December 22, 2012 — Despite a federal judge’s ruling authorizing a land transfer for the proposed Jefferson Parkway, the planned toll road still faces significant obstacles, Golden noted today.

On Dec. 21, Federal District Judge Philip A. Brimmer issued an opinion upholding the federal government’s decision to transfer land on the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge for construction of the Jefferson Parkway.  In December 2011 the Town of Superior filed suit challenging the decision to transfer the land.  Shortly thereafter, the City of Golden and two environmental groups joined the lawsuit.

“While Golden and its co-plaintiffs did not win the lawsuit, we have made progress on the much bigger issue of awareness, which we are hopeful will put the protection of Golden in the forefront of any future transportation plans,” said Golden Mayor Marjorie Sloan.  “We are pleased that the region has begun to focus on identifying more comprehensive solutions to Colorado’s transportation challenges while recognizing the unique needs of our City.  Out of the 150 miles of existing or proposed beltway segments circling Denver, only the five miles in Golden would go through an established community.”

Sloan added: “The judge’s decision by no means completes the Jefferson Parkway.  Proponents still have substantial hurdles, not least of which is securing taxpayer dollars to make the project financially viable.” 

Golden had joined the lawsuit in January to halt the transfer by the Fish and Wildlife Service of land on the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge for the construction of the proposed Jefferson Parkway, arguing that the Service decided to convey the land without adequate environmental reviews or mitigation.

The lawsuit alleged that the Fish and Wildlife Service (1) failed to conduct adequate environmental analysis of the effects of the property conveyance and the Jefferson Parkway, (2) unlawfully rejected Golden’s separate application for the strip of land, and (3) failed to ensure that environmental effects on the Refuge were minimized.  Golden identified a number of serious harms to the City and its residents, including congestion, noise and air pollution from increased traffic on already-congested roads.

While pursuing its lawsuit challenging the land transfer, Golden has continued to work constructively with neighboring communities and the State to identify collaborative solutions to the region’s transportation challenges that satisfy all parties.  Golden also engaged its citizens in a community conversation that evaluated possible road designs and established parameters for Golden’s discussions with these other entities.

“Communities across the region can address our common transportation needs in a responsible, cooperative manner,” said Golden Mayor Pro Tem Joe Behm.  “In that spirit, the City of Golden this year has maintained a dialogue with neighboring communities and the Colorado Department of Transportation, looking for solutions that work for various parties.  That remains our approach and our commitment today, just as it was before the judge’s ruling.”

“The lawsuit was one tool to promote appropriate regional transportation solutions,” Behm added.  “Golden will maintain its commitment to these discussions, with the goal of identifying solutions that work for the entire region, even as it preserves its right to energetically defend its residents against efforts that would harm them.”

Engage as a regional partner / participant

Basic Idea: Golden should seek to be a partner/participant in any legitimate regional effort to implement transportation solutions that meet our Golden Vision (GV) 2030 values and goals, including reasonable compromises on beltway-related issues.

Below are the Pros and Cons as offered by City Staff, and below that, comments from the public collected at the two Transportation Open Houses held by the City on September 24th and 26th.

At the Transportation Open House meetings, each alternative was posted, and attendees were invited to vote with star and circle stickers on the alternatives they liked and disliked. Below is a tally of those votes from both meetings. On the Golden Vision Community Forum, the public also had an opportunity to vote for the option they liked best – this option received 14 votes.

	68 Likes
	6 Dislikes

Scale back active efforts to block Jefferson Parkway

Basic Idea: Golden should scale back its expensive opposition to the Jefferson Parkway, and move to a more reactive stance if future traffic increases or other projects in our area are proposed.

Below are the Pros and Cons as offered by City Staff, and below that, comments from the public collected at the two Transportation Open Houses held by the City on September 24th and 26th.

At the Transportation Open House meetings, each alternative was posted, and attendees were invited to vote with star and circle stickers on the alternatives they liked and disliked. Below is a tally of those votes from both meetings. On the Golden Vision Community Forum, the public also had an opportunity to vote for the option they liked best – this option received 1 vote.

