bike paths.
Agenda Review
• Sears: There is one additional easement item, which can be inserted with
Colorado Division of Transportation (CDOT’s) action item; however it is an FYI
and not part of the action item.
Review and Approval of Minutes
City Plan Letter of Recommendation
• DeBell: The City Plan Letter of Recommendation needs a motion for approval.
CDOT’s – I-25, Hwy 392 Interchange Easement Request
• Figgs: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has requested a
permanent easement on a portion of the Fossil Creek Regional Open Space as part
of the I-25/Hwy 392 interchange project. The requested easement consists of
3,558 square feet located within the wetland north of HWY 392 (Carpenter Road)
CDOT has designed a small stormwater feature within the easement area to help
protect the wetland from erosion during storm events.
The existing wetland topsoil will be saved during the excavation process and
placed back onto the surface as part of the wetland restoration plan. The disturbed
areas will be seeded with a wetland seed mix and the restoration managed by
CDOT according to a weed management plan approved by the Natural Areas
Program and Larimer County Open Lands.
CDOT will also be required to follow the Natural Area’s Resource Protection
Standards throughout the duration of this project. The restoration progress will be
monitored by Natural Areas staff and the Corps of Engineers.
• Stanley: How will they restore the wetlands?
• Figgs: In this case easily. With wetland restoration, as long as the hydrology
doesn’t change a lot, they are much easier to restore.
• Cameron: If a catastrophic flood occurs, will they make the restorations?
• Figgs: Yes, it will be their responsibility to make all restorations.
• Cameron: If the City and the County didn’t want to do it would CDOT have the
ability to condemn it?
Knowlton moved to approve the December 8, 2010 and January 12, 2011 minutes as
written. Germany second. It was unanimously approved.
Germany moved to approve the City Plan Letter of Recommendation. Grimes second.
It was unanimously approved.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Page 3 of 4
• Figgs: I’m sure they could.
Addition to Agenda - Easement to another City Government Agency
• Figgs: Between the County and the City road departments there are turn lanes
being added at the intersection of Trilby and Shields. Hazaleus and Colina
Mariposa are the two City Natural Areas in that area. This would be an agreement
between we and them and they would file a change of right-of-way.
Figgs showed the Board a map of the extent of the construction area, which included the
existing right-of-way currently in place.
Electric Bikes
Foreman showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation, which included the following:
o Electric Assist – Bikes on Trails (E-Bikes) - The Issue
o Plan Fort Collins Item – The Plan will be adopted in March, 2011
o Immediate Action: Concurrent with Plan adoption
o Electric Bikes
o Federal/State Information
o Fort Collins Codes
o Process
o The Team
o Next Steps
• Grooms: Are there electric bikes over 1 horse power?
• Kerson: Currently there are over 300 electric bike companies that are making
them as legal electric bikes, with the caveat that we have seen some that are being
made in Europe that are higher power for off trail use.
• Cameron: How does this compare with Segway?
• Foreman: We have not received input from the public regarding putting Segways
on the trail system.
• Knowlton: My comment on this is that it is a terrible idea to have electric bikes
on trails. They would be hard to police because you could hardly catch them if
the Ranger is on foot patrol. As a trail user I find this a scary proposition.
• Stanley: How fast does an electric bike go?
• Kerson: If passing someone speed could be around 24 miles per hour (mph), but
normal peddling would be between 18 and 20 mph.
• Stanley: It would be good to do a field trip and watch these bikes in action,
because I feel uncomfortable when I know a bike is coming up behind me.
• Cameron: There will always be people riding bikes faster than they should on
trails, and in reality, anything we can do to help the older population to get out
and enjoy the outdoors and in this case exercise is a good thing. I’m concerned
about the sound of the electric bike, so it would be interesting to be out in the field
Knowlton moved to recommend that City Council approve an ordinance authorizing a
non-exclusive easement on Fossil Creek Regional Open Space to the Colorado
Department of Transportation. Haines second. It was unanimously approved.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Page 4 of 4
to hear how these bikes sound. I think it’s great that you are going through this
long process to get feedback and I would also not feel good if we were to have
more and more motorized vehicles on the trails.
• Grimes: You mentioned that there is data on communities who do and do not use
electric bikes on trails, could we be privy to this information?
• Foreman: We will bring you updates at another presentation. I think it would be a
good idea to have a bike ride on a trail to show you how the electric bikes operate.
• Grimes: Will the kid carrier be allowed on the back of an electric bike?
• Kerson: As far as I know, yes.
• Mills: There’s a danger on Spring Creek trail because, the trail is not wide
enough, it was designed long ago.
• Germany: At this point I’m supportive, but I’m glad that you are collecting
feedback on this.
• Grooms: If you are making a recommendation for electric bikes to be on paved
trail, what about un-paved trails? What if someone is riding in a natural area on
an un-paved trail?
• Sears: I think the recommendation that came from the bike advisory committee
was strictly related to paved trails, and currently we are responding to that
recommendation.
• Haines: I’m all for getting cars off the road and having retirees on bikes and
exercising, but I don’t think these will be used only by retirees commuters will
also use them. However, most of the trails go through natural areas and my
concern is that people use these trails as a natural experience; these trails are not
for commuting. I want the natural areas trails to be used for recreation as a
peaceful experience. The clearer and simpler you can make the laws the less
violation issues we will have. Handicapped folks should have a sticker on their
bikes for law enforcement. When the Mason corridor is built it could include a
scooter lane, which would include electric bikes.
• Knowlton: I hope when you are collecting input from citizens, that you talk to
those who are using the bike trail now, and how they use them.
• Foreman: This is an area that we need to have a good process on, and ask the
correct detailed questions.
• Debell: In my opinion if they perform similar to a bicycle I can’t see how they
are different than a bicycle in terms of speed.
• Mills: I would make sure that regulations for electric bikes are made very clear
because there may be a lot of misconceptions.
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD
Regular Meeting
May 11, 2011
DATE: Wednesday, May 11, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N Mason Street, Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
For Reference: Trudy Haines - 225-2760
Aislinn Kottwitz - 692-9915
Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096
Board Members Present
K-Lynn Cameron, Linsey DeBell, Juli Germany, S. Kathryn Grimes, Michelle Grooms,
Trudy Haines, Linda Knowlton, John Mitchell, Linda Stanley
Board Members Excused
Council Liaison
Aislinn Kottwitz
Staff Present
Natural Resources / Natural Areas Department: Daylan Figgs, Mark Sears, John Stokes
Zoe Whyman
Guests
Craig Foreman, City of Fort Collins Director of Park Planning and Development
David Kemp, City of Fort Collins Bicycle Coordinator
Josh Kerson, Owner of Run about Cycles
Rob Van Uffelen, Civil Engineer for Larimer County with Nolte Vertical Five &
Associates
Public Comments
Agenda Review
• Sears: We would like to add an action item regarding an easement request, after
the bike presentation.
• Stanley: I would like Mark to update us on the Land Conservation Plan.
• Haines: I’d like that addition to be discussed before the updates. Also, I have three
thoughts about future agenda items that I would like to get feedback on.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Review and Approval of Minutes
E-Bikes Presentation – Recommendation to Council
• Haines: I have a proposal for this discussion, which is for you to give us an
overview of the process, and I would like to propose that during your presentation
that we can ask questions and have a discussion, and I would like to get an
opinion from your staff and the natural areas staff.. I would also like to
recommend a list of pros and cons written on the white board, which can then
help us with a recommendation for Council. Also, I would like to hear any
process suggestions.
• Foreman: There is the ability to have your recommendation switched to June if
necessary; recommendations are due to Council by June 28th.
Foreman gave a brief history of the use of the Electronic Personal Assistance Mobility
Devices Policy adopted on March 15, 2011, for the new Board members. Foreman also
showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation that included the following:
o The issue
o Plan Fort Collins Item (The Plan was Adopted in March, 2011) Policy
T7.1
o Immediate Actions: Concurrent with Plan Adoption
o Electric Bikes
o Federal/State Information
o Fort Collins Codes
o Process
o Boards/Commission Schedule
o Other Communities
o Questions where E-bikes are allowed?
o Is enforcement a problem?
o How has it worked out
o How do other trail users like the bikes?
o Questions where e-bikes are not allowed?
o E-Bike Web Questions
o Board/Commission Discussion and Recommendation
The Board had a discussion regarding E-Bike Web Questions and how they were not very
specific. They mentioned that getting feed-back through a web site is biased to the senior
population.
• Haines: These are all ready allowed on the bike lane on the street, correct?
• Foreman: yes
• Grooms: Are they allowed on sidewalks?
• Foreman: yes in the downtown area.
• Grimes: Will it be stated that they are not allowed on dirt paths?
• Foreman: We would have to change the code to state this.
Knowlton moved to approve the April 13, 2011meeting minutes as written. Grooms
second. It was unanimously approved.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 3 of 5
• Knowlton: Right now you are saying Fort Collins does not define these bikes the
way the Federal or State government does, is that correct?
• Kemp: We do define it in a lot of our traffic codes, however the one ordinance
that we do have right now is related to allowing E-Bikes on trails.
• Knowlton: If we say that this is the definition of an E-Bike, will they say they can
be on our trails?
• Kemp: Our definition does not go along with the Federal definition.
• Haines: The whole state of Massachusetts does not allow E-bikes on their bike
paths so you can add that to your list.
• Haines: Have you talked to other cities regarding their policy?
• Kemp: I talked with the City of Boulder years ago who had a similar situation to
ours where they dealt with the issue, and now it’s coming back up and they are
getting ready to discuss the issue again.
• Germany: What does accessibility mean, is it from a disability standpoint?
• Foreman: It pertains to those people who require more options because of their
symptoms, but are not in the ADA category.
• Knowlton: I believe we need to keep in mind, that of all the other Boards that
have been mentioned, this Board’s responsibility is the Natural Resources
Department. The Rangers who patrol these areas are employees of the Natural
Resources Department, so we have a special reason to care about this
enforcement. These Rangers patrol 35,000 acres of natural areas and trails and
there are only seven Rangers. The safety, speed and enforcement issue should be
a special concern to this Board.
• Stokes: Federal supersedes local law, so if the Federal standard is a 100 pound
weight we can not make those standards any less. One of our Rangers did some
research on e-bikes, on the web, and found one place in Australia that had an
electric bike (similar to a mountain bike) that weights 116 pounds and goes 50
miles per hour. This is one of our concerns, that we’ll have a profusion of e-bikes
that will be hard to properly indentify. Trying to define the machine will become
very complicated beyond what the Federal Government has established.
• Mitchell: What is the weight of a typical e-bike?
• Kemp: One is 35 pounds and the other is 50 pounds.
• Stanley: Now that we have seen the e-bike and demo and seen the staff report I
would think that most of us have an idea of where we stand on this. I’m
wondering if we should get a straw pole to see where we all are on this issue.
• Cameron: I’m not sure I have a vote yet. I would be interested in hearing what
staff has to say, because this is a difficult decision. We have an aging population
that we would like to see supporting our Natural Areas program and we want
them out there and the e-bike would give them a mechanism that would help them
to be mobile.
• Grooms: I’m concerned about changes in technology and I’m also concerned in
the enforcement issue.
• Kemp: There are some trails that lend themselves well to this type of
transportation and then you have other portions of the trail that are twisty and
turning and are a concern.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 4 of 5
• Haines: I would like to hear from both staff on this and what their
recommendations are.
• Stokes: We do not have staff opinions, and we do not have a recommendation,
and one of the reasons is that we are struggling, like yourselves, because we have
different interests as an organization generally and we perceive the same issues
that you perceive, so we have not developed a recommendation and we were
hoping that this Board’s discussion would help us in developing a staff
recommendation.
Electric bikes do enhance multimodal transportation and over time as energy gets
more expensive the ability to use an e-bike for primary transportation will become
attractive. Safety is a major issue for us. We are concerned about congestion on
the trails and e-bikes are fast and we do not want to be in the business of
controlling speed on the trails. There is also an esthetic consideration because the
natural areas are respite from the mechanized world so this would be a very
important change to that philosophy. Our trail system is not exclusive to the
natural areas system; it crosses between park plan and natural areas and inter-
connects with streets so that’s an important consideration.
• Sears: The e-bikes may encourage more folks to get out on our trails but are they
getting out from a commuter or recreational standpoint or are they getting out
playing with a toy. I could see rental companies in Fort Collins renting to
visitors so they could have the novelty of riding an e-bike on our trail system.
• Knowlton: Regarding the public input to this process, how many people have
come to anyone in the city and said they would like to ride any bike on the trail
that is not affiliated with a bike shop.
• Kemp: The catalyst to this topic was that there were a few people who did have
health issues and were stopped by a Ranger and were told that they can not be on
a trail with an e-bike. So the discussion we came to is, can people with mobility
disabilities use the e-bikes on trails, and we found out that it was possible.
• Grimes: When did the shift from mobility disabilities to anyone being able to use
e-bikes on trails come about?
• Kemp: There were some folks who were contacted by the Natural Areas Rangers
for riding their e-bike on trail, the article was in the news paper and it all came
together at once.
• Haines: Craig do you have your staff’s opinions that you would like to share with
the Board?
Foreman and Kemp both agreed that there are some benefits and there are concerns and
they understand the issues also. They feel that discussions with the Board will help with
clarifying the above.
• Germany: When looking at the survey I saw that fifty percent are for e-bikes and
fifty percent are against and any time you have something that is down the middle
like this you exercise caution and wait. However, I feel that those who truly have
a mobility disability will check into it and get a license and will be riding an e-
bike on trails, and that solves the problem as far as I’m concerned.
• Haines: I would like to review the pros and cons because I think it would provide
what John, Mark and Craig are asking for, data.
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Page 5 of 5
• Stanley: Once the Mason Street corridor is completed it will be much easier for
commuters to move north and south because there will be bike lanes.
The Board had a lengthy discussion regarding the pros and cons of e-bike transportation
on City trails.
• Knowlton: I would like to make a motion, and once this motion is made and
second I would be open to comments.
The Board had a discussion regarding the verbiage of the recommendation to City
Council.
Knowlton moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board cannot at
this time recommend that e-bikes be allowed on paved city trails because 1) not
enough is known about how the public views this issue, 2) we have not seen a
comprehensive analysis of the impacts, and 3) we note that people with mobility
disabilities already are authorized to ride these bikes on our paved trails. We list
below the pros and cons of e-bikes, as we understand them, compiled by the Board
at its May 11, 2011, meeting. Stanley second. It was unanimously approve.
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
March 16, 2011
DATE: Wednesday, March 16, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason - Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00 pm
For Reference: Liz Pruessner, NRAB Chair - 484-4371
David Roy, Council Liaison - 217-5506
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison - 221-6265
In Attendance: Harry Edwards, Andrew Newman, Joe Piesman, Steve Ambrose, Phil Friedman, Glen
Colton, Liz Pruessner
Absent: John Bartholow, Ethan Billingsly
Staff present: Susie Gordon, Alexis Hmielak, Keith Elmund, Craig Foreman, Carrie Daggett
Call meeting to order
Liz Pruessner called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm.
Introduction of Guests - none
Public Comments - none
Agenda Review – none
Steve Ambrose suggested a social at his house in May
Approval of February 16, 2011, Minutes
Glen Colton pointed out he was not listed as absent at the February meeting.
Benthic Species and Fishery Report
George (“Keith”) Elmund, City Utilities Environmental Services Manager, gave two informational
updates on the biotic health of the Poudre River. The first presentation explained the type of
monitoring programs that are currently underway on the Cache la Poudre River so the NRAB would
have a better understanding where resources are being spent and what data is available from this
program. The second presentation was about the health of the Poudre as reflected in the
macroinvertebrate and fish populations.
Background on the health of the Cache la Poudre River in Fort Collins.
• There are four key monitoring sites through Fort Collins that detect flow and water quality: Lincoln
Street Gage, Prospect Street, Nature Center and Boxelder Gage.
• The flow and water quality data is being used for:
Joe Piesman moved and Harry Edwards seconded a motion to approve the February 16, 2011,
minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously.
2
o Temperature, depth, sediment
o In steam cover/vegetation, riparian vegetation
o Floodplain habitat
o Migration paths for fish
o Water quality
Keith Elmund then discussed the health of the Poudre as reflected in the macroinvertebrate & fish
populations, based on two publications by James Karr.
• The basis of multi metric macroinvertibrate index is:
o Water quality - temperature, DO, chemical contaminants
o Habitat Structure - substrate type, depth, speed, spatial and temporal complexity of physical
habitat
o Flow Regime effects - volume and timing that affect the survival of fish and other aquatic
organisms at various phases in their life cycle
o Available Food - type, amount, size, seasonal pattern of energy availability
o Biotic Interactions - competition, predation, disease
• Impaired listing for Segment 11 was discovery of selenium in 2010 and warmer water
temperature
• Collecting and classifying macro invertebrates is very tedious
• Some key concerns:
o Degraded water quality
o Maintain fisheries (trout and native)
o Maintain flood conveyance
o Maintain recreation and aesthetic appeal
o Maintain valued biota
o Develop a vision to what you want to see – ways to protect Poudre
Discussion
• Harry Edwards asked what controls the City has to maintain water quality and diversity along the
river. Keith Elmund stated the City is working with the Northern Colorado Conservancy District
to determine if we can supplement from Horsetooth Reservoir when habitat is limited. Fort
Collins is also taking a proactive approach to designing a water treatment facility to protect
habitat and water quality downstream.
