Proposed Amendment - DRCOG Comments on 2012... · 2011-02-22 · CCEA never approved the project. CCEA has continuously verbalized disagreement with project to Councilwoman Robb,

Proposed Amendment

Name Audrey DeBarros

Organization 36 Commuting Solutions

Phone

number 3036044383

Email

address [email protected]

Comment 36 Commuting Solutions requests the DRCOG support for the $19 million identified to RTD for the

U.S. 36 Bus Rapid Transit/HOV/HOT lanes project. The DRCOG funding will leverage a partnership of funding from federal, state, regional and local stakeholders to extend the project to Interlocken Loop

in Broomfield. Please respect the DRCOG RTP Board policy direction which supports phase 2 funds to

be allocated based upon score, regional equity and strategic corridors. We also ask the DRCOG board

to respect the MVIC recommendations which incorporates and balances all these aspects fairly.

File (if one uploaded)

Go Back

Page 1 of 1View Comment

2/14/2011http://cognizance/admin/publiccomment/dsp_viewComment.cfm?meetingid=16&comment...Public Comments - Page 1

Broomfield Public Comment in Support of Phase 2 Funding for the U.S. 36 Corridor Project

My name is Debra Baskett. I am the Transportation Manager for the City and County of Broomfield. I am writing on behalf of Broomfield to provide comment in support of RTD’s application for Phase 2 TIP funding for the US 36 Managed lane/BRT Extension.

The project is of great importance to Broomfield as it will serve our residents and employees – our location along U.S. 36 is the nexus for travelers from both Boulder and Denver. MVIC’s decision to recommend Phase 2 funding recognizes the importance of making a regional investment in this strategic corridor.

The $19 M funding proposed tonight will help build managed lanes from their current terminus at U.S. 36 and Pecos, all the way to E. Flatiron Circle, which is just past the US 36/Interlocken Loop exit with U.S. 36.

The US 36 project is a multi-modal project that will reduce travel time and maximize predictability for transit riders. It will encourage SOV drivers to change modes to transit or carpooling.

The project is a sustainable solution to the traditional approach of “building our way out of congestion”. Agencies and communities along the corridor deliberately sought a smaller footprint, relying on managed lanes and transit to mange future travel capacity.

It will provide a choice for drivers willing to pay a toll for a travel time advantage, and a revenue stream provided by users of the lane to continue to pay for its operations and maintenance. Users of the lane will be making a direct investment in the road they are driving.

TIP funding will help leverage federal, state and RTD funds, along with a TIFIA loan to build the BRT/Managed lanes.

The funding will improve safety, by reconstructing an aging highway that becomes more dangerous each day.

The DRCOG Board approval of funding for US 36 will benefit the metro Denver region through immediate job creation and benefits to the environment, the economy and traveling public.

Thank you for your consideration.

Public Comments - Page 2

1

Casey Collins

From: Steve Bobrick [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:08 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Please forward to the Board of Directors for an addition to my public comment Wednesday

Night, I would appreciate it.

To all, In advertently I left off the project that I am supporting. People were rushing me in, saying it was all 36 Corridor funding comments and there I ran. After several years in office, I understand that repetition is old, so I simply stated but with the project, I support as a member of Broomfield Economic Development Council the 36 Corridor and the funding that is proposed and ditto on all the previous comments. Thank you for the time, and for serving in office. Best Regards, Steve

Bobrick & Associates, Inc. Out of the box consulting P.O. Box 462554 Aurora, CO 80046-2554 Phone: 720-980-3902 Email: [email protected] www.bobrickassociates.com



CommentBy

Brian Matthews

Comment The RTD would like to voice our continued support for the proposed Belleview and Golden call-n-Rides projects. The RTDcurrently operates 19 call-n-Rides and have found that this type of community service transportation has been well received bythe existing communities. The RTD beleives that the Belleview and Golden proposed call-n-Rides are communities that willbenefit from a call-n-Ride service. The RTD thanks you for your continued support of these programs through the TIP process.

Document(if one

submitted)


From: Barbara Metzger <[email protected]> Date: February 12, 2011 12:51:29 PM MST To: DRCOG <[email protected]>, Jill Locantore <[email protected]>, "Robb, Jeanne - City Council Dist. #10" <[email protected]>, Brooks Waldman <[email protected]>, Trish Beck Palamara <[email protected]>, "Gleissner, Chris R. - CPD" <[email protected]>, Barbara Frommell <[email protected]>, cindy.patton <[email protected]>, LOIS COURT <[email protected]>, "Robson, Scott - Parks & Rec" <[email protected]> Subject: response to draft document for 2012-2017

Good morning, Please consider this response to the DRCOG Draft Document which will be discussed at the 16 February Public Meeting. We cannot attend, but wish to express disapproval with: p.88, "Locally-Funded Capacity Projects - Roadway Widening", the project listed under 2015-2024: Alameda Avenue - Steele Street to Colorado Blvd. CCE Resident Timeline relevant to the response: 1.We moved to 242 South Monroe Street, Denver, in late November, 2004. 2.Distributed attached file to CCEA (Cherry Creek East Association, RNO for Cherry Creek East) Please note that this was written in 2006. 3.Attended STP workshops/public meetings, voicing disapproval of Alameda widening along with other CCE residents. 4.Shocked to see Alameda Widening on STP. STP inclusion of Alameda Widening for increased roadway capacity goes against the basic premise of STP: moving people, not just cars. CCEA never approved the project. CCEA has continuously verbalized disagreement with project to Councilwoman Robb, Public Works, Parks and Recreation. 5.CCEA membership votes to support PUD for 274 South Monroe and 265 South Garfield, later approved by City Council. The PUD permits residential development on parcels abutting Alameda. City departments signed off on development that could occur ONLY if Alameda was not widened. 6.Denver's adoption of principles of Living Streets and Smart Growth does not encourage widening of Alameda for increased vehicle capacity. Concepts of connectivity to open space (Pulaski Park, Gates Tennis, and Cherry Creek bicycle and pedestrian paths), pedestrian safety, and reduction of auto trips, all go against increased vehicular capacity on this roadway. 7.Widening of Alameda would create a challenge for maintaining the boundaries of Pulaski Park. 8.Alameda is a designated Parkway within the City of Denver. 9.Residents of Cherry Creek East are involved in the Cherry Creek Area Plan, an updated plan that is to be used as the City Council approved roadmap for Cherry Creek residents, both commercial and residential for the next twenty years. It is impossible to discuss projects and visions for our neighborhood when there exists the continued and vague "Alameda Widening" on our southern border. We would request the project defined as Alameda Widening be deleted from the list of Locally-Funded Capacity Projects for Roadway Widening, 2015 -2024.


mailto:[email protected]











We would further request that the Alameda Widening project be deleted from any DRCOG TIPS, plans or projects until a clear, transparent plan for Alameda's future has been jointly approved by CCEA, DRCOG (with RTD representation), Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Cherry Creek Steering Committee, and representatives from the Alameda Triangle. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Sincerely, Barbara and Bob Metzger 242 South Monroe Street Denver, CO 80209


Page 1 2/14/2011

Cherry Creek East Association October 19, 2006 Meeting

Potential Widening of Alameda

Between Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Creek Mall

1. The City of Denver and the Public Works Department wants to widen Alamada between Colorado Blvd. and Cherry Creek Mall.

a. This would be a six lane through fare, but plans beyond this do not appear to be available to the Cherry Creek East Association.

b. Initial monies for beginning this project were to be included in this year’s City budget, but as of now have been dropped. These funds were to begin “land banking” parcels along Alameda for future construction.

c. The widening project remains in the 2007-2012 Six Year Capital Program Plan.

2. The 1999 Cherry Creek Neighborhood Plan includes a six-lane widening with a landscaped medium, a significant offset and a detached sidewalk. This was to accomplish three objectives:

a. To provide a landscaped buffer for residential use at the southern end of Cherry Creek East;

b. To provide a Gateway entrance into the neighborhood; and c. To minimize cut through traffic through interior streets.

3. Possible actions by the Board/Members could be to:

a. Ask DPW to present more fully the scope of their plans, how they are to be funded, when they are to be funded, and will they be consistent with Blue Print Denver and the 1999 Cherry Creek Neighborhood Plan. We have already lost one developer for the empty parcels along Alameda, because he wasn’t able to work with the City’s plans of what “might be.” Ideally, DPW would make a presentation to one of our meetings prior to 2008 Budget proposals.

b. Ask Denver Parks and Recreation how the DPW plans for Alameda


Page 2 2/14/2011

fit into their plans for Pulaski park , the projected redevelopment of the Gates Tennis Center, their vision for green space in Denver, and the requirements of landscaping a widened Alameda as a designated Parkway.

c. Undertake a survey of the Cherry Creek East neighbor to get input on the desirability of widening Alameda to six lanes as well as input on the demographics, concerns and needs of the neighborhood. Potentially, this survey could be used to update the 1999 Cherry Creek Neighborhood Plan.

d. Coordinate, as needed, with the Cherry Creek North and the Hilltop neighborhoods and the Monroe Pointe development.

Barbara and Bob Metzger 242 South Monroe Street [email protected]








City of Aurora Support Statement for the Peoria Street/Smith Road/Rail Road Grade Separation Project – DRCOG Board Public Hearing on the 2012-2017 Transportation Improvement Program – 2/16/11, 6:30 PM Ryan Fraizer City of Aurora Council Member and Chairman of the Transportation & Airport Policy Committee

Good evening Board Chairman Bockenfeld and DRCOG Board Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening.

I will take this moment to speak with you about the importance of programming adequate

Transportation Improvement Program funds for the Peoria Street/Smith Road/Rail Road Grade

Separation Project in the 2012-2017 time-frame.

The City of Aurora strongly urges the DRCOG Board to approve the Peoria Street/Smith Road/ Rail Road

Grade Separation Project (TIP ID # 2012-044) for funding in the DRCOG 2012-2017 Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP) at the $25 million level. This critical grade separation of Peoria Street from

Smith Road, the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) freight rail tracks, and the soon-to-be constructed RTD

FasTracks East Corridor Commuter Rail Line will provide urgently needed and key safety features, vehicular

and pedestrian access improvements, and air quality benefits for the region.

Currently, the average daily traffic volume on Peoria Street at this project location is 35,000 vehicles. Future

traffic levels of 60,000 - 70,000 are forecasted for Peoria Street. Significant congestion and travel delays

occur on Peoria Street during peak hours and are compounded due to approximately 18 Union Pacific Rail

Road freight rail train movements per day, including 100 car coal trains. The RTD FasTracks East Corridor

Commuter Rail Line train crossings of Peoria Street approximately every 7.5 minutes will worsen the

situation.

The unique configuration of the Peoria/Smith/UPRR/East Corridor Commuter Rail Line location creates a

significant life safety problem. Continuing freight rail movements and the addition of commuter rail crossing

delays will negatively impact emergency vehicle response times throughout this key transportation corridor.

Peoria Street serves as an emergency patient transport route to The Children’s and University Hospitals

situated at the Anschutz-Fitzsimons Medical Campus. The Aurora Fire Station 3 and the Metro Ambulance

Dispatch Center, both located on Peoria Street immediately south of Smith Road, will have access blocked


by extensive north bound traffic queues forecasted to develop due to freight and commuter rail crossing

delays.

Additionally, Peoria Street is designated as an alternative evacuation route for Denver International Airport

(DIA) to access hospitals and trauma centers when an incident occurs at DIA or on Pena Boulevard. Existing

south bound vehicle queues on Peoria regularly spill back onto the I-70 east bound off-ramps creating safety

and operational problems when UPRR train movements occur across Peoria Street. An additional safety

issue is the potential for pedestrian and bicycle incidents. Increased pedestrian and bicycle activity at this

crossing will occur due to the development of the Peoria-Smith Commuter Rail Station. Rather than waiting

the estimated five (5) to eight (8) minutes at an at-grade rail crossing, walkers and bicyclists will quite likely

try to avoid the rail crossing gates and dash across the tracks to access the commuter rail station.

Timely design and construction of this project is extremely critical since the East Corridor Commuter Rail

Line is due to open in late 2015. It is absolutely essential that this grade separation project be funded,

designed and constructed as a project within the DRCOG 2012-17 TIP time-frame so that full coordination

and partnering with the East Corridor Commuter Rail Line Project can be realized.

For these reasons, Aurora requests the DRCOG Board to reconsider the January 5, 2011 MVIC

recommendation for project selection and funding levels for the 2012-2017 Transportation

Improvement Program and program the requested $25 million (as requested in the reduced TIP

Project Request submitted by the City and County of Denver in December 2010) for the Peoria Street

grade separation project. The approval of $25 million in TIP funding for this critical and regionally

significant project is consistent with DRCOG policy in funding projects that deliver widespread

benefits and value to metro area residents. Additionally, the requested TIP funding level represents a

significant “leverage” ratio in relation to the overall project cost estimated at $50 million.

Thank you for your support of this important regional transportation improvement project.

F:\Dept\Planning\CompPlanning\major_projects\2011\DRCOG\2012-1017 TIP\City of Aurora Support Statement to DRCOG Board - Peoria-Smith-

RR Grade Separation TIP Project 2-16-11.docx





1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: TCH Comments

From: Baskfield, Heidi (Van Huysen) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:17 AM To: Callison, Mac Cc: Morris, Richard Subject: TCH Comments Mac, Here are the comments Rich provided last night‐ thanks! The Children’s Hospital also strongly urges the DRCOG Board to approve the Peoria Street/Smith Road/ Rail Road Grade Separation Project because we need to do everything we can to better manage traffic loads in this area. TCH has seen continued problems with the ability for EMS responders to transport children to our facility because of traffic issues in the area. This means children get diverted to other hospitals that aren’t as well equipped to deal with pediatric trauma or the EMS responder must wait long periods in traffic cutting into precious time a child must have to receive the best possible care outcomes. We thank you for your consideration of this matter and hope you will vote in favor of funding for this critical project. Heidi Baskfield Director of Public Affairs The Children's Hospital (720) 777 ‐ 8526 [email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is confidential, may be legally privileged, and for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, forwarding and distribution by any means is strictly prohibited. If received in error, do not read but delete and e-mail confirmation to the sender. ==========================================================







PROJECT FACT SHEET PROJECT: Peoria St / Smith Rd / RR Grade Separation Operational Project

2-4-2011 Page 1 of 2

Why is the Peoria Grade Separation project so critical for this DRCOG federal funding cycle?

The Peoria St / Smith Rd / RR Grade Separation Operational Project will provide a Peoria Street-railroad grade separation just south of I-70. The grade separation structure is anticipated to be a structure on Peoria Street that passes over the two existing Union Pacific (UP) freight rail tracks, two future East Corridor commuter rail tracks, East Smith Road, and East 37th Avenue. The final environmental impact statement for the East Corridor acknowledged the future need for a grade separation to address current and future Peoria Street traffic levels and rail crossing conflicts. However, recent analysis led to the conclusion that the grade separation should be completed sooner rather than later as an independent local project to address the at-grade crossing concerns outlined below.

What are the current and future Peoria Street at-grade crossing concerns?

□ I-70 Peoria St Interchange Impacts – The existing northbound double left-turn lane on Peoria Street at the I-70 interchange has capacity restrictions due to the relatively short, metered on-ramp for westbound I-70. As a result, traffic queues on Peoria Street extend from I-70 to East 31st Avenue.

□ Traffic Queues Extend Across Railroad Tracks – Vehicles queued from Peoria Street traffic signals and the I-70 interchange often stop on the railroad tracks.

□ Pedestrian Safety – Pedestrian volumes will increase due to the proximity of the Peoria transit station. Of serious concern is that pedestrians may take risks to cross traffic and railroad tracks to catch a bus or commuter rail train. Pedestrians may inappropriately judge commuter rail tracks to be clear of trains when in actuality trains are advancing on the crossing.

□ Emergency Response Route – Peoria Street is an emergency route for the Fitzsimons hospitals, an ambulance dispatch center, a fire station, and for Denver International Airport (DIA) if an incident occurs at DIA, or on Pena Boulevard, I-225 or I-70.

□ Multiple Rail Tracks – At the Peoria Street crossing there will be four live tracks -- two Commuter Rail and two freight tracks. The freight tracks and Commuter Rail tracks are separated by a distance of approximately 70 feet. This configuration presents major obstacles to creating a safe traffic operations situation.

□ Frequency of Train – On average, 18 freight trains cross Peoria Street at Smith Road each day with an average crossing time exceeding 6 minutes. Commuter Rail trains will operate on a 15-minute frequency in each direction (a total of 8 trains in an hour; potentially 1 every 7.5 minutes).

□ Traffic Signal Operation – Due to the frequency of the trains, the traffic signal controller may take up to 7 minutes to recover after a traffic signal pre-emption designed to facilitate commuter rail crossings. With the commuter rail crossing every 15 minutes in each direction, the traffic signal may not recover before the next pre-emption. As a result, traffic signal phases may be skipped. Consequently, a vehicle may not get a green light, or a pedestrian could easily wait over 7 minutes before a walk light is activated.

□ Speed of Train – Although the East Corridor commuter trains may travel in excess of 70 mph in other segments of the corridor, at the Peoria crossing the commuter train will be traveling 30 to 40 mph slower due to stops at the adjacent Peoria Station. Even with the reduced speeds, a train hitting a vehicle broadside at 30 mph will cause significant damage, if not loss of life.

□ Southbound Left Turn at Smith Road – The storage capacity for the southbound left turn lane is too short. Traffic will back up into the through lane increasing the potential for a rear-end accident on the tracks.

□ Southbound traffic queues – Periodically, southbound traffic queues already extend from Smith Road onto the I-70 off-ramp. The future queues could extend onto I-70 with additional train crossings and traffic congestion.


PROJECT FACT SHEET PROJECT: Peoria St / Smith Rd / RR Grade Separation Operational Project

2-4-2011 Page 2 of 2

Why are both Denver and Aurora supporting this project?

Although Denver is nominally the applicant for federal funding through the 2012-2017 DRCOG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), this critical grade separation will provide key safety, air quality, and access benefits for the City of Aurora and the entire region. The DRCOG TIP process does not allow submission of a joint project, and only one jurisdiction can be the applicant / sponsor. Because the municipal boundary in the area is located just south of 37th Avenue north of the rail tracks, the project extends into both Aurora and Denver. The fire station, ambulance dispatch, and the Fitzsimons medical complex are located in Aurora. In addition, this project was identified as a critical infrastructure improvement in "Aurora's Peoria-Smith Station Area Plan - A Framework for Transit-Oriented Development" (Sept. 2009), in which Denver participated.

