Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Columbia Falls council over scale, tree loss and outreach for Gateway Safety & Mobility project
Summary
At a public hearing, residents told the Columbia Falls City Council the Gateway Safety & Mobility plan for Thirteenth Street is too large for a residential corridor, risks mature trees and lacked direct outreach; city staff said easements and design options remain under review and that tree-planting is not guaranteed one-for-one.
Residents attending a Columbia Falls City Council meeting urged changes to the Columbia Falls Gateway Safety and Mobility project, criticizing its scale on residential Thirteenth Street, potential removal of mature trees and what several called insufficient direct outreach from project communicators.
“My concerns of this project, though, is the scale, location, and transparency of it,” said Andy Zimmerman, a resident who reviewed the plan’s cross-section and said it shows multiple travel and buffer lanes on a residential street. Other residents described the plan as replacing significant green space with rock and concrete and asked why adjacent property owners were not directly contacted for input.
The project figure and scope were cited several times in public comment: speakers said the plan’s cross-section appeared to include five travel lanes, two parking lanes and multiple buffer zones on Thirteenth Street, and a resident estimated the overall project cost at about $10.5 million for roughly 1.7 miles.
City staff told the council the design derives from a 2021 transportation study and meets common development standards used by the city and many jurisdictions. Staff said temporary construction easements are being identified and that engineers will move the design from the current 60% toward a 90% design before bidding. The manager said the city has met with residents and engineers in multiple outreach sessions and will follow up individually where needed.
On tree removals, the manager said the project does not include a one-for-one tree replacement requirement but staff and the project arborist are evaluating each tree to determine whether it can be preserved. The manager added that if bid results leave funding available, adding tree plantings could be an add-on option.
Residents also raised concerns about long-term maintenance of nonliving landscaping materials; one speaker with years of landscaping and maintenance experience warned that rock surfacing can become hot and encourage weeds and that upkeep costs could fall on the city later.
Next steps listed by staff included further geotechnical information and liability analysis, a determination of required easements before bidding in October, and a public open house after contractor selection (city staff said a December open house is planned to detail contractor work and segment timing). Council members asked staff to return with a fuller report at the next meeting.
The council did not take a vote on scope changes at the session; the project remains at design and public-engagement stages.
