STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF ROUTT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
September 21, 2004
Chairman Pro Tem Daniel R. Ellison called the Routt County Board of County
Commissioners public meeting meeting to order. Commissioner Douglas B. Monger; County
Manager Tom Sullivan; Paul Draper, Lou Gabos, and Heather McLaughlin, Road and Bridge
Department; Toya Rhoden, Susan Dreska, Patrick Arnone, Roger Watson, Lyman Orton,
Tommy Schwall, Julie Green, John Armiger, Jim Linville, Stuart Handloff, Bob Weiss, Ron
Murray, John Cowell, Callie West, Sharon and John Beaupré, Gordon Jones, Carol Comeau,
Barbara Robison, Carol Atha, Susan Dressen, Dave Moss, Luster ‘Vic’ Vickrey, Angelo and
Corinne Cicci, Cathy and Ben Gero, Dave Carley, Barkley Robinson, Kent Kirkpatrick, Jeffrey
Campbell, Steve B. Dressen, Jeff Fry, Vince Arroyo, Joe Schuman, Gordon Schuck, Patrick
West, Mark Bollenbacher, David B. Pepin, Peter Boniface, Dave Fisher, Foxer Tudor, Mark
Bennett, George Thomas, Kevin Hendrickson, Tom Steitz, Craig Olsheim, Michelle Dover,
Debbie and Doug Cortinovis, Bill Meyers, Steve Colby, Denis Campanali, Maryann Wall,
Robert Ames, Dan Chovan, Steve Marshall, Joey Rind, John Morone, Nina Darlington,
Richard and June Florence, Steve Keliton, Scott Geisler, Gil Barbier, Randy Booco, citizens;
Polly Cogswell, Joan Donham, Robin Craigen, Scott Schlapkohl, Holly Williams, Russ Atha,
David Williams, Karen Schulman, Don Eden, and Fred Garrison, Routt County Riders; Steve
Flechenstein, Nobel SYSCO; Brock Webster, Orange Peel Bicycle Service, LLC; Daniel
Hagney, Moots; Tom Ross, Steamboat Today; and Tony Connell, Connell Resources, Inc.
were present. Commissioner Nancy J. Stahoviak was present via conference call. Diana
Bolton recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes.
EN RE:
ROAD STANDARDS AND ROUTT COUNTY’S CHIP-SEAL
PROGRAM
Commissioner Ellison stated that the Board appreciated all of the information
submitted to the Board by organizations and individuals and noted that no decisions would be
made by the Board this evening.
Mr. Draper reviewed a Power Point presentation regarding chip-sealing that addressed
the process, the advantages and disadvantages, the life cycle, the different sizes of
aggregates used and their characteristics, the cost analysis for different sizes, the slurry-seal
and other alternative surface treatments, and longevity projections in relation to the treatment
used. He said that chip-sealing sealed the surface of asphalt. Asphalt was applied followed
by gravel in various sizes, after which the surface was swept, and after the chip-seal had
cured, a coat of fog seal was applied to take the edge off the chip-seal and provide solar
gain, which helped the melting process in winter. As asphalt aged, it oxidized and became
brittle so the chip-seal process was used to avoid cracking. He said that 1986 was the last
time that 3/8” chip-seal was applied, and that maintaining pavement at the highest level for
the money was the goal so as to avoid reconstruction and frequent overlays, because good
roads cost less.
Page 04-534
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Mr. Draper noted that much of the information presented this evening was based on
data received from the Colorado Association of Road Supervisors and Engineers (CARSE).
He said that 3/8” chips were less noisy, had a 3-5-year life, and provided a smoother ride; ¾”
chips had greater longevity (five to seven years), more skid resistance, and was less
expensive due to its longer life cycle. The disadvantages of ¾” chips were that they were
noisier, caused windshield damage and tire wear, and created a rougher surface. He stated
that the issue was money. He said that slurry-seal was more of an urban, residential
application because it did not winter well or stand up to high truck traffic. The County’s
maintenance program was on a five-to-seven year incremental basis for chip-sealing, and a
twenty-to-twenty-four year basis for overlay. He said that since other Colorado counties had
varying unique climates, comparisons to other counties’ practices were inconclusive, but
typically chip-seal size was selected by road surface, and the chip-seal cycle was either six,
seven, or eight years. He concluded that using ¾” chips was an aggressive maintenance
technique selected in the best interest of taxpayer dollars.