What is the total project cost and what was Denver’s original TIP federal request?

The total project cost is estimated at $50,000,000. Denver originally requested $40,000,000 in federal funds, and committed a 20% local match.

What is current, amended federal funding request and local match, and what is the current project score?

Denver and Aurora are jointly seeking $25,000,000 in federal funding, with a 50% local match ($25,000,000). When MVIC voted to allow the City and County of Denver to amend the project to be considered in the second phase of the TIP project selection, Denver resubmitted it as a 50% / 50% project. With this overmatch, the project scored 60 points which made it the top scoring Roadway Operational project.


NEW TIP SCENARIO WITH PEORIA FUNDING RESTORED - Projects Recommended for 2012-17 TIP Funding 2-4-2011

Type of Project / Sponsor Agency Project Title

Funding Request

Funding Recommeded

with Scenario 2 (1-24-11 TAC) Running Cost

NEW FUNDING SCENARIO - With Peoria

NEW RUNNING COST

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

SCENARIOS ScorePhase

Selected

Air Quality Improvement

Denver Denver Traffic Signal System Upgrade: Citywide (partial) $5,800 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 $0 75 1 & 2

RAQC Advanced Fleet Technology Project (partial) $6,121 $4,000 $8,800 $1,710 $6,510 ($2,290) 75 1

RAQC Air Quality and Transportation Outreach & Education through Ozone Aware (partial) $2,701 $1,400 $10,200 $900 $7,410 ($500) 75 1

Bicycle and Pedestrian

Boulder N- Baseline Rd Bike/Ped Underpass: Broadway/SH 93 to 28th/US 36 $4,046 $4,046 $4,046 $4,046 $4,046 $0 77 1

Boulder N- Wonderland Underpass & Multiuse Path: Foothills Pkwy to 30th St $2,000 $2,000 $6,046 $2,000 $6,046 $0 76 1

Denver U- Confluence Bike-Ped Ramps: So Platte Greenway $2,765 $2,765 $8,811 $2,765 $8,811 $0 76 1

Boulder N- 28th St/US36 Multiuse Path/Bike Improv: Iris Ave to Yarmouth Ave $1,224 $1,224 $10,035 $1,224 $10,035 $0 71 1

Longmont N- SH119: South of Hover Underpass $965 $965 $11,000 $965 $11,000 $0 68 2

Denver N- Blake Street Bike-Ped Station Access (40th Ave to 38th/Blake Station) $1,224 $1,224 $12,224 $1,224 $12,224 $0 66 2

Aurora N- Tollgate Creek/School Bike/Ped Bridge and Trail $1,214 $1,214 $13,438 $1,214 $13,438 $0 66 2

Golden N- West Corridor End of Line Bike/Ped Overpass $1,220 $1,220 $14,658 $1,220 $14,658 $0 62 2

Arvada N- Kipling Underpass: Van Bibber Extension- W 56th Place to Grandview Ave $1,600 $1,600 $16,258 $1,600 $16,258 $0 59 2

Adams County N- Clay Community Trail: Zuni Street to 60th Avenue $1,054 $1,054 $17,312 $1,054 $17,312 $0 58 2

Westminster N- Little Dry Creek Trail: Federal Blvd. to Lowell Blvd. $324 $324 $17,636 $324 $17,636 $0 58 2

BoulderN- Pearl Parkway Multi-Use Path: 30th Street to Foothills Pkwy/SH157 $4,000 $4,000 $21,636 $0 $17,636 ($4,000) 58 2

Greenwood Village N- Village Center & Goldsmith Gulch Trail Extension: Fair Drive to Yosemite Street $1,536 $1,536 $23,172 $1,536 $19,172 $0 58 2

Longmont N- Dry Creek Underpass: Hover south of Bent Way $1,616 $1,616 $24,788 $1,616 $20,788 $0 57 2

Aurora N- Peoria-Smith Station Bike/Ped Access Improvements $397 $397 $25,185 $397 $21,185 $0 56 2

Boulder County N- SH119 - Airport Road Underpass $915 $915 $26,100 $0 $21,185 ($915) 56 2

Greenwood Village N- Greenwood Plaza Blvd Sidewalk: Berry Avenue to Dorado Place $490 $490 $26,590 $490 $21,675 $0 55 2

BoulderN- Wonderland Creek Underpass at 28th Street: Kalmia Ave to Winding Trail $900 $900 $27,490 $0 $21,675 ($900) 54 2

Wheat Ridge N- Kipling Multi-Use Path: 32nd Avenue to 44th Avenue $2,473 $2,473 $29,963 $2,473 $24,148 $0 53 2

Greenwood Village N- Greenwood Plaza Blvd Sidewalk: Marin Drive to Long Ave. $381 $381 $30,344 $381 $24,529 $0 52 2

Arvada N- Ridge Road Bike/Ped Project $800 $800 $31,144 $800 $25,329 $0 50 2

Douglas County N- Quebec/C-470 Ped/Bike Bridge: County Line Road to Park Meadows Drive $500 $500 $31,644 $500 $25,829 $0 50 2

Nederland N- Nederland Sidewalks/Multi-Use Path $486 $486 $32,130 $486 $26,315 $0 40 2N- New Project U- Upgrade Project

Bus Service

RTD Belleview call-n-Ride $827 $827 $827 $827 $827 $0 69 1

Golden Golden Circulator Bus: West Corridor end of line to Downtown Golden $1,237 $1,237 $2,064 $1,237 $2,064 $0 67 2

Boulder CountyEnhanced Bus Service: Boulder, Longmont, and Lyons $414 $414 $2,478 $0 $2,064 ($414) 65 2

Boulder CountyBOLT Transit Service Enhancement: Longmont to Boulder $555 $555 $3,033 $0 $2,064 ($555) 58 2

Univ of Colorado STAMPEDE Bus Service Enhancements $426 $426 $3,459 $0 $2,064 ($426) 52 2Federal Heights Adams County West Side call-n-Ride $496 $496 $3,955 $496 $2,560 $0 45 2

Other Enhancements

Lyons US 36 - Lyons Streetscape Beautification: Stone Canyon Rd. to 3rd Ave $1,781 $1,781 $1,781 $1,781 $1,781 $0 52 2

Roadway Capacity

Lakewood Wadsworth Roadway Capacity Project: 10th Ave to 14th Ave - 20% local $6,240 $6,240 $6,240 $6,240 $6,240 $0 70 1

Broomfield 120th Avenue Connection, final phase: new SH 128 to 120th Ave $20,800 $20,800 $27,040 $20,800 $27,040 $0 64 1

RTD US 36 HOT/BRT Lane Extension: Wadsworth to east of E Flatirons Cir (partial) $19,000 $19,000 $46,040 $19,000 $46,040 $0 62 1

Roadway Operational

Greenwood Village Belleview Ave and Quebec St Intersection - 30% local $1,053 $1,053 $1,053 $1,053 $1,053 $0 60 1

Boulder Foothills Parkway/SH 157 Operational Improv. : Diagonal Hwy to Valmont $600 $600 $1,653 $600 $1,653 $0 57 1

Westminster 120th Ave/Federal Blvd Operational Improvements $3,421 $3,421 $5,074 $3,421 $5,074 $0 55 1

Wheat Ridge 32nd Av: Wright Court to Braun Court Operational Improvement $2,924 $2,924 $7,998 $2,924 $7,998 $0 53 1

Denver Peoria St/Smith Rd - RR Grade Separation (partial) $25,000 $15,000 $22,998 $25,000 $32,998 $10,000 60 2

Roadway Reconstruction

Denver So Broadway Reconstruction: Kentucky Ave to south of Tennessee $2,692 $2,692 $2,692 $2,692 $2,692 $0 73 1

Boulder Diagonal Hwy (SH 119) Reconstruction: 28th/US 36 to East of 30th St $2,800 $2,800 $5,492 $2,800 $5,492 $0 57 1

Longmont Main St/US287: Ken Pratt Blvd to 3rd Ave Reconstruct $1,890 $1,890 $7,382 $1,890 $7,382 $0 52 2

Sheridan West Oxford Ave.: S. Clay St. to S. Federal Blvd. Reconstruct $600 $600 $7,982 $600 $7,982 $0 45 2

Roadway/Transit Studies

Arapahoe County I-25 & Arapahoe Rd. Interchange Reconstruction 30% Local: Design $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 $0 75 2

Stn. Area/Urban Cntr. Study

Denver Speer / Colfax / Auraria Next Steps Plan $80 $80 $80 $80 $80 $0 89 1Denver Federal / Decatur Next Steps Plan $80 $80 $160 $80 $160 $0 84 1Denver Northeast Downtown Next Steps Plan $150 $150 $310 $150 $310 $0 80 1Denver Golden Triangle Area Plan $150 $150 $460 $150 $460 $0 77 1Thornton Thornton City Center Urban Center Study $120 $120 $580 $120 $580 $0 71 1

Lakewood Lakewood City Center Connectivity and Urban Design Study 20% Local $100 $100 $680 $100 $680 $0 66 1

Douglas County C-470/Lucent Station Area Master Plan $90 $90 $770 $90 $770 $0 64 1

Englewood Englewood, Oxford, and Bates Station Area Master Plan $120 $120 $890 $120 $890 $0 59 1

Commerce City 72nd Ave South Station Area Master Plan : E. 72nd Ave and Colorado Blvd. $100 $100 $990 $100 $990 $0 57 1

Boulder County US 36 Final Mile Study: Boulder to Westminster $85 $85 $1,075 $85 $1,075 $0 57 1

Louisville Downtown Louisville NW Rail Station- Next Steps II - 20% local $80 $80 $1,155 $80 $1,155 $0 43 2

Thornton 104th Ave. Station TOD Master Planning Study $120 $120 $1,275 $120 $1,275 $0 41 2Thornton 88th Ave. Station TOD Master Planning Study $120 $120 $1,395 $120 $1,395 $0 35 2Thornton 144th Ave. Station TOD Master Planning Study $120 $120 $1,515 $120 $1,515 $0 27 2Reserved Pool for Future Studies $1,985 $1,985 $3,500 $1,985 $3,500 $0 na 2

TOTALS $147,208 $132,786 $132,786 $0 TOTALS

Total Reduced ($10,000)Total Added $10,000


PHASE

DRCOG staff

recommended

(1/24/2011) TAC

TIP 2012-2015

Attachment M

DENVER

proposed

(Attacnment)

PROPOSED DENVER

(Attachment M) - Amount by

Selection Phase

Sponsor County Project Name

Federal $$

(in 1000's)

Federal $$

(in 1000's)

Commerce City Adams 72nd Ave South Station Area Master Plan : E. 72nd Ave and Colorado Blvd. 1 $100 $100

Westminster Adams 120th Ave/Federal Blvd Operational Improvements 1 $3,421 $3,421 PHASE 1

Thornton Adams Thornton City Center Urban Center Study 1 $120 $120 $3,641

Adams County Adams Clay Community Trail: Zuni Street to 60th Avenue 2 $1,054 $1,054 4.6%

Aurora Adams Peoria-Smith Commuter Rail Station Bike/Pedestrain Access Improvements 2 $397 $397

Federal Heights Adams Adams County West Side Park and Ride 2 $496 $496 PHASE 2

Sheridan Adams West Oxford Ave.: S. Clay St. to S. Federal Blvd. Reconstruct 2 $600 $600 $3,231

Thornton Adams 104th Ave. Station TOD Master Planning Study 2 $120 $120 6.0%

Thornton Adams 88th Ave. Station TOD Master Planning Study 2 $120 $120

Thornton Adams 144th Ave. Station TOD Master Planning Study 2 $120 $120

Westminster Adams Little Dry Creek Trail: Federal Blvd. to Lowell Blvd. 2 $324 $324 $6,872 $6,872

Adams County 5.18% 5.18%

RTD Arapahoe Belleview call-n-Ride 1 $414 $414 PHASE 1

Englewood Arapahoe Englewood, Oxford, and Bates Station Area Master Plan 1 $120 $120 $1,587

Greenwood Village Arapahoe Belleview Ave and Quebec St Intersection 1 $1,053 $1,053 2.0%

Arapahoe County Arapahoe I-25 & Arapahoe Rd. Interchange Reconstruction Capacity Study 2 $4,200 $4,200

Aurora Arapahoe Tollgate Creek/Tollgate Elementary School Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge and Trail 2 $1,214 $1,214 PHASE 2

Greenwood Village Arapahoe Greenwood Plaza Blvd Sidewalk #1: Berry Avenue to Dorado Place 2 $490 $490 $7,821

Greenwood Village Arapahoe Greenwood Plaza Blvd Sidewalk #2: Marin Drive to Long Ave. 2 $381 $381 14.5%

Greenwood Village Arapahoe Village Center & Goldsmith Gulch Trail Extension: Fair Drive to Yosemite Street 2 $1,536 $1,536 $9,408 $9,408

Arapahoe County 7.09% 7.09%

Boulder Boulder Baseline Rd Bike/Ped Underpass: Broadway/SH 93 to 28th/US 36 1 $4,046 $4,046

Boulder Boulder Wonderland Underpass & Multiuse Path: Foothills Pkwy to 30th St 1 $2,000 $2,000 PHASE 1

Boulder Boulder 28th St/US36 Multiuse Path/Bike Improv: Iris Ave to Yarmouth Ave 1 $1,224 $1,224 $10,755

Boulder Boulder Foothills Parkway/SH 157 Operational Improv. : Diagonal Hwy to Valmont 1 $600 $600 13.6%

Boulder Boulder Diagonal Hwy (SH 119) Reconstruction: 28th/US 36 to East of 30th St 1 $2,800 $2,800

Boulder County Boulder US 36 Final Mile Study: Boulder to Westminster 1 $85 $85 PHASE 2

Boulder Boulder Pearl Parkway Multi-Use Path: 30th Street to Foothills Pkwy/SH157 2 $4,000 $0 $6,818

Boulder Boulder Wonderland Creek Underpass at 28th Street: Kalmia Avenue to Winding Trail 2 $900 $0 12.6%

Boulder County Boulder BOLT Transit Service Enhancement: Longmont to Boulder 2 $555 $0

Boulder County Boulder Enhanced Bus Service: Boulder, Longmont, and Lyons 2 $414 $0

Boulder County Boulder SH119 - Airport Road Underpass: Highway 119 Longmont 2 $915 $0

Longmont Boulder Dry Creek Underpass: Hover south of Bent Way 2 $1,616 $1,616

Longmont Boulder SH119 - Diagonal Highway: Southof Hover Underpass 2 $965 $965

Longmont Boulder Main St/US287: Ken Pratt Blvd to 3rd Ave Reconstruct 2 $1,890 $1,890

Louisville Boulder Downtown Louisville NW Rail Station- Next Steps 2 $80 $80

Lyons Boulder US 36 - Lyons Streetscape Beautification: Stone Canyon Rd. to 3rd Ave 2 $1,781 $1,781

Nederland Boulder Nederland Sidewalks Phase 2 2 $486 $486

Univ of Colorado Boulder STAMPEDE Bus Service Enhancements 2 $426 $0

$24,783 $17,573

Boulder County 18.66% 13.23%

PHASE 1

$39,800

RTD Broomfield US 36 HOT/BRT Lane Extension: Wadsworth to E Flatirons Cir 1 $19,000 $19,000 50.5%

Broomfield Broomfield 120th Avenue Connection, final phase: new SH 128 to 120th Ave 1 $20,800 $20,800

$39,800 $39,800 PHASE 2

Broomfield County 29.97% 29.97% $0

0.0%

Denver Denver Denver Traffic Signal System Upgrade: Citywide 1 & 2 * $4,800 $4,800 PHASE 1 *

Denver Denver Confluence Bike-Ped Ramps: So Platte Greenway 1 $2,765 $2,765 $11,131

Denver Denver So Broadway Reconstruction: Kentucky Ave to south of Tennessee 1 $2,692 $2,692 14.1%

Denver Denver Speer / Colfax / Auraria Next Steps Plan 1 $80 $80

Denver Denver Federal / Decatur Next Steps Plan 1 $80 $80 PHASE 2

Denver Denver Northeast Downtown Next Steps Plan 1 $150 $150 $26,224

Denver Denver Golden Triangle Area Plan 1 $150 $150 48.6%

RTD Denver Belleview call-n-Ride (Denver) 1 $414 $414

Denver Denver Peoria St / Smith Rd / RR Grade Seperation 2 $15,000 $25,000

Denver Denver Blake Street Bike-Ped Station Access (40th Ave to 38th/Blake Station) 2 $1,224 $1,224 $27,355 $37,355

Denver County 20.60% 28.13%

PHASE 1

$90

Douglas County Douglas C-470/Lucent Station Area Master Plan 1 $90 $90 0.1%

Douglas County Douglas Quebec/C-470 Ped/Bike Bridge: County Line Road to Park Meadows Drive 2 $500 $500 $590 $590 PHASE 2

Douglas County 0.44% 0.44% $500

0.9%

Lakewood Jefferson Wadsworth Roadway Capacity Project: 10th Ave to 14th Ave 1 $6,240 $6,240 PHASE 1

Arvada Jefferson Kipling Pkwy Underpass: Van Bibber Trail Extension from W 56th Place to Grandview Ave 2 $1,600 $1,600 $9,264

Arvada Jefferson Ridge Road Bike/Ped Project 2 $800 $800 11.7%

Wheat Ridge Jefferson Kipling Multi-Use Path: 32nd to 44th Ave 2 $2,473 $2,473

Golden Jefferson West Corridor End of Line Bike/Pedestrian Overpass 2 $1,220 $1,220 PHASE 2

Golden Jefferson Golden Circulator Bus: West Corridor end of line to Golden Downtown 2 $1,237 $1,237 $7,330

Lakewood Jefferson Lakewood City Center Connectivity and Urban Design Study 20% Local 1 $100 $100 13.6%

Wheat Ridge Jefferson 32nd Avenue Widening: Wright Court to Braun Court Operational Improvement 1 $2,924 $2,924 $16,594 $16,594

Jefferson County 12.50% 12.50% PHASE 1

$2,610

3.3%

RAQC Advanced Fleet Technology Project (partial) 1 $4,000 $1,710

RAQC Air Quality & Transportation Outreach & Education thruough Ozone Aware (partial) 1 $1,400 $900 PHASE 2

$5,400 $2,610 $0

RAQC Projects 4.07% 1.97% 0.0%

PHASE 2

Undesignated N/A 2 $1,985 $1,985 $1,985

$1,985 $1,985 3.7%

STAMP - Urban Center Studies Reserve 1.49% 1.49%

PHASE 1

DRCOG - METRO WIDE SUBTOTALS: $132,787 $132,787 $78,878

100%

PHASE 2

100.0% 100% CHECK totals $132,787 $53,909

100%5

Adams County

Arapahoe County

Boulder County

Broomfield County

Denver County

Douglas County

Jefferson County

RAQC Projects

STAMP - Urban Center Studies Reserve

C:\Documents and Settings\tcottrell\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\8ZTPK84F\ART_2011feb16_Modified_spreadsheet_from_toddCottrell_2011feb03_DRCOG Selected

Projects_FY2003thru2015 (3).xls Page 1

Feb 16, 2011 Public Hearing Comment Attachment - Jack Hilbert- MVIC breakdown by county




ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

30th Ave and Parkland/Quari St.