• Carrie Daggett from the City Attorney’s office noted that the City’s Stormwater program is
aimed at controlling and managing water quality impacts from storm drainage in the city, and
also noted that some elements of the recently adopted updates to City Plan relate to low impact
development techniques intended to reduce stormwater quality impacts which ultimately affect
the river.
• Keith will send his presentation files to everyone.
Electric Bikes on City Trails
Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development, gave an informational presentation on the
current debate about whether it is appropriate to allow electric bikes to be ridden on paved trails in City
parks and natural areas
• Craig Forman stated he was presenting to different boards about this issue .Currently, City Code
restricts parks, natural areas, trails and recreation areas to “non-motorized” forms of transportation.
3
• The Federal Department of Transportation has defined electrical assisted bicycles to be no more than
1 hp, 20 mph on motor alone for a 170 lb rider on flat ground. They are also classified as bicycles;
not motorized vehicles.
o The State of Colorado has adopted these federally mandated classifications, and allows e-
bikes to be used along bike lanes and multi-use paths.
o If passed in City Plan, electric assist bicycles (not scooters) would only be allowed on paved
trails and would only go through a natural area if it is part of the paved trail system. The
“non-paved” trails/paths would remain “non-motorized.” Craig Foreman pointed out that if
approved, City Code would have to be changed to reflect the approval.
• A City team (Planning & Zoning, Natural Areas, Enforcement, Bike Coordinator) has been gathered
to explore options for addressing new vehicle types and fuel sources concurrent with City Plan’s
adoption.
• Next steps:
o Council adoption of Plan Fort Collins in March, 2011
o Formulation of core City staff team
o Develop schedule
o Identify stakeholders and outreach plan
o Data gathering including public outreach, pier community info, test rides, etc.
o Develop matrix of solutions
o Present staff recommended solution
o Craig stated they would like to get finalization in May, 2011, so he will probably return to
the NRAB in April with any updates.
Discussion:
• To answer Steve Ambrose, Craig Foreman stated part of the City’s outreach will be to place a survey
on the City’s webpage and perhaps do on-trail trail surveys.
• To answer Harry Edwards, Carrie Daggett stated the personal liability of people riding e–bikes on
trails is the same as liability generally for injuries they might cause.In response to further question
about whether people would normally have insurance to cover this type of liability, Carrie stated that
many bikers may not have insurance that would cover this type of liability. Some could have
insurance through an umbrella liability policy but would not likely be covered through their auto
insurance. Craig Foreman pointed out electric assist bicycles are expensive (approximately $2000)
and there are currently about 100 in the City of Fort Collins.
• Joe Piesman asked how many instances do paved trails go through natural areas. As an example,
Craig Foreman stated the Poudre Trail, starting at Lyons Park, weaves in and out of natural areas
along the Poudre.
• Craig Foreman pointed out electric bikes could also be a commuter aid.
• Craig Foreman pointed out the Bike Advisory Board had recommended electric bikes be allowed on
hard surface trails in the City. Other communities not sure about them.
• Liz Pruessner thought the noise factor would be a big deal in natural areas where people are enjoying
peace and quiet. She felt allowing e-bikes in natural areas would also open the door to other
motorized vehicles.
• Steve Ambrose was concerned the number of e-bikes would increase to the point they would be
crowding the trails. He suggested one option would be permitting the use of e-bikes on trails to
only those who actually need them – i.e. older or handicapped people. Craig stated another option
could be permitting them for only one year.
• Harry Edwards suggested opening a small area on a trial basis.
4
• Phil Friedman was concerned that e-bikes going 20 mph on a busy trail would be a danger to a
mixture of people, dogs, rollerbladers and bicycles that can’t maintain 20 mpg. He anticipates not
all riders will operate the e-bikes responsibly.
• Liz Pruessner stated allowing e-bikes on trails and then taking that privilege away would cause a
problem. Also, people who commute on e-bikes can already commute in bike lanes.
• To answer Joe Piesman, Craig Foreman stated an e-bike can go approximately 40 miles on a charge.
• Craig Foreman stated it would be interesting to see where people who own e-bikes live and if they
are close to trails. He is not sure who they are. Also, on the regulatory side, some people jazz them
up and the City needs to be sure it we can enforce this.
• Craig Foreman will give Susie Gordon an update on this review process and will return to the NRAB
in April. He invited the NRAB to attend the demonstration at City Park on March 26, from 10 – 12
am.
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
March 21, 2011
DATE: Monday, March 21, 2011
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 5:30 – 8:00 PM
Dinner served starting at 5:15 pm
For Reference: Greg McMaster, Acting Chair- 484-3348
David Roy, Council Liaison - 407-7393
Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison - 224-6085
In Attendance: Michael Lynn, Nancy York, John Schroeer, Greg McMaster, Hugh Mackay,
Rich Fisher, Dennis Georg, Dave Dietrich
Absent:
Staff Present: Alexis Hmielak, Lucinda Smith, Craig Foreman, Ana Arias
Guests – Jonathan Fiske, graduate student from CSU
Public comment - none
Call meeting to order
Vice Chair Greg McMaster called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm
Welcome New Board Member and Introductions
Greg McMaster introduced new AQAB board member Michael Lynn and the board members
introduced themselves.
Review and Approval of February 28, 2011 minutes
Electric Bicycles
Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development, presented a summary of the issues
surrounding whether electrical assisted bicycles should be allowed on City paved trails. This
issue will come back to AQAB in May before going to City Council.
• Craig stated the Bike Advisory Committee passed a recommendation to Council to allow
electric assist bikes on the City’s hard surface trail system. He was presenting to different
boards about this issue.
Nancy York moved and Hugh Mackay seconded a motion to approve the February 28, 2011,
minutes as presented.
Motion approved unanimously
• Currently City Code restricts parks, natural areas, trails and recreation areas to “non-
motorized” forms of transportation. The issue right now is how can the electric assist bikes
be introduced to the trail system.
• The Federal Department of Transportation has defined electric-assisted bicycles to be no
more than 1 hp, 20 mph on motor alone for a 170 lb rider on flat ground. They are also
classified as bicycles, not motorized vehicles, and are allowed to be used along bike lanes
and multi-use paths.
• An interdepartmental team was convened to address this issue.
• If passed by City Council, electric assisted bicycles (not scooters) would only be allowed on
paved trails and would only go through a natural area if it is part of the paved trail system.
The “non-paved” trails/paths would remain “non-motorized.” Craig Foreman pointed out
that, if approved, three code areas would have to be changed to reflect the approval.
• Craig Foreman announced there will be an electric assist bicycle demonstration at City Park
on March 26, from 10 am to noon.
• Chronology:
o Council adoption of Plan Fort Collins in February 2011
o Formulation of core City staff team
o Develop schedule
o Identify stakeholders and outreach plan
o Data gathering including public outreach, peer community info, test rides, etc.
o Develop matrix of solutions
o Present staff recommendation(s)
o Craig stated they would like to get finalization in May, 2011, and he will probably
return to the AQAB with any updates.
Discussion
• To answer Rich Fisher who asked why motorized vehicles are currently prohibited in parks
and natural areas, Craig Foreman stated City parks were considered a quiet place to be and
should be separated from the urban environment.
• Craig Foreman also pointed out some people commute on the City’s trail system and the
electric assist bikes would help them do this. However, if someone “soups” up an electric
bike, enforcement could be an issue.
• Craig stated Parks and Recreation were concerned about noise and the Natural Resources
board was concerned about protecting wildlife.
• To answer Dennis Georg, Craig stated he does not know of any age restrictions for electric
assist bicycles in the state of Colorado.
• Hugh Mackay stated he did not want the electric bikes on the trails because trails are valued
by people to get away from motorized vehicles and for recreational exercise.
• Greg McMaster pointed out some trails are also commuter routes and suggested giving the
electric bikes a try and see what happens. Hugh Mackay stated designing trails for electric
bike use removes the recreational aspect of them.
• Nancy York stated if the electric assist bikes would assist senior citizens, staff should get
input from the Commission on Disabilities. If approved, there should be a trial period. Hugh
Mackay stated the trial period should only be in a limited area; not all trails.
• Dennis George suggested surveying the larger community for a broader perspective.
• Nancy York stated noise is an issue for her along with law enforcement. She suggested
electric assist bicycles need a permit and a license plate.
• To answer Dave Dietrich Craig Foreman stated there is no speed limit on trails. He also
knows two disabled people with electric assist bicycles. Dave suggested the Spring Creek
trail be designated as a trial period trail.
• Rich Fisher suggested making the trails 15 feet wide if they are going to have commuters.
Craig Foreman stated he didn’t think there would be enough traffic volume to warrant adding
an extra five feet of concrete to the trails.
• Michael Lynn asked if there was any data on accidents of electric bikes. If not, he suggested
getting data from other cities. Speed enforcement would be difficult without a radar gun.
• Dave Dietrich and Dennis George have ridden electric assist bicycles and stated they have
extremely fast acceleration that could be a safety issue on the trails.
• Craig Foreman stated staff will do a survey, gather data and will bring back results back to
the AQAB.
Air Quality/Solid Waste Survey and Air Quality Outreach
Lucinda Smith, and Ana Arias from the City’s Environmental Services Division, reviewed the
2007 Air Quality survey results in preparation for the 2011 survey. They also sought Board
comments on other air quality outreach plans and web page. Lucinda stated the City does this
survey every four to five years.
• Greg McMaster pointed out that in preparation for the 2011 survey they might look at
previous trends to see how to address new and upcoming issues.
• Lucinda stated the general objectives of the survey are to identify citizen beliefs, social
norms and actions people are taking, to assess current programs and to plan for future actions
about air quality.
• As background, Lucinda stated the last air quality survey was in 2007, and was sent to 1500
random citizens with a 38% response.
o 2007 results highlights of air quality programs the public had heard of:
Lawnmower rebate 32%
Anti-idling campaign 31%
Wood smoke complaint line 23%
Climate wise 15%
o Citizens perceived air quality was a priority
80% said something should be done to maintain or improve air quality in Fort
Collins
90% said the City should do more to control outdoor air pollution
60% rated air quality in Fort Collins as good
20% had experienced unacceptable air quality in Fort Collins.
o Citizens stated air pollution affected them because:
Causes brown cloud
Obscures mountain views
Triggers respiratory problems and causes long term respiratory problems.
o Citizens’ beliefs about global warming
82% agree the earth climate is warming.
ATTACHMENT 2
ELECTRIC BICYCLE SURVEY
We want to hear from you: Should electric assisted bicycles (e-bikes) be allowed on the City's paved
trails?
BACKGROUND
Currently City Code prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle or other “motorized means of
conveyance” on City trails; this includes e-bikes. Recently, a group of local citizens have been
advocating for a change to the City Code to allow e-bikes on paved trails. The current number of e-bikes
in Fort Collins is estimated at 50 bikes with the potential for rapid growth.
DETAILS
E-bikes
• E-bikes are more like bicycles than they are like other motorized vehicles (mopeds,
motorcycles).
• E-bikes can travel up to 20 mph and can accelerate more quickly than bikes without motors.
Compatibility with City Trails
• Some of the City’s paved trails have tight turns and segments with limited visibility.
• Paved City trails are heavily used and can become congested.
User’s Experience
• Allowing e-bikes on the paved trails allows a motorized vehicle into many of our parks and
natural areas, as the paved trails frequently run through them.
• Introducing e-bikes may fundamentally alter the experience of visitors who utilize natural areas
and parks as places that are free from power-assisted machines.
Transportation
• Allowing e-bikes on paved trails may encourage alternative commuting options.
People with Disabilities
• People with mobility disabilities are allowed to use e-bikes on City paved trails.
So, considering all of that: should electric assisted bicycles (e-bikes) be allowed on the City's paved
trails?
- 1 -
ATTACHMENT 3
E-bikes Public Feedback
202 total comments
Comments from Facebook: 26 (18 in favor, 8 not in favor, 3 neutral)
Letters to the Coloradoan – 3 (2 in favor, 1 not in favor)
Emails to City Staff – 8 (3 in favor, 4 not in favor, 1 neutral)
Comments from fcgov.com/YourVoice – 162 (72 in favor, 86 not in favor, 4 neutral)
Overall
• 47% in favor of allowing e-bikes on paved trails
• 49% not in favor of allowing e-bikes on paved trails
IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING E-BIKES ON PAVED TRAILS
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments on Facebook – 18 comments
David Monahan via Facebook
I see little reason why they shouldn't as long as they are speed limited (and in fact might provide
me a drafting opportunity). I would liken restricting this to limiting the level of bicyclists on the
trails, where you don't allow Cat 1's or 2's because they might be going too fast relative to
everyone else? There are no pollutants, neither noise or air, to impact anyone else.
Walking some of the bike trails in the morning the speed disparity is only an issue when
bicyclists aren't kind enough to make me aware of their presence. But I don't see how the
presence of e-bikes makes this worse. Worst case would be it brings more people onto the trails,
which really isn't a bad thing is it?
Aaron Propst via Facebook
How about don't ask don't tell?
If I can't tell you're on an e-bike because it looks and acts like a regular bike, and you are riding
like any other courteous cyclist... I don't care how you do it.
In other words, sure, legalize it. But find ways to enforce and better publicize the general rules
that apply to everybody already.
Christina Southwick via Facebook
I would like to see e-bikes allowed on bike trails! I don't think that college kids will go crazy (the
average bike costs around $2000). If regular bikes are allowed on the trails, then why not e-
bikes? As it has been mentioned, many of regular bike riders can go faster then 20 mph. If all
riders are courteous and obey the rules, then there should be no problem.
I do have a problem riding in bike lanes along regular city traffic, especially as long as car
drivers are allowed to use their cell phones while driving! It's dangerous for bikers on the roads!
Anytime I could use a safer alternative like a bike trail would be great! If the city is serious about
getting cars off the road and getting people to switch over to bikes, then e-bikes should be
- 2 -
allowed everywhere where regular bikes are allowed. It is tough to ride when the wind kicks up
or when I got groceries to carry. A little extra power helps a lot!
Tom Conley via Facebook
I am fine with e-bikes sharing the trail. A little education on trail etiquette is needed by some of
the trails present users. Remember to be aware of your environment, it is ultimately your
responsibility to keep yourself safe.
Vicki J. Peterson via Facebook
Sure, why not? It's fewer bikes for me to contend with on the streets.
Michelle Pinner Patello via Facebook
It is my belief that the e-bikes would not be a threat to anyone using the trails. I'm a member of
the Commission on Disability for the City of Fort Collins. I feel that is it important to consider
the mobility for the disabled as well. Thank you for putting this out for discussion.
Bob Duvall via Facebook
Yes just like electric wheel chairs some people need that assist to get going!!
Charles Radman via Facebook
Yes up to a certain speed limit. Look at cities like Amsterdam and how they manage this.
Christopher Peartree via Facebook
Absolutely.
Matt Fischer via Facebook
Yes, but can we still make fun of segways?
Irene Romsa via Facebook
yes!
Sarah Wade Potter via Facebook
As long as they are used responsibly I don't see a problem. They need to obey the same
courtesies that other bikers give each other. I've had people on standard bikes almost run me
over, so it depends on the user. I would love to have one simply because I have a child in a seat
behind me and 2 in a trailer....an extra 100 plus lbs. The motor would allow me to get out and
enjoy more trails and outdoor activities with my 5 children. That's the whole point of the trails,
isn't it?!!!
John Dodenhoff via Facebook
Ditto John Landis. Well said.
John Landis via Facebook
Luddites is spelled with two d's, and is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized, unless you
mean to use it in a derogatory way. :)
So if speed is not the problem, it must be that some people do not let you know that they are
coming up behind you, and about to pass, because I will not know by your silence that you were
- 3 -
there. I have seen many people startled by inconsiderate bikers who do not announce their
intention to pass or their presence.
If the argument for e-bikes on trails is to keep us Luddites in our place, then will motorized razor
scooters, electric 4 wheelers, and all other modes of electric vehicles be allowed as well?
I guess the Ranger's who patrol the trails would also need e-bikes, in order to enforce the rules of
the trails, as an e-bikes electric motor, would most likely out pace their endurance.
Future posts should refrain from derogatory language or "uppity" insinuations. Just my humble
opinion on a civil discussion board.
Bjorn Swenson via Facebook
I have no problems with allowing E-Bikes on City Trails. As long as they keep their speed below
20mph and slow down at the corners like the regular bikes already do then it is fine.
Another thing is that there are two types of trails, recreational based and travel based. The Spring
Creek and Poudre trails are recreational based and the Mason and Power trails are travel based.
How are E-Bikes expected to get from the south side to the north side of Fort Collins without the
Trails? College Ave is off limits for bikes for obvious reasons.
Belford Watkins Group LLC via Facebook
We use the trail for walking and biking. We are on the upper end of spring creek. I do not see
any problem with the E-Bikes being on the trails. The biggest problem will be the speed, and the
conflicts that arise between families walking their dogs, and small children at a more casual rate
then the bikes. However, we see this already with the road bikes that travel the trail. It might be
wise to have signs up, that let the bikes know that if a pedestrian and bike collision occurs, it will
naturally be assumed the bike is at fault due to the speeds they can travel. It makes our hearts
sing to see the amount of people who use the trail daily and the families that use the trail on the
weekend...we certainly do not want to not make it safe for them.
Derek Schutt via Facebook
I don't mind e-bikes. Biggest problem I run into as a daily bike path and bike lane commuter
(often at night), is bicyclists that don't obey traffic laws.