Commissioner Stahoviak asked how many miles of County roads the County
maintained and of those miles, how many had hard surfaces. Mr. Draper will find those
statistics and report them later in the evening.
Commissioner Monger asked Mr. Draper what standards and information were used
to support his longevity statements. Mr. Draper said that personal experience in the County
supported his conclusions, but none of the CARSE information discussed chip size in relation
to longevity of the product. He noted that contractors received a range of oil, and between
17% and 35% more oil was applied to the ¾” chip than the 3/8”, so the sealing ability was
greater. Commissioner Monger asked whether the larger chip was knocked out by plows
more frequently. Mr. Draper said that some damage was sustained one winter, but generally
the larger chip coming out had not been a problem. He added that in terms of fractured
surfaces, both sizes had the same specifications; it was a matter of a different application
rate rather than the surface, and all chip-seal applications were based on Colorado
Department of Highways (CDOT) standards.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Orton said that the single goal this evening was to get smoother road surfaces with
fewer loose stones on County roads. He questioned Mr. Draper’s statement that Routt
County citizens were getting the best deal for their money. He presented chips gathered
along a private chip-sealed road and photographs of size comparisons. He stated that chipsealing had negative economic impacts to the area and referenced letters from Ride the
Rockies, which spent approximately $500,000 in the area each year, and Bicycle Tours of
Colorado, which spent $90,000 in the County this year, as evidence that if groups chose not
to continue coming to the area due to rough roads, it would affect the economy significantly;
that cycling businesses in the area could confirm that cycling was an economic boost to the
area; that future negative publicity in cycling magazines was possible due to the County’s
road surfaces; that citizens’ costs not being considered included extra gasoline to drive on
the road surface, paint chip repairs, greater tire wear, and broken windshields; that safety
Page 04-535
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
was an issue for cyclists and motorcyclists due to traction issues and loose rocks on road
edges, which forced cyclists to the middle of the road; that the County’s skiing heritage was in
jeopardy due to training on roads being impossible; that Routt County had the reputation of
having worse roads than other Colorado counties; that chip-sealing precluded increasing the
economic benefits gained by promoting cycling in the area; that road cycling was becoming
more popular; and that the County could be a Mecca for road cycling if the County broadened
its analysis and vision to accommodate that tourism demographic. He encouraged the
County to raise its standards to the level that this world-class community deserved.
Mr. Hagney, an employee of Moots, stated that currently 60% of its sales were road
bikes, which sold for between $5,000 and $6,000 each; that the number of people coming to
Steamboat Springs to tour the factory has grown substantially; that 70% of the people who
visited the store were road bikers rather than mountain bikers; that economically, cycling was
increasingly viable; and that having smoother roads would enhance cyclists’ experience,
which would increase cyclist visits, and that such experiences would not have to be marketed
because groups as well as individuals would return every year since the area was so scenic.
He concluded that to continue this growing attraction that generated significant income, the
County’s roads had to be smoother. He noted that the difference between 3/8” and ¾” chipseal was noticeable even in a vehicle; that chip-seal became smoother as it was compacted;
and that chips used in Europe, where cycling was an important travel mode, were smaller
than ¾”, even in the Alps, and provided a smoother ride because the chips settled tighter.