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Sticky Note

MigrationConfirmed set by ccollins

ccollins

Typewritten Text


ccollins

Typewritten Text

New on-street bike lanes

ccollins

Typewritten Text


ccollins

Typewritten Text

30th Ave and Peoria St looking westbound

ccollins

Typewritten Text


ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

E. 30th Ave and Oakland St. looking east

ccollins

Typewritten Text


ccollins

Typewritten Text

Nome St. between E 32nd and E 33rd heading southbound

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Sticky Note


ccollins

Typewritten Text


ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Typewritten Text

Baranmor Pky at Scranton heading eastbound

ccollins

Typewritten Text

ccollins

Sticky Note


ccollins

Typewritten Text



1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: DRCOG TIP Public Hearing - Peoria Grade Separation Project Support StatementsAttachments: Comments for DRCOG 2-16-11 Meeting on Peoria RR Overpass (2).docx

‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: Turnquist, David <[email protected]> To: Steve Rudy Cc: Callison, Mac <[email protected]>; Parker, Jeff <[email protected]> Sent: Thu Feb 17 10:33:03 2011 Subject: DRCOG TIP Public Hearing ‐ Peoria Grade Separation Project Support Statements Steve, I appreciated having the opportunity to present the university's support for the Peoria Grade Separation Project last night. I mentioned that I would forward the bullet point paper I read from last night to DRCOG and have attached it to this email. Dave David C. Turnquist, P.E., MBA Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities Management Campus Services Building, MS F410 1945 N. Wheeling St, Rm 265 Aurora, CO 80045 303‐724‐1100


AMC Impact

Good evening, my name is Dave Turnquist. I am the assistant vice

chancellor for the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

I am here today to voice the University’s support to the DRCOG Board to

restore the full $25 million in funding for the Peoria/Smith Road RR Grade

separation project. President Bruce Benson and Executive Vice Chancellor

Lilly Marks are sorry they couldn’t attend tonight to discuss this important

issue but want me to convey to you how important this project is to the

current and future development of our campus.

As you are aware, the mission of Anschutz is state-of- the-art health care,

education, medical research, and community outreach throughout the

Denver metro area, the front range, and all of Colorado. My comments will

be on the impact this project has for the overall campus site. You will hear

more from my hospital colleagues on how this project impacts patient

visits and emergency room access.

One of the most challenging issues we are facing at AMC is campus access.

Our large number of faculty, staff, and students, along with daily patient

and other visitors push the current traffic infrastructure on and around the

campus beyond capacity. This issue will only intensify and get more

complicated as we continue to grow. (over 1000 non-hospital visitors daily)

Amazingly, we have already achieved the square footage and employee

counts that were projected for 2025 in a 2003 Site-Wide Traffic and

Transportation Study. This study projected that 15% of all campus traffic

would be coming from I-70 via Peoria to Montview. The University will be

updating its Masterplan in the coming year, which will include a

comprehensive traffic study and we expect this percentage to grow.

With the opening of the VA hospital, and the tower expansions at the

Children’s and University Hospitals, all of which are currently in design or

construction, the campus is projected to grow from 16,000 to over 20,000

on-site employees by 2014.

In addition, the University’s Fall 2010 enrollment is just over 3300

students. This population is expected to grow over the next 2-3 years with

expansions in Nursing, Public Health, and Dental Medicine programs.

Public Comments - Page 41Public Comments - Page 41

A review of residency for University employees shows that almost 20%

reside in areas that use the I-70 to Peoria route for daily access to the

campus. Many of these employees are residents of your cities/counties.

At full build-out, the Anschutz/Fitzsimons site will be a $5.2 billion

investment, consist of approximately 18.5 million square feet and employ

an estimated 44,000 people (direct jobs, no multiplier).

As we all know job growth and economic development are statewide

priorities. The clinical and research enterprises at the Anschutz campus are

an extraordinary example of growth during these tough economic times.

However, we must support these enterprises with the requisite

infrastructure or they will be greatly hampered.

We believe the funding and completion of this project is critical to the

current and long-term success of the Anschutz Medical Campus and

Fitzsimons Life science District.

Thank you for your time. I will forward a copy of my comments to this

Board.



Testimony – DRCOG Board of Directors University of Colorado Hospital Jeff Thompson, Director Government & Corporate Relations Wednesday, February 16, 2011 – 6:30 p.m. DRCOG – 1290 Broadway

Re: Restore Full Funding (to $25 million) for the Grade Separation at Peoria & Smith Road (overpass at railroad crossing).

Talking Points:

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the DRCOG Board, I’m Jeff Thompson, Director of Government & Corporate Relations at University of Colorado Hospital at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

Since University of Colorado Hospital first opened clinical facilities in late 2000 and completed our move to the Anschutz Medical Campus in 2007 we have seen nothing but continued growth – to now where our hospital alone employs 4,000 people and our patient volumes have stretched our current facilities to capacity.

To address our patient growth issues, the University of Colorado Hospital is starting construction on two major expansion projects – 1) an expansion of the Anschutz Cancer Pavilion; and the largest, a second, 12-story, 660,000 sq. ft. inpatient tower adjacent to our current Anschutz Inpatient Pavilion. This will also include more than doubling the size of our emergency department and bringing our total bed capacity at build-out to nearly 700. Together these projects and others on and surrounding our campus will mean more people – employees, patients, visitors and guests.

Last year our hospital saw over 740,000 patients (inpatients and outpatients) and with our expansions by 2015 we will expect this to grow to as many as 880,000 patient visits a year.

Since day-one of our master planning process that began in 1996 we have attempted to anticipate and plan for the many employees, patients, and visitors arriving on the campus. With our greater than anticipated growth transportation infrastructure and access to our facilities at the Anschutz Campus has been and continues to be a significant challenge.

The intersection at Peoria and Smith Rd. with the adjacent railroad crossing is a critical point between I-70 and the Anschutz Medical Campus and UCH – with Peoria being a vital access route for employees and patients. With the proximity of our new Emergency Department that will be located directly east off 17th Ave. and Peoria – this route becomes even more vital in getting critically ill and injured patients to our trauma center, quickly and safely.

Accordingly we strongly support the City of Aurora’s and the City and County of Denver’s requests to restore full funding of $25 million to support the grade separation at Peoria and Smith Rd. Thank you!


1

Casey Collins

From: Patty Adler [[email protected]]Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 11:36 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: Phase 2 Nederland Sidewalks

I would like to voice my full support of Phase 2 of the Nederland Sidewalk Project. Please and I stress PLEASE consider the safety concerns here. Sidewalks provide safe passage for not only pedestrians but also the concern of the handicapped persons. I have lived and worked in Nederland most of my life. It appears to me that the people opposed to this project do not understand or even consider or care about public safety. Economics isn't the issue here. Public safety is. Our local police department can confirm the traffic calming that has been the greatest benefit PROVEN in Nederland. How wonderful it is to see baby strollers, wheelchair bound persons, blind people in our town because of our sidewalks. It has given us clearly designed crossing areas that people universally understand and use. This small minority that oppose this project must not care or have compassion to consider sharing our mountain beauty with all people even the handicapped. Are they not deserving of the pleasure of our beautiful town just because they cannot move as easily as THESE people that oppose sidewalks or any positive change. Patricia Adler 74 South Highway 119 Nederland,CO 89466


t"'/,L,;1It.'(Y J.t\, 1£\11

~6tV\tt 0d 7iMdzh'1

y.M1Vt'\ ~h1.a1 iMwt cit ~ t&vVlJ1YP1e'Wl"> \~qo. ~)~~~Jtt1(

)wit 7()O

)ZeM l/tA , t6'ifJ 2O? - 5(, O~


02-02-2011

Board of Directors Denver Regional Council of Governments 1290 Broadway Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203-5606

Dear Directors,

I am writing as a citizen of Nederland Colorado, regarding the town's application to you for Phase IT of the Sidewalks.

*Page 1 of grant application states "serve the downtown area". The sidewalks are, for the most part, on Hwy 119, some of which lead south of town, and are no where near downtown Nederland.

* The Phase IT application states: "The first phase of walks have been well received. " This is controversial, as demonstrated by recent objections from Nederland citizens who disagree. They have attended Board of Trustees meetings and voiced their concerns, have written Letters to the Editor in the local paper, The MountainEar, have talked with other town citizens about Phase IT, and are gaining strength in numbers, not only because of their passion opposing Phase 2 of the Sidewalks, but because Phase 2 has not been widely published or discussed by those who are in favor.

*The Phase IT application states: "Sales tax revenues in Nederland are up 50% above last year". I am aware from the Town Treasurer's report that this is due to the new Medical Marajuana Dispensaries and The Carousel of Happiness rather than the sidewalks.

The DDA (Nederland Downtown Development Authority) presents itself with a dismissive attitude toward citizens. One member, Theresa Warren quoted in The Mountain-Ear, "the DDA should let the Town deal with the citizens group while the DDA gets on with its own business and projects," and their comment was that they could preserve the town's historic character by "imbedding some old tools in a wall." There have been repeated public statements that the purpose of having a DDA is to not have to deal with public input. This seems to have become the DDA's response to the citizens in opposition to Phase IT.

The Board of Directors approved the DDA's request to apply for the Phase IT grant at a time when they realized they had little time to put the application together. This

was at a time when it was difficult for citizens to know the grant process was under consideration because of the rushed nature and because the town website was down and it was difficult to find BOT agenda information, further minimizing citizen input.


Many Nederland residents, not only those that live within the town limits and can vote on town issues, but also those that consider themselves town residents, who live outside of the town limits an cannot vote on town issues, value the present character and uniqueness of the town as it is. Current projects and "improvements" do not respect Nederland's Design Standards and Guidelines, which require aU projects keep to our "rustic" nature.

Nederland is currently undergoing an important Envisioning 2020 process and some citizens do not want this approved at this time. There doesn't seem to be many other opportunities coming up for us to provide our input into what we want to conserve and maintain as the present nature of the town, that being a "rustic mining town" nestled at the base of the Wilderness Peak Mountains, in a quiet small-town setting near a beautiful lake.

It has been recommended to those of us that oppose Phase II of the Sidewalks to attend as many of the various meetings there are, become "more involved" in the decision-making process by attending these meeting and/or becoming a member of some of these specific local groups to have our voices heard. Unfortunately, most of these meeting are scheduled during the day when the majority of us work and cannot attend. We are therefore left to voice our concerns by attending BOT meetings, writing Letters to the Editor and attending any other local pertinent meetings the occur in the evening. Yes, we elected our mayor & Board of Trustees to represent us, but when they don't represent us and we voice our differences, we seem to be talking to silent ears.

Sincerely,

~~1Ill SusanM. Ayer 226 W. Spring Street P.O. Box 1573 Nederland, CO 80466 303-258-3112

'~


1

Casey Collins

From: Kirk Barnett [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 12:08 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland DDA Sidewalk Grant

Importance: High

Grant underwriting committee – DRCOG,

I strongly urge you to grant the Downtown Development Authority of Nederland the funds requested to finish

the second phase of their sidewalk project. The sidewalks have added immeasurable value to the flow of pedestrian

traffic in Nederland and has encouraged less driving because of the convenience the sidewalks offer. Phase 2 of the

project further expands that value by connecting the Nederland RTD Park‐and‐Ride to the downtown area making the

value, especially with respect to promoting foot travel over vehicular travel while in town, even greater. In fact, Phase 2

is quite necessary as the only way to travel, currently, from the RTD to downtown Nederland is along CO 72 where there

is no walkway (making it rather dangerous; especially at night) and the alternative route takes people behind a retail

center & restaurant and through a residential neighborhood. Phase 2 also connects our new Library to the heart of

Nederland making the library resources more accessible to the community members who use them.

The funds requested in the grant are not excessive and the Nederland DDA has a great track record in

completing projects on time and within budget, as was the case with Phase 1 of this very project. I hope that the DRCOG

realizes the importance of this project to a community as geographically small as Nederland. We’re only about a 4‐

square mile piece of the valley – sidewalks make sense, especially in a community of active residents who will easily

choose a refreshing walk over a drive into town; furthermore, when visitors attend our events, traffic problems will be

minimalized and pollution will remain low.

Please do the only logical thing you can and grant us the funds to continue this project. It is the right choice

regarding safety, convenience, and environmental responsibility. I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the public

hearing on this matter as I will be out of town but want my position to be considered as “loudly” as if I were speaking in

person. I appreciate your attention to this and truly hope the grant will be approved.

Sincerely,

Kirk Barnett (Nederland Board of Trustees member, 2008 - 2010)

(303) 725-5174


1

Casey Collins

From: George Blevins [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 9:54 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Grant for Nederland sidewalks

I am a resident of Nederland and have been one since 1981. I've met a few very vocal fellow citizens who seem strongly, even vehemently opposed to the idea of additional sidewalks here. One is a close friend and we have argued this matter between ourselves more than once, but I remain unconvinced. In my friend's case, the opposition seems to be tied to a conviction that the town will look more touristy and less funky, and funky is preferable. The argument isn't convincing. In summer, we depend on the tourists for revenue. In the winter, when the sidewalks and everything else is covered with snow, we can be as funky as we like. I personally enjoy and feel safer strolling on sidewalks through town without having to trudge through stretches of mud and undelineated paths beside roadways. Hiking I enjoy as well but there are plenty of nice trails around here that no one is ever likely to pave. I thank you for considering my view of the matter. Feel free to contact me if there is anything more I can contribute to aid you in assessing this matter. George Blevins P. O. Box 512 60 Caribou Road Nederland CO 80466‐0512 303‐258‐7476


1

Casey Collins

From: [email protected] on behalf of Annie Bonvouloir [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:47 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Support for the Nederland Sidewalk

Dear Denver Regional Council of Governments, We would like to show our support for the grant of $486,000 for Phase II of the Nederland Sidewalk Project. We understand there have been some letters against this project which we find preposterous! It seems that no matter what the issue, there is always a handful of people who will vote against it just to be contrary; and they are the ones that are most vocal about it. How can something that adds to the safety of pedestrians be a bad thing? We hope this response is one of many that will far outweigh any negativity to this much needed project. Thank you, Annie and John Bonvouloir 1423 Ridge Road Nederland, CO 80466



1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: Nederland Sidewalks

From: Nicholas Brodsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 8:25 AM To: Mark Northrop Subject: Nederland Sidewalks Hello: I am a 21 year resident of the Nederland area and I am writing to you in support of the sidewalk project that has taken place in Nederland. I think the letters you have received in opposition of the sidewalks represent a small vocal minority of citizens in the area. Thank you for your time. Nicholas Brodsky Boulder-Mountain Realty Certified Residential Specialist www.boulder-mountainrealty.com [email protected] 303-808-3679


1

Casey Collins

From: Scott Bruntjen [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:50 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: support letter for Town of Nederland proposalAttachments: DRCOG support letter.pdf

Attached pleased find a letter I have written in support of the Town of Nederland proposal for sidewalk improvements. If you should need any additional information please contact me by email or at 303-258-7770. Scott Bruntjen


February 6,2011

Board of Directors Denver Regional Council of Governments

Dear Members of the Board,

We are writing to express our reservations with the Nederland DDA plan to build additional sidewalks in town. Sidewalks undoubtedly benefit pedestrians, but pedestrian safety and travel can be enhanced without the use of concrete, which has high environmental costs. And in conjunction with other DDA plans which would lure more tourists, the benefits of sidewalks could be overwhelmed by negative impacts.

Before proceeding with more sidewalks, we believe the town needs to first resolve the contrasting preferences of many in the business community and those of a sizable and growing number of townsfolk that believes that any future projects should meet standards of "sustainability." This second group looks to models of development that promote responsible, local industries instead of tourism.

In 2007, the Nederland Board of Trustees passed a resolution in support of the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, which called for the town to develop an energy conserving, environmentally sensitive, and sustainable community. Recently, a "Sustainability Committee", appointed by the Board of Trustees, passed a resolution which is intended to give this standard some teeth. In light of this process underway, it would be premature to proceed with any DDA plans at this time. We urge that DRCOG not approve funding for additional sidewalks in Nederland.

Sincerely,

Todd Buchanan and ~ i, ~ ~ -," ,

J. itt I'll.' }I\ .. -, >. '\. ~f ";L.j lei tit Elizabeth Lopez

, • : ' • I ~ ,... ,_ .\" ,0 )

, -, 970 KlondYke Av~l, Eldora, Colo., 80466


To DRCOG, Denver, CO

Phase II Development Proposal: Concerns

My wife and I, along with many Ned~rland residents that we have talked with, feel that the Nederland ~DA Phase II proposal for additional paved sidewalk between the new library and the post office IS a bad Idea, and not a good use of DR COG funds. We request that approval for this controversial project be denied. Here are our concerns:

Inaccuracies and Misleading Statemel1lts in Application

Page 1 of the grant application states Phase II is intended to "serve the downtown area." In fact, the bulk of the proposed sidewalk is on a highway with little pedestrian traffic, and nowhere near "downtown. "

The first page also states that "The first phase of walks have been well received." In fact, they have not been well received at all. While some like the sidewalks, a sizeable portion of residents are quite upset and angry over their design, and how they have impacted the town in various negative ways.

The application states that "Sales tax revenues in Nederland are up 50% above last year," implying that this is due to the sidewalks. However, according to the Town Treasurer's report, the increase was primarily due to the new Medical Marajuana Dispensaries and The Carousel of Happiness, both of which have enjoyed thriving business activity, not the sidewalks.

The letter from the Nederland Police Department supporting the application (Attachment 6) refers to a fatal pedestrian accident along the route of the planned sidewalks, but failed to acknowledge that this incident was due to extreme drunkenness, and was completely unrelated to the presence or absence of sidewalks. There is no solid statistical evidence that we are aware of that links the new sidewalks to safety.

