STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ROUTT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK June 29, 2009

Chair Douglas B. Monger called the public meeting of the Routt County Board of County Commissioners to order. Commissioners Nancy J. Stahoviak and Diane Mitsch Bush; County Manager Tom Sullivan; Paul Draper and Heather McLaughlin, Road and Bridge; Robin Craigen, Lisa Shafer, Jackie Brown, Stuart Handloff, Gretchen and Marc Sehler, Stewart Beall, James Morgan, Dan Chovan, Chris Johns, Carol O’Hare, Riley Polumbus, David Williams, Johanna Hill, and Steve Flechenstein, Routt County Riders; Tom Ross, Steamboat Today; Molly Killien, Steamboat Chamber and Resort Association; T. J. and C. J. Fisher, Robert Schuellion, Tom Dougan, and Tom Chaney, Over the Hill Gang; David Bustos and Mike Curzon, Routt County Sheriff’s Office; B. J. and Chuck Vale, Phaedra Fegley, Steve Williams, Theo Dexter, Mary Ann Wall, Robert Ames, Pat West, Michael Loomis, Joanne and Stephen Downes, Vince Arroyo, Clay Lovett, Arne Stemsrud, Catherine Carson, Linda Curzon, Kristen Stemp, Sterve Williams, Theo Dexter, Mary Ann Wall, Robert Ames, and Linda Kakela, citizens; Kent Foster, United States Forest Service; Paige Boucher, Mountain Hardwear; Butch Boucher, Brad Bingham, and Corey Piscopo, Moots Cycles; Carri Wullner, Smartwool; Janet Hruby, City of Steamboat Springs; Cathy Wiedemer and Kurt Spitzner, Tailwind Tours; Geneva Taylor, Routt County Seniors; Kent Eriksen, Kent Eriksen Cycles, and Katie Lindquist, Rocky Peak Productions, were also present. Diana Bolton recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes.

EN RE: SHARED USE ON COUNTY ROADS

Commissioner Monger said that last year when the striping of the road in Strawberry Park was addressed, the County Commissioners had determined that further discussion was needed regarding multiple uses of County roads and ways to encourage alternative transportation methods. The Board would discuss information provided by staff this evening and the following week would address the ways in which to increase the safety of multi-use of the road system. The County’s current $5 million budget deficit and the general economic climate that has reduced the County’s revenues and challenged the meeting of operational expenses were at present not conducive to initiating road improvement projects, but ways in which→to→change→the→County’s→plans→and→policies→could→be→revisited.

Ms. McLaughlin, the County’s Road and Bridge Engineer, summarized the handout, Routt County Road and Bridge Shared Uses on County Roads, which contained State statutes regarding uses on county roads as follows:

Pedestrians and animals should stay on the left edge of the roadway and face traffic as much as practical. When hitch-hiking, either side of the road was permissible. Bicycles and motorized bicycles should ride as close to the right side of the road as possible. Bicycles and other human-powered vehicles should follow all vehicular laws as well as local ordinances; shall ride in the right-hand lane as close to the edge as practicable or,

Page 2009-352 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes where available, on the paved shoulder; bicycle riders shall ride single file unless riding two abreast will not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, and persons riding two abreast shall ride within a single lane; drivers shall not pass a bicyclist moving in the same direction and in the same lane when oncoming traffic is present unless the driver can allow oncoming vehicles at least one-half of the main-traveled portion of the roadway and allow the bicyclist at least a three-foot separation between the right side of the driver’s vehicle and the left side of the bicyclist. Traveling on skis, roller skis, toboggans, coasting sleds, skates, or similar devices is prohibited on the roads except at crossings. Snowmobiles may be operated on streets and highways to cross roads at a 90°angle after coming to a complete stop; no motorized vehicles other than cars, trucks, and snowmobiles are allowed to be operated on portions of County Roads 129 and 62. Drivers of vehicles should sound the horn to alert pedestrians and children of their approach. Operators of bicycles or other human-powered vehicles on a roadway at less than normal speed of traffic should ride in the right-hand lane if it is wide enough to be safely shared but may use another lane when preparing for a left-hand turn, overtaking a slower vehicle, or avoiding hazards or road conditions.