Mr. Morone said that he was speaking from a taxpayer and resource perspective
rather than a bicycling one. He said that he worked in Jackson County permitting gravel
operations for the County. He thought that Jackson County was less affluent than Routt
County but noted that it also covered a large area and had an extensive road system. He
said that the many roads that radiated from Walden were all paved, and he estimated that
more of Jackson County’s roads were paved than Routt’s. He stated that a year prior to chipsealing a road, Jackson County applied extensive gravel, applied ¾” chips the first year, then
in subsequent years applied finer gravel. He said that finer-chipped roads held moisture for a
shorter period of time, and trapped moisture reduced longevity. He suggested applying
multiple coats of thinner rock. He stated that spherical rocks, regardless of size, created 33%
void space, so if an equal thickness of small chips were used, an equal volume of oil would
be applied, which meant that actual chip size did not determine the amount of oil needed. He
said that void spaces in thick layers were evident even after the top coat had been sprayed,
so the oil used was not enough to fill the voids between larger rocks laid in thicker coats. He
listed recent chip-sealed sections of road and asked why those roads, such as County Road
14, had so many asphalt patches if chip-sealing were such a good surfacing method. He
suggested that an economic analysis should include asphalt overlay costs versus chipsealing and asphalt patching. He noted that his property taxes had increased 50% in the last
fifteen years, and he wanted to know what he was getting for that increase. He realized that
the Airport and the Fairgrounds’ lighting projects had cost a lot, but he felt that maintaining
roads and infrastructure was more important than ‘peripheral expenditures.’ He added that
the last time he rode his bike to Hahn’s Peak Village, he incurred $120 in flat tires, so he was
voting for whichever candidates would provide decent infrastructure and paved roads.
Page 04-536
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Mr. Moss, a self-selected representative of rural Routt County residents, said that he
had supported the chip-sealing of Seedhouse Road, which has greatly reduced costs of
repairs to his vehicle as well as the maintenance required on the road. He thought the
County Road 129 and Mad Creek Bridge projects, while inconvenient when occurring, were
an accepted fact of living in rural Routt County and had ultimately reduced road maintenance.
He stated that if drivers observed speed limits and kept a safe distance from other vehicles,
chipped paint and windshields would not be an issue. In regard to the safety issue, he noted
that the ‘Share the Road’ signs on County Road 129 referred to cyclists as well as motorists:
riding two or three abreast, close together, and riding close to the driving lane on a road that
had much wide motor home traffic were hazardous and irresponsible practices: County Road
129, which has no shoulders, was not designed for use by both motorists and cyclists. He
stated that rural Routt County residents paid a significant portion of the County’s property
taxes, and the best use of those funds was for road maintenance. He felt that the
Commissioners did an excellent job providing the best maintenance for the least money, and
the well-considered five-year maintenance program, made known to everyone, gave cyclists
a choice as to whether to ride a road on which a chip-seal project was occurring. He
requested that the Commissioners make the most effective use of taxpayer dollars and
methods, even if that meant inconveniencing a small group of riders.
Mr. Handloff said that he and others had met with Mr. Draper the previous week to
discuss many of the technical issues that had been raised this evening. He felt that points of
agreement were that chip-sealing was strictly a surface coating that was not designed to
provide strength or structure to a road; chip-sealing can preserve an existing road if applied
correctly to a stable surface and at an appropriate time in the life of a road surface; chipsealing, even with ¾” gravel, can be an improvement to an existing gravel road; the proper
size and adequate depth of asphalt was critical to the life of the road; chip-sealed surfaces
were rougher, noisier, and more likely to cause wear and damage to vehicles; using a fog
coat increased the life of a road; and 3/8” chip-sealed roads were an acceptable solution to
road maintenance for certain roads including County Roads 129, County Road 14 including
Yellow Jacket Pass, County Roads 16, 33, 27, 15, and 17, and River Road, Bartholomew
Lane, and Hilton Gulch. Points of disagreement included the notion that recent chip-seal
projects lacked quality control, for example County Roads 14 and 16 near Stagecoach; chips
should be buried in a layer of 60-to-75% asphalt, which was not being achieved at present;
the type of rock used did not bind or fit together well, and smooth rock fit less well than
fractured rock; the longevity of ¾” has not been substantiated adequately, and information
supplied by Mr. Draper regarding 3/8” rock related to State highways, which had greater
volumes of traffic and more truck traffic than most County roads; smooth pavements shed
water better because they had fewer crevices; trapped water in ¾” surfaces can freeze and
cause slipperier roads than the 3/8”-surfaced roads; ¾” chips might not be less expensive
than smooth overlays or smaller gravel because 3/8” costs less and ¾” requires more asphalt
and road users have greater costs on roads chipped with ¾” stone. He said that County
paving was the largest expense for which taxpayer dollars were used so the County should
study the technical issues raised, increase quality control, and investigate comprehensively
long-range costs because using ¾” rock was not the best practice.
