The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20073356.tiff Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:57 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Prevent Weld County Road Closures Original Message From: Steve Wallace [mailto:swa11589@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 8:38 PM To: Bill Jerke Subject: Prevent Weld County Road Closures Subject: Weld County road closures I am sending this email in regards to Union Pacific wanting to close some Weld County roads. No roads should be closed for this proposed railyard between Fort Lupton and Brighton . Before you say this is a local issue and not a concern of Weld County please think about the following items: 1 Weld County citizens in the area will be adversely affected by any road closure. 2 Weld County citizens on WCR 8 paid $500 each to have that road paved. 3 Some of the roads in the proposed area are still in Weld County so you have jurisdiction over any vacating of those roads at this time. 4 Even if the entire area for the proposed railyard is annexed into Fort Lupton / Brighton , you should get a referral from those municipalities. Weld County should still oppose any attempt to vacate the roads. Please start by passing a resolution similar to the one that Fort Lupton City Council passed opposing the closing of any Weld County roads. Then follow that up with a refusal to vacate any roads. Sincerely, Steve Wallace Do You Yahoo!? M h 1 — 4n-yunwao PL 1930 Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:56 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Weld County Road Closures Original Message From: EquineOpp@aol.com [mailto:EquineOpp@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:02 PM To: Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia Subject: Weld County Road Closures Gentelmen, I am writing concerning the proposed closures of some Weld County roads due to the pending RR which is being forced on us. Interesting that the local paper and citizen groups where blaming the RR for these proposed road closures, only to find out that it is our own Weld County Commissioners who had this brilliant idea. How in the world do you expect to close these roads and not have it adversely effect those of us living out here?? I've been told you are kind of passing the buck on this and telling people this is a local issue and not a Weld County issue. . I'm really confused. . Who actually proposed these road closures? Who do I need to address my concerns to? And will what I have to say really get to the right ears and matter anyway?? I am so frustrated with this whole RR deal. And I do not want my road, WCR 10, closed! ! The railroad is already going to make a mess of my property values, now I won't be able to conveniently get to my rapidly deprecating home. Carrie Stenseth 15497 WCR 10 Ft Lupton, CO 80621 See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL Your Homepage <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> . eaZcu no //-7 41 z a 71 PL/93o Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:51 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Closure of Weld County Roads Original Message From: LSPermitco®aol.com [mailto:LSPermitco®aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:22 AM To: Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia Subject: Closure of Weld County Roads Subject: Weld County road closures I am sending this email in regards to Union Pacific wanting to close some Weld County roads. No roads should be closed for this proposed railyard between Fort Lupton and Brighton. Before you say this is a local issue and not a concern of Weld County please think about the following items: 1 Weld County citizens in the area will be adversely affected by any road closure. 2 Weld County citizens on WCR 8 paid $500 each to have that road paved. 3 Some of the roads in the proposed area are still in Weld County so you have jurisdiction over any vacating of those roads at this time. 4 Even if the entire area for the proposed railyard is annexed into Fort Lupton / Brighton, you should get a referral from those municipalities. Weld County should still oppose any attempt to vacate the roads. Please start by passing a resolution similar to the one that Fort Lupton City Council passed opposing the closing of any Weld County roads. Then follow that up with a refusal to vacate any roads. I currently live on Weld CR 10 between 29 and 31. Instead of 1.5 mile of paved road - I will be traveling 4 .5 miles to reach my home - two miles of which are unpaved roads. The majority of the owners along road 10 will have to travel on 29 and 31 (gravel) to reach their homes. The increased traffic on the roads will cause more maintenance issues which the county will be responsible for. Please don't let UPRR close any of the paved roads. Make them construct flyovers at each intersection. They have the money to do it - they just want to pocket it - instead. Thanks for your consideration. Lisa Smith PermitCo Inc. 14421 County Road 10 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 303-857-9999 x 10 (work) 303-857-0577 (fax) 303-324-9350 (cell) See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL Your Homepage <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> . 