April 20, 2018

City Council Beltway Discussion and Decision Scheduled for Feb. 24

For two decades now, Golden has been fighting proposals to build a beltway through our community. We have been successful so far: there is no beltway plowing through Golden, and close to two years ago CDOT set aside its own plan to push a six- or eight-lane high-speed superhighway through town. But the proponents – primarily Jefferson County, Arvada, and Broomfield – came up with an alternative plan to build a ten-mile toll highway north of Golden (not through Golden) using private investment dollars.

We oppose this new proposal, known as the Jefferson Parkway, just as we oppose the beltway itself, but it’s tougher for us to stop because it isn’t within our city limits and because it doesn’t directly rely on public funding. The proponents have two main hurdles remaining. One is getting property they need along Indiana from the U.S. Department of Interior, and the other is getting the financing from the private sector. Why is Golden addressing the beltway issue right now? It’s because the proponents are very close to getting this property, and they are very close to going to the market for the investment dollars. If they raise the money, our only remaining option would be suing to try and stop them.

Can the proponents actually raise the capital needed to build the Jefferson Parkway? They are very optimistic about it, and while we are more skeptical the reality is that we don’t know. We believe anyone who invests in the Jefferson Parkway will lose their shirt, but clearly there are investors out there willing to throw down huge sums on bad deals. It’s also clear that the Jefferson Parkway proponents are going to move forward with their funding effort regardless of what we think.

In other words, our hand is now being forced, and we need to pick which strategy we believe gives us the best chance of keeping the beltway out of Golden: either trying to reach an agreement that protects Golden from the beltway and from the impacts of growing traffic through our valley, or don’t try reaching an agreement and instead look at trying to stop them through litigation. I’ve written elsewhere about the risks and tradeoffs with those options, and our www.GetTheFactsGolden.com website also has a very thorough rundown.

We brought all of this to the community in early December, as well as information about a potential agreement with Jefferson County, and asked you – everyone in the community – what you think. We put up a web site (www.GetTheFactsGolden.com) with the background information, we hosted four neighborhood meetings, and we’ve responded to a ton of email messages, returned tons of phone calls, and had numerous one-on-one conversations around town. We’ve done our best to provide all of the relevant information as candidly and accurately as possible, to answer all of your questions, and to listen carefully to all of your thoughts and ideas. More than 400 people attended the neighborhood meetings and the website logged nearly 2,000 visits.

A lot of folks have asked about the comment cards we collected during the neighborhood meetings. I’ve read them all carefully twice now, and will read them again before the 24th. About one-third of the folks that expressed an opinion on our options supported a “no agreement” view. About two-thirds of the folks that expressed opinions voiced support for trying to reach an agreement (roughly half of those supported the potential agreement we described as Option #2 and roughly half supporting an enhanced agreement). Some of the folks I talked with at the neighborhood meetings weren’t Golden residents, so these numbers probably include some Jeffco and Arvada residents (and I imagine that some of the anonymous comments were non-local as well). While I’m certainly considering their perspectives, my job as mayor is obviously to look out for Golden first.

Quite a few of the comments were either questions or just didn’t have clear opinions about our options. Some said they want to sue and to get the Golden Plan; of course if we thought we could do both we would. Some simply expressed opposition to the Jefferson Parkway or to the beltway coming through Golden, which are views that most everyone shares but which don’t shed light on which strategy they prefer.

I encourage you to download and read all of the comments yourself (go to the Feb. 24 agenda and click on “Comments from Public Input meetings”). You’ll find a wide array of views that I think accurately represents the diversity of views within our community.

These numbers are important, but this decision doesn’t reduce to a numbers game. In fact, one of the most helpful results of our neighborhood meetings is that so many of the comment cards (in addition to many of the emails, phone calls, and one-on-one conversations) raise insightful thoughts, useful perspectives, and helpful suggestions.

Based on all of the discussion and input we’ve heard, as well as any additional input we get in the next week and on February 24, the City Council is planning to make a decision that evening about our general direction moving forward. This is a complicated issue and our community has to choose between imperfect options. I haven’t yet made a decision about the best strategy for keeping the beltway out of Golden – I won’t until the 24th – but I have carefully read and considered every comment I’ve received, and I believe that everyone on City Council is doing the same.

We posted the City Council packet online ahead of schedule – it went up two days ago – to give everyone more time to review all of the documents and materials. You can download the entire packet on the City Council web page. If you have any other thoughts or questions, please shoot me an email or attend the City Council meeting on February 24 starting at 7pm at City Hall.

Keeping the Beltway Out of Golden: Neighborhood Meetings Start Tonight

As part of the community conversation about how best to keep the beltway out of Golden, we’ve scheduled four neighborhood open houses over the next two weeks. You’ll have a chance to review the history of Golden’s beltway fight, compare the two main options for continuing to keep the beltway out of Golden, get all your questions answered, and weigh in with your thoughts. We’ll also have updated maps and descriptions of Golden’s community-based Muller Plan, our own plan for fixing transportation issues in Golden like noise, pollution, congestion, neighborhood connections, and safety.

  • Southern Neighborhoods: Monday, Jan. 31, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Shelton Elementary
  • Central Neighborhoods: Tuesday, Feb. 1, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Fossil Trace Clubhouse
  • Daytime Open House: Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1-3 p.m. at City Council Chambers
  • Northern Neighborhoods: Wednesday, Feb. 9, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Mitchell Elementary

The two main options we are considering are:

Option #1: Golden can continue to fight the building of the Jefferson Parkway five miles north of Golden but make no progress on fixing existing and future transportation problems on U.S. 6 and Highway 93 in town.

or

Option #2: Golden can reach an agreement with Jefferson County that allows us to begin implementing Golden’s own Muller Plan for keeping U.S. 6 and Highway 93 safe, slow, and quiet in exchange for not suing to stop the Jefferson Parkway north of town.

We’ve got a web site up (GetTheFactsGolden) with information about both options, and we are regularly responding to community questions about those options and the risks of each. Some of the main concerns we’ve heard so far include:
You’ll find a bunch of other questions and answers on the web site, and please attend one of the neighborhood meetings if you can.

  • If we try to reach an agreement with Jefferson County, can we realistically expect to get funding to start implementing the Golden Plan for safe, slow, and quiet streets? This is a critical question, and I believe an agreement would have to include a good funding mechanism or it for sure wouldn’t make sense.
  • Why aren’t we focused on improving the arterials in Arvada? Our studies show that improving arterials like McIntyre and Indiana would improve congestion in Arvada but wouldn’t have a big impact on Golden. Since we don’t control what Arvada does to this streets, and because we don’t believe it would have a big impact on Golden regardless, we are more focused on the issues that really do impact traffic and quality of life in Golden.
  • Is the Jefferson Parkway inevitable? Some folks feel it is inevitable while others don’t think so. My view: we really don’t know if the proponents will be able to build it or not. We are pretty confident that the proponents will move ahead whether they have an agreement with Golden or not, meaning that they will take their proposal to the market in an effort to find investors. Whether there are investors out there crazy enough to throw a couple of hundred million into a road that is likely to fail is an open question.
  • If Golden sues to stop the Jefferson Parkway, what is the likelihood of winning? We’ve done a very good job of building a very strong legal case over the years, but these are difficult lawsuits. Our best guess is that if we file suit we’ve got a 50/50 chance of prevailing. If we win, the court is likely to identify specific steps that the proponents and agencies need to take, so they could potentially fix the problems with their process and make another run at it.

I hope to see many of you tonight or at one of the other neighborhood meetings this week and next.

 

The Ins and Outs of Federal Transportation Funding: Golden's Options for Funding Our "Safe, Slow, and Quiet" Muller Plan

One of the most challenging issues in our community discussion about the beltway fight is the funding of Golden’s own Muller Plan. These “Safe, Slow, and Quiet” improvements have been a central part of our long-term strategy for protecting Golden from the beltway and from other growth in traffic on U.S. 6 and Highway 93.

The challenging reality is that we probably can’t fund these projects unless and until Golden and Jefferson County reach some kind of agreement. Why? There are only three main mechanisms for securing federal funding for transportation projects like our Muller Plan projects, and all three depend on the local jurisdictions working in collaboration.