Page 04-537
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Mr. Connell said that he advocated chip-seal surface treatment in the right
applications, but Routt County was not doing it correctly. For example, his company had
recently completed a project in Wyoming that had similar climate conditions to Routt County
in which the road was paved then chip-seal surfaced with 3/8” gravel only in the travel lane,
which provided unimpeded use of the shoulder for cyclists and a wearing course for the
pavement. A discrepancy that he noted in Mr. Draper’s presentation related to the cost of
different sized chips. He stated that the 3/8” chips made to the County’s specifications were
virtually pea gravel and therefore cheaper than ¾” because 3/8” chips were a by-product of
making concrete aggregate. Also, 3/8” gravel was readily available from all producers.
Another correction was that Routt County’s specifications did not require a fractured surface,
and core tests had confirmed that Routt County road surfaces contained round rocks. He
stated that the embedment rate was significantly less on 3/8” than ¾” rock. Mr. Connell said
that in Mr. Draper’s presentation, the example of a 3/8” use was not the right application: it
was on a low volume, city street that was low-productivity for the contractor. When
calculating the use of less oil and rock, the cost was different than indicated. He said that the
cost of 3/8”, in 1995, was $14,283 per mile, which differed substantially from the $24,000
figure in Mr. Draper’s report. For following best practices, Mr. Connell recommended using a
fully fractured rock, regardless of size, because it lasted longer and embedded better, but
cost more. He noted that in the past three years, the County had purchased between
$32,000 and $148,000 worth of asphalt patching material, which should be factored into the
maintenance cost per mile. He maintained that on high-traffic-volume roads, the chip-sealing
was not lasting seven years. He said that quality control to monitor tonnages and quantities
of oil might be lacking at the jobsite and should be in place full-time; that stating that asphalt
patching costs $56 per ton was inaccurate because less was being purchased per year so
the cost had to be increased to cover suppliers’ fixed costs; that a project’s life cycle analysis,
according to Colorado Asphalt Producers and a T. J. Thompson product, indicated that the
costs of a ¾” double chip seal with a single application every six years, and a two-inch
asphalt mat and a 1” thin lift overlay, which is what CDOT did on Lincoln Avenue this year,
were relatively equal. Road structure had to be taken into account as well as average daily
traffic and the number of trucks that use a road. He noted that skid resistance and riding
smoothness were scientifically measurable. Mr. Connell offered to sponsor the County’s
membership in the Colorado Asphalt Producers, which included 50 governmental entities and
municipalities and provided informative conference workshops.
Mr. Beaupré said that the paving of State Highway 131 between Toponas and Walcott
was beautiful, and the contractor and cost per mile would be interesting information to know.
Mr. Connell said that that job was done under CDOT’s maintenance budget, which meant
that no reconstruction, safety considerations, or widening was included. He said that the
project was two layers of asphalt: an inch leveling course covered with a two-inch mat.
Mr. Schlapkohl, on behalf of the Routt County Riders Bicycle Club, said that because
the County’s roads were not biker-friendly, the issue was a motorist as well as a cyclist one.
He said that Steamboat Springs was a biking community, and people throughout Colorado
selected communities such as Boulder and Durango as biking communities. He stated that
the Board should recognize that road biking was becoming increasingly popular. He
complimented the Road and Bridge Department for chip-sealing gravel roads such as River
Page 04-538
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Road, the Hot Springs road, and the Catamount road, with ¾” gravel, which was an
appropriate practice if a smaller chip were used in subsequent applications. He said that if
roads were plowed less to save money, citizens would object. A corollary was that people
would be willing to pay more to have good roads—if paying more were indeed necessary. He
noted that the shoulders on County Road 129 had been paved for a number of years,
whereas this year’s chip-sealing on that road was bone-jarring. Mr. Schlapkohl questioned
the randomness of the chip-sealing projects and noted that those chip-sealed portions of road
prevented cyclists from using the entire road. He said that if chip-sealing were the method of
choice, the Routt County Riders supported using 3/8” rock.