2 Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:53 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Subject: Weld County road closures Original Message From: Bradshaw, Tricia [mailto:Tricia.Bradshaw@COORS.COM] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:07 AM To: Rob Masden; William Garcia; Bill Jerke Subject: Subject: Weld County road closures I am sending this email in regards to Union Pacific wanting to close some Weld County roads. No roads should be closed for this proposed railyard between Fort Lupton and Brighton. Before you say this is a local issue and not a concern of Weld County please think about the following items: 1 Weld County citizens in the area will be adversely affected by any road closure. 2 Weld County citizens on WCR 8 paid $500 each to have that road paved. 3 Some of the roads in the proposed area are still in Weld County so you have jurisdiction over any vacating of those roads at this time. 4 Even if the entire area for the proposed railyard is annexed into Fort Lupton / Brighton, you should get a referral from those municipalities. Weld County should still oppose any attempt to vacate the roads. Please start by passing a resolution similar to the one that Fort Lupton City Council passed opposing the closing of any Weld County roads. Then follow that up with a refusal to vacate any roads. Tricia Bradshaw &Thivi u n;ca . , !/-/4- 7 1 /9[19 Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:53 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW:Weld Co road closures Original Message From: Valerie Bullock (mailto:vbullockx2@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:44 AM To: Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia Subject: Weld Co road closures Subject: Weld County road closures I am sending this email in regards to Union Pacific wanting to close some Weld County roads. No roads should be closed for this proposed railyard between Fort Lupton and Brighton. Before you say this is a local issue and not a concern of Weld County please think about the following items: 1 Weld County citizens in the area will be adversely affected by any road closure. 2 Weld County citizens on WCR 8 paid $500 each to have that road paved. 3 Some of the roads in the proposed area are still in Weld County so you have jurisdiction over any vacating of those roads at this time. 4 Even if the entire area for the proposed railyard is annexed into Fort Lupton / Brighton, you should get a referral from those municipalities. Weld County should still oppose any attempt to vacate the roads. Please start by passing a resolution similar to the one that Fort Lupton City Council passed opposing the closing of any Weld County roads. Then follow that up with a refusal to vacate any roads. 1 /1nhfibtrJie6 . w,� o II-I4-zOo7 1 pLl93o Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:07 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW:WELD COUNTY ROAD CLOSURES Original Message From: ATSISHOP@aol.com (mailto:ATSISHOP@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:06 AM To: Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia Subject: WELD COUNTY ROAD CLOSURES Subject: Weld County road closures I am sending this email in regards to Union Pacific wanting to close some Weld County roads. No roads should be closed for this proposed railyard between Fort Lupton and Brighton. Before you say this is a local issue and not a concern of Weld County please think about the following items: 1 Weld County citizens in the area will be adversely affected by any road closure. 2 Weld County citizens on WCR 8 paid $500 each to have that road paved. 3 Some of the roads in the proposed area are still in Weld County so you have jurisdiction over any vacating of those roads at this time. 4 Even if the entire area for the proposed railyard is annexed into Fort Lupton / Brighton, you should get a referral from those municipalities. Weld County should still oppose any attempt to vacate the roads. Please start by passing a resolution similar to the one that Fort Lupton City Council passed opposing the closing of any Weld County roads. Then follow that up with a refusal to vacate any roads. See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL Your Homepage <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> . 691-nb ni eatta np ///1/--veo 7 ?L/9 3n Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:01 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Subject:Weld County road closures Original Message From: ColoDuo@aol.com [mailto:ColoDuo@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:37 AM To: Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia Subject: Subject: Weld County road closures I am sending this email in regards to Union Pacific wanting to close some Weld County roads. No roads should be closed for this proposed railyard between Fort Lupton and Brighton. Before you say this is a local issue and not a concern of Weld County please think about the following items: 1 Weld County citizens in the area will be adversely affected by any road closure. 2 Weld County citizens on WCR 8 paid $500 each to have that road paved. 