Iml)act of Phase I Constmction

Benefits. There have been benefits from the Phase I construction. It is now much easier and safer to walk between the visitor center and the bank, and those with baby buggies appreciate all of the sidewalks.

There have also been major disadvantages, caused by poor design and lack of concern for residents and the town character.

Traffic. The curb build-outs (bulbouts) have not worked well. They block the turn lanes onto and off of CO 119 at important intersections in town, creating traffic backups, driver frustration, and problems for emergency vehicles. This is a major cause of citizen anger at the new construction.

Safety. Emergency vehicles trying to respond to emergencies have been impeded by the new design. In one case, an emergency vehicle was forced to drive over the curb and collided with a concrete planter. In another, an emergency vehicle was forced to stop, back up, and wait while another vehicle struggled to pass through the narrow bridge.


Bicycles. There is heavy bicycle traffic through Nederland. Now, with no shoulders to ride on, bicycles are forced either onto the sidewalks or into the street, creating safety hazards in either case. Strong concern was expressed by the biking community during the planning stage, but they were largely ignored by the DDA.

Snow Removal. Previously, CDOT plows kept the shoulders of CO 119 clear and pedestrians had no trouble walking along the wide shoulder, even in the middle of a snow storm. Now, during heavy snow, the highway plows will instead throw their snow load onto the sidewalks, making walking much more difficult. This creates a major new snow removal problem and expense that wasn't there before.

Appearance. Residents have made it clear that they highly value the present character of the town, and do not want that lost for the sake of profit from tourism. In the early stages of the Nederland DDA formation, it was agreed that their projects would be designed to retain the authenticity and mountain town character of Ned. That commitment has not been honored.

There is little evidence that the concept has meaning for the DDA planners. The communities they have taken for their models include a number of cities in the plains - Pueblo, Loveland, Longmont, and others. Applying their development schemes to Ned is not only inappropriate, but also tends to obliterate the natural appeal that we already possess - our mountain setting, casual atmosphere, and mining history

Regarding the new construction:

• The massive concrete bridge looks like a fortress and doesn't fit a small mountain town. It could have been made more graceful and better styled for a mountain town, perhaps incorporating wood in its construction.

• The sidewalks could have been built more modestly to better fit in with our town. The bulbouts are also big-city style.

• The large concrete planters also have an inappropriate big-city feel. Wooden barrels cut in half, which are effectively used elsewhere, would have been much more appropriate.

• The pop-art bicycle racks seem to be taken from a gentrified big-city neighborhood. They don't fit our town.

All the above demonstrates the DDA's lack of feeling for the kind of authenticity that is valued by residents and visitors alike.

Phase II Consideratioll1s

Proposed sidewalk f.·om tr'affic circle to post office.

(1) It's not needed. Foot traffic along the highway is almost nonexistent, and the occasional pedestrian has no trouble walking along the wide shoulder, even in snow season.

To determine current foot traffic along the path of the proposed new sidewalk, pedestrian traffic was monitored. A one hour sample was taken during business hours, mid-morning, on a day with pleasant, warm weather, suitable for walking. Results: total pedestrian traffic during the one hour period was one. To ensure that the results were representative, the test was repeated on another day, also during business hours and also in good walking weather. Results: total pedestrian traffic during


., .

the second one hour period was two. Conclusion: constructing a sidewalk there would take a lot of effort and expense to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

(2) It would add another snow removal and mamtenance dilemma, about half a mile's worth. This would be a major burden due to highway plows dumping snow onto the sidewalk with every pass. And it would be a permanent burden, continuing as long as the sidewalks existed.

(3) Additional bulbouts, ifbuiIt, would create further traffic backups, driver frustration, and emergency vehicle problems in addition to those already existing.

(4) The sidewalk would also create major new bicycle safety issues.

PI'oposed sidewalk from traffic circle to new library.

The proposal to add a second sidewalk along the highway west of the roundabout, across the street from the first one, also seems to be an inappropriate use of DR COG funds. A sidewalk already exists on the south side of the street, and pedestrian access to the new library is easily accomplished with a marked crosswalk leading to the library walkway.

Othel' Considerations

DDA - I'esident relations. The Nederland DDA, with their exclusive focus on attracting tourists, has taken a dismissive attitude toward citizens, summed up by former DDA president Theresa Warren's public statement: "The DDA should let the Town deal with the citizens while the DDA gets on with its own business and projects."

While they have satisfied legal requirements for citizen participation, regular DDA meetings are held at times that are difficult for residents to attend, and tend to be hostile toward citizen expressions of concern. Special DDA town meetings to discuss development are often poorly advertised and are also sometimes held at hours that are convenient for the business community but nearly impossible for residents with jobs or other fixed daytime commitments.

Conclusion. There is significant concern over and opposition to current and planned DDA projects. Many of us feel that development has gone out of control and are urging that, before any further development is allowed, proposals should be subjected to much more careful consideration, and with much wider citizen involvement, than has been done before. The town board is now considering a resolution that will mandate this

We feel that it is inappropriate for DRCOG to approve a controversial project such as Phase II, that can create safety issues, and which is opposed by a significant portion of those directly affected.

Arden Buck 38 Navajo, Nederland 80466


DRCOG 1290 Broadway Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203-560

Dear Folks,

P.O. Box 1685 Nederland, CO 80466 Jan. 24, 2011

1 am a resident of Nederland, Colorado, writing this letter about the Phase II Sidewalk Project proposed by the Downtown Development Authority in Nederland.

DDA has made known that the first phase of the sidewalks done in May, 2010 are "well received" by Nederlandites. This is misinformation. There is a huge number of residents and people in the area who find the sidewalks too suburban, too abundant, and too much concrete for this small rural town in the mountains.

The Phase II Sidewalk is proposed to go from our post office, on the far edge of town along a highway, through town, and to the library on the other side of our little town.

This shoulder of the highway is quite wide and can handle the few walkers that go from the post office that way (normally people walk southwest across a field to a sparsely travelled residential road to town or back home.) If there were a sidewalk along the highway, it would be unsafe, and it would be difficult to keep plowed of snow. There is a "roundabout" as one comes into tovvn which has safe and comfortable sidewalks. On toward the library, there is a sidewalk on the south side of the highway (72 going to Estes Park,etc.) and it is enough to get people to the library.

Sidewalks allover, which DDA is envisioning, is very distasteful to the people of Nederland who moved here, or stayed here, because of the informal, rural character of the town. This is a mountain to~ and foremost it is for us, the people of Nederland. Tourists have always come (and have always loved the rural mountain character) and they always will. 3ut we do not want to give our town to them to get their money. And that is what I see happening in the future because the DDA and some businesses have found out that having our tovvn "pretty and organized and citified" will bring in money. We fear losing our town, as has happened to Central City and Black Hawk and Dreckemidge~ and many others. This is the only mountain tovvn left that has the ambience ofmgged history, and small town beauty, not marred by concrete.

So, please consider the people of this town and. keep in mind our values of keeping our town authentic. We can handle walking through a fiefd, or ellen in the dust. And we come first ahead of visitors.

Thank you for reading this long letter. I

) ,;.--- /, ,1-'--- , I '- { /"

! _.- I~ __ -

----------~-----

i'! f /1 '(

I /f (, IL .

- I

'- -; .' [ ~i( / Public Comments - Page 59

1

Casey Collins

From: [email protected]: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:21 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: nederland sidewalks

I work in the town of Nederland. The sidewalks are great, they make it possible for citizens to actually walk from business to business, no longer needing to drive their cars. They have enhanced public safety, the planters and bike racks are attractive. Thanks. Pam Cadamagnani This e‐mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain material that is legally privileged, proprietary or subject to copyright belonging to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and its affiliates, and it may be subject to protection under federal or state law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use of this material is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately by replying to this e‐mail and delete the material from your system. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company may archive e‐mails, which may be accessed by authorized persons and may be produced to other parties, including public authorities, in compliance with applicable laws.


1

Casey Collins

From: Andrew Chandler [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:32 AMTo: DRCOG; [email protected]; [email protected]: Nederland Downtown Development Authority's plans to improve the town.

Dear Sir/Madam, I am a 5 year resident of Nederland, Colorado. It has come to my attention that there are several members of our community very much against the Nederland Downtown Development Authority's plans to improve the town. As far as I can see phase 2 of the project which as I understand involves adding additional side-walks connecting the post office and Library, plants and shrubs, structures such as seating and flagstone access paths would only help improve what is already a great town. So as such I am greatly in favour of this plan. I know many were against the initial side-walk project and I for one consider this to have been a great success and a step in the right direction allowing the town to start to achieve it's full potential. Kind Regards, Andrew Chandler 98 East Pine Street PO Box 857 Nederland Colorado 80466 720-255-1066


1

Casey Collins

From: the d p kid [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:01 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Sidewalks

To whom it may concern: I support the second phase of the sidewalk project in Nederland. John Clower


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Start Early. Work Hard. Finish. ®

1942 Broadway, Suite 314, Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 546-7937

110 Snyder Street, Second Floor, P.O. Box 617, Nederland, Colorado 80466 (303) 258-0561

www.cohenslaw.com

THE COHEN LAW GROUP A Professional Corporation

_________________________________ Mark Cohen Of Counsel

Jeffrey D. Cohen, J.D., LL.M., C.P.A.

Also at The Cohen Law Firm, P.C.

Alison L. Choy Kilmer, J.D., M.B.A.

Sierra K. Swearingen

February 14, 2011

Via Email to [email protected]

Denver Regional Council of Governments DRCOG Chair 1290 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203

RE: Nederland Grant Application

Dear Chairperson:

Please accept this correspondence in support of the pending grant application for Phase II of the sidewalk project for the Town of Nederland.

As you are aware, the project was started last fall with construction of sidewalks in parts of down town Nederland. With the addition of these walkways, townspeople and visitors were, for the first time, able to walk safely around town and enjoy easy access to local businesses. The sidewalks have created a much needed definition between walkways and roads, making both walking and driving around town safer and more enjoyable for pedestrians and drivers of all ages and physical abilities.

Prior to the installation of the sidewalks downtown, walkways and roads alike became muddy, slippery and dangerous during winter snows, thaws, freezes and rainstorms all year. Pedestrians’ footwear was always muddy and mud was tracked into establishments on a routine basis. The definition between sidewalks and streets now enables easier and more efficient plowing of roads and shoveling snow and ice from walkways.

On behalf of myself, my firm and my staff, I respectfully request that you approve the requested grant for Phase II of the transportation upgrades for the Town of Nederland. The first phase has been successful with bringing safety and beauty to our downtown area. Continuation of this work through Phase II can only be beneficial in every way and most certainly will not have any negative impact on our town.


I have lived in Nederland for sixteen years and served on the Executive Board of the Colorado Municipal League for several years. I know first-hand the value of these kinds of improvements in small towns.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, THE COHEN LAW GROUP A Professional Corporation Mark Cohen

MSC:nda MARK COHEN


February 7, 2011

Board of Directors Denver Regional Council of Governments 1290 Broadway Suite 700 Denver, Co 80302-5606

Dear Chair,

Thank you so much for taking the time to read the letters enclosed.

These letters speak to the diversity of Nederland's citizens and, and the passion so many of us feel regarding the urbanization of our town.

We are carpenters, massage therapists, teachers, plumbers, musicians, former and present business owners, doctors, government employees, school bus drivers, astrologers, retired scientists, artists, and more.

Some have lived in Ned for 40 years or more, some moved here within the last few years.

Many of us have served our town in volunteer capacities in the past, and many -are currently creating community through their donation of time. We serve on town board advisories, donate our skills to improve town hall, create the Carousel of Happiness, and the new Library. We serve on non-profit boards such as Mountain Forum for Peace, and committees such as Envisioning Nederland 2020.

Some have chosen to correspond on their own, others to have their thoughts included in this packet.

We hope you accept these letters, and all correspondence, as testimony of our commitment to our community.

SincE!rely, , ' -I • c..-:-) I-

Dianne Flem~


1

Casey Collins

From: Annette Croughwell [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:30 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland

Dear DRCOG, Growing pains are being felt in the town of Nederland. We are a small town but we service a wide range of mountain residents. Those of us who live within the town boundaries are feeling the ill-effects of growth that has been created by our DDA (Downtown Development Authority). The changes have to do with the promotion of tourism. The sidewalks, although in and of themselves are not an entirely bad thing, they have become representative of what the DDA is pushing. We have always loved our little mountain town with its dirt side highways, narrow willow lined creek paths, rustic eclectic homes and unique characters. The sidewalks put us on the side of being like every other town in the U.S. We've been proud that a McDonald's has not opened up in town. We like having local people own and operate our retail spaces. We love being able to walk around town and say "hi" to nearly everyone we meet because, we are all local. This flavor is going away. We are attracting more and more tourists with our music events, Dead Guy Days event, a carousel and gift shops like every other tourist town. We are being told that change is good. We say, maybe so but we would like to have more say in what that change looks like. We are asking that the second phase of sidewalks not be approved at this time. Our town is going through an envisioning process this year and want the time to get input from ALL who call Nederland home. Thank-you, Annette Croughwell Nederland, CO [email protected]


1

Casey Collins

From: Stephen Culver [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:54 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: TIP Grant application for Nederland, CO

To DRGOG Chair, I am writing in support of the TIP Grant application from Nederland, Colorado, for $486,000.00, to continue adding sidewalks in the Nederland downtown area, known as Phase II of the sidewalk project being planned by the Nederland Downtown Development Authority. I first came to Nederland 49 years ago. I began working seasonally in the Nederland area 37 years ago. I moved here permantly 28 years ago and my wife and I are owners of Indian Peaks ACE Hardware in Nederland. We currently have 14 employees. I am also one of the founding members and currently Secretary of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority. My business as well as my history in the Nederland has put me in contact with many of the local area residents as well as the seasonal visitors who come back year after year to the Nederland area. Many of these seasonal visitors now own second homes in the area and spend most of their summers in and around Nederland as well as visit other times during the year to go skiing or view the aspens or just to relax and get away. In talking with many people over the last couple of years, since Phase I of the sidewalk project began and was completed, I have heard over and over again how nice it is to have the new sidewalks in town and how nice they make the town look. I hope you will get to hear from some of these full-time and seasonal residents. I, myself as well as my wife and two kids are very much in support of the sidewalk project and hope that Nederland can add to the existing sidewalks completed in 2010. The new sidewalks will connect the Post Office, local businesses and Barker Resevoir parking area with the downtown area as well as extend up to our newly built library and the RTD park-n-ride lot. It has been enjoyable for myself personally to be able to walk through town on a clean designated area versus in the past walking along side the highway in mud and gravel. It has been even more fun to see the town come alive with pedestrians enjoying Nederland and our new Carousel over this past summer and I am still surprised at how many people are walking on the sidewalks even in the middle of winter. Sidewalks and trails have always been at the top of the lists when public meetings have been held over the past 20 years, as a way to make Nederland a more enjoyable and livable town. I would like to see the sidewalk project continue to get funding to complete the next phase of construction to make our Nederland a better town. Thank you, Stephen Culver 1687 Lazy Z Road Nederland, CO 80466 Owner, Indian Peaks ACE Hardware, Nederland, CO Secretary, Nederland Downtown Development Authority


· Sl~wc(lk.s ,~~e C{,L~'I(i.vI' -hIi'v\' '-\"'C roJh~ .UJev\vt/~

~ctt- ~'-t ~tlC4l5 l(/\)-{. ~ItX sh.~ ~ vroJ Oc9' Ynttf-C\ ~, t t+-c'~ \ \JLU I ~ S) <J'\JJn~ u..,'l4~ t \ 5 ,.Ad.. "\ ~r- G-f,J-C1 nC ~:)

~r ~(--n,'",,~A t; (\Vl/~cJ J C( 1(' b1 ~'~ie~! \"'~kc!

~y\)~. \ CClrY~ \J.:l\e'I..'E' -tovf\sb u;:t\ UI1'l'le.. -\1)

}Ju.~ 'eNlCinA. j 0~ -\1J \..ULt\\l 11", S'~de ~ctllL..J '

\ \ ~ S u rC -\'-h~ . Cl r<. S e~"-e-rC(,l ~~- q ~~ It CCi i~"b ~'h:;t 1-

WM \~ ~I~~\t \=r~'~ \ $'n \ tc~ tJ (Ct I\~ rrvn C1,t L"LUCll lable .

~ 'ca.&-t ~ \ vt. \\- '1-D ~h c~ as \5 .

$~~ (XM't\

',1 () Ul.-f\ &k ~clev\.cn'\~ Co. ~)(.~(cy


February 4, 2011


To the DRCOG Board of Directors,

I am writing as a citizen of Nederland Colorado area regarding Nederland's application to you for Phase 2 of the Sidewalks.

To me this application is frivolous and opportunistic.

DRCOG does worthwhile and important work. In this case, I hope that the funds go to a community that is truly needy for a project that is truly worthwhile. Not Phase II of the Nederland sidewalks.

In their application, the DDA and Board states that Phase I of the Sidewalks was well received. This is not true. Phase I has been both controversial and contentious. There are many who like the sidewalks and feel they are a valuable addition to the town and I honor this opinion. There are also many, even among those who desire sidewalks of some kind to make the town more hospitable to individuals with physical disabilities, who do not like what was done and intelligently disagree with its safety, aesthetic, and environmental impact, especially with regard to the runoff of highway chemicals and pollution directly into Middle Boulder Creek.

Equally important, the Board of Trustees has said that if after there is finally public input on Phase II if the community is against the project they will return the funds. Returning funds is highly unlikely. I'm sure there are other applications that already have the public backing of their communities.

Again, I sincerely hope you will give the funds to a community that is in greater need for a project more worthwhile than Phase II of the Nederland sidewalks.