Mr. Arnone agreed generally with Mr. Moss’s statements. He appreciated the chipsealing of gravel roads, but averred that the paved roads were the issue. He said that he had
researched the use of slurry-seal, which is chip-seal combined with asphalt prior to the laying
down of the mixture, and the information gleaned contradicted Mr. Draper’s statements in that
the surface was smoother, more skid resistant, and less than half the cost of chip-seal. He
said that Canada used slurry-seal extensively and got four-to-eight years from each
application. Slurry-seal was also being used on United States interstates. He felt that many
alternatives were available that should be researched, and slurry-seal appeared to be an
attractive solution. He noted that polymers could be added for longer life. He asserted that
when new chip-sealed roads were wet, they were significantly less skid resistant so safety of
drivers and riders should be considered.
Mr. Linville said that, although a cyclist, he was speaking this evening as a driver. He
said that he had lost three windshields and two headlights in the last ten years, and he had
paid less in County property taxes than he had in those repairs. He was willing to be taxed to
subsidize an alternative other than chip-sealing. In regard to safety, Mr. Linville said that if
cyclists had a smooth place to ride or a bike lane to be out of the way of drivers, they would
not need to ride side-by-side, which he conceded was a problem. He stated that it was time
that the County provided a safe place for cyclists.
Mr. Morone said that County roads should have good clean shoulders, and gravel
permittees should be responsible for off-site impacts and should sweep the debris from the
shoulders.
Mr. Ames stated that, to the best of his knowledge, he was Routt County’s only bike
tour operator. He said that according to the Chamber Resort Association, a room night
contributed $236 per person to the local economy, and his company, over the last eight
years, had contributed over 500 room nights to the local economy. He said that each of his
tours had 70 participants or less and that none of his tours could originate in Routt County
any longer due to the lack of a safe riding environment, which included non-chipped
shoulders, which could be as narrow as one-foot wide. He asked that in the future, whatever
method of surface maintenance was chosen, the County would provide a minimum of a 1218” bicycle lane or shoulder. He added that his tours had participants from across the United
States and seven other countries, and people loved to come to Steamboat Springs so paved
shoulders was an important economic as well as safety issue.
Page 04-539
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Mr. Weiss wondered how the group present this evening, which had many
suggestions, could facilitate the process. He asked when and how a decision would be
made, who would be involved in the decision-making process, and how could people best
stay involved and updated. Commissioner Monger said that direction would be given to staff
at the end of this meeting. Commissioner Stahoviak said that after public comment had been
closed, the Board would discuss the topic, from which would come direction as well as ways
in which citizens could stay involved.
Ms. Donham said that runners were another group that used the roads, and the
Marathon was a large income-producing event that was affected by the lack of shoulders on
County Road 129, which was un-runnable because people could twist ankles and sustain
blisters. She suggested repaving the road before the next Marathon.
Mr. Chovan stated that another consideration was that cycling was not only
recreational but a viable form of transportation so cyclists deserved a right to the roads. He
said that the cost differences and longevity of ¾” and 3/8” chips in Mr. Draper’s presentation
were primarily anecdotal, whereas his research had indicated that most people favored small
chips because ice bonded better to the larger chips so the surface was more slippery and
required more sand or magnesium chloride use. He said that his research revealed that
there was little difference in longevity based on stone size; rather the quality of the aggregate
used, the binders used, and the quality of installation were the key factors in the life of a road.
He suggested that the Road and Bridge Department experiment with 3/8” because the ¾”
prohibited him and others from bike riding to work and doing errands.
Mr. Steitz asked that the roads be paved with smaller chips to ensure that the Nordic
and Olympic skier legacy continued in Routt County because skiers could not roller ski on the
large-stoned chipped roads. He added that he had worked with at least six counties across
the United States and some within Colorado on the design and construction of roller ski
loops.
Mr. Fisher said that at least 100 classic cars, each of which was worth approximately
$250,000, had come to Oak Creek last week. Their owners were people who Routt County
should try to attract because they had large disposable incomes. If Routt County were
basing its economy on tourism, all of the groups that used the roads, including skateboarders
and pedestrians, should be considered.