Jeff Turley via Facebook
E-Bikes should definitely be allowed on trails. John Landis presented the point that e-bikes are
already considered to be a consumer product and not a motor vehicle by the Feds. They are
mandated to be governed at 20mph, which is already attainable by unassisted riders (Personally,
I'm ~16mph average). Regarding OP's "Compatibility..." section, swift riders are perfectly
capable of slowing down when necessary; external power changes nothing. Even the electric
hum is no worse than some riders' squeaky drivetrain, and will likely leave you in peace more
quickly.
Edit: Considering also that people with disabilities are already permitted to use electric vehicles
on trails, is this perhaps a case of discrimination against able-bodied individuals? (For those
incensed, yes, this is intended to be hyperbole.)
- 4 -
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Letters to the Coloradoan – 2 letters
Allow e-bikes if there is enforcement
Letter in Coloradoan, May. 12, 2011
In a May 8 letter to the editor, Corky Walters says that banning e-bikes from trails would be like
banning Ferraris or Hummers from roads because they "might" speed or hog the road. That is a
disingenuous argument, one that seems to pop up in discussions on this issue.
Please note that Ferraris and Hummers must operate on streets and roads where radar and police
enforcement, for the most part, keep them under wraps and make life safer for the rest of us.
There isn't any enforcement or radar on the trails - it's pretty much a no-man's land out there.
And that situation allows the speeders and the rude riders to use the trails as their own personal
speedways.
My concern is that adding e-bikes to the mix, with their top speed of 20 mph, will make it more
dangerous for strollers and pedestrians who do not have a top speed of 20 mph.
If we can have robust enforcement and radar on the trails, then by all means, allow e-bikes on the
trails and institute a speed limit.
Walters might take note of the excellent Fort Collins bike map, which shows many viable
alternatives to riding on College Ave. (which by the way is illegal south of Laurel and north of
Harmony) and on Harmony Road. Swallow Road, Stover St. and Constitution Ave. are a few.
Dottie Spivak,
Fort Collins
Find better ways to keep trails safe
Letter in the Coloradoan, May. 8, 2011|
Should e-bikes be banned from bike trails? For years, I've enjoyed the trails both via regular bike
and an electric-assisted bike, and I applaud Fort Collins for creating this wonderful resource.
The city should promote trail safety by prohibiting those inconsiderate of others. I have
witnessed such bad behavior: uncontrolled dogs, bikes (of all kinds) going breakneck speed and
rollerbladers forcing others off the path. The city should prohibit bad behaviors, whatever the
transport mechanism - not just arbitrarily banish one particular bike style. Banning e-bikes from
trails would be like banning Ferraris or Hummers from roads because they "might" speed or hog
the road. Perhaps a speed limit on trails would be a practical solution.
I purchased an e-bike because I like biking to work and a long hill enroute meant arriving an
unacceptable sweaty mess. Street riding is uncomfortable as the unavoidable route is College
Avenue and Harmony Road. Despite nice bike lanes and careful riding, I do not feel safe riding
those streets.
My e-bike engine is mostly off, both to save battery and promote exercise by riding it as a
regular bike except for the steepest slopes. I am older than 60 and ride sedately and safely to
continue this mildly assisted exercise as long as possible.
- 5 -
Barring e-bikes also would hurt the green vehicle business opened here recently. Should a
"green" community that encourages new business and healthy living ruin this business with silly
regulations?
I encourage our city to find fairer ways to keep the trails safe.
Corky Walters,
Fort Collins
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes E-mails to City Staff – 2 e-mails
From: Rapp, Steve [mailto:Steve.Rapp@ARS.USDA.GOV]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:11 PM
To: David Kemp
Subject: electric bikes
Dave,
Hi, my name is Steve R. and I am just giving my input supporting electric bikes approval to use
on Ft. Collins bike trails.
I have owned an e-bike for 6-months or so and have rode it regularly over the winter.
It weighs about 50 lbs. and goes 15-17 mph. Sometimes I ride it on the bike trail and all I can say
is that there are plenty of regular non electric bikes that fly past me. I ride around people on the
trail the same as if I was on a non electric bike. I don’t think most people even realize that I am
on an electric bike. It makes no noticeable noise, creates no emissions and seems to be more
stable on snow and ice than my non electric bikes. It has a little bit longer wheel base and a bit
more weight in the back wheel that increases traction. It is sort of like putting sand bags in the
back of a truck for added traction. Full speed is similar to a brisk pedaling. You have to use
common sense while riding it just like anything else.
There are over 1,000 emergency room admittances annually from people walking while texting I
heard the other day. Which has nothing to do with this.
If people exercise basic common sense I don’t see why electric bikes are any more dangerous
than regular non-electric bikes on the bike trail.
Worse case they could approve them and reverse the decision if it becomes an issue.
Thanks, Steve R
Email to Dave Kemp
I have reservations but, yes, I support e-bikes on our paved trails, as above all I want to
encourage transportation alternatives to the car.
My concerns are first and foremost, speed, coupled with riders not always giving notice of
passing, which will be worse for those approaching from behind quickly. I am concerned I will
- 6 -
feel like I am riding on a road (i.e., stressed). Can there be a speed limit imposed? Now would
be the time to require a cap on speed, right from the start.
Secondly, to be honest, I am concerned that as the number of users goes up, my enjoyment level
will go down. But perhaps then we can lobby for wider trails. And more people using and thus
supporting the trails, as well as bikes, should be a very good thing.
For the record, I am a cyclist who uses the trails extensively for commuting/errands/short trips as
well as recreation/long rides. The bike is my first choice for transport and the paved trails are
my first choice for my route.
Lastly, there are a lot of novices out there and this will most likely add more and/or seniors to the
mix. We really need education for the users (e.g., signage to educate, more police/cycling
advocates on bikes/trails, or more classes.) Perhaps instructional info could be received when
registering a bike, etc. The weekends especially can be a bit crazy. The City bike maps have
been very good in this regard.
What are other communities choosing to do, especially in Europe? Thanks for asking.
From: Ray Frush [mailto:phred@frii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:30 PM
To: Kim Newcomer
Subject: Re: Comments on Web Site
Properly engineered electric assist bikes are designed to stop assisting the rider above speeds of
20 miles an hour.
This is slower than a strong cyclist on a normal" bicycle on level terrain. E-bikes do climb hills
faster, but do not go down hills faster, and depending on design, may even be slower (Direct
drive systems have extra drag at speeds >20MPH). In Fort Collins a key "benefit" of the e-bike
is riding into the wind, where the e-bike can help the rider maintain a consistent speed. For a
commuter, being able to maintain a consistent speed despite wind conditions makes it far easier
to time their ride to meet appointments.
Since the top speed of properly manufactured e-bikes is limited, I don't see that the concern
about excessive speed on the trails is supported. Risking self incrimination, I'll admit that I have
ridden some of the trails with my e-bike (Trek Ride+), and during the "morning/evening"
commute, I rarely pass other commuters (vs. recreational riders) and I frequently maintain a
speed of 18-20mph, and do occasionally get passed by riders who are clearly very strong, avid
cyclists. I've also noted that recreational riders tend not to be very common during "commute
times" on the trails I use. All cyclists, regardless if they are using an e-bike or a conventional
bike are moving faster than other users of
the trails, and must behave courteously when passing walkers, joggers, and other slower modes
that share the trails.
I use an e-bike to make it palatable to commute by bike nearly year round instead of driving, and
I average 2-3 day a week in the winter, and 4-5 days a week in the summer. Late winter/early
spring is particularly challenging to bike commuters in Fort Collins with our prevailing winds.
- 7 -
I believe that petal assist bikes, that require the rider to work before the bikes will provide
assistance should be allowed on all Fort Collins bike trails. Bikes with a throttle should be
restricted to people with documented mobility disabilities as they are today.
In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments Through fcgov.com/YourVoice – 72 comments
Comments:
yes. E-bikes do not accelerate faster than a competant cyclists on a multi-geared bicycle. They
only accelerate faster than casual riders.
Most blind corners are already signed. Perhaps tight turns & blind corners should be posted with
a speed limit (this same risk exists regardless of e-bike or standard bike).
Name: mark laken
Email: m_laken@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes
Name: Chris
Email: cb_banister@msn.com
Comments:
Yes, if they remain at a safe speed for all trail users.
Name: Steve Wilkin
Email: smwilkin@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes! People can easily go over 20mph on pedal bikes and be unsafe. Unclear what the
difference is safety wise and re "the fundamental experience." I don't own one, but would like
to. More people would commute using them if trails were not off limits, as riding on the road
can be quite scary.
Name: Craig
Email:
Comments:
The E-Bikes should be allowed on the trail system, as a City we are committed to being green
and with the ever rising cost of fuel more people will be forced to utilize bikes for transportation.
More people who are physically challenged and members of the "grey work force" will need to
use E-Bikes for their daily trips to work.
Name: Greg C. Smith
Email: gsmith5454@gmail.com
Comments:
as long as it does not impede the regular foot traffic then why not?
Name: jprid
Email: jpride.p@gmail.com
Comments:
I see problems in enforcing this and I don't seem any harm in them. Lets err on increasing
freedom when rather neutral about its effects! I'm glad this is being discussed.
- 8 -
Name: Andrew Stover
Email: awstover@rams.colostate.edu
-bikes are quiet and can not easily be made to go faster than 20 mph even with pedaling assist.
The speed of the bike is completely manageable by the rider, so the control of the e-bike, like the
control of any bike, is in the hands and mind of the rider. As a person who commutes *because*
of the electric assist, I would like the opportunity to use city paved trails. My bicycle commuting
is 1) keeping our air clean, 2) easing congestion and wear and tear on our roads, and 3) keeping
me healthy and in good spirits. OK, it saves a significant amount of money, too. Courtesy on
the trails by all users (pedestrians, dog-walkers, stroller pushers, bicyclists, in-line skaters,
wheelchair-ers - all with or without motors) is what will make the multi-use trails successful in
Fort Collins. I have used the paved trails for walking, running, dog-walking, biking, and in-line
skating. In every case, communication between slower and faster speed users is what has made
the use peaceful and effective.
Name: Dee Wanger
Email: dee.wanger@gmail.com
Comments:
Cyclists traveling at 20mph is not something unique to e-bikes. Any decent road cyclist is easily
capable of traveling that fast without the boost of an electric motor, so I don't see that as a
legitimate argument against allowing e-bikes. Cyclists need to travel at a safe enough speed to
negotiate the trails, whether leg-powered or electric powered. I say, yes, allow the e-bikes.
It must be done in a way that doesn't open the flood gates for other motorized means of
transportation, though. The, "no motorized transportation," limit is easily defined and identified.
An equally easily definable and identifiable limit would need to replace it.
Name: Gregg D. Stonecipher
Email: greggstonecipher@gmail.com
Comments:
I think that they should be allowed to encourage more biking and transportation alternatives but I
am also concerned about potential for abuse and safety of speeding e-bikes. E-bikes can ride on
roads if they want to so I think there should be a speed limit on the trails. One avenue for self-
regulation might be to require e-bikes to register and get some kind of license plate that
observers could use to report abusers and unsafe riders.
Name: John Butler
Email: jd.butler1222@gmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely they should be allowed. They are quiet and non-polluting and an excellent
alternative for those who want to work slowly back into getting out and exercising since you can
pedal to assist the motor on most of them and extend your range. I have a friend with one who
has a pacemaker and leg problems. He is trying to lose weight and start getting back some
mobility, but he can't pedal for long without the assist of the electric motor. As it is he has to
stick to city streets to be legal which is much more dangerous.
Name: Ron Perkins
Email: aperkins@perkinsls.com
- 9 -
Comments:
Yes, I am for allowing e-bikes on the trails. Many regular bicycles already pass me at a high rate
of speed as I walk on the trails. E-bikes are generally not used by speed demons. And since the e-
bikes are quiet they will not disturb the peaceful ambience on the trails. Thanks for the
opportunity to respond.
Name: Robin MacDonald
Email: rmacdonald@fcgov.com
Comments:
Sure, they are bikes just with a motor on the back of it. Plus it doesn't pollute or anything, it is
fully electric and I think it would be just fine to allow them on the trails. To not would not be
right at all.
Name: Neal moody
Email: nealm323@hotmail.com
Comments:
Yes - If high penalties for SPEEDING are in place and enforced. Sames with bicycles. I'm a
walker. Thanks
Name: william nies
Email: bluespot68@gmail.com
Comments:
Banning a tool is rarely a good solution when the problem is the user. I don’t think E-bikes pose
any greater threats to safety and tranquility than the currently allowed forms of transportation.
We should embrace new technologies that help sustain our environment and focus more on the
social issues that will allow all parties to share our common resources in a peaceful and civil
manner.
Name: Billy Linn
Email: blinn@fcgov.com
Comments:
Yes - they should be allowed. I'd have no safety concerns sharing the bike paths with the
demographic that owns electric bikes.
Name: Jim Francis
Email: jmfumass@yahoo.com
Comments:
E-bikes should be REQUIRED to use paved city trails or sidewalks.
They do not belong on city streets (and neither do other bicycles) because of the safety hazard
they incur to both themselves and motorized traffic.
Name: Willis Whatley
Email: whatley@frii.com
Comments:
Absolutely! These electric assisted bicycles travel no faster that a person powered bike and this
will open the bike trails and bicycling to many who would not otherwise ride. Allowing e-bikes
will promote bicycle use in instances where distances are too long for a regular bike.
Name: Bill DeMarco
Email: william.demarco@gmail.com
- 10 -
Comments:
Yes, they should. Even though their respective speeds can be high the same can be said for road
and mountain bikes careening the same trails at excessive speeds.
I think encouragement instead of trepidation is what is appropriate for the e-bikes.
Name: Steve Nelson
Email: skisteveski@yahoo.com
Comments:
I think it is important for people with mobility disabilities to use e-bikes on paved trails. A
friend of mine has a serious heart condition and must use an e-bike to enjoy the paved trails with
his family. Despite the law allowing people with disabilities to use e-bikes, he was stopped by
police on the trail -- ruining an otherwise rare day of fun with his family. Law enforcement
needs to educated on this issue. Thank you.
Name: Bridget Newman
Email: bridget.newman@gmail.com
Comments:
Yes. It's no different than allowing racing bikes on the trails -- similar speeds, similar control, no
problem. They're more of a hazard on the streets.
Name: Bob Schaffer
Email: bobschaffer@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes. Regular bikes already can go faster than some of the tight turns allow for, so e-bikes would
not be unique in that regard. Encouraging more alternative commuting is a compelling reason to
allow this.
Name: Ron Pichel
Email: rpichel@ieee.org
Comments:
E-bikes (and trailers) absolutely should be allowed on our trails. They go no faster than 20mph
and don't pose any more of a threat to other users of trails than fast non-motorized cyclists. And
the target market for e-bikes are older citizens and/or families who may be encouraged to get out
and exercise more, plus help the environment by not driving a vehicle, if they could have a little
assistance from an electric motor. I don't see this population terrorizing the trails by whizzing by
other users.
I was a test pilot for the RideKick (locally manufactured e-bike trailer) and while I didn't engage
the motor when I rode on trails, I found it a very useful tool on windy days and for getting
through busy intersections (e.g., Lemay and Riverside).
Please revise the City's rec dept. ordinance to allow for these modes of transportation.
Thank you.
Name: Kim Sharpe
Email: krs4@pvhs.org
- 11 -
Comments:
I think we should allow ebikes on trails. They are indeed more like bicycles than mopeds or
motorcycles. We may want to consider posting a speed limit though.
Name: bill bethurum
Email: billbethurum@yahoo.com
Comments:
If "people with disabilities" are allowed to use e-bikes on the trails, it would only require a small
nudge of the rules to allow senior citizens, as I have heard that is the most requested allowance.
Most seniors I know require the "boost" of the electric motor to navigate some of the steeper
portions on the paths and I fully support seniors getting out on the paths from a safety standpoint
if no other. Besides seniors and people with disabilities, I see NO reason to allow any motorized
vehicles on the paths just as the current rules state.
Name: Scott Groen
Email: scottgroen@fixit1s.com
Comments:
Yes. Also, I would like to see regulations rewritten to define safe use rather than to restrict or
allow specific classes of ultralight electric vehicles. These vehicles are still in their infancy as
battery technology continues to improve, and the availability of different configurations (bikes,
trikes, etc.) makes them a viable nonpolluting alternative for getting around town while reducing
traffic congestion.
Name: Peter Ulrich
Email: peteru6@msn.com
Comments:
Segments of the trail system are ideal for daily commuting. Allowing an ebike to use the trails
would provide a safe, car free way to get to work and shopping.
As I remember, power-assisted vehicles were banned from natural areas because of noise
pollution and off-trail abuse, not speed.
The City should issue licenses to all bicycles and ebikes to promote responsible use.
Name: Mark
Email: office@mosaicmills.com
Comments:
seniors and those with disabilities should be allowed to use ebikes on the city's paved trails.
Name: Ann O'Toole
Email: aeotoole@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, I think they should be allowed. They are quiet and as long as they are riding at a similar
speed as a bike there should be no more of a conflict than with a standard bike.
Name: Mike Wilkinson
Email: m_wilkinson67@msn.com
Comments:
Yes. They are quiet and not extremely powerful. With electric bikes filling a speed gap between
regular bikes and motor bikes, some other criterion needs to be established to determine what
qualifies on the trail than whether it has a motor.
- 12 -
Name: Jim Gano
Email: jgano@mywdo.com
Comments:
Yes, I have no problems with e-bikes on the city trails.