	2 Likes
	41 Dislikes

When you picture the future of regional transportation in and around Golden, what do you see? That was the question we asked residents during two open houses in September. The City of Golden invited all residents to discuss transportation options and where you want us to focus our time and money in the future.

About 150 Golden residents attended the open houses, hosted at Fossil Trace Golf Club and the Golden Community Center. It was an open forum with stations offering information and plenty of opportunities for people to submit their opinions on transportation issues.

As a starting point, the City presented three options and asked attendees to pick their favorite, least favorite and then provide comments on sticky notes.

Alternative #1 – Just Say No.

The basic idea of the first alternative is that Golden should continue to actively oppose the Jefferson Parkway and other efforts to add development-generated traffic to SH 93 and US 6.

Of those who voted, 20 liked this idea with comments such as “We have been involved too long to give up the fight now.” Twenty-eight people disliked this idea, commenting that “Seems like we are past this point already” and “This idea is risky without support.” All three options were also presented as a quick poll on the Golden Vision Community Forum. This option received 11 votes.

Click here to read the pros and cons of the first alternative as offered by City Staff, and all the comments generated by those who attended the meetings.

Alternative #2 – Quit Funding the Fight.

The second alternative proposes that Golden should scale back its expensive opposition to the Jefferson Parkway, and move to a more reactive stance if future traffic increases or other projects in our area are proposed. There was an overwhelming amount of dislikes for this option. Only two people liked it, with one commenting “The money spent fighting this fight would have paid for the road! I don’t think it should be a toll road but must be built soon.” On the other side, 41 people posted their dislike with comments such as “Continue the fight, do not leave it to others to choose for us” and “Money spent to define what we want and what will be built is the best money spent.” All three options were also presented as a quick poll on the Golden Vision Community Forum. This option received 1 vote.

Click here to read the pros and cons of the second alternative as offered by City Staff, and all the comments generated by those who attended the meetings.

Alternative #3 – Fight for Golden in Negotiations.

Alternative three essentially proposes that Golden should seek to be a partner/participant in any legitimate regional effort to implement transportation solutions that meet our Golden Vision 2030 values and goals, and also reasonable compromises on beltway-related issues. Six people disliked this idea, with comments such as “If compromise means tolled lanes through Golden, it is wrong” and “City Council needs to completely fight this.” Alternatively, 68 people liked this idea, commenting that “Golden should negotiate the BEST deal possible in all cases” and “Golden needs to have a say, but we need to consider the surrounding areas and how to draw them in rather than push them away in any plan.” All three options were also presented as a quick poll on the Golden Vision Community Forum. This option received 14 votes.

Click here to read the pros and cons of the third alternative as offered by City Staff, and all the comments generated by those who attended the meetings.

Quick Poll

A quick poll, administered both at the Transportation Open House meetings and on the Golden Vision Community Forum, revealed that most participants drive on US 6 and SH 93 nine or more times a week, and feel that addressing current and future transportation needs along those roads is very important. When asked about funding options, an overwhelming majority said that a regional sales tax would be better than tolling. See the results of the poll and all the comments generated below.

Residents were also invited to participate in a webinar online in early October. The webinar outlined these same options. The entire list of comments from all the meetings and from the Golden Vision Online Forum was given to City Council for consideration in future decisions. The Council strives to be as transparent as possible in this process, and the City will make sure any actions will be presented to our residents for their feedback before action is taken.

Maintain Current Level of Focus and Opposition

Basic Idea: Golden should continue to actively oppose the Jefferson Parkway and other efforts to add development-generated traffic to SH 93 and US 6.

Below are the Pros and Cons as offered by City Staff, and below that, comments from the public collected at the two Transportation Open Houses held by the City on September 24th and 26th.

At the Transportation Open House meetings, each alternative was posted, and attendees were invited to vote with star and circle stickers on the alternatives they liked and disliked. Below is a tally of those votes from both meetings. On the Golden Vision Community Forum, the public also had an opportunity to vote for the option they liked best – this option received 11 votes.

	20 Likes
	28 Dislikes

The city is providing several opportunities for Golden residents to get the latest information about transportation developments, and to participate in the City’s transportation planning process.