3 Some of the roads in the proposed area are still in Weld County so you have jurisdiction over any vacating of those roads at this time. 4 Even if the entire area for the proposed railyard is annexed into Fort Lupton / Brighton, you should get a referral from those municipalities. Weld County should still oppose any attempt to vacate the roads. Please start by passing a resolution similar to the one that Fort Lupton City Council passed opposing the closing of any Weld County roads. Then follow that up with a refusal to vacate any roads. See what's new at AOL.com chttp: //www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL Your Homepage <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> . &-IrWYbWY1/&PIA:5 y O .31407 1 PL/93c) Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:23 AM To: Bill Jerke Cc: Donald Carroll; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick; Thomas Honn Subject: RE: Commissioner Jerke: Attached is previous correspondence provided to Commissioner Garcia on the status of the County roads South of Fort Lupton and North of Brighton, all East of CR 27 See the correspondence below. Staff has not responded to the question of Mr. Thaden Staff is able to follow-up with a similar response. It is important to state that the Application has not been submitted, nor have the due diligence findings been provided by the applicant or their representative's Kim Ogle I Planning Manager From: Drew Scheltinga Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:26 PM To: William Garcia Cc: Kim Ogle; Pat Persichino Subject: RE: UP and county road 10 Bill Although we have not seen UP's final traffic study, both 8 and 10 are proposed to be closed with 6 being a bridge over the rail facility. If I remember correctly, the bridge will cost approximately $35,000, 000 (don't hold me to that) . I don't think having multiple bridges is necessary, particularly in light of the cost and the fact CDOT won' t allow any new signals on US 85. They shouldn't. The original plan was for 10 to be the access and have a bridge over the tracks. Fort Lupton objected. Scot Lewis, Pat and I looked into the options carefully and recommended 6 because of connectivity, an existing intersection signal identified in the US 85 corridor plan, and future development of 6 and 8 to 125 and I76 respectively. This is a brief explanation and there is more to it. If you want more detail, give me a call and we can go over the whole thing. Drew Scheltinga, P. E. Weld County Engineer 1111 H Street P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 970-304-6496 X3750 dscheltinga@co.weld.co.us From: William Garcia Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:19 PM To: Drew Scheltinga; Kim Ogle Subject: FW: UP and county road 10 Drew or Kim, do you have any info on this? Bill G. From: William Garcia 1 4ilrrt uc7 / 20 !l-lk-2667 ��/930 Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:49 AM To: COMMISSIONERS Cc: Thomas Honn Subject: UP and county road 10 Charlotte Jones from Ft. Lupton was at the UP open house yesterday and it was her understanding from speaking with the UP folks that County Roads 8 and 10 would be closed and there would be a flyover on county road 6. She has concerns about connectivity if both 8and 10 are closed. Does anyone know about these corridors? Bill G. Original Message From: Esther Gesick Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12 :25 PM To: Bill Jerke Cc: Kim Ogle; Donald Carroll; Bruce Barker Subject: RE: Bill, The Clerk to the Board has only received one other item of correspondence on the matter, which was listed on the Agenda on 9/26/07 (#2007-3099) . I believe the project is still in the review stages with staff. I'll cc: Don Carroll, Kim Ogle, and Bruce Barker to see if they can provide you with any other background on the matter. In the mean time, I'll be sure to list this particular e-mail as correspondence on the next available Agenda. Thanks! Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970)356-4000 X4226 (970)352-0242 (fax) Original Message From: Bill Jerke Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:55 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Do you have a file going for UP? Bill J. Original Message From: JOHN M THADEN [mailto:jpthaden®msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 5:10 PM To: Bill Jerke Subject: Subject: Weld County road closures I am sending this email in regards to Union Pacific wanting to close some Weld County roads. No roads should be closed for this proposed railyard between Fort Lupton and Brighton. Before you say this is a local issue and not a concern of Weld County please think about the following items: 1 Weld County citizens in the area will be adversely affected by any road closure. 2 Weld County citizens on WCR 8 paid $500 each to have that road paved. 3 Some of the roads in the proposed area are still in Weld County so you have jurisdiction over any vacating of those roads at this time. 4 Even if the entire area for the proposed railyard is annexed into Fort Lupton / Brighton, you should get a referral from those municipalities. 2 Weld County should still oppose any attempt to vacate the roads. Please start by passing a resolution similar to the one that Fort Lupton City Council passed opposing the closing of any Weld County roads. Then follow that up with a refusal to vacate any roads. 3 Hello