Name: Jason Timian
Email:
Comments:
As a owner of an "e-bike" I definately think they should be allowed. The motor assist is there a
backup, not as main propellant. Thanks.
Name: B.J. Stoner
Email: bjstoner@fcgov.com
Comments:
Absolutely! They are not loud, polluting, or obvious to the other trail users. The bikes must still
be peddled to use the motors. They would most likely go completely undetected. I want an
ebike so I can ditch my car for short errands around town, but because of my chronic conditions I
don't have the strength or energy to haul bags of groceries. An ebike would make that possible
for me.
Name: Margo Ervin
Email: margo.b.ervin@gmail.com
Comments:
(My full letter was flagged as "spam" by the "Your Voice" submission page, this short version is
submitted as a test)
I believe that petal assist bikes, that require the rider to work before the bikes will provide
assistance should be allowed on all Fort Collins bike trails. Bikes with a throttle should be
restricted to people with documented mobility disabilities as they are today.
Name: Ray Frush
Email: ray.frush@gmail.com
Comments:
I am a regular user of the bike trails, walking and cycling, and occasionally roller blading. Over
the years I've pushed my kids in strollers too, sometimes on roller blades, and towed them in bike
trailers. I've noticed e-bikes on the streets, though I didn't know that's what they are called until
reading todays article in the Coloradoan. I'm also aware of the local company that's developing
an electric powered bike trailer (Dee and Mark Wanger's RideKick) though I haven't tried one.
My first reaction to this issue, in talking to Dee Wanger about the RideKick, was to oppose
allowing motorized bikes on the trails, except by people for whom they are medically necessary.
But on further reflection I think they should be allowed. For me the critical issue is their speed,
and whether their presence is safe for other trail users. There are already often crowded
conditions, and safety should be the first concern. If their top speed is 20 miles per hour, then
they are comparable to road bikes. Cyclists on road bikes must use caution on the trails, and
riders of e-bikes would have to do the same.
- 13 -
I'm really glad that we have the trails we have, and hope we'll continue to expand them.
Allowing the use of e-bikes sounds like something that can be done safely, and will generate
continued support for our bike trail system. I support allowing e-bikes on the city bike trails.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Name: Laura L. Davis
Email: davpete@frii.com
Comments:
I'm not sure there's an issue to debate here. Though I disagree with the contention that there's no
difference between an e-bike and a road bike, I seriously doubt there will be any difference in the
rate of accidents along the trails. Has anyone looked at other places where e-bikes are allowed
on trails to see if there's an uptick in accident rates or complaints? I suppose that data probably
doesn't exist.
If it's determined that it is a problem, has anyone considered allowing e-bikes on some trails and
not others? There are some trails that are more oriented towards commuting and some more
oriented towards recreation. It seems to me that the Mason Street trail and Power Trail are
obvious places to allow e-bikes, but maybe spring creek trail, for example, is more recreation
oriented.
The most important issue is that bikes of all types, whether powered or not, use the trails
curteously. Speed limits should probably already be posted (maybe 15 mph?), though
enforcement would obviously be absent. Perhaps a sign stating that the trails are intended for
multiple uses, not just commuting and not just for recreation, would be appropriate as well to
help with the attitude amongst some that the trail is 'for' their user group.
Name: Andrew Beavers
Email: beavers_andrew@hotmail.com
Comments:
As a long time (20+ years) bike rider in the city of Fort Collins, I have ridden thousands of miles
on our wonderful trails and bike routes. It is no surprise that Fort Collins is designated a "Bike
Friendly" city by those who bestow such labels. As I have grown older, as we all do, I find that I
ride more infrequently. I have often thought that having an e-bike would solve this problem, but
the deal breaker has always been the ban on e-bikes from the bike trails.
If the ban was lifted, I would seriously consider buying an e-bike. It would be great for me, but
more importantly for the City of Fort Collins it would mean one less @%#&# on the street for
you to have to deal with.
Put me down as being FOR e-bikes on the trails.
Name: Clarke Wright
Email: clarkewright@hotmail.com
Comments:
Yes E-bikes should be allowed. The trail system is a shared resource used by many different
user groups.
I feel the intent of the current code was aimed at larger motors as used in scooters and
motorcycles.
Name: Matt Dworak
Email: mattdworak42@msn.com
- 14 -
Comments:
Yes. Emphasis should be on safety and speed. There should be a speed limit on the trails as in
other cities.
Name: Isabel
Email: isabelpoppit@gmail.com
Comments:
I have tried an e-bike and admit it can accelerate faster then any other bike that "I" am on.
However, the two I rode also had significantly better brakes then most standard bikes. I also
know that even at 20 mph I could not keep up with some of the folks riding their road bikes on
the trail system. These e-bikes are not racing bikes! They do not pollute. They encourage
environmentally clean transportation and should be allowed on the trail system. I will not buy
one if I can't use it on the trail system due to the heavy, not so bike friendly, auto traffic in Ft.
Collins. The trail system allows me to avoid most of that danger and gets me across town safely
and quickly. Guess I will have spend the $2,000 on fuel instead
Name: Mike Brouwer
Email: mdbrealtor@juno.com
Comments:
Absolutely yes. I currently use the trails to walk while pushing my husband in his wheelchair.
Regular bikes are ridden fast and cannot be heard approaching from behind. Fortunately, bike
riders are mostly a considerate group and most announce their passing on the left. I doubt it
would be any different with e-bikes. This would open our wonderful trails to seniors (who are
more likely to use them during the week - off times) for something other than walking. This
would be another wonderful thing about living in Fort Collins as a Senior.
Name: Blanche McMillen
Email: jimandblanche@msn.com
Comments:
They could be allowed, but only if the operator's understand and abide by the rules of the trail. I
was almost run over by an ebike user on the Power trail when I stopped for the stop sign but he
did not. This might be an excellent educational opportunity.
Name: Marc Brown
Email: marcgbrown@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, allow electric bikes on the trails. As a frequent walker on the trails, I can attest to the fact
that most cyclists currently ride pretty fast and unfortunately some don't even give a warning
when approaching me. I think ebikes would mostly be used by elders who are not generally
going to ride that fast or disobey safety rules.
They just need some pedaling assistance.
Name: Carol Hotto
Email: carolhotto@comcast.net
Comments:
I ride the city bike paths extensivley and I see no reason to exclude electric bicycles on these
paths. I am of the age where I will some day be limited to the amount of peddling I will be able
to endure. The electric bike will be a way I can still be able to enjoy the outdoors and our
wounderful biking system.
- 15 -
Name: Chuck Helzer
Email: cghelzer@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, I think so. I use my e-bike as an alternative form of transport to o grocery and other
shopping in my local area. Allowing my e-bake on the trail ill no other impact that lowering my
gasoline consumption and improving my safety as I go to and from my short-range errands.
Name: Jack Raymond Jones
Email: JRJONES@SPEMAIL.ORG
Comments:
Yes! I am 48 years old and have a lung disease that is destroying my lungs. I have only 40% of
my function, but still like to bike. Riding with my oxygen concentrator is difficult because it is
so heavy. With an e-bike, I could continue to ride and not need the oxygen, as I really only need
it on hills and the e-bike would take care of that. I don't have a "mobility disability" and don't
look forward to being hassled on the bike trail because I look healthy (other than not being able
to breathe, I am!).
Name: Barb Powers
Email: barb@powersalpacas.com
Comments:
I think e-bikes should be allowed on paved trails.
Name: Patrick Mahoney
Email: pfmahoney@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes, legalize Elec Bikes! I run and walk city's trails every day with my children and dogs and
pass by those bike all the time. Elec bikes pose ""no more problems then regular bikes"". There
quite and its a grt form of transportation for every one who uses them. I even rode one once and I
enjoyed it.
Name: David woodruff
Email: positiveenergy1969@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes. We are over 60 and use our bikes on the roads to run errands instead of taking the car.
There are some places where there is no bike lane (i.e., Prospect east of Shields) and we have to
go out of our way to avoid using the bike paths. The bike paths are already crowded and need to
be upgraded, especially Spring Creek Trail south of the university, but allowing electric bikes
won't make the problems better. Improvements to the trail system are needed no matter what.
Name: Nora Jones
Email: norajones@yahoo.com
Comments:
E-bikes should be allowed on paved trails! As it was mentioned, conventional bikes pass up e-
bikes so speed should not be an issue. My husband and I made the decision to purchase e-bikes a
couple of months ago instead of getting a second car. We have been riding them to work and
shopping whenever weather permits to do so safely. This took two cars off the road. If the city
is serious about reducing the amount of cars on the roads, e-bikes should be allowed on bike
trails/paved trails. Fort Collins can't possibly be behind its time compared to other cities. Please
do not discriminate against e-bikes!
- 16 -
We would feel much safer if we were allowed to use the paved trails. As long as car drivers are
allowed to use their cell phones while driving we do not feel very safe on most roads.
Name: Christina Southwick
Email: c.southwick@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should absolutely be allowed on the City's paved trails. I have used the trails for several
years both for recreational riding and to commute to work. Some riders on these trails are
capable of going 20 miles per hour, especially on the down hill sections of the Power Trail.
Cycling on the trails has a lot to do with courteous behavior, like giving people an audible
warning before you pass. This is especially true on the Spring Creek trail, which is somewhat
narrow and has tight corners. Whether someone has an E-bike or is just a strong rider, they need
to be aware of others on the trail and this is behavior that shouldn't be legislated, so much as
constantly taught and modeled.
If E-bikes encourage more people to ride to work and for sport, I'm all for it!
Name: Bob Hager
Email: bobhager01@msn.com
Comments:
YES, e-bike should be allowed on all bike trails. 3 out of 4 bikes are mnt bikes and they pose
more of a problem to our natural areas and parks. Mnt bikes are made for aggressive trail riding
of every kind, and people take advantage of this on our city paved trails. Where as E-bikes are
made for a leisurely- transportation ride and generally people who own these bikes are older and
more mature then the younger mnt bike rider.. Allow e-bikes, and be fair to every one.
Name: Sandy Bollaert
Email: riverranch1969@yahoo.com
Comments:
Yes, I think they should be allowed. Regular bikes can certainly go faster than the ebike at 20
MPH, and are also quiet-so I don't see that they are any more dangerous and people still have to
follow the rules no matter what they are on. I would really like to get one of these, as I would
like to ride to work (15 miles) and sometimes cannot make the ride home,so this would be an
ecological way to save gas even if I am not as fit as some of the bike riders in the area. Most of
the people who would buy these, I think, are in a similar situation and are more likely to be older,
more responsible adults, anyway who are likely to follow the bike path rules.
Name: Marta Dean
Email: mdeandvm@aol.com
Comments:
Perhaps, the e-bikes can be on the trail as long as their motor is not engaged. Most e-bikes have
the capability of disengaging the motor, don't they?
My main concern would be the people who would go 20 mph, even if it was not safe to do so,
just because they can. So, could there be speed restrictions? That would be true for everybody,
regardless of the type of bicycle.
- 17 -
Name: Beth Dickson
Email: gilgaladbeth@msn.com
Comments:
Yes, ebikes should be allowed on the paved trails! I own a 250W ebike. The bike goes no faster
than any other bike on the trails. In many cases, I'm being passed by non-ebikes. There is
absolutely no safety risk that exists above and beyond a non-ebike. My ebike's motor is only on
when I'm heading up a steep hill or riding against a head wind. I ride 10 miles to/from work
every day (including winter). It would be much safer for me if I could ride on the trails and keep
myself off the main city streets. It would also reduce about a mile off my daily trip. The city
needs to encourage/promote this type of transportation and get more people on bikes and out of
their cars. I wouldn’t be on a bike everyday if I didn’t have my ebike and the alternative is to
drive my 13mpg F-150 on the Fort Collins congested road system. BTW, there is no congestion
on bike trails like Shawn Brook suggested in the Coloradoan. The congestion (and danger) for
bikers exist on the city streets. Let the ebikes ride the paved trails and encourage a safest
possible place to ride for all bikers alike.
Name: David Greer
Email: itsdgreer@yahoo.com
Comments:
Electric assisted bicycle (e-bikes) should be allowed on City paved trails.
They are no more dangerous than regular bicycles. Legal e-bikes are limited by law to 20mph -
regular bikes are not. Neither bikes nor legal e-bikes are "motorized vehicles" according to the
US NHTSA, thus bikes and legal e-bikes in our parks and natural areas do not violate the "no
motorized vehicle" designation. E-bikes are best viewed as electric assisted vehicles, not
motorized vehicles. Generally (due to the expense) e-bikes are ridden by adults who are
concerned about their own safety and those around them. They are simple to use and in some
cases for adults (crossing traffic for example) safer and easier than regular bikes. E-bikes make
wonderful replacements for car commuting around town for those with heavy loads to carry over
some distance - especially in the summer. One can arrive at work without need of shower and
deodorant. I have put about 4,000 miles per year on my e-bike since 2002 without a single
accident/incident. I commute every nice day with a 16 mile round trip by e-bike - with laptop and
other business paraphernalia my pack is often 10 to 12 pounds or more. My wife and I have
often cruised on the trails and downtown on weekends without incident. The only times we've
been stopped are by other riders wanting to know about our bikes.
How does one enforce a "no e-bike" rule? May I ride my e-bike on city trails if I do not use the
motor? What about if the battery is dead? Is it the e-bike itself that is the problem? Is it the use
of the electric motor? Is it the rider? If I have retrofitted a bike with a gasoline engine and do not
use it, is it OK then on city trails? If so, why not electric motors not being used?
The bike trails are certainly congested. People with multiple dogs on long leashes dashing across
the trail. Children romping. Walkers 4 and 5 abreast spanning the entire trail. Families on
bikes. Mother pushing strollers. Joggers. A family on one single bike (mom, dad, young kid on
3rd seat and young one in trailer). Walkers with iPods in their ears oblivious to surroundings.
JHS, HS and CSU students going to and from school. Elementary school bike parades. Young
men and women in full race wear with lightweight racing bikes. Kids walking along with fishing
poles waving in the rhythm of the walk. Horses and riders. A Segway (once that I saw - pretty
- 18 -
interesting). Grandma and Grandpa on small electric bikes. All these and more have I seen in
my use of the Spring Creek Trail from the moment it opened (and long before bridges crossed
the creek). All of these and more define the residents of Fort Collins. This is the wonderful
diversity that defines who we are as a city, a community, a group of neighborhoods, a group of
citizens sharing our amazing resources. Preventing trail use by those with loud ungainly internal
combustion engines of all forms - the true motorized vehicles - seems appropriate. Preventing
those using city resources in responsible, reasonable ways for personal enjoyment without harm
or problem to others seems, in my opinion, surprisingly restrictive for the Choice City.
Name: Patrick Fitzhorn
Email: patrick@engr.colostate.edu
Comments:
YES!!! I don't have an e-bike but may get one someday. E-bikes, motorized scooters, etc could
all benefit by using the paths. It would be safer for them, and would not impact the walkers and
bikers.
I have ridden bikes in Palm Springs, CA. They allow e-bikes, scooters, and even golf carts on
the bike paths. The have a yellow line down the middle and their system works. Please allow e-
bikes and other small motored modes of transportation on the bike paths. Allowing other modes
of transportation on the paths will cut down on people driving their cars and that is good for
everyone and the planet. Thank you!!!
Name: Connie Clefe
Email: gumee@comcast.net
Comments:
I bought an electric bike in the 1990s. Love it, but can not ride it here because of the threat of a
ticket. I am in my 60's and would love to ride with my grandchildren, but am not allowed to go
with them. How sad. They should certainly be approved along with electric golf carts on the
local roads. Great gas savers and less pollution.
Name: Billie Pawlikowski
Email: wmpawlikowski@msn.com
Comments:
Absolutely,
Some of the concerns are related to the e-bike being new. That is understandable. It should be
understood that they are generally quiet. Although they accelerate faster, their maximum speeds
are about the same as a conventional bike. Riders do need to learn the new parameters. They
also need be courteous, but everyone does. So I do not feel their introduction will fundamentally
alter the experience of visitors to parks and natural areas. The bikes are quieter than most people
talk.
Congestion is a good thing to consider. But I'd rather it was considered in the broader context.
More people using paved trails means fewer people using -cars on roadways. In the long run
perhaps the paved trail system will need to be enhanced. I think that would probably be cheaper
than roadway improvements. The paved trails are where we want people to be traveling not the
roadways. Obviously there are limits. I have an e-bike and a conventional bike. Between the
two I use the car about 10 miles a week often less or not at all. I get exercise and fresh air. I see
what this city has to offer. I have fun.
Even so, the e-bike on the roadway can be unsafe. There are usually bike paths to use but taking
left turns is a hazard as is car drivers who only look for other cars.It would be nice if I could use
- 19 -
the paved trails with my e-bike. It is a great way to commute, relax, and see Fort Collins and its
surroundings. Thanks,
Name: Craig Southwick
Email: craigles@gmail.com
Comments:
Yes, they should be allowed: I can't picture the young speeders using them. Only those of us
who can't pedal as much as we would like to. They are quiet and they can't go as fast as those
youngsters anyway. I will be wanting one in the not too distant future so I would like to be able
to use it on the trails.
Name: Judy Castro
Email: jcastro919@comcast.net
Comments:
I don't own an e-bike, but I think they should be allowed on the City's paved trails. Any rider,
whether on a human or electric powered bike needs to take responsibility and be cautious on
tight turns, limited visibility and congested trail segments, etc. While e-bikes are "motorized",
they are very quiet and should also be allowed on paved trails in parks and open areas. I feel the
benefit of encouraging this alternate commuting option far outweighs any small costs. Don't over
burden the city code with new e-bike riding regulations either, simply require they follow the
same rules as regular bike riders.