To kick off the discussion, the Golden City Council will hear from transportation officials at the City Council meeting on Thursday, Sept. 13. The conversation will highlight the challenges and concerns related to transporation projects in Colorado, our region and here in Golden. The idea is to provide important broad context about the insufficient funds on federal, state, and local levels, to fund transportation needs in Golden and throughout the state.

Tax increases are always a tough sell, especially at the state level, and Coloradans are likely to be less receptive than ever to tax increases during this challenging economic period.

One alternative to taxes that remains a constant presence on the shortlist of transportation funding options is tolls, which have underwritten the costs of E-470 and the Northwest Parkway and would provide at least some funding for the proposed Jefferson Parkway.

A variation of toll roads is “managed lanes,” specific lanes within a highway available to those who want to bypass traffic, often in exchange for paying a toll. Managed lanes provide a hybrid of tolled lanes and free lanes.

These options will be discussed in more detail at the Council meeting on September 13. Residents are encouraged to attend this session at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers, 911 10th St. The meeting will also be broadcast live on Comcast Channel 8 in Golden, and a webcast will be available at www.cityofgolden.net.

Golden residents are also encouraged to attend one of two open houses on the City’s transportation plan. The open houses will take place between 5:30 and 8 p.m.; residents may arrive at any time within that window, as there is no formal presentation, just conversation. This is an opportunity for citizens to also provide comments.

Golden Transportation Open Houses

• Monday, September 24 at Fossil Trace Golf Club, 3050 Illinois St.
  5:30 – 8 p.m.
• Wednesday, September 26 at the Golden Community Center, 1470 10th St.
  5:30 – 8 p.m.

If you can’t make the open houses, the City will also hold an interactive web presentation. It will take place online at 3 p.m. on Monday, October 1. You will be able to find a link for this webinar on the homepage of www.GetTheFactsGolden.org, which remains the online hub for information about Golden’s transportation planning and related developments.

April 23, 2012 — We have positive news to report.

Two weeks ago, we told Golden residents about a proposed bill that would have deeply eroded local control and could have allowed Jefferson Parkway proponents to push a toll road through Golden without considering the needs of our community.

Today, we’re pleased to report that we’ve been told that the bill will not be introduced this legislative session.

This very positive news is a testament to the focus and energy of citizens who have made their voices heard on these issues. We were also aided by the leaders of some neighboring cities who were concerned that the proposal overreached and undermined regional cooperation.

While we don’t know yet exactly why the threat of the bill was withdrawn, we are grateful that cool heads prevailed.

Golden has been and remains committed to productive dialogue with neighboring municipalities and counties about how to address the transportation challenges our region faces.  But we made it clear that we could not productively discuss these issues with the threat of detrimental legislation hanging over our heads.

We appreciate your continued interest in these issues and we’ll continue to update you on important developments as they occur.

April 16, 2012 – Last week news emerged of proposed legislation that Jefferson County had been anxious to keep under wraps: A bill that could clear the way for future construction of Denver-area beltway-related projects by paving over Colorado’s tradition of local control.

Why has this bill been drafted in secret in the last month of the legislative session?

And why were some area municipalities that would be impacted by its provisions intentionally left in the dark?  A review of the draft bill’s language provides insight as to why Jefferson County officials may have been so eager to hide it from public scrutiny.

The bill, which remains in draft form, would create a “Beltway Completion Authority,” a whole new layer of government with unprecedented powers to override local control of municipalities and counties throughout the Denver metro area.

Colorado local governments have increasingly opted for regional cooperation to move our communities forward.  This draft legislation would be a huge step backwards from that goal, amounting to a divisive power play that puts the desires of a few powerful interests over the needs of other communities.

Colorado’s historic respect for local control was reaffirmed by the Colorado General Assembly 38 years ago with the enactment of House Bill 74-1041.  Known since then as “1041 powers,” this time-tested law allows local governments to maintain their control over particular development projects even where the development project has statewide impacts.

The projects covered by this law include the construction of airports, power plants, sewage treatment facilities, light rail tracks and waste disposal sites.  Without these 1041 protections, local communities could have projects in these categories foisted upon them without any recourse or community protection.