Ms. McLaughlin said that Routt County Roads 129, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 27, 14, and 18 and Amethyst Drive were roads used most frequently by cyclists. Other uses of County roads included agricultural vehicles, animal riders, pedestrians, and snowmobiles. The information just summarized was sent a week ago to several organizations and citizens. Approximately 40 e-mail responses were received, the majority of which were positive and supported the widening of shoulders and roadways, the elimination of chip-and-seal, and the enforcement of snowmobile laws on County Roads 129 and 62; many comments acknowledged the cost factor inherent in the suggested improvements. The Road and Bridge Department was trying to be as informative and unbiased as possible so that the next steps could be openly discussed.

Mr. Draper said that the County’s basic reference, written from a traffic engineering perspective and published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), was called ‘The Green Book’. The other essential County reference was the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), published by the federal government and mandated for counties’ use by State law. When traveling in other states, motorists could be confident that signage has the same meaning as it does in Colorado. When citizens request that a sign be installed, the MUTCD determines whether the request is allowable.

Mr. Draper said that in regard to lane width, the AASHTO standard was between ten and twelve feet wide; the higher speed, principal, arterial roads were to be 12 feet wide. On low-traffic or low-speed roads, narrower road widths had some advantages. Mr. Draper explained that a bicycle lane was a designated lane with pavement markings and street signage. The City of Steamboat Springs striped bike lanes, and cyclists are required to operate in that lane, but Routt County has no designated bike lanes; rather Routt County has shared roadways—streets or highways without any bicycle designation. The white line on the right edge of a driving lane was a fog line that helps guide motor vehicles by indicating the right

Page 2009-353 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes side of the traveled way to motorists. Fog lines were particularly important as a guide when motorists were approached by an oncoming vehicle at night. The minimum width for a designated bike lane was four feet, preferably five feet, and AASHTO stipulated that such routes should have smooth surfaces and regularly be swept and maintained. Routt County is not meeting those requirements because the roads are shared rather than designated bike lanes. The MUTCD stipulates that rural arterial roads and collectors should be striped with an edge line if they are a minimum of 20 feet in width and have a minimum of 3,000 vehicles per day. The edge might remain unmarked if a bike lane were present, if the road were curvy and/or had parking, or if the road had no shoulder. Two signs that the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Routt County use to signify Share the Road status are the picture of a car, a bicycle, and a jogger, and a picture of a bicycle and the wording, Share the Road.

In regard to costs, Mr. Draper said that one mile of fog line on both sides of a road cost $482; one mile of sweeping cost $125. The cost to widen a road without reconstruction depended on the topography adjacent to the road: factors included whether the area was flat or steeply sloped. The improvement to approximately four miles of County Road 129 in the Mad Creek area was estimated at $500,000 per mile; reconstruction with right-of-way acquisition costs between $1.5 and $2 million, which would be the per-mile cost of projects such as County Road 14. Since County Road 129 was originally designated a forest road, it was eligible for federal money. The County used federal funds to construct shoulders on County Road 129. Typically, County roads had two 12-foot-wide driving lanes and two 3-foot- wide shoulders. County Road 129, due to its high usage by campers, trailers, and other recreational vehicles, had 15’-wide lanes in the improved sections. CDOT required an over- width permit if a vehicle were over eight feet wide. The definition of a traveled way was unclear but generally meant the portion of the road actually driven on. When Road and Bridge did not sweep, the traffic way was evident in the accumulation of stone on the untraveled portion of a road.

The Commissioners had asked Road and Bridge to research other counties’ practices. Summit County had an extensive paved, non-motorized pathway system, pavement, and striping. Routt County had similar types of standards, uses, and zoning. Where Routt County might have a total of 30 feet of pavement for arterial roads, Summit County paved a total of 36 feet. Less traveled Summit County roads were a total of 30 feet. Pitkin County, which had a strong bicycle community, did not specify separate trails from roadways, but it did have specific policies on sharing the roads. In Boulder County all of the roads that historically had significant bicycle use had pavement overlay shoulders. Mr. Draper stated that what worked in Routt County was what should determine the rules and standards. For example, Routt County’s maximum grade is 7%; in Boulder County, it is 8%.

Mr. Draper explained that when a road was striped, one center line and the fog line were painted simultaneously in the first pass so the lane width was visually a fixed distance; the second pass would stripe the second fog line independent from the first stripe. Road width also varied due to several factors, but every attempt was made to make striping and road width consistent Countywide. He announced that all County roads had been striped already, with the exception of County Roads 14, 15/17 (the back road to Phippsburg), and 16, all of which would be chip-sealed this year before they would be striped.