Name: Matt Oberle
Email: mattoberle@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes. they are different than mopeds. Top speed is 20 mph. I have had many a regular bike pass
me at faster speeds than that. THis is a great "green" option for FC to support.
Name: Peggy Mihelich
Email: gupster3@yahoo.com
Comments:
I have been using alternate modes of transportation for my day to day business travel within the
city since fall of 2007. My primary mode of travel is an electric assist bike, followed by non-
powered bike and walking. Since that time I have logged 10,011 miles of travel within the city.
The calculated energy cost for this travel is $10.80, with a carbon impact savings 12511 lbs. The
calculated fuel and maintenance cost is estaimated at $4,729.00.
As the cost of fossil fuel is now rising again I expect others to begin looking at alternate modes
of travel within our city. An electric assit bike is a wonderful option. This mode of travel
provides an efficient, clean, quiet and enjoyable experience. I have found that for trips 3 miles or
less travel by E-bike is often times faster than by car. I arrive refreshed, sweat free and ready to
meet.
My hope is that the city code will be changed to allow electric assist bikes to access and use the
paved trail system.
Name: Mike Haddorff
Email: mikehadd@collins-control.com
- 20 -
Comments:
E-bikes should be allowed to use the bike trails as long as they keep their speed below 20 mph.
E-bikes should be required to have some type of bell or horn to warn other users because E-bikes
are too quiet and others can't hear them coming.
Name: Scott Mason
Email: scmason511@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes are fundamentally like regular non- assisted bikes. They are the same form factor, have
the same footprint, and travel at the same speeds. Yes they should have the right to use the paths,
just as walkers, runners, skateboarders, skaters, dog-walkers, etc. They are an assist, not a
motorcycle or moped. They are silent.
I believe that they are SAFER than non assisted bikes, in that they accelerate easier, thus making
it much more likely that the rider will come to a stop at stop signs and intersections, unlike many
(if not most) regular bikers who fail to stop at stop signs and intersections and endanger others.
Ebikes are part of a cleaner, greener future, and should be encouraged. The paths are owned and
paid for by all. Share and be safe and courteous.
Name: Leroy Cynkar
Email: lcynkar1@comcast.net
Comments:
Either outlaw all bikes, or allow e-bikes. Be sure that a Segue is considered an eBike. They give
access to the trails to the elderly and handicapped. I would stick with no combustion motors,
tho.
Name: Dave Hejde
Email: FortC05-csu@yahoo.com
Comments:
Should E-bikes be banned from bike trails? For years I’ve enjoyed the trails both via regular
bike and an electric assisted bike, and I applaud Fort Collins for creating this wonderful
resource.
The city should promote trail safety by prohibiting those inconsiderate of others. I have
witnessed such bad behavior: uncontrolled dogs, bikes (of ALL kinds) going breakneck speed,
and rollerbladers forcing others off the path. The city should prohibit bad behaviors, whatever
the transport mechanism, not just arbitrarily banish one particular bike style. Banning E-bikes
from trails would be like banning Ferraris or Hummers from roads because they might speed or
hog the road. Perhaps a speed limit on trails would be a practical solution.
I purchased an e-bike because I like biking to work and a long hill enroute meant arriving an
unacceptable sweaty mess. Street riding is uncomfortable as the unavoidable route is College
and Harmony. Despite nice bike lanes and careful riding I do not feel safe riding those streets.
My e-bike engine is mostly off , both to save battery and promote exercise by riding it as a
regular bike except for the steepest slopes. I am over 60 and ride sedately and safely to
continue this mildly assisted exercise as long as possible.
- 21 -
Barring E-bikes would also hurt the green vehicle business opened here recently. Should a
“green” community that encourages new business and healthy living ruin this business with silly
regulations?
I encourage our city to find fairer ways to keep the trails safe.
Name: Corky Walters
Email: corkywal@comcast.net
Comments:
Yes, e-bikes should be allowed on the paved trails. My retired husband isn't able to physically
ride a regular pedal bike and uses an e-trike to get around. He would be so much safer on the
trails then he is on the streets with the fast moving traffic.
Name: Barbara Gonzales
Email: bjgonzales3@gmail.com
Comments:
Hello: I have had an e-bike going on 3 years now and have been using it on the bike trail all of
that time. I did not know it was illegal until last summer. I use my bike to commute to work
during the spring, summer, and fall and enjoy riding the City trail in the evenings and weekends.
I frequently ride downtown for dinner and use the trail to get home safely. Ft. Collins has a
wonderful bike route system and I use all routes for safety.
I tore my ACL 4 years ago and had to stop riding my bike to work and I thought my days of
outdoor enjoyment had come to an end. I am now 59 years old and with the assistance of my e-
bikes (I have two. One pedal assist and one throttle with a 500 watt motor.) I am now able to
conserve gas and do my part for the environment and help my general health.
My experience of riding on the City trail has been nothing but positive. People generally are
very conscious of courtesy on the trail. When it is busy, there are many people walking,
rollerblading, skateboarding, horse riding, and bike riding and I have never seen anyone being
abusive. No one wants to injure someone and people use care when around one another. E-bikes
are just as safe as any other bike. They all have brakes and when you let go of the throttle they
are just like any other bike. They slow down quickly because of their weight and you can stop
just like any other bike. The bikes as well as any other type of device used for getting around is
as safe as the user. The majority of people use care.
Allowing e-bikes on the trails will put Fort Collins in the forefront as a city embracing a new
technology that is going to be the wave of the future.
Name: Sheila Cynkar
Email: sheilaops@comcast.net
Comments:
I have no issue with the use of e-bikes on *any* trail, so long as they utilize no fossil fuels
(future fuel-cell designs should be allowed, if ever mass produced). They could allow more
seniors to enjoy these trails.
- 22 -
My only concern is adherence to any speed limitations and I would put limitations on the vehicle
weight to limit wear on trails. Restriction criteria should be forward-looking with and eye
towards public safety and trail impact, not focused on too much on the specific technology.
Name: Michael Feinberg
Email: mfeinberg01@msn.com
Comments:
Yes, absolutely. While there may be issues, we should do everything to encourage alternate
uses. And, I am a heavy bicycle user of the paths.
Name: David Bernoudy
Email: sbernoudy@openapproach.com
Comments:
I feel that any wheeled vehicle, whether electric, gas powered, or human powered, with a top
speed similar to that of a standard bicycle (approximately 5mph) and proper safety equipment
such as brakes and reflectors, should be allowed on public trails as long as they don't cause
damage to the trails (i.e. dripping oil, leaving a cloud of smoke, creating excessive noise, etc.).
Frankly, I feel the restriction against e-bikes on trails is ridiculous. I know several people who
would use electric bicycles to get to and from work, but the requirement to only ride on the
streets is too much of a danger and hassle for them. Additionally, I would also like to say that if
the restrictions were lifted and other vehicles such as small (50cc) gas-powered scooters were
allowed on trails it would allow some people to use alternate methods of conveyance around the
city. This could possibly reduce congestion on city streets as well as reduce the city's overall
fuel consumption since most small scooters can achieve better fuel economy levels than typical
vehicles.
Name: Keith Harral
Email: harralk@hotmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely. They still are very much a bicycle, and it's the responsibility of the rider, not the
bike, to maintain control and a safe speed. In addition, ebikes are very quiet and totally emissions
free.
Name: Shaun Salyards
Email: shaun.salyards@gmail.com
- 23 -
NOT IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING E-BIKES ON PAVED TRAILS
Not in Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments on Facebook – 5 comments
Stephanie Mullins via Facebook
Keep the e-bikes off the paved bike/ped trails. I use these trails to escape the motorized vehicles
(i know e-bikes are different); the well defined bike lanes on FoCo roads are perfectly fine for e-
bike commuters.
RedLion York via Facebook
I feel the trails should remain E-bike free. There is already enough disparity in speed between
pedestrians and Bicyclists that E-bikes don't need to be added to the mix.
Jeremy Deutch via Facebook
Well, what if some people don't have the endurance to use a regular bike? Should they be
excluded from the trails? Maybe an entirely electric bike could be banned, but the ones that just
assist your pedaling should still be allowed. If it's safety we're worried about, it's too late. There's
already slight danger from the speed differences in regular bikes and pedestrians, but we get
along fine. How much faster could these bikes possibly be?
In summary, no.
John Landis via Facebook
My feeling is that the paved trails should be limited to regular bikes, and pedestrians. The streets
and bike lanes, should already offer enough access for those wishing to use e-bikes to commute.
I have been an avid biker for years and I think everyone knows that they can often times be
difficult enough to maneuver through a congested trail.
I wholly support e-bikes as a commuting alternative, but think the trails should remain as
"natural" as possible.
John Riott via Facebook
Absolutely not. The extra mass means collisions will be much more severe. It's easy to modify
an electric bike to go much faster than the do stock.
The trail system is for NON-MOTORIZED, let's keep it that way
Not In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Letters to the Coloradoan – 1 letter
Marketing of e-bikes is phony
Letter, May. 2, 2011|
E-assist bicycles on city bike trails?
Definitely not. Putting these bikes on the trails will add to already hazardous conditions. I've
ridden one, and the assist enables the rider to get up to 15 mph or more very quickly. That kind
of speed belongs on the street, not on the trails, mixing with strollers and little kids and
pedestrians and dogs. Josh Kerson, manager of Small Planet E-Vehicles, is quoted in the article
saying that road bikes pass e-bikes all the time. Regular bikes going that fast belong on the street
- 24 -
also, not on the trails. Finally, the marketing ploy that the bikes are "geared more toward safety-
conscious retirees" is laughable.
Pinning the marketing of these assisted bikes on us old people is as phony and transparent as the
campaign to legalize marijuana based on medical considerations. No, they are geared toward
people too lazy to peddle who also want to get there faster. Make them ride on the street and
require them to take a vehicular cycling class through D.K. Kemp at the city of Fort Collins
cycling department so they actually learn how to ride a bike in traffic.
Dottie Spivak,
Fort Collins
Not In Favor of Allowing E-bikes E-mails to City Staff – 4 e-mails
From: Ray Jenkins [mailto:rjenk@peakpeak.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:01 AM
To: City Leaders
Subject: electric assist bicycles
Dear City Manger and Council Members,
I would like to comment in regard to allowing electric assisted bicycles on the city recreational
paths.
I am 74 years old and have enjoyed riding the city paths for several years. I see a problem with
having motorized equipment using the same path as regular bikers, walkers and other
recreational users. Since the electric bikes can reach speeds of up to 20 mph, they would
constitute a real danger coming up from behind someone going at a slower pace.
There is a problem that exists now in that the courtesy of warning and passing on the left is not
as common as it once was on the paths. This problem would just increase with faster speeds.
Please keep all motorized equipment on the public streets and not recreational paths.
Thank you,
Ray E. Jenkins 950 Southridge Greens Blvd, Unit 19, Fort Collins 80525
From: hawkins [mailto:thehawks5408@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:30 AM
To: Kim Newcomer
Subject: E- bikes
Dottie,
In response to your letter to the editor in today's Coloradoan I would like to point out a use of E-
bikes that you and I have not considered up till now. At our guys coffee last Tuesday I brought
up the subject of E-bikes and wanted to know how other people felt about their use on the bike
paths. As I recall no one expressed an opinion that they should be restricted from the bike trails.
At the time I did not even know how I felt about these bikes. My opinion solidified last night
when my daughter called wanting me to check out these bikes for her. My daughter, Barbara,
- 25 -
has a horrible lung disease (LAM) which restricts her ability to exercise. She also has a nine
year old daughter that she would like to ride bikes with on the bike trails. Unfortunately with
37% lung capacity this is not an option for Barb without some form of mechanical assistance. I
assure you that if Barb does get one of these bikes she will not become a terror on the bike paths.
If you see her and her daughter on the paths in the future I think you will be hard pressed to
distinguish her from other cyclists other than she will probably be using a cannula to deliver
supplemental oxygen and along with her daughter will be observing proper trail etiquette.
Gene
From: winn.richard.hr@gmail.com
Hello Dave,
We met about 4 months ago at your office.
Saw this article calling for input:
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20110426/NEWS01/104260326/Fort-Collins-officials-
seeking-input-e-bikes?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
My opinion is this:
E bikes should definitely not be permitted on trails. In terms of safety, the needs of the least
capable of rapid movement (i.e. little children, the handicapped, pregnant, or frail) must be
considered first. When my wife and I have hiked near the Horsetooth Reservoir, for example,
and she is carrying our 9 month old in the baby carrier, it's very difficult for her to move out of
the way of the numerous mountain bikes that go by at 5 to 12 miles per hour. I have seen similar
situations with the elderly, pregnant women, and handicapped folks. Though most mountain
bikers are polite and careful, many are agressive and foolish in their actions and risk the safety of
others to get their thrills. If an E-bike is capable of 20 miles per hour on the trail, that is a clear
safety hazard which compounds an already difficult situation with speed increases by a factor of
two or three.
E bikes could use bike lanes on the roadways, but should be licensed with mandatory safety
requirements for operation, if they are allowed at all, and should be restricted to auto traffic lanes
instead of bike lanes. Again, the average bicycle speed is 5 to 12 MPH and 20 MPH creates
trouble in a whole variety of ways.
Fundamentally, they are not bicycles but mopeds with an alternative power source, and should be
viewed through the lens of traffic safety as mopeds.
Thanks
Richard Winn
winn.richard.hr@gmail.com
512-563-3281
From: Dottie Spivak [mailto:moseslake_61@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:52 AM
To: City Leaders
Subject: Council SAR #16114 / Dottie Spivak re: E-assist bikes on bike trails
- 26 -
These bikes do not belong on the trails. Putting these bikes on the trails will add to already
hazardous conditions. I've ridden one, and the assist enables the rider to get up to 15 mph or
more very quickly. That kind of speed belongs on the street, not on the trails, mixing with
strollers and little kids and pedestrians and dogs. Kerson is quoted in the article saying that road
bikes pass e-bikes all the time. Regular bikes going that fast belong on the street also, not on the
trails.
Finally, the marketing ploy that the bikes are "geared more toward safety-conscious retirees" is
laughable. No, they are geared toward people too lazy to peddle who want to get there faster.
Make them ride on the street, and require them to take a vehicular cycling class through DK
Kemp at the Fort Collins cycling department.
Dottie Spivak
Not In Favor of Allowing E-bikes Comments through fcgov.com/YourVoice – 99 comments
Comments:
no i was nearly run over by a speeding bicycle this morning on a city park sidewalk. these people
are out of control
Name: Ken Miller
Email: ktmiller111@msn.com
Comments:
no, not at all- then more & more request & appeal will show up. if you want to use the trail either
walk or manual bike-final!!!!
Name: tashi
Email: tsekunta@yahoo.com
Comments:
NO, If you allow electric then you might as well allow gas and other powered vehicles
Name: Tracy Turner
Email: turner.tracy@q.com
Comments:
NO - just because it's electric, it's still motorized.
Name:
Email: mhjbhp@comcast.net
Comments:
No, e-bikes should not be allowed on trails. If people would like to use their e-bikes to
commute, there is a very good system of bike lanes with other motorized vehicles.
To me, the trails throughout the city are an opportunity to enjoy our natural resources and get
away from motorized vehicles that are otherwise everywhere else. I personally have utilized the
trails as both a cyclist and a pedestrian, and it's already challenging enough to do so safely when
there are a lot of folks out. Adding vehicles that quickly reach 20mph and maintain it just
doesn't seem like a safe idea.
Name: Michael MacMillan
- 27 -
Email: michael.macmillan@gmail.com
Comments:
No, I don't think e-bikes should be allowed on paved trails in the city. Trail users have come to
expect a certain limit of speed on the trail, and any person that travels above this threshold
creates a safety risk by startling other trail users. Please limit e-bikes to bike lanes on the public
roadways, and keep them off the paved trails.
Name: Mark Peterson
Email: mark@markspeterson.com
Comments:
NO!
Name: Judy Billica
Email: billica@aol.com
Comments:
I am a regular user of the trails and I say "No" for two reasons. First, e-bikes allow novices to
travel at speeds that they would not otherwise be able to reach. Chances are they haven't yet
learned to anticipate the movement of others on the trails (i.e. dogs, kids), and they haven't
developed the reflexes to act quickly in an emergency. Second, e-bikes weight more than twice
that of a normal bike, perhaps 100lbs vs. 35. In an accident this will cause more severe injuries
than a normal bike. Coupled with higher speeds, the injuries will be much more serious.
Name: Rob Haas
Email: wrobhaas@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, this is a bad idea. People of Fort Collins use the paved trails for recreational purposes and to
get outside and enjoy nature while working out. Allowing e-bikes will take away a lot of the
nature, quiet peace ambiance. Also for safety reasons, if the e-biker is not persistent about
pronouncing themselves when passing, pedestrians accidents could increase.
Name: Megan
Email: meg.robben@gmail.com
Comments:
No way.
Name: Olga Shabalin
Email: olgashab@aol.om
Comments:
No, definitely NOT!
Name: Edward Saia
Email: rawsteady@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, if people with disabilities are already allowed to use them on the trails then that is enough. If
a dog can't go into a natural area on a leash then additional motor noise should not be allowed
either as it is also disturbing to wildlife.
Name: christina moehring
Email: coaggie@hotmail.com
- 28 -
Comments:
In general no. Maybe in limited areas and with clear restrictions.