Mr. Orton said that the citizens present this evening, rather than being a particular
special interest group, were mainstream Routt County residents and taxpayers who practiced
a healthy lifestyle. He said that the roads needed to improve rather than be a short-term,
low-cost fix. He stated that those present would help in any way possible because they had
come to Steamboat for quality of life, and cycling, which would continue to grow, was a part
of that lifestyle.
Commissioner Ellison closed public comment at this time.
Page 04-540
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Mr. Draper said that Routt County’s public road system involved approximately 940
miles, 850 miles of which were maintained at some level, 525 miles of which were in the
year-round maintenance program, and 152 miles of which were surfaced. He said that he
had worked with a coordinator for Ride the Rockies and had delayed chip-sealing portions of
roads scheduled for maintenance until after Ride the Rockies had departed. After the tour
was over, Mr. Draper was notified that the easiest day that the Ride the Rockies marking
team had had was in Routt County, and his department was complimented on its preparation
of County Road 27. He said that patches were needed on chip-sealed roads due to structural
failures in the road base because asphalt provided structural integrity, which chip-sealing did
not have. He stated that 53% of property taxes went to the school districts, and 26% went to
Routt County in general; for every $100,000 of County property tax valuation, Road and
Bridge received $9 per residence or $35 per business; the major revenue source for Road
and Bridge was from the State through highway user tax funds, which were taxes levied on
gasoline and automobile parts.
Mr. Draper said that the portions of County Road 129 that were chipped this year were
last chipped in 1997, at a cost of $84,900; in 1998, portions of County Road 14 sealed this
year were chip-sealed for approximately $40,000. Roughly 85 miles of County roads were on
a five-year cycle; 65 miles were on a seven-year cycle. He said that typically chip-sealing
and overlays cost between $750,000 and $1,000,000 per year County-wide. He noted that
gravel roads that could no longer be maintained were being chip-sealed; that an on-going
problem with River Road was water running under the road’s surface; that chip-seal was an
urban, residential application because when a road was hot, it was susceptible to damage
from heavy, slow-moving vehicles such as trash collection trucks; that roads that used to
have gravel shoulders are now being reconstructed to two 12’ lanes with two 3’ shoulders;
and that the goal has never been smoothness, it has been durability.
Mr. Gabos said that when determining specifications, the CDOT general specifications
book, Section 703, was used. Exceptions were also listed, one of which was that ¾” rock
spec was a concrete rock specification and has at least two faces fractured, which provides
interlocking. The intent was to use fractured rock, and in the future that intent would be made
more clear to contractors.
Mr. Connell was asked how much of the County’s work his company had done. He
said that he had never done chip-seal projects for Routt County but had done asphalt
projects. He was asked whether he thought slurry-seal was a viable option. Mr. Connell said
that he did not recommend slurry-seal at this altitude with the amount of moisture present and
plowing needed. He noted that only a few Colorado companies applied slurry-seal, which
was done primarily in urban, downtown areas. He was asked whether, if he were asked to do
more asphalt work in Routt County, the cost per mile would go down. He said that since thinlift overlay was new technology, a good product, and provided some structure, it might be a
viable option in Routt County.
Mr. Draper said that the proposed 2005 chip-seal schedule included 4.5 miles on
County Road 27, Amethyst, Bartholomew Lane, County Road 36, the Hot Springs to Soda
Page 04-541
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Creek Bridge, County Road 179 for a .5 mile section, and overlay portions of County Roads
76 and 80, County Road 212, and two sections of County Road 129.