Page 2009-354 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD

Questions (→) and answers (–) labeled ‘Staff; but generally from Paul Draper, are summarized as follows:

Commissioner Stahoviak: → Are copies of the digest of State regulations pertaining to bicycle and motorized bicycle riders mentioned on Page 1 of the handout available for distribution in Routt County? – Mr. Draper: No, but they can be accessed on-line from www.cot.state.co.us/bikeped/; the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and TDM Manager can be reached at [email protected]. – Commissioner Stahoviak: That website should be included on the County Road and Bridge website. → Page 2 of the handout states that local authorities could supplement the digest with additional regulations. Has Routt County adopted any additional regulations pertaining to bicycles? – Staff: There are no additional adopted regulations. The State and CDOT statutes apply for local law to enforce unless the County chooses to adopt more stringent regulations. → Is the State regulation that allows counties to adopt a bicycle registration policy still applicable? →–Yes. →Page 9 notes costs. The cost to sweep bike lanes is $125 per mile. Have other jurisdictions that have similar climates indicated how often roads with designated bike lanes have to be swept? – Staff: No Colorado county has designated bike lanes so no one has a sweeping policy nor is any county obligated to sweep a road. – Staff: We are considering sweeping. We sweep County Road 129, and we broom County Road 33. If we were to sweep to benefit cyclists, we would do it twice a year, in early spring and in mid-summer. – Commissioner Stahoviak: If we were to commit to sweeping, we need to know the cost of sweeping any given road that currently has high cycling use. – Staff: Those roads’ mileages could be provided. – Commissioner Mitsch Bush: Only County Roads 129, 33, 27, and 14, plus Amethyst Drive of the most frequented by cyclists were paved at present. → Although fog lines are not intended to designate bike lanes, they are painted in a way that creates a paved shoulder to the right of the fog line. The Eagle County guidelines state, ‘A paved shoulder is a de facto bikeway when present, but is different from a Bike Lane in that it is not signed nor meant exclusively for the use of bicycles.’ Further discussion about County roads that have a paved shoulder and a fog line should occur. My understanding was that the intent of creating a paved shoulder, even if not the width of a designated bike lane, was to allow safe travel for bicycles. Our expectation would be that, as far as practical, the bicycles would ride on the outer side of the fog line. When we widen a road to allow for a paved shoulder, we are creating a de facto path for bicycles to ride on. Is that correct? – Staff: We have shared roadways. We are not saying it is a bike lane; to do so we would have to stripe it , sign it, and paint a picture of a bike in the lane. – Commissioner Stahoviak: So is our expectation that cyclists, if they can, should ride on the other side of the white line as opposed to the left side of the white line where there is motor vehicle traffic? – Staff: You have to reference the statute: Was that lane a practicable place for a cyclist to ride a bike? Nothing in the statute requires a cyclist to ride to the right of a fog line. We have discussed not striping a fog line and thought that traffic might sweep the lane better if no fog line were present. The white line is not there for the cyclist; it is there to guide the motorist. In striping a fog line, it is not the intent to create a bike lane or path or biking area. – Commissioner Stahoviak: If that is Page 2009-355 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes the case, we spent a lot of time last year discussing the creation of a safe place for bicycles to ride on County Road 36 that was not the width of a bike lane. As we move forward in creating a policy, we need to acknowledge why paved shoulders are put on roads. – Staff: The design and purpose of a shoulder is to create a wider drivable lane for a motor vehicle to give the motorist a path of least resistance and time to correct himself before getting into a different terrain off-pavement. – Staff: According to AASHTO, ‘A shoulder is the portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way that accommodates stopped vehicles, emergency use, lateral support of sub-base base and surface courses. In some courses, the shoulder can accommodate bicyclists. It varies in width from only two feet on minor rural roads where there is no surfacing, or the surfacing is applied over the entire roadbed to approximately 12 feet on major roads, or the entire shoulder may be stabilized or paved. The term shoulder is variously used→with→a→bottom→line→adjective→to→describe→certain→functional→or→physical→characteristics.’

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Shafer, representing Routt County Riders, presented a handout that listed many economic advantages of cycling. She said that Ride the Rockies cyclists daily generated in each host town $270,000 of income for local businesses as well as provided fundraising, grant, and publicity opportunities. Many of those cyclists returned later as tourists. She said that Steamboat had decent roads for biking; attracting cyclists would help pay for road improvements.

Mr. Handloff, representing Routt County Riders, said that a few years ago he biked from Steamboat to Durango and visited virtually every community in between. He stated that Steamboat had the greatest road potential and infrastructure in terms of making County roads an economically viable cycling asset: Routt County has a variety of routes, less traffic volume, and good maintenance and capital improvements. He said that good roads for cyclists were a benefit for everyone. He stated that cyclists wanted to partner with the County and suggested that the County create a standing multi-modal road advisory committee to maintain communication and continue the dialogue about road improvements that accommodated multiple uses.

Mr. Beall said that the communications dialogue just mentioned should emphasize bicycle etiquette and safety. He said that safety was an issue for cyclists on County Road 14, particularly when vehicular traffic was moving in both directions, cyclists were forced off the road. Another safety problem was breakouts in the roads, especially in spring. Motorists do not see those breaks in the pavement, but cyclists have to swerve around them. More effort to educate everyone about the issues would benefit everyone.

Mr. Craigen, Routt County Riders President, presented a PowerPoint that touched on the diversity of activities in the County historically and in the present time, including tourism, ranching, mining, commuting, recreators hauling sporting equipment, cyclists, and construction, all of which increase traffic on the County’s fragile, overloaded roads that need to be improved and made safer. The County has supported the Bicycle Friendly Community Initiative and responded when cyclists had asked that shoulders not be chip-sealed. The Master Plan calls for a multimodal system of corridors, roadways, and pathways to safely move people efficiently and environmentally-consciously, which was not currently occurring, Page 2009-356 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes particularly in regard to safety. He asked that those dangerous situations be resolved for the benefit of the entire community. He noted that Steamboat Springs had four bike shops and two bicycle manufacturers, which indicated a strong cycling presence in the community. He discussed a survey conducted on-line and responded to by 294 residents that gleaned considerable and often-repeated comments and presented the Board with a copy of the survey responses. Statistics included the number of cycles owned per family; the percentage of cyclists who commute, and the opinion that County Road 129 was the most dangerous County road, followed by County Road 14 to the main entrance to Stagecoach State Park to the north intersection with State Highway 131. The survey also said that paved shoulders and striped lanes were needed; improved roads would benefit tourism, and cycling tourism should be promoted. He asserted that pavement needed to be rideable, i.e. swept regularly, and efficient roads would benefit retail sales and everyone’s safety and reduce driving time and wear and tear on vehicles. He said that Routt County Riders was working on an educational campaign for riders and drivers, wished to help make the roads safer, would support all efforts to make the community more bicycle friendly, and would partner with the County in the political, the educational, and the advocacy/funding processes. He thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of the needs of the cycling community as an important part of the current community.

Mr. Johns, the proprietor of Wheels Bicycle Shop, said that the cycling community was large and had been growing since he moved here in 1985. Then, few cycling problems existed because there were fewer cyclists on the roads; fewer mountain bike trails, fewer cycling commuters, and no Bike Path. At present, with activities promoting cycling such as the successful Bike to Work Week, children learning to ride, BMX riders, and other activities both recreational and educational occurring, the cycling community would continue to grow and Steamboat would soon become known as Bike Town, USA. Many jobs were connected to cycling: touring companies, bike shops, and manufacturers. The roads were multi-use and should be widened to create bicycle lanes. He encouraged the Board to be on the forefront to designate bicycle lanes as Boulder had done. He had lived in many states and recommended that Routt County model its bicycle road system after Tucson, Arizona’s. He stated that safety was key, and improvements should be made immediately to prevent tragic accidents. He said that many of his customers would not ride on the County roads due to safety concerns. He reiterated that cycling was huge in Steamboat so having a good road system was crucial.

Mr. Arroyo advocated for mandatory bicycle registration. Another funding mechanism would be to increase the fine for running a stop sign. Such fees and fines could pay for sweeping and would enhance safety.

Ms. Wiedemer, Tailwind Tours, a new Steamboat-based road and mountain-biking company, said that her tours occurred in Wyoming due to its road conditions and the need to offer a safe cycling experience. She would like to conduct tours in Steamboat so advocated safe roadways and education of cyclists and motorists.