Name: John Voss
Email: vossjs@msn.com
Comments:
No e-bikes on City's paved trails. I would also like to see a speed limit for riders on regular
bikes that endanger other trail users with excessive speed and don't give warnings to others of
their rapid approach.
Name: John Pedas
Email: jpedas@fcgov.com
Comments:
absolutely not
Name: cam elvheim
Email: elvcam@comcast.net
Comments:
Absolutely not.
Once an Ordinance or Code becomes a good one, why can't we just leave it alone?
Name: eric
Email: eric@nastything.com
Comments:
Personally, I would have a problem with the noise since I walk and run my 3 dogs frequently on
the bike paths. I also foresee an issue with speed.
Name: Mary Roberts
Email: maryr@verinet.com
Comments:
These bikes can go 20 mph now. How fast will they be 10 years from now? It's important to
think of the future when making these decisions. I do feel that this could alter the experience of
the paved trails and I'd like to keep the regulations as they are.
Name: Jack Newton
Email: bmf032@gmail.com
Comments:
Trails are for recreation, exercise and quiet time. Electric bikes are powered transportation and
should not be permitted in our trail system. Exceptions should be made for people with physical
handicaps.We need to be careful with this because once allowed, it will be difficult to later
prohibit electric bikes. As a grandparent who sometimes walks on our trail system with my grand
children, I aalso worry about safety issues.Electric bikes belong on our roadway bike lanes and
are an excellent way to reduce emissions, just like other bikes. I applaud their use, ut they do not
belong on our recreational trail system.
Name: Hugh Mackay
Email: hughmmackay@gmail.com
- 29 -
Comments:
I see a few issues:
1) Do the power assist mechanisms make a noise? If so, there should be a very low dB threshold
to make sure they don't exacerbate the already oppressive noise levels along many trail segments.
A possible limit would be the same noise level as bike tires on pavement.
2) Safety is an issue. Although it is certainly possible for a bicyclist to zone out and not pay
attention to other users and/or potential hazards, the need to keep pedaling in order to keep
moving generally requires at least a minimum level of attention. If power assisted bikes don't
have that requirement, it is much easier for their riders to forget to pay attention and
consequently put pedestrians, small children, etc. in danger. One way around this might be to
require a speed governor that would allow a maximum speed of (for instance) 5 mph if the bike
is not pedaled for longer than 30 sec.
3) I usually don't put much stock in slippery-slope arguments (if we let these in, then next year
we'll have 4-wheelers), BUT the definition of an e-bike is so nebulous that nobody really knows
what will or won't be permitted. Therefore, it's essential that any decision to allow e-bikes on the
trails include specific standards such as those mentioned earlier (i.e. maximum noise level,
maximum speed without pedaling, maximum speed with pedaling, etc.) Otherwise, someone
will come up with a vehicle that will find a loophole in a vague definition.
Name: Jim Wurz
Email: jimwurz@cnr.colostate.edu
Comments:
no, I do not think they should be allowed, we must protect our pedestrian areas! already
downtown the pedestrian is endagered! bikes are wonderful , but many people using bikes seem
to feel entitled to ruin areas designated as PEDESTRIAN! we have to push back on this issue,
places where people are on foot DO NOT mix well with people on bikes.
Name: Claire Marshel
Email: cwbear@comcast.net
Comments:
I say no, the reason is speed. A lot of people travel too fast as it is.
Name: Charlie Sturgill
Email: sturgill@frii.com
Comments:
No.
Name: Greg Speer
Email: gcspeer@comcast.net
Comments:
No, I am not a fan of this idea. I like riding or walking on the trails to slow down and get out of
the rush. Allowing bikes that can zoom by at 20mph would significantly take away from the
experience of relaxing and enjoying a slower pace of life.
Name: Holly Reynerson
Email: holasmith@hotmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should not be allowed on the city's paved trails. It dangerous enough with bicyclists on
the trails. The majority of them never announce themselves when passing pedestrians.
- 30 -
I've been hit twice by bicyclists and my wife has been hit once while walking on Spring Creek
trail. I hate to think about being hit by an e-bike moving at 20 mph!
Don't allow e-bikes on the city's paved trails!
Name: Bill Flynn
Email: fcgov@itrweb.net
Comments:
It's already a challenge for people on foot to share the trails with regular bicycles. While it is
understandable that those with mobility disabilities need to use e-bikes, it would be detrimental
to allow their use on trails for the general public. The trails were not meant as alternative
commuting routes. They are meant for the enjoyment, recreation and health of the community.
Name: Star Seastone
Email: sseastone@fcmdsc.org
Comments:
NO. I got hit by a young bicyclist going way too fast on a blind curve. The damage to my face
was significant. I commute from LaPorte on the bike trail and have enough trouble with
negotiating dogs and long leashes, take up the whole trail strollers and speeding bikes that think
they are the only ones using the trail, horses and their piles of poop and just the other day, an off
road motorcycle. Keep e-bikes off the trails!! Handicapped people can use wheelchairs. If
people cannot be responsible bikers on regular bikes imagine the danger from a few wild e-
bikers. It is getting so it safer to ride to and from LaPorte on the roads rather than the bike trail.
Also, those people strolling or walking dogs already have bikes wizzing by and lots of them
yelling "on your left" or ringing a bell or just passing with no warning why add another speeding
demon to the mess. I just don't believe they all will be courteous and this, on a busy trail system,
could be a disaster.
Name: Christine Bebow
Email: lucybenon@yahoo.som
Comments:
No, the trails should be for non motorized vehicles only with respect to both animals and people.
Name: Lotta Vollmer
Email: lotta.vollmer@edwardjones.com
Comments:
If you allow electric bikes then do electric skateboards also qualify? How about those mini-
electric scooters with 6" wheels? How about Segways...they are electric too?
Personally I'd like to see our citizens getting the exercise. Allowing for people with disabilities
is the appropriate compromise.
Name: Marty Shipley
Email: shipworks@msn.com
Comments:
NO e-bikes! Motorized wheel chairs, yes.
Name: Jon Z.
Email: zzim60@gmail.com
- 31 -
Comments:
Absolutely NOT!!! The city would be allowing another class of vehicles on paved trails, when
many bicyclists already cause fear and apprehension among pedestrian users due to their
inconsiderate behaviour and higher speeds. Vehicles that are capable of 20+mph would only
create additional hazards. I would personally be far less inclined to use the paved pathways, if e-
bikes were allowed, for safety considerations.
Name: M. J. Syzek
Email: mjsyzek2383@comcast.net
Comments:
Keep our trails unmotorized!!!
Name:
Email:
Comments:
NO, thank you. The meaning of, what you pack in with you on a day of hiking ... comes out with
by leaving no trace of your being there, some how feels quite different when you add the
industrialized age into the picture. Getting out to adventure in nature is NOT about the use of a
"motorized vehicle". The purchaser of an e-bike should use it where allowed knowing full well
of this at time of e-bike purchase. Not to mention the increased rate of paved trails in need of
repair as a result of said e-bikes over time. And/or unforeseen impact to native plant and wildlife
species.
Yeah, I am going to have to go with ... NO.
"... allows a motorized vehicle into many of our parks and natural areas ..."
"... alter the experience of visitors ..."
Name: Michelle
Email: mmaymisc@gmail.com
Comments:
No. I think e-bikes would endanger the many young children who currently use the trails.
Name: Elise Harkey
Email: elharkey@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should only be permitted for people who cannot walk and/or ride a bicycle due to
disability or other mobility issues.
anyone who is physically capable should stick to a regular bike on the trails to reduce noise,
excessive speed, nuisance, and laziness!
E-bikes, while helpful to those who can't pedal a bike for whatever reason, are definitely not to
be categorized alongside the bicycle. They can almost be seen as a motorcycle substitute,
appealing to those who would love to go fast on a bike without any physical effort, but can't
afford a real motorcycle. And they are very loud. You can hear those things from blocks away.
Something to be considered are the many natural areas that the bike and walking trails cut
through. These natural areas are key spaces for wildlife and places for people to go to when they
- 32 -
want a respite from the noise and traffic of the streets. Bringing the noise from e-bikes onto the
trails would surely scare away birds and other animals, and create an unfavorable trail experience
for all the other users.
Name: claire mechtly
Email: clairemechtly@gmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely not. My experience has been that most people with e-bikes will ride as fast as they
can. Very few bicyclists do that. I have already seen e-bikes on bike trails (illegally) and it hasn't
been a pleasant experience. They do not announce their presence and you can't year them.
Name: Anne Berry
Email: aberry1973@gmail.com
Comments:
I believe E-bikes don't belong on bicycle trails, they do have a motor, and therefore are more like
a E-MOTORcycle except slower, even then, traveling on these trails with a cycle computer one
can easily realize the average speed of path users is around 8 -12 mph. some E-bikes are quite
noisy, not fair for the many users who enjoy the paths due to their lack of road rage, roadkill
and... noise. peeps actually PEDALING E-bikes are rarely seen, except for when the bike runs
out of juice, in which case they'll get along fine with normal bicycles on the paths since they'll be
just as quiet, paced and... human powered. Not only that but they may even be a bit of a hazard
to be pedaled on city streets when out of battery power since they'd be way slower due to their
weight and last, given that many E-bike users don't seem very fit to begin with. ( Sorry, :0) )
Thanks for the opportunity for input.
Name: Rafael Millan
Email: bikeagainst@gmail.com
Comments:
No, I think the bike paths are a tremendous community ammenity that offer a respite from urban
noise, traffic and smells. People of all ages enjoy the trails and fast, noisy bikes could endanger
other users and reduce the quality of their experience. I think that while a cyclist can go fast,
there usually is an awareness and respect by cyclists about pedestrians and children. I think e-
bike users do not necessarily have this same respect for other users and may "zone out" like a
someone drivign a car. As a regular commuter and someone who brings my family to the bike
path on a regular basis, I would be very disappointed to see e-bikes permitted on these fantastic
community trails. trails.
Name: Jen Shanahan
Email: jenshanahan73@yahoo.com
Comments:
There are two types of e-bikes, those that are essentially motorized vehicles, and those that are
electric assist. For my e-bike to provide any power assist, I must be actively pedaling. Also, the
assist cuts out at 16 mph (a required feature on assist bikes). Without the assist I would not have
been able to resume bike riding after dual knee replacement. However, a vehicle that is
electrically powered and does not require rider active pedaling is not appropriate for the bike
trails. An easy distinction is, if a bike has a throttle that will propel the bike, it is not suitable for
the bike trails.
Name: Tom Graff
Email: tomjgraff@gmail.com
- 33 -
Comments:
Please do not allow these type of bikes on the city bike trails. We already have enough Lance
Armstrong wannabes flying down the paths at high speed under their own power. I avoid some
of the popular trails during peak times b/c of the speed demon road bikers...we do not need to
add more speed to the situation.
Thank you.
Name: John Elson
Email: elson_john@yahoo.com
Comments:
I do not think that e-bikes should be allowed on paved or unpaved bike trails in Ft. Collins. The
bike trails are currently used by runners, walkers, non-motorized bikers, rollerbladers and small
children on bikes. I think that e-bikes move too quickly to safely be integrated onto current bike
paths.
Name: Joann Clark
Email: jlclark40@gmail.com
Comments:
No, I do not favor allowing ebikes on city trails. This is why: 1) They are not compatible with
walkers, 2) Our trails are flat enough that power assistance is not needed for people who do not
have disabilities, 3) It creates confusion for citizens and law enforcement about what types of
motors are allowed on trails.
Name: Carol Block
Email: blockcl@larimer.org
Comments:
Definitely not. Putting these bikes on the trails will add to already hazardous conditions. I've
ridden one, and the assist enables the rider to get up to 15 mph or more very quickly. That kind
of speed belongs on the street, not on the trails, mixing with strollers and little kids and
pedestrians and dogs. Kerson is quoted in the article saying that road bikes pass e-bikes all the
time. Regular bikes going that fast belong on the street also, not on the trails. Finally, the
marketing ploy that the bikes are "geared more toward safety-conscious retirees" is laughable.
No, they are geared toward people too lazy to peddle who want to get there faster. Make them
ride on the street, and require them to take a vehicular cycling class through DK Kemp at the
Fort Collins cycling department.
Name: Dottie Spivak
Email: moseslake_61@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, do not allow e-bikes on city trails.
I am seriously concerned about courtesy and speeds on the trails, and believe the addition of e-
bikes will degrade an already precarious situation. Furthermore, I do not believe they should be
allowed in the natural areas.
- 34 -
I've already run into those little small-wheeled motorbikes on the trails, and they are loud and
dangerous, and (yes) illegal. I'd be concerned that allowing e-bikes will lead people into
thinking any motors are okay.
Name: Susan
Email: shore.susan@gmail.com
Comments:
The simple answer is no. I have already encountered an electric assisted bike on a paved trail in
Fort Collins and it is not compatible with the trails as constructed. The speed, acceleration, and
use model is just not compatible with a pedestrian and self propelled bicycle trail. The
availability of marked bicycle lanes on the streets should be available as they are for scooters. I
am concerned about the compatibility as a primary issue. The secondary issues for me relate to
licensing users, age of the potential users, enforceability of any usage, and city liability. The city
might be wise to take a more holistic look at the future of personal vehicles and build capacities
for these vehicles in a comprehensive way. Note, I have rented and ridden an electric bicycle.
Name: Dennis D. Georg
Email: georgs@comcast.net
Comments:
No! No!, No!
I'm old (84 years), ride a bike arround town and desire neither broken bones nor an early death!
The only thing that really scares me is people my age at the wheel of an automobile. They often
look but do not see! Their reflexes seem to range from not-that-great to very bad.
I would be frightened of persons with limited physical resources riding a 20-mph vehicle on a
narrow bike trail -- especially if they are taking aim at me or sneaking up from behind because e-
bikes are reported to be very quiet.
Name: Jo Boyd
Email: josephineboyd@gmail.coom
Comments:
No they should not. After reading the article again, the madder I got. Pinning the marketing of
these assisted bikes on "safety-conscious retires" is as phony and transparent as the campaign to
legalize marijuana based on medical considerations. Just legalize pot, for heaven's sake. And as
an old retiree who rides with other old people, we all know better than to ride on the trails. They
are dangerous and congested. We know we are much safer on the street. These e-assist bikes are
simply for people who don't want to sweat and who want a cheap alternative to a car. They
belong on the street, not on the trails.
Name: Dottie Spivak
Email: moseslake_61@yahoo.com
Comments:
What would be next? If e-bikes are allowed,could you deny motorized skateboards? I have seen
some behaviors by folks on both that would be disruptive and dangerous on trails. Most of us do
not ride our bikes that fast, and let's don't forget runners and walkers (some of whom are seniors)
and moms pushing strollers. I would be very sad to see the character of our trails change.
Name: Beverly Gregory
Email: bvg57@comcast.net
- 35 -
Comments:
No, they shouldn't be allowed on the city's paved trails at this time. The city's paved trails
already become overly congested during the warmer months with just the amount of non-
motorized traffic that is on it now. So why would you okay more traffic on the trail without first
assessing the abiliity of the current trail system to: a)actually handle increased traffic and b)
available funding to actually enforce trail laws for once and increase enforcement personnel that
are present on the trails. I hope this latter point is taken into serious consideration as I have used
the Fort Collins paved trail system extensively as a runner, bicyclist, and dog walker and if the
implications of increased traffic congestion without adequate enforcement of trail rules (and also
educating trail users about trail courtesy) are not addressed, I feel that allowing e-bikes to hit the
trails and increase trail congestion will lead to more contentious and violent interactions amongst
users of the trail system.
Name: Aimee Stephanchick
Email: amstep75@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should not be allowed on the trails. When the door is opened to motorized travel on trails
it is going to be very difficult to delineate which motors are OK and which are not. The non
motorized vehicle is a very clear standard. There are clearly different users of bike lanes versus
the trails. The trails attract more recreational use including walkers, dog walkers, runners, skaters
and casual cyclist.
Name: Dwight Hall
Email: dwighthall@yahoo.com
Comments:
Only for senior citizens and those disabled!
Name: Chuck Eichman
Email: cmeichman@aol.com
Comments:
I have lived in The Fort since Jan.,1984. I have used the trails regularly since they were built. At
first very few people used them. They are very busy now, especially after the previous gas hike.
I enjoy walking the trails to view wildlife, the blue herons and kingfishers along Spring Creek. I
am a responsible bicycle rider. Last Thurs. I had to stop quickly as two little boys crashed into
each other and came onto my side of the trail. They were not injured and the adult male that
followed them was there to take care of the situation. I have had dogs run into my path and
when announcing my passing some walkers have stepped into my path. A quote in the paper
said " IF people obey the rules, there should be no problem." I am a defensive biker on the trails.
Weighing the pros and cons, I have to vote NO for allowing e-bikes on the trails.
Name: Robbie Fisher
Email:
Comments:
I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to having any type of motorized vehicles on the trail system. It
will ruin the recreational experience and make it unsafe for young children to ride their bikes
there. The added noise and speed would be very unpleasant.
Name: Judith Friend
Email: friend.j@comcast.net
- 36 -
Comments:
Absolutely not!!!
Motorized bikes are not allowed. There is no difference in gas or electric.
Name: Doug
Email: dougmetcalfbldg@msn.com
Comments:
No, I do not believe so. If the is a license or certificate for people with a mobility disability to
allow those people to use them, I see no reason for the "general population" to be permitted.
No motorized vehicles means NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES>
Name: Charles Watt
Email: charleshenry109@q.com
Comments:
No, of course not ... more speed, more accidents, more injuries, less fun. The trail system is a
source of good exercise and recreation for many. Whether we're riding horses, bikes, pushing
strollers, jogging, walking or handicapped individuals in motorized conveyance, we're all
enjoying the day away from busy roads.
With the exception of handicapped, let's keep motorized travel off our trails.
Name: Jack Hicks
Email: fordchapel@gmail.com
Comments:
Absolutely not. This shouldn’t even be discussed. The trails are for non-motorized use. Adding
an electric motor to a bicycle makes it motorized.
Name: Michelle Haefele
Email: michhaef@frii.com
Comments:
Absolutely no. Motorized vehicles belong on streets. If approved, the definition of the ebike
will change (ie., faster speed, larger engine) just as fashion does...it will change to sell more
ebikes. eBIKES, KEEP OFF THE TRAILS!
Name: John Hughes
Email: not2tiredtoride@yahoo.com
Comments:
No, e-bikes should not be allowed on the City's paved trails. E-bikes are motorized and the main
reason I use the trails daily is to get away from motorized vehicles. It defeats the purpose of
having dedicated, non-motorized areas if we allow e-bikes on the trails. Lets not ruin what we've
worked so hard to build.
Name: Steve Lawless
Email: steve.lawless@aecom.com
Comments:
Bicyclists have a tendency to move quite quickly on the paved trails and I have seen many near
accidents with bicycles moving too quickly and surprising walkers or joggers. Add in the tight
- 37 -
turns that many speeding bicyclists take "wide" into the oncoming lanes, I think adding a quicker
type bicycle is only adding fuel to a smoldering fire. So, my vote is NO!
Name: Kathy Weiler
Email: Weilerhaus@comcast.net
Comments:
I think you have to draw a line for acceptable use and that line should err on the side of
preserving safe use for families with children, pets, strollers, inexperienced young cyclists. The
most intuitive and reasonable place to draw that line is at human vs motor powered. Please
don’t allow motorized vehicles on our off street trails. theres extensive bike lane and route
infrastructure in fort collins that is perfectly appropriate for e-bike/motor assisted bike travel.
Name: chris j johnson
Email: chris@luttet.net
Comments:
No, E-bikes should not be allowed on our paved trails. Those trails need to be a safe place where
children and other vulnerable users can practice biking, skating or walking without being
threatened by E-bikes.
E-bikes are a threat because they allow inexperienced or clumsy riders to speed much faster than
they could on a standard bike. Children, elderly riders and intoxicated riders cannot ride fast on
standard bikes, so they are not much of a threat to themselves or others. If they instead rode on
fast E-bikes, they could be dangerous.
E-bikes are a good option for commuting, but there is no need to commute on our paved bike
trails. Our city's bike lanes are excellent for commuting, and are the most natural place for E-
bikes. I commute in our bike lanes every day on a standard bicycle. Bike lanes have broad turns
and good sight lines, and are mostly used by experienced bicyclists.
Name: Michael McGrath
Email: msmcgrath@comcast.net
Comments:
No, e-bikes should not be allow on the trials. Our streets have bike lanes and these are sufficient
for exercise and commuting by e-bike. I walk an average of 25 miles a week on our trail systems
and know that it is a rare cyclist who uses an audible signal BEFORE passing. Twice I have
been passed by an e-bike, the experiences were disconcerting because of the speed and the air
that was pushed by the weight of the e-bike. Once, I assisted a dazed young woman I found
sitting just off the trail. Another cyclist had collided with her bike and left her at this blind spot.
With an e-bike weighing more than twice that of a regular bike, such a collision would be like an
SUV hitting a compact. I do not think e-bikes should be on the trails for ANY reasons. Stop and
think, if you allow e-bike that can go 20 mph on the trails than why not Segways that go 6-10
mph? The main person the paper had promoting e-bikes on our trails was the manager pushing
his business plan to grow his company at our expense. Seniors who are uncomfortable using our
bike lanes can practice and exercise with their bikes in their neighborhoods. The reason e-bikes
are rated as they are by the federal and state governments is to ban them from highways. I
believe the use of e-bikes will be detrimental to the quality and vitality of our trail system.
Name: Anne Butler
Email: road4two@aol.com
- 38 -
Comments:
No, electric assisted bicycles should not be allowed on paved trails. These trails should be
reserved for human powered uses only. How would one distinguish between the various type of
motor assisted vehicles available? How would the city control speed when the vehicle is not
limited by the riders human limitations? We have a very good system of bicycle lanes on city
streets available for motor assisted forms of transportation. Please keep the paved trails friendly
to walkers and other human powered forms of transportation.
Name: Paul Weber
Email: paul.weber@comcast.net
Comments:
No. Having motorized vehicles on the city paved trails would 1) increase accidents 2) destroy the
serenity of the environment and 3) increase wear & tear of the trails. The trails are designed for
enjoyment not commuting. There are plenty of direct roads and bike lanes for individuals who
are actually commuting. Why would you take a slow, winding bike trail if you solely want to
reach a destination. If the city allows motorized vehicles on the bike trails, you won't see me or
my child on there anymore. Too risky.
Name: Tara Schulze
Email: nectarinekitten@msn.com
Comments:
No, only those people who are disabled should be allowed to use e-bikes on City paved trails!!!
As it is, our trail system is busy and there are some cyclists even now that are very disrespectful
of joggers and walkers with kids and pets. I feel there are safety issues involved with allowing e-
bikes, (issues of speed already exist with regular bikes!!) It is also a matter of who is regulating
our trails to ensure that cyclists now are going at a safe rate of speed and using "passing"
ettiquette when going around walker, joggers. I can't imagine that anyone will enforce safe speed
limits with e-bikes as it doesn't seem that any speed limits are enforced with normal bikes.
Besides that, can't e-bikes use the bike lanes on the streets, isn't that what a bike lane is supposed
to be used for??? Leave the trails the way they are..... it is difficult enough to maneuver around
the horse droppings and watch out for speeding cyclists as it is, so don't make it any worse to use
the trails by allowing motorized bikes!! By the way, why do us dog owners need to pick up after
our dogs and horse owners get to leave their HUGE horse piles??? Really is disgusting to have to
step or jump around the horse excrement on many trails!! Horse riders need to be held
accountable as well, so how about fines for them....sounds fair to me!!
Name: Cathy Cribari
Email: moonstonecribari@msn.com
Comments:
e-bikes should not be allowed and city trails should retain their "non-motorized" status.
If one is to use an e-bike as an alternate mode of transportation, they have a multitude of safe
options to operate within the existing transportation scheme of the city. As a bike commuter, I
know from experience that the city streets are generally just as convenient if not more convenient
for commuting.
It the intention is to enjoy nature and take a relaxing ride, a viable alternative is a 3-wheeled
cycle with low gearing enabling an easier time pedaling on the trails. There are very few
locations that have any grade to them, and the spots that do could easily be walked if the riding is
too strenuous.
- 39 -
David Fetter
800 Grouse Circle
80524
Name: David Fetter
Email: fetterdavid@homail.com
Comments:
No, no, no. This would open the door to all kinds of requests from people with other kinds of
motorized vehicles. They would go to fast. It would be difficult to enforce speed and weight
limitations. They would seriously interfere with other trail users, especially walkers and people
with small children. Surely it isn't too much to require people to peddle a bike, especially since
people with handicaps or mobility issues already have the right to use motorized vehicles.
Name: Linda Knowlton
Email: llknowlton@gmail.com
Comments:
E-bikes should not be allowed on the City's paved trails. They should be treated like mopeds,
scooters, and other motorized vehicles and share traffic lanes on public roads, not bike paths.
Name: Ashley Waddell
Email: ashley.trailrunner@gmail.com
Comments:
No. The only reason to allow them is for people with disability, and since they're already
allowed, we don't need to open them to those with no disability.
Name: Mike Knowles
Email: selwonk@frii.com
Comments:
No, they are too fast for paved trails. Let them ride in the bike lanes on the street instead.
Name: Hilary Sebastian
Email: hilsberry3@yahoo.com
Comments:
As an almost daily user of the bike trails along the river (bike and jogging), I would prefer *not*
having motorized bikes of any sort on the trails. The exception I agree with is the current one for
disability assistance.
Issues:
* Compatibility with congestion on the weekends.
* Rapid and quiet acceleration is conflicts with pedestrian environment.
* Top speed will increase as technology matures, increasing pedestrian risks.
Name: Tom Hilinski
Email: tom.hilinski@comcast.net
Comments:
Hello,
I am greatly alarmed at the prospect of e-bikes on the City paved trails, and hope the Council
will quickly defeat this proposal.
- 40 -
Something moving at 20 MPH on a trail is a major hazard and is guaranteed to cause accidents.
There are a lot of walkers on the trails. Many of these walkers are elderly or young children and
that kind of speed is simply not compatible with pedestrians (of any age).
City trails are traditionally designed for human powered usage, with the obvious exception of
motorized chairs for people with disabilities. Let's keep them that way, safe and enjoyable.
Thanks,
Nelson Chenkin
Fort Collins
Name: Nelson Chenkin
Email: nchenkin@comcast.net
Comments:
At this point I think it's better left to non-motorized vehicles. Pretty congested as it in on
weekends on sections of Poudre and Spring Creek -- the two trails most likely to receive
additional e-bike traffic. Keep the focus on health and well-being.
Name: Devin Hirning
Email: news@hirning.us
Comments:
People with mobility disabilities OR the elderly (and I mean over 65!) should both be allowed to
use ebikes on city trails. Otherwise, no, I don't want ebikes on the trails. There are too many
kids/people/dogs using the trails for the mix to work and some of those ebike riders (ones i've
seen by campus) go really fast.
Name: Teresa Kahle
Email: teresa@kahle.org
Comments:
No, they are already clogged with traffic and would be competing with with 0 emission peddle
bicycles. -they have to get the electricity from somewhere, and that most likely would be from
coal. Also, I would put them in the category of a motorized vehicle. I can deal with them in bike
lanes, but NOT on a trail.
Name: Shawn Monk
Email: smm413@gmail.com
Comments:
I feel that electric assisted bicycles should NOT be allowed on city's paved trails. They go too
fast, and bicyclists often do not call out to pedestrians when they come up behind them.
There are bike lanes on city streets, and it's easier to commute using city streets than bike paths.
It's fine for people with mobility disabilities to use e-bikes on the trails, because it allows access
to those who might not be able to use the trails otherwise, but it should NOT be opened up to
other motorized vehicles.
- 41 -
I walk on the section of Spring Creek trail near Centre, and this is often congested with bicycles
going to and from C.S.U. E-bikes would make this a hazardous situation.
Please don't allow e-bikes on the trails.
Name: Elaine Boni
Email: elaineboni@juno.com
Comments:
No.
Name:
Email:
Comments:
No e-bikes. First it will be e-bikes, then mopeds, then motorcycles. Each group will clamor for
access to an already crowded trail system full of gaggles of gabbing women all with dogs on
leashes stretched across pathways, small kids teetering on small bikes with no sense of rights-of-
way, people riding defecating horses, joggers fast and slow, other moms with kids in strollers
entangled with more dogs on leashes. Turn loose a geriatric or 12-year-old on a 20mph vehicle,
and accidents will happen. There are already sections of the trail system with e-bikes and mopeds
being ridden. Even an occasional car. I ride the bike trails to get away from the motor-powered
(gas and electric) insanity contemporary "civilization" is obsessed with. Do us all a favor and
keep things human-powered (get rid of the horses, too, while you're at it). No e-bikes. Thanks for
the opportunity to allow the rant.
Name: Ken Walters
Email: kwalters@frii.com
Comments:
I don't think we need ebikes on the trails unless for a disabled person in which they are already
allowed...
Name:
Email:
Comments:
No.
I view city trails as having two purposes, provide a safe corridor for non-motorized transortation
and designated exercise area to keep auto and non-auto contact to a minimum. Allowing
motorized bicycles on the paths defeats both purposes.
I don't understand why time and effort is being expended on this issue if only 50 e-bikes are in
the city at this time.
Name: Mike Brown
Email: mikeabrown@q.com
Comments:
One of the nice things about the bike trails is there is not much noise. If you add e-bikes that
peacefulness would not be there and people will stop using the trail and all you would have is a
road with just e-bikes.
Name: Leo Braun
- 42 -
Email: lbman22000@yahoo.com
Comments:
Dear City Officials,
I am strongly opposed to allowing e-bikes on the trails in Fort Collins. Like many residents, I
cherish our trails and bike and walk on them several times each week. I believe that allowing
electric bikes on the trails would fundamentally change the experience of trail users for the
worse.
Before expanding on my concerns, I want to say that I am sympathetic to the needs of disabled
members of our community who want to use the trails. However, these needs already have been
addressed through the new rules permitting the use of "EPAMDs" by those who have a proven
mobiity disability.
My specific concerns about allowing e-bikes:
1. Opens the door to other authorized and unauthorized motorized vehicles:
Allowing e-bikes almost certainly will lead to an increase in various kinds of motorized vehicles
on our trails. Permitting e-bikes will create a lack of clarity about which vehicles are allowed
and will create an atmosphere in which more riders/drivers will violate trail regulations.
Currently, the rules are very clear: no motorized vehicles on the trails (other than for the proven
disability exception). For instance, is difficult for teenagers on motorized scooters, or for college
students on a mopeds, to claim they don't know that their vehicle isn't allowed on the trail.
Consequently, as a regular rider, I've seen only a few instances in the last 10 years of motorized
vehicles on the trails. (These have been scary.) I doubt that the numbers will be so low if some
motorized vehicles come to be allowed.
If e-bikes are permitted, it seems likely that users, and retailers, of other motorized vehicles will
ask why their vehicles aren't allowed. Why not electric- or gas-powered scooters--whether
ridden by children, teenagers, or commuters? Moreover, while those who favor e-bikes claim
that they go only 20 mph (pretty fast, actually), once the door is open to e-bikes on the trails,
what is to stop the next version of e-bikes, which may go faster, from appearing on the trails?
2. Lack of Rules Enforcement on Trails:
I have never seen a city employee enforcing any regulations on the bike trails. It is only the
culture of zero tolerance for motorized vehicles that keeps most abusers--or others who might be
confused about regulations--off of the trails.
3. Appropriate Alternatives for E-Bike Riders:
Advocates have argued that allowing assisted bikes will open the trails to riders who want to
enjoy the outdoors or to commute, but who may not be able to make it up a hill on a regular bike.
However, the city has already allowed those with proven disabilities to ride motorized vehicles
on the trails, under specific guidelines. If riders are not disabled, then they can always ride on
flatter portions of trails or can gradually increase their fitness. In the case of those who are
physically impaired enough that they cannot ride a non-assisted bike, there is a real concern that
their riding a fast-moving e-bike on a curvy, hilly, bumpy trail with many other users could cause
injury to themselves or to others.
- 43 -
In addition, as others have pointed out, Fort Collins is blessed with bike lanes on many of our
streets. These seem a more appropriate place for motorized vehicles. We do not need the safety
risks and fundamental change in the character of our trails that could very well come with the
addition of e-bikes. We certainly don't need to open the door to even more intrusive and unsafe
motorized vehicles on the trails by making the rules fuzzier--especially when there currently
seem to be neither staff nor procedures for enforcing rules on the trails.
I hope the city will not risk the safety and wonderful experiences of the large number of citizens
who walk and ride on the trails under current regulations. Thank you for considering my
comments.
Name: Jenny Goodman
Email: cycler15@me.com
Comments:
Paved and walking trails are not designed for e-bikes and they should not be added to the mix of
bicycles, skateboards, roller blades and walkers.
Name: Doug Moench
Email: effrider@frii.com
Comments:
No.
--Will there be liability issues for the city if it allows e-bikes and has certain rules like speed
limits, without any meaningful enforcement?
--If riders of e-bikes, which are motorized vehicles, don’t feel that the bike lanes on city streets
are satisfactory for them, the city could consider building some new trails/paths specifically for
various kinds of motorized vehicles.
--I had wanted to give more of a sense for risks currently on the trails, and how alert riders need
to be—and how they need to ride at controlled speeds: people pulling babies in trailers, dogs
with their leashes across the path, people on cell phones or watching birds—they can lose track
momentarily of their toddler or pet.
--Even if e-bikes stick to 20 miles per hour, their speed is not naturally controlled by going uphill
on a curve, for example. There are aspects of the trail that help to keep regular bike riders alert.
Name: Gene Jones
Email: gjones7@me.com
Comments:
My concern is the speed of which some motorized assisted bicycles (electric or gas operated)are
able to travel. I work near Vine and Linden and see some of these bicycles traveling 15 mph or
more on Liden. You may then have an issue of monitoring and or ticketing those who abuse the
trail system. They may then be a hazzard to pedestrian with small children. Visibility and sight
distance issues may arise due to the curves and vegitation on the trail.
I see it on city streets. These vehicles use the bike lane until it is convenient for them to use the
traffic lanes and have personally seen several near misses.
Name: JR Burrous
Email: jrburrous@fcgov.com
- 44 -
NEUTRAL/GENERAL COMMENTS
Neutral Comments on Facebook – 3 comments
Benjamin Kohn via Facebook
Other than appearance, how does an e-bike differ from a regular bike in keeping trails 'natural'?
Neither mode of transportation is "natural", one works by 'knee' grease the other uses electric
current, both make very little noise when in operation, and courtesy speed on the trails is already
understood to be 15 mph. All road bikes are capable of speeds in excess of 20 mph with rapid
acceleration. All bikes with >20" tires are capable of reaching the 20 mph mark.