The proposed legislation, as initially drafted, would eviscerate 1041 powers specific to one issue – construction of beltway-related projects in the Denver metro area.

In addition, it would create a dangerous precedent that could have even broader and longer-term implications, suggesting that a few well-connected interests be allowed to steamroll Colorado’s historic commitment to local control anytime these protections prove inconvenient.

Furthermore, the bill proposes to give a new authority a sweeping power of “dominant eminent domain” that would allow it to take any property it wants from any other local government, no matter how important the purpose.

Target communities would have no defense if the authority’s unelected board of directors sought to seize parks, schools, college land, water works, open space or other facilities paid for and planned by the community.

Community organizations, environmental groups and the communities of Golden and Superior have raised significant concerns about serious implications of the proposed Jefferson Parkway toll road on the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge and the neighborhoods and citizens that surround it.

Golden participated in extensive negotiations late last year with Jefferson County, Arvada, the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority and the Colorado Department of Transportation.  Although those discussions ended without an agreement on transportation issues related to the Jefferson Parkway, Golden made it clear then that it remains open to a negotiated solution that respects the needs of Golden’s citizens.  It has continued discussions with Jefferson Parkway proponents since that time.

April 13, 2012 - In the past couple of days it was brought to the attention of the City that Jeffco and their allies are trying to sneak a bill late in this year’s congressional session that would have very serious impacts on Golden’s ability to protect our community from the adverse effects of a beltway or toll road. Mayor Marjorie Sloan made an announcement during Thursday night’s Council meeting. Below is the video and also the text of her comments. The City of Golden is currently reaching out to local governments throughout Colorado to inform them of this bill, known as the Beltway Economic Enhancement Project Act of 2012 or the “BEEP Act.”

View a draft of the proposed bill here: BEEP Act bill draft (pdf)

View Golden’s summary of the proposed bill here: BEEP Act summary (pdf)

Written version of comments from Mayor Marjorie Sloan:

Just within the last day or two, we found out about a proposed state bill that beltway backers and their allies are threatening to submit for last minute legislation in the General Assembly.  As the draft bill is written right now, it would establish a “Beltway Completion Authority” — a whole new level of government with unprecedented powers.

The authority would be composed of 18 members from the entire metro area — with Golden having one vote — and any majority decision would be conclusive. In other words, the authority would have the power to override Golden’s principled positions concerning transportation through our town.

If the bill passes, the authority would have the power to build a beltway through Golden wherever the majority of the members wanted it.

If the bill passes, it would also take away what’s called a locality’s “1041” powers. That means that the authority could design and construct a road way without including any of the elements Golden residents need to make it  compatible with our community’s shared vision.

There’s more.  If the bill passes, it would give the authority super eminent domain powers that would trump our own — meaning that any property along the route could be condemned to make way for the beltway. Our parks, open space areas, schools, residential and commercial property — all would be at risk.

City Councilors, city staff, and I have spent the past 48 hours reaching out to neighboring communities, CDOT, the Governor’s office and legislators. We’ve had some success in getting support, particularly since the bill would eviscerate the local powers of other communities as well as our own. Though the bill is specifically targeted at Golden, it would affect all communities in the metro area and set precedent for power grabs statewide. This is not just Golden’s concern.

Tonight we want to make sure our residents understand what’s going on and that we are working hard and working together to push back. Know that we’re relying on you to play a part, too.  Tell your neighbors — and friends in other communities — that they should make their outrage known. Contact county commissioners, state representatives, state senators, mayors, city councilors, editors, writers, bloggers,  and any person of influence you can think of. Our message is simple — the proposed authority is the ultimate bad idea.
We just got a draft copy of the bill today. Keep in mind this is not the final bill and could change before it is presented and it could even be retracted. But the draft gives a good idea of what they’re trying to do.

We have copies of the draft here if you’d like to look it through. Let any of us know if you have questions.

But the bottom line is that this is the one issue we all agree on. And if the bill passes we won’t have the luxury of working out our own differences. Together we have the awesome power of community – let’s put it to use.