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
Commissioner Stahoviak thanked those present for their time and input. She stated
that a goal of the Board was to work with citizens to address their concerns, particularly those
expressed by bicyclists. She noted that many other resort counties did not have such an
extensive road system as Routt County had so they were able to create bike trails and other
creative facilities. She said that the majority of the Road and Bridge Department’s funding
came from the Colorado Highway Users Trust Fund, the federal government for payment in
lieu of taxes for agencies such as the Forest Service, and from the County’s sales tax
revenues. She explained that the property tax portion that did not go to Road and Bridge
went into the County’s General Fund, which supports several departments such as the Clerk
and Recorder’s Office, the Assessor’s Office, the Treasurer’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, the
Detention Center, the Planning Department, the Environmental Health Department, Human
Services, the Extension Office, the Emergency Management Department, and the
Communications Department so taxpayer dollars did a lot. She stated that some asphalt
patching areas, such as on County Road 14, were patched because those areas had not
been reconstructed, and the underlying structure was not a good surface on which to lay a
hard surface, but at present funds were not available to complete the reconstruction of
County Road 14. She said that the County had been asked to construct bike lanes on
several County roads, such as Strawberry Park Road, but a major challenge was the
acquisition of rights-of-way, which was a lengthy and expensive process initially and
increased the cost of maintenance and repairs on an on-going basis. She stated that no
taxpayer dollars were used in the construction of the multi-purpose covered arena at the
Fairgrounds; rather, grants, donations, and fund-raisers organized by the 4-H Club, the Fair
Board, and the Extension Office were used for that building. In regard to the comment about
the money spent at the Yampa Valley Regional Airport, Commissioner Stahoviak said that
the infrastructure improvements were primarily funded from federal Airport Improvement
Program grants, which generally require only a 10% local match. She agreed that the
longevity of each size of chip should be further explored, and the pricing of 3/8” chips should
be investigated further. She said that in terms of the next step, the Board would be meeting
with each County department to discuss their 2005 budgets in the near future. Some of
those work sessions would take place on October 6th and 7th in the Yampa Valley Medical
Center Conference Room; the Board would publish the times and departments involved in
those sessions. She suggested that a few representatives from those present this evening
be selected to work with Road and Bridge and communicate with the Commissioners to
ensure that the Board answered questions, addressed concerns, and conveyed to the
citizenry the challenges faced by the Board in devising the budget. She said that as a
compromise, the roads most traveled by the cycling public that were scheduled to be chipped
in 2005 could get a smoother surface, and subsequently, over time, the cost of doing that and
the longevity could be evaluated.
Mr. Orton said that the attendees were not asking for bike lanes; they would be
satisfied with shoulders.
Page 04-542
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes
Commissioner Monger said that he appreciated everyone’s attendance this evening;
that it was important to hear people’s views; that he had not previously understood the
magnitude of the situation; and that the three major issues appeared to be whether to chip or
not, the size of the chips, and chips on shoulders. He said that the County was trying to be
as proactive as possible with the limited resources available, to serve the County’s citizens,
and to address safety concerns. He concurred with Commissioner Stahoviak that after
certain roads that were integral to tours and riding were identified, a different plan could be
devised. He felt that more information was needed on chip size longevity and cost, then if
some roads had smaller chips, data could be obtained that took into consideration factors
such as average daily traffic. He said that shoulders were needed on roads to be
reconstructed, but shoulders could not be created without reconstructing the road, which
reverted to the budget issue.
Commissioner Ellison stated that the Road and Bridge Department had accomplished
a great deal in the last twenty-five years, such as replacing all of the 20’-long bridges, paving
many roads, and upgrading others. He agreed that some review of the chip-seal program
was necessary. He noted that the budget amount would not change much, but doing some
things differently based on the comments provided this evening was possible. He said that in
relation to the shoulders, the effect on the edges of the road would need to be considered.
He said that Routt County was larger than the state of Delaware but had a smaller population
so tax monies were more limited, and some Colorado counties were smaller or had fewer
roads due to the high percentage of public lands in them, so the quality of roads in other
counties could not necessarily be compared to Routt County’s extensive road system.
Commissioner Stahoviak said that Twentymile Coal had a Special Use Permit for coal
hauling along County Road 27 so everyone would have to work together for equitable
solutions since coal mining and utility companies were among the highest taxpayers in Routt
County. She added that County Road 27 did, however, have shoulders, which should
alleviate safety concerns regarding cycling and truck traffic. She noted that Routt County had
worked hard to ensure that the reconstruction and widening of Colorado State Highway 131
continued to include shoulders. Commissioner Ellison added that the State Highway Plan
included two additional upgrading phases on Colorado State Highway 131.
No further business coming before the Board, same adjourned sine die.
____________________________
Kay Weinland, Clerk and Recorder
______________________________
Daniel R. Ellison, Chairman Pro Tem
Page 04-543
September 21, 2004
Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes