Meeting Notes
Meeting:	Stakeholder Committee Meeting #9
Date:	September 20, 2001
Location:	Streets Building 625 9th Street Fort Collins Training Room
Attendees:	Adrian Weaver Kathy Kregel Mike McNeil Carl Maxey Ernie Marx Donna Brown Gladys Russell Marlan Hansen Sid White Barry Schulz Nate Allen	Mike Doten Scott Koskie Maury Albertson Greg Spencer William Hayes Wayne Carpenter Dwight Whitney Hank Hersh Frank Whitney Randy Hensley Mark Jackson	Charles Rogers Len Roark Kathy Dwyer Larry Stroud Jane Clark Peggy Arevalos Helen Boggs Joe Dumais R.A. Plummer Carrie Wallis
Agenda:	General Business Meeting Purpose Matrix Evaluation of Routes Wellington Alternatives (CR 62E and CR 62E/64) Evaluation Methodology Matrix Discussion Other Business Issues for Report Schedule Update

I.   General Business
Mark Jackson summarized the public open houses held in late August. Over 170 people attended the open houses. A handout of the alternate route map was handed out to the group with revisions that have been made to the Horsetheif Pass location and aligning the routes along parcel boundaries instead of through parcels. Also, the statement made by Jane Clark at the August meeting was distributed, since it did not go out in the notes. No one had received meeting notes from August at this date. The map, comments, and notes from the last meeting are attached.

II.   Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the meeting was to go through the matrix evaluation for the alternate routes and to gain input regarding the evaluation process.

III.   Matrix Evaluation of Routes

A. Wellington Alternatives (CR 62E and CR 62E/64)

The Wellington Alternatives have been eliminated from further consideration based on typical section width constraints. The Project Management Team comprised of the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, CDOT and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission unanimously voted for the elimination of the Wellington routes.

B. Evaluation Methodology

Individual Criteria were designated least favorable, moderate, or most favorable, represented by an open circle, half circle, and full circle. This is similar to a "consumer reports" type of evaluation. Each value is compared to other values within the same category to determine the favoribility of the route in each category. The legend describes the values used to determine whether a value is most favorable, moderate, or least favorable. For example, capital cost values greater than or equal to (≥) 90 million are considered least favorable, values between 63 and 90 million are considered moderate, and values less than or equal to (≤) 63 million are considered most favorable. Handouts for evaluation of cost, traffic operations, route utilization, right-of-way/relocations, environmental relocations, directly affected properties, community planning/land use, length of route, and the overall symbol matrix are attached to these notes.

Cost

A handout was distributed that detailed the cost evaluation. R.A. went over the cost evaluation. CR 76 A and CR 72 A were much greater than other routes so they were designated least favorable. CR 70/72 B, CR 70 B and CR 58 A were substantially less so they were all designated most favorable, while the remaining routes were designated moderate.

Comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• How does cost per traffic on route relate to other projects? Find other examples
• Concerns about cost estimates, roads appear to be too cheap
• Cost estimates appear to be reasonable based on past studies

Traffic Operations

A handout was distributed that detailed the traffic operations evaluation for each of the routes. R.A. explained that any route with a change of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) greater than 15,000 was designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate. The clarification was made that VMT is a daily value for the entire area as a whole and traffic volumes are for 2020. The question was asked as to why the change in VMT for CR 58 A is 5,000 miles/day higher than for CR 58 B. R.A. explained that more traffic on the CR 58 A route accounts for the higher change in VMT. Travel time was not evaluated because all the times are within 4.3 minutes. The question was asked as to if three lanes would be suitable to handle all of the traffic. R.A. responded that many of the routes would be close to maximum capacity for requiring two lanes, and that three lanes would be more than enough to support the projected volumes. The comment was made that if there were a great number access points per mile on a route then the travel speed would have to be lower. R.A. responded that if a route were designated as a state highway then the number of access points per mile would be restricted, and that new accesses from developments would be strictly regulated. R.A. clarified that most properties would have access from County Roads, rather than from the actual route.

Comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• New developments will adversely effect travel times for all alternate routes
• Concern with US 287 being widened to 4 lanes in Wyoming

Route Utilization

A handout was distributed that detailed the route utilization for each of the alternate routes. The weighted average of the traffic utilization numbers was used for CR 70/72 A, 70/72 B, CR 70 B, CR 58 A, and CR 58 B due to the large amounts of traffic on each of these routes near I-25. Through trucks on proposed route was not evaluated because the amount of through trucks is the same on each route. R.A. explained that routes with more than 9,000 vehicles per day were designated most favorable, while routes with less than 7,000 vehicles per day were designated as least favorable. All other routes were designated as moderate. The comment was made that more traffic on a route would have more negative impacts on the surrounding area. R.A. clarified that from a route utilization standpoint more traffic on a route was more cost effective.

Comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• Why are total vehicles being considered when the ballot initiative dealt with trucks?
• What are the total number of trucks that will remain on Jefferson/Riverside in 2020?
• What is the travel time for the I-25, I-80 route?

Environmental Resources

A handout was distributed that detailed the environmental resources evaluation. A member of the stakeholder committee, Ernie Marx, explained the modified LESA analysis that was used to evaluate the farming resources. The Land Evaluation (LE) portion was based solely on soil type and ability to grow crops. The Site Assessment Portion (SA) was based on farm size and distance to annexed boundary. A larger farm that is further from the nearest annexed boundary is given a higher score. The modified LESA score represents the combination of the LE and SA score. Ernie emphasized that much research went into the development of Larimer County’s LESA system. Concerns were raised with the fact that irrigated land was not taken into consideration in the analysis. Ernie responded that for the scope of this project he felt that this analysis was more than sufficient. It would be more desirable to evaluate the irrigated land but for this project the resources do not exist to conduct that analysis. R.A. explained that the routes with a modified LESA score greater than or equal to 130 were designated as least desirable while routes with a score less than 115 were designated as most desirable. All other routes were designated as moderate.

Comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• Giving larger farms more value is a subjective statement based on economics

Federal and state protected species were evaluated based on acres of potential effect. All routes with more than 50 acres of potential effect were designated as least desirable while all routes with less than 25 acres were designated as most desirable. All other routes were designated as moderate. CNHP conservation areas were designated least desirable if they had greater than or equal to 15 acres of potential effect. Routes with no effect were designated most favorable and all other routes were designated as moderate.

Routes with more than three acres of potential effect to riparian areas were designated as least favorable while routes with no effect were designated as most favorable. All other routes were designated as moderate. Wetlands were evaluated based on the national wetlands inventory. All routes with greater than or equal to ten acres of potential effect were designated as least favorable while routes with less than three acres of potential effect were designated as most favorable. All other routes were designated moderate. The question was asked as to why the wetlands evaluation did not use zero as most favorable. R.A. responded that no routes had zero acres of potential effect so this would not be comparative with the other routes.

The clarification was made that the noise analysis was conducted using a time-related stamina model that used average values for the FHWA criteria. All routes with ten or more affected residences were designated as least favorable, while all other routes were designated as moderate. No routes were designated as most favorable because none of the routes had zero effected residences. Noise impacts to businesses were not evaluated because all of the routes had no effect on businesses. The clarification was made that the noise analysis was based on 2001 numbers of households and businesses.

Air quality was evaluated using the additional CO on route. All routes with more than 30 tons per day additional were designated least favorable while all other routes were designated moderate. Diesel emissions were not evaluated because they are a direct representation of CO on route. CO on SH 14 after relocation was not evaluated because the focus of the evaluation is on the effects to the proposed routes, not to the existing route.

Alternate routes with ten or more ditch/canal crossings were designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate. Routes with 15 or more acres of potential effect on FEMA floodplains were designated as least favorable while routes with less than five acres of potential effect were designated as most favorable. All other routes were designated as moderate.

Historic resource site impacts were based on sites that are currently listed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Routes with listed sites were designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate. The question was asked as to whether the monument/stage route is historic. R.A. clarified that that site does not appear on the SHPO list. Potentially significant site resource impacts were based on sites where significant resources have been found in the past. All routes with three or more potential impacts were designated as least favorable while all other routes were designated as moderate since additional historic resources could be found on each route in the future.

Right-of Way/Relocations

A handout was distributed that detailed the right-of-way/relocations evaluation. R.A. clarified that during the design and construction phase CDOT would negotiate the relocations. The question was asked as to whether any structure within the 200 foot right-of-way (ROW) would constitute a relocation. The clarification was made that a residence within the ROW would constitute a relocation but a structure such as a shed or barn within the ROW would not constitute a relocation. No additional ROW was assumed on the south edge of CR 58. The ballot initiative precludes any study of a route within two miles of the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Any route with 300 or more acres of additional ROW was designated as least favorable while any route with 200 or less additional acres of ROW was designated as most favorable. All other routes were designated as moderate. Residential, business, farming and ranching relocations were evaluated in one combined category. Any route with ten or more relocations was designated as least favorable while all of the other routes were designated as moderate. The most favorable designation would only apply to an alternate route with no relocations.

Comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• CDOT does not support process, how is this being taken into account?
• Where is two miles north of the growth management boundary, the southern edge of CR 58 or the centerline of the roadway?

Directly Affected Properties

A handout was distributed detailing the evaluation of the directly affected properties. A directly affected property was assumed to be any property with direct access to one of the proposed routes currently (2001). Any route with 45 or more residences with direct access was designated as least favorable while any route with less than 20 residences with direct access was designated as most favorable. All other routes were designated as moderate. Any route with directly affected businesses was designated as moderate while all other routes were designated as most favorable. The question was asked as to how directly affected businesses were determined. The project team utilized aerial photography and site visits to designate businesses.

Comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• Did you consider county/state business licenses if a business was in a home?
• Were horse properties considered businesses?
• Were home Internet businesses considered?

Community Planning/Land Use

A handout was distributed detailing the evaluation of community planning and land use. Larimer County present and future road designations were used to determine compatibility with County and regional transportation planning. Roadway designations include highways, freeways, arterials, major and minor collectors, and local roads. There are many other road classifications. Any route with local roads or minor collectors were determined to be not compatible, while combinations involving major collectors or portions of state highway were determined to be compatible with. None of the routes were found to be consistent with the roadway classifications. Not compatible roadways were designated as least favorable while any route consisting of roadways considered compatible were designated as moderate. None of the routes were considered most favorable. Percent of total land use was not evaluated because all routes are similar in relation to existing land uses.

Length of Route

A handout was distributed detailing the evaluation of length of route. Length of proposed route, length of proposed route compared to existing route, length of proposed route, length of proposed route compared to shortest route, and proposed route lane miles were not evaluated because most provided information only, and the range of some values are close to the existing route. Additional state highway lane miles were used to evaluate length of route. Greater then ten additional lane miles was considered least favorable, and moderate was considered less than ten additional lane miles. None of the alternatives were most favorable due to the fact that all routes have additional highway lane miles.

C. Matrix Discussion

A handout showing the complete evaluation matrix and the criteria designations was distributed to the group. The question was asked as to whether the criteria would be weighted for the final determination of a route. Barry responded that the separate criteria would not be weighted. Weighting the criteria would eliminate all of the subjectivity that has been involved with the comparative evaluation. People also believe that different criteria should be weighted differently, which would make the analysis very objective.

III.   Other Business

A. Issues for Report

A handout was distributed listing other issues that would not be included in the evaluation that will be discussed within the final report. Many additions were suggested for the list.

Additional Issues for the Report (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• Environmental Justice, minority issues on certain routes (will be covered in NEPA process)

• Degradation of rural character

• Conservation easements (donated land for conservation)

• Increase in operations and maintenance cost for county roads with increased traffic

• Negative economic impacts on the City of Fort Collins

• Health impacts for close proximity

• Moving livestock across roads

• Effect on accompanying property values, and effect based on whether a route is ever built

• Sprawl has many elements that should be considered (traffic, wildlife, rural character, rural culture)

• Discussion of property value increase versus decrease, size of property

• Public/stakeholders sentiment

• None of the routes provide any substantial benefits. Many trucks will still go through Fort Collins

• Impact on Jefferson in regards to trucks

• Social costs in regards to improvements on Jefferson

• Jefferson business owners opinion of bypass

• Rural impacts for air pollution

• Looking at northern area not Jefferson area.

• Fairness of process

• Federal, State of Colorado, and State of Wyoming plans for US 287 (Wyoming legislature trying to get $200 million appropriated ASAP)

Other comments (Not necessarily statements of fact)

• Need to go back to Wellington City Council

• Some business owners in the Jefferson area may not support the bypass

• Stakeholders will have a chance to review recommendations before the end of the project

• Possibility for stakeholders to meet separately

B. Schedule Update

A handout detailing the upcoming schedule was distributed to the group. The next Stakeholder Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, Oct 18th at 6:00 p.m. at the Streets Building, 625 9^th Street, in Fort Collins.

V. Open Forum

A presentation was made by Gladys Russell regarding the Northern Larimer County Alliance. The first meeting was held on September 15. An executive board was elected. Gladys and Peggy Arevalos were elected as co-chairs of the committee. An agenda from the first meeting was distributed to the group.

Distribution: Stakeholder Committee, Policy Advisory Committee, and Project Management Team