Respectfully, L J ULLC]l.f U()..---

Julie Davis P.O. Box 1302 Nederland CO 80466


1

Casey Collins

From: Ben Dereume [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:09 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: RE: Nederland Sidewalks Phase II

To whom it may concern: I am writing to you in support of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority's (NDDA) plans for constructing Phase II of the sidewalk project in Nederland, CO. As in town residents, my wife and I have found Phase I of this project to be a major benefit to our community. The completed sidewalks create a safe way for individuals and families, both locals and visitors, to get around and explore our town. With busy summer traffic and difficult winter conditions, the sidewalks really do provide a safe way to get around our town. Phase II of this project would further improve our town while connecting several other critical pieces of our community (library, post office, and bus stops) and provide a safe route for us to walk to these locations. I appreciate your time and hope that you agree with the importance of this project to our community. Feel free to contact me if you would like any further feedback regarding this project. Sincerely, Ben Dereume 540 Lakeview Drive PO Box 1578 Nederland, CO 80466 303-258-0272


1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: Nederland Sidewalks Phase II (received after 4pm)

From: Elizabeth Dereume [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:17 PM To: DRCOG Subject: Nederland Sidewalks Phase II To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in support of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority's (NDDA) plans for constructing Phase II of the sidewalk project in Nederland, CO. As an in-town resident, I walk my dog daily through town. The sidewalks provided by Phase I of this project have given me a safe and clean path in which to walk. I am no longer walking along the street or through mud. I am looking forward to the completion of Phase II because it will enable me to walk to the Post Office everyday and pick up my mail. The new sidewalks would also give me a safe walking path to the new library and the RTD bus stop that I use regularly. I also look forward to someday walking my children along those sidewalks instead of the side of the road. I have found Phase I of this project to be an asset to our community. I enjoy when family and friends come to visit and they comment on how nice our town is and how they love the fact that we can walk anywhere. I appreciate your time and ask that you consider all of the benefits Phase II will provide for our community. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Dereume 540 Lakeview Drive PO Box 1578 Nederland, CO 80466 303-258-0272


1

Casey Collins

From: Don Dexter [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:54 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Sidewalk Support

Dear Friends, With the construction of a new building with several new businesses and the new library between the traffic circle and the library in Nederland, walking along highway 72 has become treacherous. The addition of sidewalks would improve public safety for pedestrians making their way to the library, many of whom are school age children. Cars are often parked along the highway in front of the Presbyterian Church next to a drainage. This makes it necessary for people to walk on the street side of the cars, which they do with some regularity. Sidewalks are a safety imperative for pedestrians at this point. Thank you, Donald Dexter Nederland, Colorado


January 28, 2011

Board of Directors

Denver Regional Council of Governments

1290 Broadway

Suite 700

Denver, Co 80203-5606

Dear Directors,

I am writing as a citizen of Nederland Colorado, regarding the towns grant application to you for Phase 2

of the DDA's planned sidewalk development.

My name is Dennis Duckett. I have lived in or around Nederland since 1974. I raised my two children,

and have run my own business here. During these years I served on the Technology Committee at the

high school, and was a founding member of the Site Based Management Team at the elementary school.

I served on a committee to select one of the elementary school's principals, , served for ten months on

an"ad hoc committee to the Planning Commission in re-writing Nederland's 1994 Comprehensive Plan. I

also put in many volunteer hours constructing Nederland's new Carousel of Happiness. I am presently

volunteering on an office construction project in Town Hail.

Nederland is my home, and sadly it is being taken over by developers who are disregarding the wishes of

the citizens, and through a DDA Master Plan and a Parks and Trails Master Plan are destroying the social

structure, the character, and the ecosystems in our town. We don't want this development.

Already the DDA has laid concrete sidewalks through town. These sidewalks are poorly designed and are

now draining runoff including magnesium chloride, and pollutants from highway traffic into Middle

Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado's water supply. They massively increased the impermeable surface

area in Boulder Creek's watershed, and are silting the wetlands in the riparian area near the creek.

They have narrowed the roadway through town, forcing bicycles up onto the sidewalks. Already,

Nederland is experiencing the same conflict Boulder experienced on its bike paths, between pedestrians

and bicyclists.

Nederland Design Standards and Guidelines were developed by a previous Board of Trustees and

Planning Commission and voted into ordinance by that Board of Trustees. It is a current ordinance, and

is referenced in Nederland's current Comprehensive Plan. The introduction to this book states that they

were developed to " .. . preserve the town's unique sense of place. The Guidelines aid protection of the

town's historic buildings and rurol character, which is a high priority for town leaders and for local

residents." The sidewalks give Nederland an urban feel that is not compatible with the citizens' wishes,

or these design standards. Although some people like the sidewalks, there has been a disingenuous

commentary by pro development people in town, that all people like them.

A new highway bridge accompanied this development. It is very much like the bridge at the intersection

of Arapahoe Ave. and Foothills Highway in Boulder, also, an unwanted deviation from Nederland's small


town rural and rustic character. There is also a new pedestrian bridge across the creek. It has curved

lines and has a sheet metal tube structure like found in urban environments, nothing like anything ever

seen in Nederland before. It is accompanied by and tourist informational sign made of steel and plastic,

also not Nederland. Huge, imported concrete flower pots that reflect none of Nederland's rural or rustic

character, are now sitting on many street corners.

Phase II of this sidewalk project also projects an urban and homogenizing effect onto Nederland, ruining

its historic uniqueness. The. current "path" systems around town were naturally created by children and

citizens and are simple, rural, rustic, environmentally appropriate, and adequate.

Nederland does ten year "Envisioning". These sidewalks, along with the entire DDAl\4aster Plan were

developed in the period of Envision 2010. That documents states the following:

"In 2010, there is:'a plan to preserve the community's rural historical heritage and environmental

quality." The proposed new sidewalks of Phase II both urbanize Nederland, and have a negative

effect on our watershed.

These sidewalks ·are pa'rt of a Master Plan that was developed to promote tourism. The primary

purpose of the sidewalks is to move tourists about. DDA Board members have stated this. In

the summer tourist events are· occurring nearly every weekend, and the congestion, pollution

and noise are ruining our town. Town businesses such as our feed and garden store, our video

store, and our book store all suffer, because locals cannot get into town on the weekends. This

is ruining our local based economy, which most people want.

We also have a very important legal issue with the DDA and the Town government in regards to the legality of the DDA. We contend it is not within the Central Business District as required by State Statute. The Central Business District is well defined in our zoning ordinance, as well as The Design Standards and Guidelines. Even DOLA, in the document, Districts and Alternate Government Financing Mechanisms states the DDA "must be in the Central Business District". The DDA currently encompasses an area that goes from one town boundary to the other. We are currently addressing this issue with the town's attorney and Town Board.

Another legal issue involves Paul Turnburke, of Turnburke Associates. Mister Turnburke is the

Executive Director of the DDA. At the same time his firm designed the new sidewalks, and the

DDA recently accepted his proposal for the design of the Phase II sidewalks. Mr. Turnburke has

been very active in all aspects of these developments. He isa paid employ of the DDA.

The following is from state statutes governing establishment and governance of a Downtown

Development Authority:


31-25-819. Conflict of Interest.

No board member nor any employee of the board shall vote or otherwise participate in any matter in

which he has a specific financial interest. defined as a matter in which the member or employee would

receive a benefit or incur a cost substantially greater than other property owners within the district.

When such interest appears, it is the duty of the board member or employee to make such interest

known, and he shall thenceforth refrain from voting on or otherwise participating in the particular

transaction involving such ,lnte-rest:WUlfulviolation of the provisions of this section constitut~:,""!~ : :", ';

malfeasance on the part ofamember of the board and is grounds for instant dismissal of any I '

employee. The governing body may by ordinance provide for automatic forfeiture of office by a bo,ard ", member for violation ofthis :t~ction: ·~I·"

We believe this grant would b~ more ~ppropriately assigned to another community. Many citizens do '

not want this type of devel~pment.\ve have many issues to deal with here in Nederland, and citl~e~s~ . ." ~ ,/.-. . .

are coming together to do' so. ",

Sincerely,

9~ 1:5"1 . I~ ... , ! ~ Dennis Duckett '

) 3 / ~ ::r l7vt-k: ~ 6Yl St , ~~I~O,

Z (!)4 eob

,::',-'

',',

I I I

I Public Comments - Page 75

January 21,2011


Dear Directors.

I am writing as a citizen of Nederland, Colorado regarding the town'sapplication to you for Phase 2 of the Sidewalks.

Sidewalks of the Phase 1 design recently installed in Nederland are helpful to citizens in many ways, but these benefits are overshadowed by the detrimental effects that sidewalks made of traditional concrete have on the town environment. I refer not only to the blighting of the mountain town's aesthetics, but also to the toxic runoff from such sidewalks, which leeches into the soil of our valley and into the Boulder watershed via Boulder Creek.

It is important that sidewalk funding only be approved if an environmentally-friendly design can be mandated by you or that the Town and the Downtown Development Authority reapply at a later date and with an environmentally acceptable design. Otherwise, funding from you may be taken as a sign that the process of soliciting citizen input about such decisions can be skirted and that development in and around the Town of Nederland can proceed without regard to its environmental impacts.

Thank you for considering my views and the views of other deeply concerned citizens of Nederland, as you weigh the Phase 2 request.

~'/I~~ Chris Dwyer 7 POBox 1396 Nederland, CO 80466


1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: Public Comment for Nederland Sidewalk Project Grant Request

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gail P. Eddy Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:02 PM To: DRCOG; Mark Northrop Subject: Public Comment for Nederland Sidewalk Project Grant Request Dear Mr. Northrop: I'd like to express my concerns about Phase II of the Sidewalk project in Nederland. Since the initial sidewalks were completed, I've seen negative changes to our little community. We're being "Boulderized". We've torn up our dirt to pour concrete. The poorly designed intersections make it almost impossible to make right turns. It's difficult to safely make turns due to the position of parked cars. The sidewalks are not well maintained and sheets of ice form on the sidewalk. Two years ago, that ice would have found it hard to stick to the dirt walkways that were once there. We were a quaint a rustic town. Now we look like Anytown Suburbia. I very strongly recommend that you do NOT approve the grant to the Nederland DDA to build additional sidewalks in our our town.

Gail ------------------------ Gail P. Eddy Business Manager - Geek For Hire, Inc. Computer Troubleshooting and Repairs Are you Outrageously Happy with YOUR computer? (303) 258-8175 www.GeekForHireInc.com Connect with me on LinkedIn, FaceBook, and Twitter

Preselected computer equipment & peripherals: www.GeekySales.com

Treasurer - Nederland Library District Come “check out” our new Library!


1

Casey Collins

From: Josh Eddy [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 5:54 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland SIdewalks

To whom it may concern: We don't need more sidewalks. We get along just fine without them. Sincerly yours, Josh Eddy


1

Casey Collins

From: Laurie Enke [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:10 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Sidewalk Project - Phase II

Attention Denver Regional Council of Governments: I am writing this email is reference to Phase II of the sidewalk project along the state highways that go through the town ofNederland. I am fully supportive of the next phase of the project. I believe the first phase of the town has made it much safer for pedestrians. It is much easier to walk from my house in Nederland to the business area. I also believe that it has resulted in a cleaner and better image of the town. As someone who works and lives in the area, I think that it is important that we continue improving the sidewalks. Thank you in advance for considering allocation of more funding for the completion of this project. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Thanks! Laurie Enke Director, Human Resources Eldora Mountain Resort Tel: 303 440 8700 ext. 235 Fax: 303 258 1426 http://www.eldora.com/jobs.about.html


1

Casey Collins

From: [email protected]: Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:43 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: nederland colorado

As a long term resident in the town of Nederland, I am urging your support for the completion of Phase II of the sidewalks in town. The sidewalks recently added have been a wonderful addition to the town, making it immensely easier to walk between locations, and Phase II will connect us to yet another of our town "hubs". Sincerely, Maurice Fauvel 46 Sundance Circle. Nederland, Co <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< This email comes to you via solar power at EcoMail! Swim over to http://www.ecomail.org to sign up for your *FREE* account


Board of Directors Denver Regional Council of Governments 1290 Broadway Suite 700 Denver. Co 80302-5606

Dear Board of Directors,

February 6, 2011

I would first like to thank you for all the time you invest and the resources and funding that is made available to Colorado communities through your hard work.

I am writing as a citizen of Nederland. I'm sure you are familiar with my town, as our Board of . Trustees have submitted a grant to you for Phase 2 of the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) sidewalk project.

Having read the application, I feel it necessary to correct the notes presented on page 1. It is stated "that the first phase of walks have been well received". Though it is true that some of Nederland's citizens feel this way, it misrepresents the holistic view. From the beginning, the Phase 1 sidewalk project has created controversy in our small town. For as many folks who appreciate the sidewalks, there are as many or more (as represented at Town Board and DDA meetings), who prefer the earth to the concrete.

There are many and diverse reasons for this.

Many of us feel that the new sidewalks and generic bridge are only a gentrification of our town for the purpose of creating a more attractive place for tourists to come spend their dollars. Though I do not bemoan tourist dollars (in fact I understand the need for the revenue, and am myself a tourist from time to time), I do not believe that the true cost of the walks is worth the price the locals and our ecosystem must pay.

The walks seem to have been deliberately designed to impede traffic flow. The patios that jut out at all intersections prohibit highway traffic traveling straight from going forward, while right and left turning cars wait for their chance to turn. Prior to these patios, there was room on the road for all cars to carry on in a more efficient way. There was also room for bicycles, where now there is not.

Regarding the environmental cost, the road sludge (oil, gas, salt and chemicals for snow melt) did have a bit of earth to act as filter prior to the sidewalks. I now watch the snow and rain carry all this pollution directly to a storm gutter which carries it directly to Boulder Creek. The DDA has not commented on our concerns that environmental impact studies be conducted.

Another concern of mine is that %5 of all C02 emissions are attributed to the manufacturing of cement. If some feel the need for pathways, it would make sense to look at alternatives to concrete. This idea has been presented to our Trustees.

I would also state that, though the DDA is currently paying the cost of maintenance for the


sidewalks, it is the town, therefore her citizens, that will inherit these costs. The executive director for the DDA has already made clear at Board of Trustee meetings that the legal responsibility of the maintenance falls on the town. We are aware that the DDA has a limited time as an entity. Therefore, we citizens will be paying for this extravagance, and my guess is, it will be sooner than later.

I have walked and bicycled my way through Nederland for 35 years now. I have never felt threatened, or in danger. Having read the letter in the application submitted by Ken Robinson, Chief of Police, I do not believe there is enough evidence from my research to use these incidents as proof of the need for sidewalks.

I am also clear as crystal clean stream water, that the %50 increase in revenue had little to do with the sidewalks. It is stated in the July Board of Trustees meeting that the %54 revenue increase was specific to the Carousel of Happiness, and the Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.

This is yet another example of the disingenuous representations we have tried dialoguing with the DDA Board about, only to be dismissed.

Since my residence is not within the DDA boundaries, I did not pay attention to their agenda, until I found my life impacted so dramatically by the their projects. I have attended many DDA meetings since last summer, and many BOT meetings as well.

I am hoping that the Envision Nederland 2020 project that is currently underway, will give voice to all who feel invested in this beautiful town of ours. I hope that a format for dialogue can grow from this that encourages open minds to be able to sit together and create a vision that works for all.

We have lived very well without sidewalks for all these years, and I believe that we can continue on without them in the future. This world will be a better place if we learn to curtail our wants, in consideration of our true impact on our environment.

I hope this letter is not to late. I believe there must be so many other projects worthy of DRCOG funding, in keeping to your vision statement, "Enhancing and protecting the quality of life in our region".

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, /.'

("';

Dianne FferJng 131 S. Jackson St. Nederland, Co 80466


/3ott/lo/ "{ [).M~C fO-v., Chv.~ ~/md &wn~ 1 ~lIk.

t:le-Yl v"€/t... I eo. 9 () ;).. D '3.- .56 0 b

. j ~ f1" () ~ 10 'Ylui, ~1.. / q tfo .3. I-e lJ a-v

.0U'f~ a-rud ~ ~1tI hdf.L ~d.:J UlcvnU

M~r.~c1r Iv ~~ .. ~, -ri..tAJA d.i..w rJivv (LA...£ e.A~.vr..J flu.- pit'<.-£.<- ..",11 -if

-'1>UJU. .t.L. 1J-.fc.0 .0t.~ L4iVYV cz /1!PWH. /au;, .x '4 -

a- WU-J' U3 W,J./,.. tu'-.j.,~ v ~ ~4 tYW P..e ~ I'1.ifI

10 :ttL ~vf dh., ~ "'- r;u~·

$of:, fi,s s /kb~

Po.8oV ZtJ /

~ detl ttd go'/t (p


1

Casey Collins

From: Georgia Franklin [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:06 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: NDD sidewalk support

To Whom it May Concern, My name is Gea Franklin and I have been a resident of Nederland for almost 10 years. My family and I love it here. My husband and I are raising our two children in Nederland and very much appreciate the efforts to make the community and town safer, more beautiful and user friendly, for us and all of the residents and visitors of Nederland. We are in support of the sidewalk and beautification of Nederland to be more user friendly and safe. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank You, Gea Franklin Nederland, CO 80466


1

Casey Collins

From: susie gallaudet [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:57 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: support for Nederland sidewalks

I would like to state my support for the DDA plans for expanding the sidewalks in Nederland. I think the sidewalks that have been added to town thus far are an excellent addition and really hope to see more of them. Adding sidewalks makes our town friendlier and safer for local and visiting pedestrians and, I feel, will be good for local businesses. I know there is a grant opportunity available for this project and am all in favor of seeing it happen! ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Susie Gallaudet 881 Pine Glade Rd. Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected] 303-886-7428


1

Casey Collins

From: DAN GLASSER [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 5:34 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Town of Nederland and NDDA

To Whom it May Concern: I am a life time resident of Nederland, CO as well as my husband and we both fully support the improvements the Town of Nederland and the NDDA are trying to achieve. Finally, Nederland is moving in the right direction by adding sidewalks to the town. The new sidewalks not only bring safety to pedestrians but also the large amount of traffic traveling through town. Cars and pedestrians do not mix! I work in a very busy office here in Nederland and the comments are overwhelmingly in favor of the sidewalk project. I sincerely hope my voice is important in the decision making regarding the grant for Phase ll of this project. Once again, I stongly support the improvements and I appreciate the time and hard work NDDA and the Town of Nederland have done. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dan and Linda Glasser Nederland, CO


'13tttr&. of 1)(( ec~ ~n ~o\;~Dl\ I~"e:< Ul\\~ Co\,t\')G\\ ofti~\tJ!, p lz...qO b~eu.1 vv.q j'\mtf\+s iJLA d·~ 10'0 ~ ,ten\J~ (C) ~o 1-63 -3.0oU

11J?ay' O({e[\V(S I

\ \IIlO-"j ~I'\ Y\9)lQ... Oc~~ \ \\CL . tJ Q /LlV \dVlJ ~ w'4 l:t- IS ,~ V\J..<2,7' 'C

\N Cl ~\ \f\\ \ ~ au--\- S \,~vJ 01-\k:.'':}, \..J-YI. \' f\'L. "\ Q \A-I( fy\oV\..LC) S\{\o u. \eX ~ 0

\'0 cr\:W \D~\J \'\-c:, \J'.N\U I[ QC\. \LV) 1AJ.lc\ ~ I(V\Oy\u>y IJewtO-\,\C\. aoe? Vl~ ~ ~ 16J-\i'lo,\lt:--S. .