Ms. Boucher said that as a parent, she had organized the Hike and Bike School Days for Steamboat’s schoolchildren to promote the importance of daily exercise, reduce traffic, enhance cognitive abilities, and encourage independence. Parents who had helped with the

Page 2009-357 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes activity in the past had declined this year because it was unsafe. She stated that bike lanes and safe crossings at intersections were critical safety measures. As a manager of Mountain Hardwear, manufacturer of sporting equipment that had researched and planned to produce biking gear and has two full-time employees, she attested to biking equipment being an area of economic growth for the community. She added that Smartwool, another local enterprise, was also developing a line of biking gear. Thus, cycling provided jobs for the local economy.

Ms. Brown said that she as well as many other friends used the County roads to commute to work. She encountered much glass, rock, and gravel on those rides and asked the Board to promote commuting to work, to sweep the roads, and to make any improvements that could make a cycling commute safer for everyone.

Mr. Loomis, a resident of County Road 38A, thought that fog lines were for cyclists, not motorists. He stated that education was important as was the development of a policy on road evaluation for the future, the mechanism by which maintenance and improvements would be prioritized, and the ways in which to improve road safety for all users, all of which would include safe cycling. He said that he rode County Road 36 daily, and although a fog line had been striped, he rode in the same place as he had before the shoulder was striped because that was the safe area, considering the slope of the shoulder and the presence of road debris.

Ms. Schafer provided additional examples of the economic benefits of cycling tourism that could help pay for road improvements: Kent and Katie organized and led the annual Tour of Steamboat; a Stage Race was planned for Labor Day Weekend, and the Lance Armstrong Foundation was sponsoring a ride in Steamboat next year. She noted that CDOT claimed that nearly 10% of Coloradans had had a Colorado cycling vacation within the last year; cycling generated a total annual revenue of $48 million, and of 699,000 who had bicycle vacations in Colorado, 276,000 stated that they would have altered their destination if bicycling had not been available. She encouraged the Board to partner with Routt County Riders, to tap into the cycling tourism dollars, and to promote a bicycle-friendly community.

Mr. Piscopo said that he was organizing the Labor Day bicycle race. In doing so, he had met with many business owners and residents. He had received great support in regard to financial contributions, prizes, and sponsorships. Residents had also signed a petition in support of road closures for the event. Based on the community’s responses, his conclusion was that cycling had a significant role in the community’s economy and was enthusiastically supported.

Mr. Williams, a resident of Stagecoach, said that he regularly rode County Road 14 into Steamboat. He was encouraged to hear the County’s policies this evening, had obtained the State information regarding road widths, and, on his way into town this evening, had measured the road widths along the route. He said that County Road 14 south of the Reservoir was ideal for cycling: it had a good surface, good shoulders that averaged 2.5’, and a reasonable width of 11-to-11.5’. Based on prior experience, he confirmed that the $1.5-to-$2 million road reconstruction estimate was realistic for the remainder of County Road 14. He did not consider the northern part of the road dangerous, but it was sometimes uncomfortable, particularly when empty gravel trucks were on the road, although the drivers seemed

Page 2009-358 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes conscientious about his presence. He said that the policies discussed this evening were a step in the right direction: Education efforts should continue; signage should be added, and more enforcement and ticketing drivers as well as cyclists who were not following the rules might help fund the requested road improvements and would certainly enhance safety.

Ms. Kakela, a resident of County Road 36, said that uses of the road had evolved over time. The road was accessible and accommodated multiple uses. She related a conversation with a Sheriff’s deputy in which she was informed that the highest speed prior to the road being narrowed was 73 mph, and 54 mph after the narrowing. She suggested that a designation of County Road 36 as a local historic or scenic byway be explored because it linked historic downtown with Perry-Mansfield and the Strawberry Park Hot Springs, both of which had historic designation. She said that as cultural tourism grew and cyclists and pedestrians with strollers used the roads, such a designation of a section of several County roads, coupled with a reduced, enforced speed limit, might encourage people to slow down and enjoy the attributes of the Valley.

Commissioner Monger called for further public comment. None was forthcoming. Commissioner Monger closed public comment.

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

The comments from the County Commissioners are summarized below.