Is it the concept of a motorized vehicle or the noise produced by most motorized vehicles that is
objectionable in the natural areas? I think you mean to limit the noise in natural areas, not
necessarily the vehicle types present. If all motor vehicles made zero noise would this be an
issue?
Please provide a more clear definition of a motor vehicle. An internal combustion engine and an
electric power pack are fundamentally different means of energy acquisition and utilization.
Those of us that embrace new technology shouldn't be held back by the ludites in the crowd.
When I pass you on the trail, riding my e-bike, will you even know I was there? Or will I pass
you as a human on wheels passes a human on foot.
Lynn Temple via Facebook
Nice, but will the college kids hog them or tear them up???
John Landis via Facebook
Apparently, this whole discussion has been an effort in futility, unless, the City is thinking of
allowing e-bikes with a larger engine than 1 HP, and exceed 20 MPH. The Federal Government
has already weighed in on this, in 2001. E-bikes have the same rights, as long as they have
pedals, as all other bikes, as long as they meet the criteria provided by Federal law, which
supersedes State law and I would also imagine, City Ordinances, codes or laws.
Available under Library of Congress, Consumer Product Safety Commission, HR 727
The U.S. NHTSA Code of Motor Vehicle Safety simply defines low-speed electric bicycles as
consumer products and not Motor Vehicles for safety standards. In doing so they vest authority
over commercial safety standards to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC) stipulates that commercially manufactured
low-speed electric bicycles, or tricycles, must have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of
less than 750W of power and a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour (32
km/h) with a rider weighing 150 pounds. An electric bike remaining within these specifications
will be regarded simply as a bicycle for purposes of safety standards. This supersedes any state
law that is more stringent, but only regarding safety equipment required on electric bicycles and
the standard of manufacture they must meet. The legislation enacting this amendment to the
CPSC is also known as HR 727.
- 45 -
Neutral Comments E-mails to City Staff – 1 e-mail
Email to Dave Kemp
Hi DK,
I hope this isn’t a problem to send you my comments directly. I was unable to send them via the
City’s website. I tried several times and received a message saying my input was detected as
Spam and would not be sent. Nothing profound here but wanted to send my thoughts.
A sincere thanks for all your efforts on behalf of cycling in Fort Collins. It has been amazing to
witness all the improvements since moving here 10 years ago. The positive changes seem to be
increasing in frequency and effect. Just read about Kansas’ state-wide new Bill 2192 with the
“dead red” provision, where cyclists can stop and proceed with caution through a red light, for
when signal lights are not activated by cyclists.
It’s a great time to be a cyclist.
Cyd
Neutral Comments Through fcgov.com/YourVoice – 4 comments
Comments:
Motorized bikes would have to share trails with both pedestrians (of all ages - including very
small children), leashed dogs,and bicycles who are all traveling at a MUCH slower rate of speed.
The higher rate of speed of e-bikes presents a danger to the slower travelers. On a paved road,
slower bicycles are given a path separate from cars traveling at higher speeds. This adds a
measure of safety to the bicyclist. For this reason, I believe e-bikes should only be allowed on
paved trails IF a separate portion of the trail is paved and marked only for motorized bikes.
Pedestrians and bicyclists enjoying the BICYCLE PATHS should not have their enjoyment of
nature interrupted or their physical safety endangered with fast moving motorized bikes.
Name: Charyl Rocco
Email: sipchaitea@yahoo.com
Comments:
Not a very good question to be asking.
How ya gonna keep the e-bikes off? In other words, riders will always allow themselves to use
the public convenience of the trails.
On several occasions, I have seen recreational motorcycle use on the Poudre trail. Obviously,
that is not "allowed".
Regulation requires 1) enforcement 2) penalties 3) education. Your question - and this is so very
typical of the city - is so absurdly oversimplified as to render any responses that faithfully speak
to the resolution completely useless.
Name: Lester Electric
Email: youd@wannaknow.org
- 46 -
Comments:
I have been using my electrically assisted TRICYCLE for FOUR YEARS on the trails. I am a
retired school teacher and a 70-year-old grandma. The trike is used when ascending inclines, as I
have balance issues and osteoporosis. If mobility disabilities are allowed, how will this be
addressed; a sign, a license, or just the rider's good word?
Name: Susan McGill
Email: beauguss@comcast.net
Comments:
Pass a law preventing the police from enforcing the current no-e-bike law for one year for a
study. After a year of data, we re-consider legal, illegal, or extend for another year of data. If its
becoming a problem, repeal the temporary law.
Would I be allowed to use my "bionic" assist legs to pedal my regular bike on city trails?
More outreach. Let the public try them.
Do we have current laws that require e-bikes, and non-e-bikes, to be responsible? A regular bike
with a professional rider can blow away any e-bike.
I'd like to see e-bikes for those with health issues, commuting, recreation, but not show-off speed
races and the like. I'd hope our current law would prevent these negative issues for any bike, e-
bike or otherwise.
Let's try to make the law such we don't need special laws for e-bikes, but rather define what
types of bikes are allowed, then all laws apply to all. For example, the law should prohibit
droppings and droppings should be defined as horse excrement, e-bike battery fluids.
Name: Michael Pruznick
Email: mikepruz@comcast.net
Attachment 4
Other Community E-bike Regulations
Austin, Texas (Silver Bike City): No motorized vehicles allowed on City trails. No
Aspen, Colorado: Municipal Code prohibits motorized vehicles on the Aspen Trail
System. No
Bellevue, Washington: Allowed under state law unless prohibited locally. No ordinance
prohibits or regulates their use. E-bikes are currently allowed anywhere a bicycle is
allowed, including their bike trail system. Yes
Boulder, Colorado (Platinum Bike City): Ebikes are prohibited from operating on City
trails and sidewalks. No
Colorado Springs, Colorado (Silver Bike City): Do not allow e-bikes on City trails, but
may study the issue in the near future. No
Concord, New Hampshire: City Ordinance prohibits motorized wheeled vehicles on City
trails. No
Davis, California (Platinum Bike City): Prohibited under state law unless allowed by
local jurisdiction. City Code does not address ebikes on trails but staff indicates City
does not enforce state prohibition. Yes
Denver, Colorado (Silver Bike City): Municipal Code makes it unlawful to operate a
motorized vehicle on City trails. No
Eugene, Oregon (Gold Bike City): Allowed under state law. City does not prohibit
ebikes on City bike trails. Yes
Fayetteville, Arkansas (Bronze Bike City): Electric powered scooters, bicycles, Segways,
may be used on city trails only when their use does not create a safety hazard for
pedestrians, wheelchairs or human powered bicycles. Yes
Greeley, Colorado: No regulations allowing ebikes on trails, so they are prohibited
under state law. No
Lincoln, Nebraska (N/A): Ebikes and other electric powered vehicles, including golf
carts, are allowed on City trails. Police Services indicates this has created significant trail
user conflicts. Yes
Longmont, Colorado (Bronze Bike City): Municipal Code prohibits motorized vehicles
on City trail system. No
Loveland, Colorado (Honorable Mention Bike City): Municipal Code prohibits
motorized vehicles on City trails. No
Norman, Oklahoma (Bronze Bike City): Allow ebikes on City trails. Yes
Palo Alto, California (Gold Bike City): Municipal Code states that no person shall
operate any motor vehicle on park or open space land. Includes all motorized bicycles,
carts, scooters and electric personal assistive mobility devices except those devices used
by handicapped persons. No
Portland, Oregon (Platinum Bike City): Allowed under state law unless prohibited by
local jurisdiction. Municipal Code does not prohibit ebikes on City trails. Yes
Seattle, Washington (Gold Bike City): Allowed under state law unless prohibited by local
jurisdiction. Municipal Code does not prohibit ebikes on City trails. Yes
Toronto, Canada: Large three year study leading to e-bikes being allowed on the City
street bike lane system. No information about a similar study or regulation allowing for
their use on trails. No.
Windsor, Colorado: Municipal Code makes it unlawful for any person to operate any
motorized vehicle on any trail within the Town. No
1
1
ELECTRIC ASSISTED BICYCLES (EBIKES)
ON CITY TRAILS
2
INTRODUCTION
• Members of City Council expressed interest in
considering allowing ebikes on City paved trails
• The City Manager formed a staff team to
investigate the issues and gather community input
ATTACHMENT 6
2
3
INTRODUCTION
• The staff Ebike Team has representatives from
many City departments including: Transportation;
Police Services; Natural Areas; Park Planning;
Culture Parks Recreation and Environment;
Communications and Public Involvement; the City
Attorney’s Office and the Bicycle Coordinator
4
INTRODUCTION
• The Ebike Team discussed the issues with a
variety of City Boards, conducted a public opinion
survey and contacted several other communities
to discover how they regulate ebikes on trails
3
5
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
• Does Council wish to consider an amendment to
the City Code to allow ebikes on the City’s paved
trail system?
• Does Council wish to consider an amendment to
the City Code to allow ebikes on the City’s
unpaved trails?
6
CURRENT REGULATIONS
• The City Code currently prohibits the operation of
ebikes on City trails
• The Code defines ebikes as a vehicle having two
tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one
forward wheel, fully operable pedals, with an
electric motor not exceeding 750 watts of power
and a top speed of 20 mph
4
7
CURRENT REGULATIONS
• Colorado state law prohibits ebikes on trails
unless allowed by a local jurisdiction
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows
people with mobility disabilities to use ebikes and
other power-driven mobility devices on City trails
• Federal law also defines and regulates ebikes in
the context of product safety, but does not
regulate their local operation
8
BOARD AND COMMISSION OUTREACH
• The Ebike Team presented the question of
allowing ebikes on paved trails to the following
boards and commissions: Air Quality Advisory
Board; Commission on Disability; Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board; Natural
Resources Advisory Board; Parks and Recreation
Board; Senior Advisory Board; and the
Transportation Board (including the Bicycle
Advisory Committee)
5
9
BOARD AND COMMISSION OUTREACH
• The Air Quality Advisory Board recommends
allowing e-bikes on the Spring Creek and Mason
Corridor trails for a 1-yr trial period following the
establishment of a comprehensive operational
plan, at which time Council should re-consider the
matter.
10
BOARD AND COMMISSION OUTREACH
• The Commission on Disability will provide their
recommendation after their next meeting
• The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
does not support allowing ebikes on paved trails
at this time. The Board would like more
information on how the public views the issue and
a comprehensive analysis of the impacts
6
11
BOARD AND COMMISSION OUTREACH
• The Natural Resources Advisory Board
recommends allowing ebikes on paved trails for a
trial period of up to 3 years. The Board suggests
staff monitor conflicts, safety issues, and impacts
to natural areas and wildlife during the trial period
12
BOARD AND COMMISSION OUTREACH
• The Parks and Recreation Board recommends
allowing ebikes on some or all paved trails for a 3
year trial period. The Board suggests staff monitor
conflicts, safety issues, and public opinion during
the trial period
7
13
BOARD AND COMMISSION OUTREACH
• The Senior Advisory Board does not support
allowing ebikes on paved trails. The Board did
not see a compelling reason to allow them and
expressed concern about safety and conflicts with
other trail users
14
BOARD AND COMMISSION OUTREACH
• The Transportation Board adopted the
recommendation of its Bicycle Advisory
Committee to allow ebikes on paved trails, noting
ebikes are an alternative method of transportation
8
15
CITIZEN SURVEY
• A survey asking citizens whether ebikes should
be allowed on City paved trails was posted on the
City web and Facebook pages
• 202 citizens provided their opinions with 49%
opposed to allowing ebikes on the trails and 47%
in favor
• The remaining 4% did not take a position
16
CITIZEN SURVEY
• Comments from citizens opposing ebikes on the trails noted
concerns regarding safety, speed, compatibility with other
trail users and a desire to keep trail use non-motorized
• Comments from citizens favoring ebikes on the trails noted
ebikes are not much different than non-motorized bikes, are
useful for commuting and do not create safety problems if
used responsibly
9
17
OTHER CITIES
• Staff contacted 20 other communities to find out if they allow
ebikes on their trails and to learn about any problems they
have encountered
• Colorado communities included: Aspen; Boulder; Colorado
Springs; Denver; Greeley; Longmont, Loveland, and
Windsor
• None of the Colorado communities allow ebikes on their
trails
18
OTHER CITIES
• Communities that allow ebikes on their trails include:
Bellevue, Washington; Davis, California; Eugene, Oregon;
Fayetteville, Arkansas; Lincoln, Nebraska; Norman,
Oklahoma; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington
• Other communities that do not allow ebikes on trails
include: Austin, Texas; Concord, NH; Palo Alto, California;
and Toronto, Canada
10
19
OTHER ELECTRIC VEHICLES
• There are many types of electric vehicles
including: Segways; longboards; scooters;
mopeds, motorcycles and golf carts
• Vehicles that are wider, heavier, or faster than
ebikes (as defined in the City Code) present
unique safety, user conflict and resource impact
issues
20
CURRENT DEFINITION OF EBIKES
• The City Code defines ebikes as a vehicle having two
tandem wheels or two parallel wheels and one forward
wheel, fully operable pedals, with an electric motor not
exceeding 750 watts of power and a top speed of 20 mph
• Some mopeds and similar electric vehicles may fall within
this definition but may present unique safety and user
conflict problems due to their size and weight
11
21
CURRENT DEFINITION OF EBIKES
• If Council wishes to allow ebikes on the trail
system, but does not wish to allow mopeds and
similar vehicles, the Code definition of ebikes
would need to be amended
• Adding a weight limit of 75 pounds and a frame
width limit of 4 inches to the Code definition of
ebikes would limit ebikes to bikes with electric
assist motors
22
ENFORCEMENT
• The City’s current ability to enforce trail use
regulations is quite limited
• The City’s ability to effectively enforce regulations
regarding the type, speed, or operation of ebikes
or other electric vehicles on trails is very modest
12
23
UNPAVED TRAILS
• After the board and public outreach process was
well underway, consideration of the question of
allowing ebikes on unpaved trails was requested
• The City has 103 miles of unpaved trails in our
natural areas
• Unpaved trails are frequently narrow dirt
singletrack
24
UNPAVED TRAILS
• The weight of ebikes, coupled with their ability to accelerate
rapidly could exacerbate trail erosion and create safety
issues with other trail users, particularly equestrians
• Ebikes may also have greater impacts on wildlife
• Allowing ebikes on unpaved trails would introduce a
motorized vehicle throughout our natural areas, which are
provided, in part, to provide citizens with places to find
respite from the mechanized world
13
25
RECOMMENDATION
• The City Manager recommends allowing ebikes on City
paved trails for up to 3 years as a trial period
• During the trial period, staff will gather information on safety
issues, user conflicts and public opinion
• At the end of the trial period, staff will bring the matter back
to Council for further direction
• The definition of ebikes should be amended to add a weight
limit of 75 pounds and a frame width of no larger than 4
inches during the trial period
http:/ / www.wecc.biz on 3-10-2010.
5 Study case used was derived by CCPG and its members and originated from the WECC 2020HS approved case “ 20hs1a1p.sav”
that was posted to http:/ / www.wecc.biz on 6-9-2010.
Page 12 of 881
Longs Peak bus voltage to 1.07pu.
De-energize capacitor bank at
Longs Peak Substation to
reduce bus voltage.
2 Study case used was derived by CCPG and its members and originated from the WECC 14LA1 approved case “ 14la1sa1p.sav”
that was posted to http:/ / www.wecc.biz on 3-10-2010.
3 Study case used was derived by CCPG and its members and originated from the WECC 15HS2 approved case “ 15hs2a1p.sav” that
was posted to http:/ / www.wecc.biz on 5-3-2010.
Page 10 of 881
II. Scope
The study area is the Foothills Area Transmission System (Foothills System) located in northern
Colorado as shown in Exhibit 2. The PRPA transmission system is situated in the Foothills
System. The near-term (years one through five) and longer-term (years six through ten)
planning horizons were studied and the results documented herein over a range of forecasted
system demands and subject to the various contingency conditions defined in the NERC
Standards TPL-001 through -004 for Categories A, B, C, and D.
III. Assumptions
1. Loads are represented at the high-voltage busses.
2. PRPA detailed representation with substation transformers and low-voltage bus loads are
not used in this study. However, power factors have been adjusted for high-voltage bus
representation.
3. Voltage criteria violations on the transmission system are of more concern at load busses
than at non-load busses.
Page 4 of 881
Harmony 230kV
Substation Terminals
Upgrade
Modify CT tap and transformer relaying. Remove conditional line
ratings on the Boyd and
Timberline lines.
May
2012
Meadow 115kV Ring
Breaker
Add one breaker to complete the 115 kV ring
bus.
Improve reliability to
Meadow Substation. Meet
PRPA design criteria.
October
2011
Timberline 230/115kV
Substation Expansion
Add 115/13.8kV transformers T3 & T4. New delivery point to serve
growing load.
May
2012
Dixon-Horseshoe
230kV Line
Approximately 9.4 miles. Rebuild WAPA’s
Dixon-Horsetooth Tap 115kV Line to double-
circuit 230kV capability. Rebuild TSGT’s
Horsetooth Tap-Trilby 115kV line to double-
circuit 230kV capability. New Trilby-
Horseshoe 230 kV underground line.
Expansion of Horseshoe to 230/115kV
Substation with two 230/115kV transformers
and two 35-MVAR 115kV Capacitor Banks.
Necessary to meet WECC
and NERC performance
requirements. Provide a
second 230kV source to the
Loveland area.
Page 3 of 881