:---

'(71 e(,t ')e. ~(.J Il ~ou-v \lv\oVU-,-\ \0 CA-\?e.,+\-e,Ir or~(A.i{'\ (UcRDY\-Pna:t-

~\{~ N.lck, \-t -r\r\o. V\t. ~oo.. f(vr ~{MJf COf\'7\~ct\-t '(){\ '.

''BrCO\qL C1rMW\V\.~{j( 11 () t\OV\tt (\oL \\l~olQv\(,l ~[\ (0 g6L \ llU


1

Casey Collins

From: Scott Hammers [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:20 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: In Support of Nederland Sidewalks

DRCOG Chair, I want to express my support for the Nederland Downtown Development Authority (NDDA) and the recent and forthcoming sidewalk projects. I’m an 11 year resident and a proud father of a five‐year‐old who has benefitted directly from the improved access, safety, and opportunity to exercise that the sidewalks provide. These benefits are core to how the citizens and visitors alike experience our town ‐ and the sidewalks actually enable folks to experience the town! In past years I have pushed my daughter around town in a stroller and the lack of any safe paths was distressing. Today it’s a pleasure to stroll or walk around town with a child. What’s more, I see folks enjoying the sidewalks every day that I’m downtown. Finally, town volunteers are working on a long‐term goal of improving the lake‐front area on Barker Reservoir, which is already heavily visited. The proposed sidewalk from the Library to the Post Office additionally provides safe access to our lake‐front recreational area (the lake is just to the east of the post office). This is a key component in our long term vision of having town facilities and recreational areas all connected with safe, non‐motorized trails and sidewalks. Thank you for your time and for funding improvements in our town. Best regards, Scott Hammers


1

Casey Collins

From: Dan Harrison [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:38 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: support for Nederland's sidewalk grant

February 14, 2011

Dear Denver Regional Council of Governments,

This letter is in support of the grant application for the second phase of the Nederland, Colorado sidewalk project.

My family has been part of the Nederland community since 1991. My husband and I have raised our children in Nederland, we shop in Nederland, and our extended families visit us in Nederland. We hike and bike the local trails, our children learned to ski at Eldora Mountain Resort, and we spend many hours with friends in local establishments. As volunteers, we have spent countless hours helping in our children’s schools and at our local church, and we have planned, fund-raised for, given physical labor to, and supported many major projects in town. We have worked hard to make Nederland more family and visitor friendly.

In the past, Nederland has been a town that people just drove through in order to get someplace else. But over the last few years, because of the efforts of many local organizations, our town has become a destination instead of a pass-through. Our residents’ efforts have given visitors reason to stop and spend time here getting to know Nederland. Visitors make the drive to Nederland to attend several festivals throughout the year, or ride our beautiful new carousel, or simply walk our main street to see our funky shops or relax over lunch at one of our restaurants. Most recently, our new public library had its grand opening with over 700 people in attendance to hear local storytellers and musicians, and to hear readings by the Poet Laureate of Colorado.

Our new sidewalks have allowed residents as well as visitors to park their cars and safely walk throughout town. No longer do walkers have to hug the guardrails in order to stay out of traffic as they walk from one part of town to another. This past summer, I frequently saw residents passing along the sidewalks, carrying groceries, walking their dogs, and chatting with neighbors. I also watched as visitors strolled along the sidewalks, discovering all Nederland has to offer. In winter, the sidewalks proved themselves to be even more valuable. Before the sidewalks, big snow berms narrowed the roads and forced walkers closer to traffic. Now, even after a big snow, the sidewalks allow pedestrians to walk safely out of harm’s way.

The second phase of the sidewalks will broaden Nederland’s walkability by connecting the post office, the park n ride, and the library to the existing sidewalks. As a community member, I am in support of Nederland’s grant application for funds to continue our sidewalks.

Thank you.

Marylou Harrison

136 Cougar Run

Nederland, CO 80466


2

303.258.3432


1

Casey Collins

From: DRCOGSent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:33 PMTo: Casey CollinsSubject: FW: Nederland Sidewalk Project phase II

From: Susan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:29 PM To: DRCOG Subject: Nederland Sidewalk Project phase II Attention Denver Regional Council of Governments: I am writing this letter in reference to the Phase II of the sidewalk project along the state highways that go though our town Nederland Colorado. We are in complete support of the next phase of development. We believe the first phase has made our town safer and more pedestrian friendly. As residents of the surround area I would like to thank you for considering allocation of more funding for the completion of this project. Thank you for your attention to this very important issue. Bruce and Susan Hastings 3945 Ridge Road Nederland, CO 80466



Dear Directors,

I am writingas athiity-twoyear resident and business owner of Nederland, Colorado regarding the town's application to you for Phase 2 of the Sidewalks. I feel that this project is totally unnecessary and a frivolously extravagant spending of already thinly stretched funds. There is no reason for it. How many people would want or need to use it? Judging by my time in Nederland, no more than a handful. Ifwe conducted a P,"! capita study, the Ilumbers would be embarrassing ..

Since its formation the DDA has operated as if it were a citizen approved agency of . Nederland. Of course, this is farfrom the truth. The original vote of people within the . district was not close to unanimous as spokesmen for the DDA have implied on numerous occasions. Considering the time and money that proponents invested, it's a wonder that there was any opposition. In fact, there was significant opposition and continues to be. I, for one, feel that a vote by the full town at that time and, even now, would result in a much different outcome. The DDA has never been open and friendly to town citizens. Negative attitudes of several board members are fully documented in local media. It is an arrogant 'we know what's best for you' approach. They proclaim that their meetings are open to the public. Yes, they are. At 8:00 AM on a weekday morning. May as well be at midnight.

I urge you to apply the brakes to this project so that we can have a much more thorough discussion of Nederland's future and preservation of its historic past as has recently begun in its Envisioning 2020 project.

Respectfully yours,

Stuart Horowitz


1

Casey Collins

From: Jim Hubbard [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:24 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Sidewalks

I don’t live in Nederland but am up there two to three times a week. I have always been concerned with the lack of sidewalks with the kids walking along the busy streets. If there is any possibility, additional sidewalks should be installed as a safety issue. We don’t want to wait until someone gets hurt. Jim Hubbard 303‐442‐0809



1

Casey Collins

From: Bill Ikler [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 11:17 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Sidewalk grant

I am writing in support for more funding for sidewalks in Nederland. I use the sidewalks that were built last year, and would use the proposed sidewalk that would extend to the Library. There is a small well-organized group that opposes the sidewalks, and that might give you a false sense that the sidewalks are not popular. Quite the opposite is true. They are used by locals and tourists alike. Thanks to your organization for helping this project proceed. Regards, Bill Ikler Bill Ikler 303-258-3858 PO Box 873 Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected]


16 February 2011

DRCOG Chair 1290 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver CO 80203-5606.

Hello Mr Chairperson: I am writing in support of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority’s (NDDA) and the Town of Nederland’s grant application for funds from DRCOG. I am an owner of a building on First Street within the NDDA’s jurisdiction, and I currently have two tenants, and each of us benefits from your funding of Phase 1 of the NDDA’s development plan for the commercial business district in the Town of Nederland. First of all, Phase One of the NDDA’s development plan, which you kindly funded in part, is now complete. I would like you to note that, while there has been no official survey to document my comment, this phase of the development has received wide acclaim for safety, ease of access to Town amenities and shopping, improved esthetics, and generally improving the quality of life for the average citizen and visitor to the Town. However, this is not to say that there have not been a small minority of vocal opponents. It is the matter of this group that I want to address here. When I first came to Nederland about 20 years ago, the Town of Nederland community was divided with extremely rancorous dialogue between a small majority of citizen’s who argued for no change and no development whatsoever in the Town, despite the rights of members of the business community to go ahead with building within the commercial business district (CBD), and a struggling group of people who wanted development in order to survive financially, and well as to beautify the Town that had become increasingly “run down.” Over the subsequent years the people in favour of developing the Town in order that it might survive as an urban center given the economic conditions succeeded to a significant majority. Subsequently the citizens voted for the formation of the NDDA, with a clear majority. However, a small number of those in the former majority, did not

5 1 3 9 S U G A R L O A F R O A D B O U L D E R , C O 8 0 3 0 2 - 9 2 1 7

U S A + 1 - 3 0 3 - 4 4 9 - 7 1 3 1

d a v i d j a g g a r @ g m a i l . c o m


February 16, 2011

Page 2 of 3

take to this well, and resented what was happening, even though they were benefitting materially from the outcome, with improvements to the infrastructure to the Town, and the improved financial standing of the Town that had previously bordered on default of it’s payments due. (Nor is the Town run on corrupt lines any longer, but now has an open democratic and transparent governing structure.) This minority group has had numerous opportunities to participate in decision making but with rare exceptions has chosen to not engage or participate. In my opinion, the current set of objections to DRCOGs funding of Phase 2 of the NDDA’s development plan submitted with Town of Nederland support and approval are nothing short of a power play. For the most part they have little to do with sidewalks, etc. to which they object. The objections are for the most part rationalizations for their underlying feeling, and an expression of resentment for having lost power. Some of the members of this group do not even live in the NDDA area of jurisdiction, and at least one claims that the Town of Nederland is not even an urban center. (This is clearly contradicted by a reading of the US Governments definition of urban areas as laid out in US Census documents.) One of their main strategies is to keep the Town of Nederland ugly in order to make the Town unattractive to tourists! This is an untenable position let alone policy to adopt. So, at least with this much in mind, I hope you can appreciate the improvements to the overall quality of life to which you have already contributed, and see fit to fund Phase 2 of the esthetic development plan, which will be to the benefit of not only current citizens, especially the elderly such as myself, but to the benefit of future generations. I also want to make note of the fact that support of Phase 2 development will have no impact on our surrounding natural beauty (under the protection of other authorities), one of the main attractions to the area, because the money is for infrastructure improvements and beautification within the confines of the NDDA district only. By making these improvements to the Town, this will further improve the business climate, as has occurred over the last few months (see the Town’s finances) and further nurture and support the State of Colorado’s Tourist Industry, upon which the State depends so much.

Sincerely,

David H. Jaggar


1

Casey Collins

From: Al Johnson [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:27 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Downtown Development Authority and Phase II Sidewalk Funding

DRCOG, I am emailing you in support of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority and the funding for the Phase II Sidewalk project. These new sidewalks have been great for our community. I have really noticed their benefit from locals, tourists, kids, and elderly getting around town to increased traffic to our local businesses, increasing our town’s tax revenue. Then there is the safety issue. Before these sidewalks were installed, Nederland was downright dangerous to walk around, as it required people to walk in the street or on unsafe surfaces. The majority of people in Nederland really appreciate, like, and use the sidewalks. There is a handful of Nederland people who do not like any change, including the sidewalks, they are a very small group of individuals. The vast majority of Nederland residents and visitors overwhelmingly support the sidewalk project and would like to see phase II funded and completed. Thank you, Al Johnson TMI‐TransOptions Messaging, Inc. Ph. 303‐258‐0265 Fax 720‐870‐4141


1

Casey Collins


From: andy johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 1:56 PM To: Mark Northrop Subject: Nederland Sidewalks Mark, I am writing in regards to the Town of Nederland sidewalk project. I worked for the Mountainear, the local Nederland weekly newspaper, for about a year while the sidewalk project was coming together. I think I wrote accurate and objective articles and provided clear photographs of areas that would change. I commented at the contract signing ceremony that the nay-sayers would come out now. The DDA board members, the mayor and the engineer were surprised I would make that observation. Well, here were are. I could probably name half of the people that have written in opposition to the continuation of the sidewalk project. I respect their opinion but they did not powerfully represent themselves during the planning and enactment of the project. Nederland is unusual in that a town of 2,0000 people, around 800 registered voters, supports a extensive mountain community of 15,000 people. As I understand it, the goal of the Town and the DDA is to create a safe sidewalk and trail system connecting the schools, residential districts, downtown and recreation that serves the entire Peak to Peak community. The DDA is trying to complete their task. Most people resist change. The alleged "Sidewalk to Nowhere" recently built along the highway south of Nederland is well used by residents and much safer now that the highway right-of-way has been reclaimed from residential backyards. When it was being built it was scorned and ridiculed. We are people that have learned to tolerated 40 to 90 mile per hour winds on a regular basis. Build the sidewalk. I support the Town of Nederland sidewalk project. Andy Johnson 93 Sundance Circle Nederland, CO 80466 telephone:303-478-2106


- /-




February 14, 2011 To: DRCOG Board of Directors From: Donna Kirkpatrick Nederland Feed & Supply 115 East Second Street Nederland, CO 80466 303-258-7729 Re: NDDA Application for TIF funds for Phase II Sidewalks I am writing this letter as a 15 year business and property owner in the Downtown Development District of Nederland, Colorado. In their application for grant money, the NDDA would have you believe that Phase I of the sidewalk project was well received by the people of Nederland. On the contrary, until the construction project began in town, most people were totally unaware of the project. Many were not happy at all. The same can be said of Phase II. There are many people that are not aware that there is to be a Phase II. The DDA has done little or nothing to inform the public as to their plans or intentions for future development. I greatly appreciate the opportunity that DRCOG has allowed us to have public input that we were not given at the beginning of this project. There were no public informational meetings. I am asking that the grant application be denied. I have attached a petition that I printed and displayed in my store for one day last week. Our business serves only local customers. As you can see from the list I quickly obtained 17 signatures. This represents 80% of the traffic in my store in a day’s time. I tried to talk with them about their feelings on the current sidewalks in town. They all said they would just have to get used to them. Nearly 75% of these individuals knew nothing of the new Phase II project in the works, and were angry and quickly signed the petition once I explained to them what was about to occur. They all hoped that we could stop the cementing of Nederland. I read on your website where DRCOG will be emphasizing sustainability in projects in the future. In Nederland we have been working towards this goal for some time now. I am a member of the Chamber of Commerce Board and an active volunteer in town. My business is a local business not based on tourism. There are many others like mine as well. We are not being heard by the business owners who run the DDA. All of the board members on the DDA except one have a business that is tourism related. We are working to get a fair representation on the board at the present moment. There are many projects that we would like to see completed with our tax dollars that are not all directed toward tourism, such as having the business district roads paved. My business is on a dirt road with very poor access, and the dust generated from traffic effects the residents that reside on Second Street. We would like the electric lines buried underground. This process was begun roughly 12 years ago and was never completed. It would also be nice to have better parking. The DDA would like to bring in tourists to walk around town, but there currently is no place to park so that they can get out and walk around.


Page 2 The backbone of Nederland is the highway that runs through it. This highway, as it currently stands is woefully inadequate and cannot support the growth in tourism that some want without being rebuilt or severely altered. We live and work in a town where it has become impossible to make a left hand turn anywhere along the highway in the Central Business District. We were promised a second traffic circle by the state in front of the bank, hardware store and shopping center. We need something now to alleviate the horrendous problems we have trying to drive through our little town. All that we have gotten so far are tremendous islands of concrete that further block our ability to drive around in town. Before one more sidewalk is built we MUST widen the highway through town to provide for some type of turning lane! Please help us with this escalating problem and DENY the further building of sidewalks that will ultimately have to be torn out in order to widen the highway for safety. The DDA has focused on walking traffic only, and has neglected the very severe problem with the vehicular traffic. One should begin to work from the top down. You do not put in sidewalks along a highway that needs to be widened and redone. That might be how the government does things; do it now and we will tear it up and redo it later. We are in the most depressed times we have ever seen in our lives, and we know that things will never be that good again, so let’s not waste any more money on poor planning and misappropriation of projects. Thank you very much for allowing me to voice my concerns about this potential project.


1

Casey Collins

From: James Knight [[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 2:33 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Yes for Sidewalks in Nederland

To Whom it may concern, I am a resident of Nederland since 2002. I am strongly in support of sidewalks in the town. They increase the safety and usability of the town and encourage people to walk instead of drive. We need the continued improvement in Nederland. Please approve the grant for funds to add more sidewalks to Nederland. James Knight 58 Tejas Lane Nederland, CO 80466


1

Casey Collins

From: Barbara Kudsk [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:24 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland sidewalk funding Phase II

Attention Denver Regional Council of Governments: I am writing this letter in reference to the Phase II of the sidewalk project along the state highways that go though our town Nederland Colorado.. I am in complete support of the next phase of development. I believe the first phase has made our town safer and more pedestrian friendly. As a citizen in Nederland, I walk to work, shops, bank, post office daily. Phase I made my commute to these places much more pleasant and safe. Thank you for your attention to this very important issue, Barbara Kudsk Billing Coordinator Mountain Family Health Centers 303-258-3301

Notice: This e-mail, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.


1

Casey Collins

From: KEITH LARSEN [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:53 AMTo: DRCOGCc: Sumaya Abu-Haidar; Marci Wheelock; [email protected]; robSubject: NDDA second phase of sidewalk

Dear Sirs and Madams, My wife and I have lived in Nederland for over forty years, and have for a long time wished that Nederland could grow to the point that it could be self sustaining. We were forced to commute 25 miles daily for all these years would have jumped at the chance of employment locally, but alas, Nederland's job market has always been somewhat meager. This is due largely to people moving into the area and not supporting the community. Nederland has become a rather large bedroom for people commuting elsewhere. Nederland's population has increased about five times what it was in 1970; but this is only homes, not business, industries, or support services. This attitude of moving in and closing the door to growth and opportunities for others is at best selfish. I am so pleased that the NDDA has brought some improvement to this community with the first phase of the sidewalk project, and I've noticed how much it is being used since part of the sidewalk goes past my home. In this day of green thinking, it great to see so many people out taking a walk to town for their various activities rather than pull out their car. We heard that there are people writing and objecting to the continuation of the sidewalk project that the NDDA is trying to get funded. Wow! I can't believe people want to keep Nederland down like this. The fear of this community growing into a huge city is ridiculous. I see the sidewalks as a wonderful way to bring people out of their cars and see the town close up and, hopefully, improve the economy. It seems that no one has objections to parks, skating rinks, skate board parks, etc., but gets upset if businesses try to make our town nicer. Right now, we have thousands of motorists driving through Nederland going elsewhere, and never spending time in Nederland. Please help our town develop to the point that is able to stand on its own. A place where people can work, shop, worship, raise a family that wants to stay and support the community. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully, Keith E. Larsen Gloria-Jean Larsen


Transforming Nederland, One Park At A Time

NedRec �� PO Box 3240 � Nederland, CO 80466 � (303)258-9703

February 16, 2011 Board of Directors Denver Regional Council of Governments 1290 Broadway Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203-5606 Re: Nederland DDA Sidewalk Grant Request: The past twelve years have brought many changes to the Town of Nederland. In this time, volunteer-led efforts have led to construction of a teen center, an ice and racquet park, a skatepark, a historic carousel reconstruction and a library. The town’s community center, housed in an abandoned school building, has been partially renovated. Trails have been constructed linking nearby open space with the elementary school, the community center and downtown. Planning is underway for development of a gateway park and a whitewater park/riverwalk.