Commissioner Mitsch Bush: → The intent of this evening’s meeting was to hear from Road and Bridge and the public . The Commissioners appreciate the sharing of ideas and the spirit of partnership expressed. The notion that a safe road was beneficial to everyone had been expressed repeatedly. → Suggestions to further consider include the establishment of a multimodal advisory committee that would advise Road and Bridge and the Board and the exploration of a special designation for portions of certain County roads. → Other issues raised included sweeping, signage, ways to promote road user education, enforcement of vehicular and cycling rules, lane widths and uses, and standards when roads are improved. → For the 2007 ballot issue, improvements such as road widening and shoulders were proposed for County Roads 14, 129, as well as other roads. Obtaining rights-of-way to widen roads was an expensive aspect of road improvement. → Paved roads were the focus of this evening’s discussion, but cyclists as well as runners used several unpaved roads, including the end of County Road 36, 38, and County Road 42. In considering roads warranting improvement, have any roads been overlooked? →Policies supported by the Routt County Master Plan and other area plans to promote safe multimodal use should be further developed. →CDOT defines a fog line and shoulder on a State highway as serving two purposes: 1) It serves as a demarcation of the driving line and provides a margin of safety for motorized users, and 2) it provides a useable area for bicycles.

Commissioner Stahoviak: →The interactive dialogue between the Board and its citizens is critical when Page 2009-359 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes considering important community issues. The input received this evening is greatly appreciated. →The Board considers the County road system, not any roads within Steamboat Springs, over which the Board has no authority. However, the County could work cooperatively with the City of Steamboat Springs when County road improvements were being considered. → County roads evolved from farm-to-market roads. Some of those roads were simply paved over without a sub-surface base, for example County Road 14, which is the reason such roads require extensive reconstruction and thus substantial funding. Although tourism could help pay for improvements, the improvements need to be made prior to attracting the tourists, and currently, finding that funding was a significant challenge for the County. Offers made this evening to help the County obtain that funding were welcome and appreciated. → The County demonstrated its desire to improve safety and use on County roads by developing the ballot issue for safer roads that failed. Cyclist safety was incorporated in those proposed improvements.

Commissioner Monger: → Many ideas had been provided this evening. Next week’s meeting will narrow the focus. Further discussion is warranted on the development of a citizens’ committee to prioritize road improvements; on all options available and their purpose, advantages, and disadvantages on ideas such as requiring bicycle registration; the ongoing provision of educational materials for everyone; the presence of fog lines; sweeping some County roads that connect to State (131) and federal (40) highways, prioritizing the roads to be swept and budgeting that task, and a discussion of the Road and Bridge budget and all that it entails. → The cycling and motoring communities need to work together: Cycling is growing and here to stay so entitlement needs to be resolved. The attitude that better roads benefit everyone is a good start, as are the offers to partner with the County. Partnerships need to include the cycling organizations, the construction world, and the agricultural community as well as the County. Inclusive objectives are necessary, and the solutions offered this evening are appreciated. → The County had already appointed two road committees and had developed the tax issue, some of which could have been handled differently, but the Board was always striving to improve roads and determine the ways by which to fund those improvements. → Another tax issue at this time was inappropriate, but moving forward with policy- making was appropriate. → We need standards by which improvements are made and policies that reflect those standards. → The population and traffic patterns are continually changing; policies must accommodate such changes. → Development of a sweeping policy should be further explored. → The Board has always supported cycling and acknowledged its economic benefits, but could not in good conscience promote cycling tourism until the County road system was safe. Routes had to be established for cycling because not every County road could be improved to meet cycling standards. →The next step should involve a focus of this evening’s discussion for next week’s meeting to move toward the development of policies and their implementation implications.

Page 2009-360 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes The Commissioners agreed that issues raised for further discussion and potential policy development include:

Standards for a sweeping policy, including which roads, the cost, and how often; Standards for road improvements and/or new road construction; Signage—where→needed→and→cost; Phasing designated routes; Fog lines, and Bicycle registration.

Topics that might warrant the creation of committees include:

What is effective education and how is it disseminated? The designation of portions of County roads as scenic or historic.

A meeting on July 6, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room will be held to address the above-mentioned issues.

No further business coming before the Board, same adjourned sine die.

______Kay Weinland, Clerk and Recorder Douglas B. Monger, Chair

______Date

Page 2009-361 June 29, 2009 Routt→County→Board→of→County→Commissioners’→Minutes