Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates expensive, multi-agency 112th Avenue plan; motion withdrawn pending CIP review
Summary
Council extensively debated options to develop 112th Avenue (between Chambers and Bison Ridge area), questioning cost estimates, funding responsibility and coordination with partners; after concerns about budget priorities and missing data, the maker withdrew the motion for further study at the CIP/budget retreat.
Commerce City Council spent a substantial portion of its Jan. 5 meeting debating a motion to direct the city manager to identify design and development options for 112th Avenue, a long-discussed corridor north of the city.
The motion asked staff to present potential design concepts, processes, anticipated timelines and community‑engagement plans for developing 112th Avenue westward toward the Bison Ridge Recreation Center. City Manager Andrew Rogers told council that constructing the corridor as a fully built roadway could cost in the tens of millions — "between 10 and 20,000,000" for certain project components — while other presenters and council members cited larger, system‑level estimates ranging from $40 million up to about $100 million, depending on upstream flood‑control and utility work.
Opponents said the motion came ahead of the council’s capital improvement project prioritization process. Council Member Dukes and others warned that commissioning design concepts and cost estimates could itself cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and divert staff time from higher‑priority projects. Dukes estimated design work could be around $500,000 and said the broader scope could balloon if additional partners’ obligations were required.
Mayor Pro Tem Paul Tim Noble and other council members pushed for continuing study but wanted clarity on funding responsibilities, the role of prior consolidated development agreements, and coordination with external agencies such as the Mile High Flood District and FRICO. Staff explained past CDA negotiations and permitting constraints (Army Corps, wetlands, O’Brien Canal impacts) and reiterated that advancing the project now could require the city to take on partner obligations.
Council discussed a possible short‑term option (roughly $1.8 million) to open the road in a temporary dirt configuration to restore local connectivity, but members expressed concern about long‑term costs and priority tradeoffs. After extended debate and repeated requests to fold this into the February CIP/budget retreat for prioritization, the maker withdrew the motion and the item will be revisited as staff and council place the project into the overall capital improvement and transportation master plan process.
Council members stressed requests for clear funding scenarios and partner commitments before authorizing design expenditures. There was no formal vote on a construction appropriation during the meeting.