No less exciting than these new developments has been the completion of the first phase of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority’s sidewalk project. It is now possible to walk across town in comparative safety, even at night along unlit sections of State Highway 119, and the elderly and disabled can traverse town much more easily.

The overwhelming majority of Nederland-area residents are pleased with the recent changes to our town and are eager for more of the same, however a small number of very vocal naysayers have loosely organized in the past few months, under the leadership of Mr. Dennis Duckett and his partner Dianne Fleming. Dennis’ stated goal is to keep visitors from coming to Nederland, and his strategy (described to me in a personal conversation) is to make Nederland so unattractive that no one would ever want to stop here. This is not a goal that reasonable people would support, and it does not reflect the feelings of the Nederland community. No matter how frustrated we may become with weekend visitor traffic (and it is frustrating), we must realize that there is no turning it away, and we must build up our transportation infrastructure to accommodate it. Accordingly, I would like to express unequivocal support for Phase II of the NDDA’s sidewalk project, and I hope DRCOG will make federal transportation funds available for this noble purpose. Sincerely,

Randy Lee Executive Director NedRec


To Whom it May Concern:

I have lived in Nederland for thirty years. I have seen a lot of changes in town. I served on the Planning

Commission in 1988 and then again in 2000 to 2009 for nine long years.

I am very concerned about our DDA and what has been done and what they want to do. When the

sidewalks were finished and bridge, I guess I thought would be normal sidewalks not the bump outs, the

bridge I thought would be nice but no it is ugly and no does not fit the Design Standards for the town. I

was very disappointed with the way things were done in the pas_ with DDA.

We now have a group of citizens that are paying more attention to make sure we can preserve our town

and keep the rustic design it should match better than how it was just done (sidewalks,bridge). The

creek also needs to be preserved the way it has been for for a lot of years. The thought of a kayak path

in the creek which is not very deep, would have to be dug out? There a lot of OLD big blue spruces in the

area where they want to dig it deeper so it will have deeper water. Anyway I would hope you would

listen to those of us who are citzens of the Town.

Thank You,

Susan Leto

70 W. 3rd st

P.O. Box 1053

Nederland Co 80466


1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: In favor of Nederland Sidewalks - Phase II

From: Ledyard Long [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:17 PM To: DRCOG Cc: Mark Northrop Subject: In favor of Nederland Sidewalks - Phase II Greetings, I am writing in support of the Nederland Sidewalk Phase II project, approved by the Nederland Board of Trustees last fall. This process was open to the public for comments and suggestions at that time. As a long term resident of Nederland, I have navigated the various mud paths and run-off channels and dodged highway traffic to walk to the post office, grocery store and the RTD bus station. I understand there is a minority of residents concerned with the impact of such improvements. However, I believe the benefits of a well thought out pedestrian system in town should outweigh the politics of the few. Thank you for hearing my concerns, Ledge Ledyard Long PO Box 1413 145 E 2nd St Nederland, CO 80466 303.443.7385 c 303.258.3085 h


BDttr'"o\ of birecfofS" PI! \\ Ve( ~i 01'1 ~I COVl",t:.·, r 0 f Go ve.mmerrtl? qo 13 ro"'~ 1/'/41

6vite 700

Pe f\V e r,C 0 . 801-0 ~ .. 'i 6 6 b

De a. y Pi fee to(5 J

We Me, Vvrifil'lfto YO\4 tlS ciiiten5 of +~e. Ne~ed4\'1.o{ <Ire.,,; . re j"I((~' vt~ f~e -foWt1~ ctpp Ii CVL-h'O-V\ 1v Y/)4 ~( ?~~s e Z 0 f{V\.(... )' ~e wt{lk~.

W~ !ov.e ihe. '((15+1<. t1A.:lwe.. of N ... ule(/4.1'l4 I Co/o-rJ.d-o ! '111~~.{ ( S-(ut~w~l[~ ~ve [l\ot bee~ pV'~~~6L) RN aIM ~ Man -f-ovVYI ,----fVI~ \tItAj --K-tj Lu..lle beeVi

str l-1.c1vYe.( C e~ p e-<:-i a../ ~ IlYl C1TYVl.erf) h.:t. S ere a.J .. '( ~L of CA- fra.fflc. .fInN ~v-ohtewt. V\Jh .... + .::L

lJV~s+e of WUrYl:J' -rklL)'!. do ~+ a/loi'PI--k

wvm-t J -fW' f/.- fh.4.) e. 2;:- p ~ f.e c. + . . -;;ff'1/t Ure- I ca-- )

Li~t;( e jl/tc~~ l'32-i CariboVl ~. ~e JU(~\I\A) CO - 8046£

~:ht:.~ HI/LL M' to 1

I :?Z? C41Z-1 ~0tA f?.tI! /IJ /£ Dc-elAN/;), ~. f /4C. &


1

Casey Collins

From: Lynda McGinley [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:01 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: Sidewalks in Nederland

Dear Sirs, Please know that I support the DDA of Nederland and the Town in their request for funds to complete the sidewalk project in Nederland. I believe the extension of this project will enhance the safety of our town making it pedestrian friendly. Thank you for your consideration. Lynda McGinley 50 Ponderosa Dr. Nederland, CO 80466


JCLn 3L ilo l) )



1

Casey Collins

From: [email protected]: Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:26 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland sidewalks

I am writing in support of the sidewalk expansion project up here in Nederland. Having been a 14 year resident in the town, and owning a business in this town, I have loved the sidewalks, and hope to see phase II completed as well. Sincerely, Susan Morrison 46 Sundance Circle Nederland, Co


1

Casey Collins

From: Ronald A. Mitchell [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 5:05 PMTo: DRCOGCc: 'Paul Turnburke'

To Whom it May Concern: Apparently you have received a lot of negatively slanted emails or other communications either objecting to or opposing a grant to the Town of Nederland and it’s Down Town Development Authority regarding completing Phase II of our sidewalk project. Unfortunately, I have not been able to see any of these and would like to request access to this information as I assume it is now public information. Thank you for providing me access to it so that I can specifically retort to specific items and the illogic of their presentation. I am an adamant supporter of the sidewalk project. They have significantly increased public safety and ease of pedestrian access to a lot of the central part of town. They have delineated vehicle use areas and slowed traffic, both public safety issues. I am very curious as to what the objections are. World wide, sidewalks are among the first public improvements put in public spaces. As a downtown businessman in Nederland, I have questioned customers to get their reactions. None have been negative. And there have been many, many more of them than the vocal “nay sayers.” However, those who thankfully approve don’t take the time to write letters or emails to you as they simply assume sidewalks to be part of the expected infrastructure, but do respond when personally asked. The town is essentially 100 years behind the rest of the world. If were to hold an “approval vote” today and every registered voter in town voted, I assure you that the voters of Nederland would approve the sidewalk project by a margin of 10 to 1. This kind of massive negative letter campaign is quite detrimental to public health and safety and should be viewed as just that. I bet there are a billion miles of sidewalks in the world. Thank you for your consideration. Ronald A. Mitchell, Nederland property owner.


1

Casey Collins

From: Lindsey O'Brien [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:10 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland's sidewalk

To whom it may concern: I understand that you are meeting today to decide if you provide a grant to Nederland to build even more sidewalks. I'd like to recommend, empatically, that you DO NOT approve this grant. We used to be a quaint and rustic town. Now we're more like Boulder with bike riders wizzing by on their bikes and almost knocking me over. Why can't they stay on the street with the other "moving vechicles"? What was wrong with our dirt walkways? We already have enough sidewalks. I, for one, and many of my friends, do not want ANY MORE sidewalks. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Ms. O'Brien


Board of Directors Denver Regional Council of Governments 1290 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO. 80203-5606

Dear Directors,

01123/11

I am writing in regards to a grant being applied for by the Nederland. CO. 'Downtown Development Authority' . The latest request for funding of the 'Phase II' sidewalk project is not embraced by all in

the community. I have either lived in or around Nederland for over 37 years. After getting out of the military, I came here to attend the University in Boulder, but being of rural Nebraskan heritage I grew up valuing 'small town' community and values. Nederland fit the bill. My concern now is to the growing 'Tourist" development that is happening in the town.

Nederland used to be small, quiet, tight community. It was populated with the kind of souls that were willing to step in a mud puddle occasionally because they were aware of what would be lost if you paved it. It contained small local merchants that catered to the needs of the community, and were not dependent on 'tourist' dollars. I see a lot of infrastructure going in that will require continual maintenance at the expense of the towns (The citizens) pocket book. Tourism is not a reliable/dependable source of revenue. Many municipalities are in fmancial crisis because of the economic climate and fmd it challenging to meet the cost of their infrastructure. An even larger concern of mine as a private citizen, and as a Colorado 'Certified Water

and Waste Water' treatment professional. Concrete and asphalt collect and concentrate oils, lead, phosphorus, nitrogen and many other toxins and pollutants and dump them directly into Middle Boulder Creek immediately above Barker Reservoir, a vital storage in the Boulder Water Shed. Clean water is fast becoming scarce. I am truly sorry when an occasional visitor has problems walking from one store to the

next. But as a resident of the Nederland Community my everyday life is my concern. I do not appreciate the added congestion, pollution, noise and carnival atmosphere. Please, Nederland has been developed more then enough! Your monies could be better

used in high population, in need of repair areas. Maybe Denver won't have to lay someone off to meet their infrastructure needs. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

/If.Ml O~ Mark O'Keefe PO Box 22 Nederland, CO. 80466

------~==~------~ '--_______________________ J-=----_--------------~---~-Public Comments - Page 118


Dear Directors,

January 31,2011

I am writing as a citizen of Nederland, Colorado regarding the application to the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) for funding the Phase 2 of the Sidewalk project for the town of Nederland.

First and foremost, Phase 1 of the sidewalk project has been an issue of contention since construction began through the completion of the project. Therefore, the statement in the application for Phase II, which states: "The first phase of walks have been well received" is unsupported and unsubstantiated. While there are some people that approve of the new sidewalks, there are at least an equal and possibly greater number of citizens that disapprove. Citizens differ on why they dislike the sidewalks, but an overarching theme encompasses the idea that residents value the present character and uniqueness of the town. The sidewalks did not follow Nederland's Design Standards and Guidelines or the Comprehensive Plan, which both require all projects keep the "rustic" nature of the town.

Furthermore, Phase I of the sidewalk project had very little oversight both in terms of guidance and review from the Planning Commission of the town of Nederland or public involvement in the way of public meetings to discuss the design and construction of the sidewalks. Phase II of the sidewalk project appears to be moving forward in much the same way as Phase I, with very little oversight and public discourse. For example, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) of the town of Nederland brought the application for Phase II to the Board of Trustees shortly before the proposal was due to DRCOG. The item was presented as a 'Discussion Item' and there was very little information available to the trustees about the proposal. The informal vote to direct the DDA to move forward with the application barely passed. There was very little to no opportunity for public involvement prior to submission of this application.

While additional sidewalks may be warranted based on need and public approval in the future, at this time there is no consensus in the community that Nederland has been "improved" due to the construction of the sidewalks, which would support a Phase II ofthe project. Until there is more town oversight of the projects proposed by the DDA, via thorough reviews from the Planning Commission and public


involvement through public forums either at DDA or Board of Trustee meetings, I strongly suggest rejecting the application from the Downtown Development Authority of Nederland for Phase II of the sidewalk project. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mikki M. Osterloo

P.O. Box 495 Nederland, CO 80466



1

Casey Collins

From: Gary Pieper [[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 8:13 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: I love the Nederland Downtown Development Improvements!

Dear DRCOG Staff,

First I want to say thanks for your consideration of approving the grant for the Phase II sidewalk project for the Town of Nederland. I really appreciate all of your time and effort.

I mainly wanted to send a note to say how much I love all of the improvements recently completed in downtown Nederland. I've lived in Nederland now for 23 years and this was a face-lift that was badly needed and long overdue. The town looks incredible and it makes me feel very proud to live here. I especially love the sidewalks, the bridge and lighting and all of the colorful planters with flowers. It is so welcoming for people to walk around town safely and the attention to detail is really incredible. Even lately with all the snowfall we have been getting this winter the infrastructure for keeping the sidewalks clear of snow has been amazing. People can actually walk around town safely with out fear of being hit by a car.

I understand you have received many letters not in favor of the Phase II sidewalk project. I know it's human nature to hatechange and that most of the people who speak up about changes are complaining or unhappy about something. I hope this positive feedback helps to balance the negative feedback you have been getting about the improvements in Nederland. Being such a long-time resident in Nederland I know many people who also feel the sidewalk project has been a huge success. I really could go on and on and on about how great the Town looks. I lived in Aspen for a few years and I think the improvements in Nederland over the past few years now actually put our town on the map as being closer in league with Colorado destinations like Aspen, Steamboat, Breck, etc.

Sincerely,

Gary Pieper


1

Casey Collins

From: Betty Porter [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 5:54 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Support Nederland's Phase II

Please award the Nederland Downtown Development Authority/ Town of Nederland the $486,000 in federal transportation funds for Phase II of the sidewalk project. Particularly crucial is the plan for sidewalk to our new Community Library, which is serving about 100 patrons per day, EVEN in the recent brutally cold weather. The library attracts a section of the community, including many mothers and small children.

A small minority of folks in Nederland are crying enough – no more development! Some of them are my good friends, but on this point I disagree. The Phase I sidewalk has encouraged residents and visitors to WALK around and enjoy our great town, and most important, has greatly improved safety.

We need Phase II.

Betty Porter

55 Navajo Trail, Nederland

Nederland Board of Trustees 2004-2010


January 23,2011

To whom it may concern,

It has come to my attention that Nederland's Downtown Development Authority is requesting funds to proceed with Phase 2 of the sidewalk project in Nederland, Colorado. I also understand that the DDA is stating that everyone in Nederland is supportive of Phase 2 because of how pleased they are with Phase 1. This is not completely accurate.

As a town resident, I'm not totally opposed to the completed Phase 1 project, even though it hasn't improved my life one bit. Actually, because of where I live and the design of the curbs of the new sidewalks, and how they impede automobile traffic flow through town, they do adversely affect my ability to drive from my home. However, I do continue to walk through town as I always have, and will do so in the future.

My concerns with Phase 2 is how they may affect traffic flow in town, and the attitude the DDA expresses toward residents who oppose their plans for the future of Nederland, of which there are a good number of people. The DDA seems to have little interest in a dialogue with those who don't want more sidewalks. And, in my observation, in their articles and letters to the editor in our local paper, "The Mountain-Ear", there is a tone of nastiness toward those who don't support Phase 2. This has led to divisiveness among town residents, and negative feelings toward The DDA.

My recommendation is to have a moratorium toward future town projects until all of our concerns are addressed.

Thank you.

Mark Pscheid PO Box 1050 / 110 Lakeview PI Nederland, CO 80466


1

Casey Collins

From: Lauren Rice [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 6:15 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Phase 2 of Nederland's DDA Sidewalk Proposal.

Hello There, I am a Nederland citizen of 5+ years, and would like to write in my two cents, as it were around Phase 2 of the Nederland's DDA'S Sidewalk proposal. I am wholly AGAINST this, and urge you to deny the incredibly large amount of ~ 486 thousand dollars, to a projec that is ABSOLUTELY unecessary. A citizen's group for sustainability recently surveyed the proposed sites >> and found that for 3 hours, only one person walked there - on a sunny, warm, no-wind day. Barely anyone walks these areas, and those of us that do, do not want more sidewalks and more development!!! Please stop this heinous missuse of funds! Lauren Rice 225 South Jackson Street, Nederland, CO 80466 PO BOX 492, Nederland, CO 80466, 303.258.3800


1

Casey Collins

From: Randy Sachter [[email protected]]Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:31 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Sidewalk grant

We strongly support phase II of the sidewalk project. The sidewalks has made a positive to contribution to the town providing safe passage for pedestrians along the highway. Please approve the grant the so the project can move forward. Randy Sachter and Mark Smith 637 W. Spruce St. Nederland, CO 80466


1

Casey Collins

From: Mandy Schalz [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 7:08 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Downtown Development Authority

To DRCOG Chair I am writing about the proposed grant for Phase II of Nederland's Sidewalk Project. I support this project totally. The recently installed sidewalks allow easy access to restaurants, shops and residential areas. I work by town hall and enjoy having a safe and easy place to walk to local businesses. In the past, I would have walked on the highway or on a muddy shoulder to get to the north side of town. Now, I can walk on a sidewalk all the way to the area I want with no trouble. Please allow the NDDA to receive more grant monies to continue the great improvements in safe and easy walking areas. Sincerely, Amanda Schalz Nederland Business Owner ph. 303‐250‐0331


1

Casey Collins

From: UDO SILLE [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:50 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland sidewalk funding

Dear DRCOG Board Members, I am a business owner in the town of Nederland. I plead with you to continue funding Nederland's DDA sidewalk projects. The sidewalks already built have been getting very favorable reviews by our residents and visitors. We have to continue the project. My auto repair business is located at the edge of town. My customers have to walk along the edge of a very busy highway after dropping off their cars. This is a dangerous situation. Please continue our sidewalk construction funding. Thank you, Udo Sille Peak to Peak Imports PO Box 1540, 588 East Street Nederland, CO 80466 Telephone 303-258-0635



1

Casey Collins

From: Merrin Slocombe [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 11:38 AMTo: DRCOGCc: [email protected]: Nederland Sidewalk Project

To Who It May Concern, Please accept these comments regarding the pending application for funding a second phase of sidewalks for the town Of Nederland. Although I am fully insupport of creating a more walkable town our current planning process has shown that we are not prepared for more sidewalk development. I believe that a half a million dollars could be much more usefully directed elsewhere. Specifically: ‐ We have no system in place for evaluating the increased runoff from the additional impermeable cover.There is no EIS review process in Nederland. There are already huge problems on the east end of town due to unmitigated runoff and lack of proper grading. ‐ We have no storm water management infrastructure along the highway or to protect the adjacent residential properties. ‐ The previous sidewalk construction has resulted in increased traffic congestion due to reduced lane widths and lack of turning lanes. The previous project seems to have been pushed through as a superficial fix to our larger problems of connectivity. ‐ The huge cement bridge which accompanied the first phase of the sidewalks has impeded both vehicular and bicycle safety. ‐ There is still no long term budget for plowing the sidewalk. ‐ There is minimal pedestrian traffic along the north side of town esp. on the high way b/c there is a more dirrect route to walk on dirt side streets. ‐ I do not support the Nederland DDA in this or in any of it's efforts as it has failed to publicly post any recent meeting minutes and because I believe they are misguided in their "vision" for development in Nederland. Their own Executive Director has been hired without an open/public request for proposals to do the park planning and landscape design which raises many questions about their general concern for public input, fiscal responsibility or following best ethical practices. The DDA members appear to be guided soley by what they mistakenly perceive to be best for businesses NOT what is actually best for the PEOPLE of our town. ‐ There are many areas in town which are marginally walkable and as such deserve to be prioritzed over this sidewalk project. We don't NEED a sidewalk along the highway. We need turn lanes, clear crosswalks and traffic studies to solve what is becoming an increasingly dangerous and frustrating trafficcongestion situation. Please DO NOT approve any further funding for sidewalks until an in depth study can be performed on the needs and best solutions for the Town Of Nederland. We are facing enough of a mess resulting from the first phase of the sidewalks and certainly won't solve them by failing to do the neccessary preliminary planning in a fair, open and intelligent manner.


2

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Respectfully , Merrin Slocombe


1

Casey Collins


From: chris smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:54 PM To: Mark Northrop Subject: Nederland Sidewalks Please spare us the phase 2 sidewalk building in Nederland.Thank you, Chris Smith


Jan.25.2011

Denver regional rouncil of Governments

Dear sir,

I would like to inform you as a resident of

the town of Nederland for the last 57 yrs. that

the Phase II of the sidewalks for the Town of

Hederland at an estimated grant of $8000.000 is

completely unnecessary. A sidewalk along IDvY 119 from the post office

to the library on HWY 72 is not essential. It

would be very dangerous. A few people have been

killed walking on 119 between the St. Rita

Catholic Church and the turn at East 1st St.

I walk to the post office often. I live at

60 rari'bou Rd .which is near the Nederland Fire

Station. I walk over to Jrd.st. which is south

of the Fire Station, then cross HWY 72 and

continue on Jrd st. to HWY 119 ,cross and continue

on 3rd st. to a trail that leads to the post

office. This route is safe and does not need a

sidewalk, In reality Nederland does not need ~ny

more sidewalks anywhere at all. ,~r __ I

i/- /"v,.C-,,' I, V "" ...... \_, =


1

Casey Collins

From: Jill Sulkey [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:01 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Ned. sidewalks

Hello, This is in response to the attempts to halt the sidewalk project in Nederland. This project has been in the making for many years now and I think the people who want it to stop now are not informed and appear to be ignorant as to the purpose of the project. It is helping the local businesses, and an added convenience to the locals. People are afraid of change up here in the mountains and it is that close mindedness that seeks to end this improvement for the town. I am in favor of continuing the sidewalk project and hope the funds are not held back because of a few people who cannot become a part of the present and have no future vision. Sincerely, Jill Sulkey


1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: In favor of Nederland Sidewalks - Phase II

From: Steve Taormina [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:29 AM To: DRCOG Cc: Mark Northrop Subject: In favor of Nederland Sidewalks - Phase II Hello DRCOG - I'm emailing to express my strong opinion in favor of the Nederland Sidewalk project, Phase I and -- hopefully -- Phase II. As a 10-year resident of the Town of Nederland, I see and benefit from the sidewalks everyday. I walk through town to the RTD bus station and stops, twice a day. I see people using the sidewalks to safely navigate Town. The Nederland Library and Post Office would benefit by easier access for those who walk and ride bikes. My understanding is that a vocal minority of people in the community question whether the Nederland Downtown Development Authority (NDDA) has authority for projects outside of "downtown." This concern may be reasonable, but I believe the greater good from Phase II of the sidewalk project outweighs this concern. Thank you, Steven Taormina PO Box 174 640 Lakeview Drive Nederland, CO 80466-0174 303.258.0328


February 13, 2011 Denver Regional Council of Governments 1290 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203-5606 Dear Denver Regional Council of Governments Chairperson: I am the president of the Board of Directors of the Carousel of Happiness in Nederland and a 13-year-resident of the town. I have also served as the president of the board of Mountain Family Health Centers for 8 years and a member of board for the Library Foundation, founder of an arts group in Nederland and was a business owner in the town from 1999 to 2005 as well as former editor of the local newspaper. I understand that DRCOG is considering a grant of funds to the Nederland Downtown Development Authority to help pay for Phase 2 of the Sidewalks Project for our town. I am writing in hope of countering some of the negative letters you have received from some citizens of the town who, as sincere as their intentions may be, are asking you not to consider the grant. Nederland badly needs these sidewalks. At this time, the lack of them is forcing people – especially those with disabilities – to endanger their lives by using the highway through town to get from place to place during the Winter months (and even sometimes in the Summer). The lack also discourages other people with disabilities, seniors and families with children from moving to Nederland and even from just stopping and using our businesses. While it is desirable for a small town to retain character and beauty, the first phase of the sidewalk project did not in the least detract from the appearance of this town – in fact, quite the reverse – and, has made a great difference to the people and businesses, making Nederland a much safer place. We deeply appreciate DRCOG's first contribution to that effort. I hope that DRCOG can continue to see the benefit of supporting Nederland's improvements through Phase 2 of the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Janette Keene Taylor PO Box 3198 33 Ute Way Nederland, CO 80466 303-258-3586 [email protected]




1

Casey Collins

From: 'Michigan Mike' Torpie [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:12 PMTo: DRCOG; Teresa MyersSubject: Nederland, CO sidewalk project input...

Greetings, As a former elected four-year term member of Nederland's Board of Trustees, I am writing very much in opposition to the Nederland Downtown Development Authority (DDA)'s plan for implementing Phase 2 of their Sidewalk project. I feel that Phase 1 was already too much for our small town, and to do any more would be a travesty. I feel that Phase 1 has already changed the look and feel of our community too much, and I would hate to see things get pushed even further in this direction. Please DO NOT grant additional funding for additional sidewalks and other developments of this nature in Nederland, Colorado. Thank you for your time, ~MIke~ -- NedFest, LLC c/o 'Michigan Mike' Torpie PO Box 830; Nederland, CO 80466 http://www.NedFest.com


1

Casey Collins

From: [email protected]: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:10 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland sidewalks

Hello: I visit Nederland often because I live close-by. Sidewalks make it easier to get around town during a shopping trip or while sightseeing. They also improve my feeling of safety. Thank you for your consideration. Judith Trent


1

Casey Collins

From: Janet Turnburke [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 11:01 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: Sidewalks in Nederland, COAttachments: CLARBCertifiedLandscapeArchitect3color.pdf; ATT00001.htm

Attention Denver Regional Council of Governments: I am writing this letter in reference to the Phase II of the sidewalk project along the state highways that go though our town Nederland Colorado.. I am in complete support of the next phase of development. I believe the first phase has made our town safer and more pedestrian friendly. As a business owner and resident of the surround area I would like to thank you for considering allocation of more funding the for the completion of this project. Thank you for your attention to this very important issue, Janet Turnburke, ASLA


1

Casey Collins

From: Susan von Mettenheim [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:44 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: SUPPORT for new sidewalks and to allocate funds for the project!!!

We wholeheartedly support and sign a petition to allocate funds to continue the sidewalk improvements for downtown. Not only is it a safer means to get around town, it also has served as a connection to our community It safely brings people to different parts of town. A sidewalk is most definitely needed to connect downtown to the post office. We have had fatal accidents along that stretch of the highway with no proper walk way; this will improve the area for everyone, least not of all people getting to the RTD bus stops. The sidewalks have also improved the aesthetics of our town for everyone. It will continue to attract visitors which will increase our downtown revenues. Paul & Susie von Mettenheim


1

Casey Collins

From: Teresa Crush Warren [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:11 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Support for Ned sidewalk project

To the Board members of DRCOG, I am writing in support of the Phase II sidewalk application from the Town of Nederland. As a business owner, commercial property owner and chair of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority, I can attest that this project has been thoroughly discussed in multiple community forums since 2001. As in any small town, issues can get "loud", but I prefer to look at it as democracy in progress. In October, 2010, after hearing many passionate public comments for and against the project, the Nederland Board of Trustees made the decision to support the application in an effort to support the "greater good" of the community. At the end of the day, I am confident you will find that the majority of the community members you will hear from will be supportive of this project. I appreciate your time and effort in reading all the correspondence from all the passionate people from Nederland. I entrust you to make the right decision for Nederland. Teresa Crush Warren Off Her Rocker Mercantile and Fine Things 4 East First Street Nederland, CO. 80466 303‐258‐7976 [email protected] www.offherrockermercantile.net


1

Casey Collins

From: brian whitney [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:59 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Sidewalk support -- YES

I would like to say I support Phase 2 of the sidewalk project in Nederland. Brian Whitney 881 Pine Glade Road Nederland, CO


1

Casey Collins

From: cheryl wiles [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:19 PMTo: DRCOGSubject: Great Sidewalks in Nederland

Just wanted you to know how wonderful the sidewalks are for our little town of Nederland. It's so great not having to walk in the streets. Keep up the good work!!!!! Cheryl Wiles


1

Casey Collins

Subject: FW: ~ Attention: DRCOG Chair, re: sidewalk development grant in Nederland

From: Greg Willson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:37 PM To: DRCOG; Mark Northrop Subject: ~ Attention: DRCOG Chair, re: sidewalk development grant in Nederland Hello DRCOG I am writing to express my concern that the requested planning grant for Nederland, Colorado includes a vision for more sidewalks through town between our library and post office, as well as additional paving of the trail along the creek. We love our new skatepark, however this kind of development and expansion in our small mountain town is not suitable or appropriate. Thank you Greg Willson General Delivery Nederland CO 80466


February 1st, 2011

Attn: Board of Directors Denver Regional Council of Governments 1290 Broadway Suite 700 Denver, Co 80203-5606

Dear Directors,

I am writing as a citizen of Nederland Colorado, regarding the town's application to DRCOG for Phase 2 of the sidewalk project.

Our town has been greatly changed since the placement of the phase 1 project. We now have a congested highway that runs straight through the heart oftown, which before the project flowed freely. With the phase 1 project, we have lost substantial traffic flow. This has created a problem for our general citizenship. Many of us don't feel we want to venture to the local grocery store on the weekends (when we normally would do our shopping), to avoid the blind spots in traffic that are now present. The problem is well known throughout the town, but our representatives on the town board are not addressing it. They are ready to move on, leaving us all wondering what new detrimental changes will take place should they receive funding for phase 2.

As a concerned citizen of Nederland, I fear the uniqueness and small town feel of Nederland will be changed by those wanting to encourage tourism, which is really the reason this grant has been applied for. When rural or mountain towns are "discovered" by tourists, they are often irreversibly changed so that neither residents nor visitors can fully enjoy what they once valued in those places. What was an authentic community is changed into a kind of theme park for the benefit of tourists. Please understand we are merely trying to save our wonderful small town from development that interferes with the common good for all who reside here. We have walked the dirt and wish to continue to do so.

I would request that your board take the money that would have been granted for this project, and give it to a community that is in need of it. At the present time, our community is at odds over this second project of development. Thank you

Sincerely,

Dawn Wilson


1

Casey Collins

From: Jane Wodening [[email protected]]Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 6:52 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland sidewalk

I want to thank you for putting in the sidewalks in Nederland. They make a tremendous difference keeping us pedestrians out of the highway! And I want to encourage you in continuing the project. Jane Wodening


1

Casey Collins

From: Wood, Mike A (BATC Finance) [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:00 AMTo: DRCOGSubject: Nederland Downtown Development Authority - Grant Application for Phase II Sidewalks

Good Morning, I am writing today to voice my support for approval of the grant application for the Phase II sidewalk project in Nederland. Providing a safe place to walk, connecting important community hubs such as the post office and library, is a step forward for the community. The sidewalks and curbs added in Phase I have been a wonderful improvement for our community, I’m proud to see the progress the town has made and I look forward to the next phase. Please approve the grant application so that our community can continue with the great progress that has been made. Thank you, Mike Wood 61 Wildewood Dr. Nederland, CO 303‐258‐7929 This message and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee. Please notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful. Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all messages and enclosures sent to or from this email address.


• (,7 . ,j ; k I ) 1 I h _ 1) ~-I}, t, -/ - .,1 V (t'tiV o~oJ ~ {0 ; tV1ve~ U~-1.. oCl-A-<./t--r~ ct ~~l~ / IA C·i.t:A..L:.vU""l

a~ /U fJai-d~-?J o?*~ ./1t~U-<YltA- c;~t"4l;"~":J7'V ",ii, ~ :-k-v. r/}~ ~ ~J);t/u:o, At.u;&'A,v-rd..~, r/:: /ZWM./ -;:-ll.-c~' f J t ' " '-t~-'t-'\/ .~.v;'1~~/ /.:~'o/L t{ --i/..e:...{j 1//,;-T _);~~ ~V-t:.tf _ il.€<!.e--<...V'-C "'{

~o /11Utl1. /~r~~ c.J/~o ..2~_ cj ~iL.!.//~~<-72i/e... ); .:trie l:.f! ct~ v~YWff ~. "~1/~-L.l_~ -7,0':Y1704:/ {-L-U'

.x4~~ (Ml.J -~jv ~~c«r/~oi:t c'cliL?( it'k, Ir\l-~ __

vU ~0l/<- ... :t;, /ru I.A_;-Fu~ I t/:01"~.rt, (~ ? i..'.L/I-'l./1~ .. t I .~ __ • ,/' j) 0 ~ /) fJ '" ~. .17 '1 __ ~~ (t..-L ~ ALV ' '-""--'i/~-<~ ~{ (~e..v A.A./I"V/~ ~ '<i-;:i aAff I

~~~U ,n-e.j- .-e/j1/k'a/vv~ fr~~, ~t'V~, Li.l1?/ ~ /C~t /Jo,-urrJ ~~u.;dl./ A:!~{ ~ -f~.»~,

,!):t --<:t~*,e .Utl.-'10--z...;' _tiL-cd =1(;~. D D f\ c-L,--<---v 'i'bOot t.,J·1~~ .t]~V//I~(! A/J~/t ---':'11./ ,0 ih.~,,-- -;pl'AAL-: '-,I') ~V~~-~kz_et ·~~t.-a/l.Z.oe<;"1-1'L/Yn.-<:./V\ c{ ,1U-t Jfi..(/l.'l-£./J~" ;i:/u-i-~~

--u wt1 ;t A:'.<'-~ ,'U.~~>--<- ,'~~ C,'i'-1uJ2 -lJLa~L~'rL/'


~)) --..., l', ,"- - /~ o. '-" t~,- JI., ' r' ;'A1·L.{')iY'vGz--""d I..t- '-~ \,,/"-'L-,v"l...::../tV f ·,<j;"'/''-{r.L.''"'-'U1~ I..l/)'l./ - ;; I.',

-<>'IL/~~/~:: ...1J/-u;.-~ fl oELI1~ ./t:~ J it

J~'~''LJ~' t)C~~-e~ ,:../ c'-<-<-v /)A ... ~re.-"t, ... a_-4,d C,,(Ilz,nLcG ~~:, .-I: r V

'J 1 ~·v,-.c_---L~ c;...L(...·-v/nl.,~.: £-v t-LU:-~~ ~l~~d-- .I /"U2.r-~

vt.k.c~ -4-~fu-' b~ -'/\;;"~I l~~ ct ...t('L..-~k ;,,6) vL~ c-t.:.-'~ f~ /71At.:~ I 1)} c4 Y--J~ cdQ--e.-('Le- ~-iA_ ~~~

{;

-1 J,? ',-<,-- ;;t'~f -'i~~,-,~[,c~' /uc citk 1.- itU-h.--

.{L~! ; r n . -L. -c::: Co-·71 ..... G-v·-VL~-C'/ cL: /.A.e,!~/~4/j~-vvL- ,

'J/let- 'z,lAc->' ·1 '-rf rV ) !-u/t....

~;)~~ t t{:-Jf!.Y' I

)),- I n 1 L - \ ~ :~I t . -" -'.:: lL-d:'C~~ L:"TJ '~- ;' I ('VI /7 1-/ 3 /~ --<-'{r 1\1 ~ "t 12\( tLc/I.A.tl..- ni I eel Si'i )106

,} {; \ .-.\ , I ,



( ..


Jefferson County Transportation Action & Advisory Group

January 24,2011

Denver Regional Council of Governments Board of Directors Rod Bockenfeld, Chairman 1290 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203-5606

Dear Chairman Bockenfeld:

The Jefferson County Transportation Action and Advisory Group (JeffT AAG) is a coalition of local governments in Jefferson County. The primary purpose of our coalition is to promote and identify funding for Jefferson County projects that fulfill our local and countywide transportation plans.

At its recent meeting, the Metro Vision Issues Committee (MVIC) recommended a list of projects for funding under the second phase of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). We are writing to voice our support of the MVIC's recommendation, seeing it as an equitable and diverse list of projects for the metro area.

Specifically, we wish to voice our support that the following projects, included in the second phase MVIC recommendation, continue to be included in the 2012 - 2017 TIP:

e TIP ID 5, Golden, West Corridor End of Line Bike/Ped Overpass • TIP ID 6, Arvada, Kipling Underpass; Van Bibber Ext. - W 56th PI to Grandview Ave • TIP ID 8, Westminster, Little Dry Creek Trail: Federal Blvd. to Lowell Blvd. @ TIP ID 17, Wheat Ridge, Kipling Multi-use Path: 32nd Avenue to 44th Avenue) e TIP ID 19, Arvada, Ridge Road Bike/Ped Project ;II TIP ID 33, Golden, Golden Circulator Bus: West Corr. end of line to Downtown Golden

We urge you to approve MVIC's recommendation at your March 16,2011 board meeting.

Sincerely,

~cNLti+ Rachel Zenzin er City of Arvada

~~L Karen Oxman City of Golden

&L4 Af)dtpu~ Chris Dittman City of Westminster

Donald Rosier

L~~ City of Wheat Ridge