1) Grant funding (e.g., the federal TIGER grant program under the stimulus bill). Local collaboration among jurisdictions will continue to be an implicit or explicit condition of grant funding. The only Colorado project to receive TIGER funding was the 36 Corridor project (light rail, bus rapid transit, other highway improvements), a project that has the energetic support of every impacted jurisdiction. We can always submit proposals for grant funding like this (another transportation grant program is rumored to be in the works), but we are exceedingly unlikely to actually get any of these grants without Jeffco’s support.

2) Congressionally directed funding. Earmarks are the best-known type of Congressionally-directed funding, but members of Congress have other tools for doing this as well, including “phonemarks,” directly persuading the Cabinet Secretary to support specific projects, and other legislative strategies. Even if Congress reinstates the earmark system or replaces it with something comparable (as many expect it will do), our Congressional delegation is extremely unlikely to support any sort of funding for Golden projects if Jefferson County objects to them. Conversely, they’ve been very clear that they will support us in securing funding for projects in Golden that have Jefferson County’s buy-in. None of them want to get in the middle of a disagreement between Jefferson County and Golden.

3) The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) funding process. This is the primary option. Funding through this process is based on a points system. Golden has lost points in its effort to secure funding for Highway 93 safety improvements because we didn’t have political or financial support from Jefferson County. Many communities secure project funding despite not having the highest-scoring projects, but securing funding in this way is extremely difficult if the directly impacted jurisdictions themselves object (and every one of Golden’s projects is within Jefferson County, of course). On the other hand, where we have the support of other directly impacted communities, we have been able to secure funding. Since I’ve represented Golden at DRCOG, I’ve been able to secure funding for both of the projects I went after (our initial community bus feasibility study and the Golden Bluffs Connector bicycle/pedestrian path in southern Golden) in part because I had built support from other jurisdictions. This is true for other communities as well; while some projects just score high enough outright to get funded (ours probably won’t), most projects like ours that get funded end up on the list because the proponents have built strong support among the other impacted communities. Without Jefferson County on board, we probably won’t be able to do this.

In other words, while it is theoretically possible for Golden to secure funding to implement the Golden Plan for transportation improvements, it is very difficult and unlikely if the local jurisdictions aren’t in agreement.

Just to be clear, this is only one factor in deciding whether to reach an agreement with Jefferson County. But this basic reality of transportation funding is a key reason that our options have such pronounced tradeoffs. There are some advantages to the “no agreement with Jefferson County” option, but this is one serious downside: we probably won’t be able to fund any of our “Safe, Slow, and Quiet” Muller Plan improvements.

The Ins and Outs of Federal Transportation Funding: Golden’s Options for Funding Our “Safe, Slow, and Quiet” Muller Plan

One of the most challenging issues in our community discussion about the beltway fight is the funding of Golden’s own Muller Plan. These “Safe, Slow, and Quiet” improvements have been a central part of our long-term strategy for protecting Golden from the beltway and from other growth in traffic on U.S. 6 and Highway 93.

The challenging reality is that we probably can’t fund these projects unless and until Golden and Jefferson County reach some kind of agreement. Why? There are only three main mechanisms for securing federal funding for transportation projects like our Muller Plan projects, and all three depend on the local jurisdictions working in collaboration.

1) Grant funding (e.g., the federal TIGER grant program under the stimulus bill). Local collaboration among jurisdictions will continue to be an implicit or explicit condition of grant funding. The only Colorado project to receive TIGER funding was the 36 Corridor project (light rail, bus rapid transit, other highway improvements), a project that has the energetic support of every impacted jurisdiction. We can always submit proposals for grant funding like this (another transportation grant program is rumored to be in the works), but we are exceedingly unlikely to actually get any of these grants without Jeffco’s support.

2) Congressionally directed funding. Earmarks are the best-known type of Congressionally-directed funding, but members of Congress have other tools for doing this as well, including “phonemarks,” directly persuading the Cabinet Secretary to support specific projects, and other legislative strategies. Even if Congress reinstates the earmark system or replaces it with something comparable (as many expect it will do), our Congressional delegation is extremely unlikely to support any sort of funding for Golden projects if Jefferson County objects to them. Conversely, they’ve been very clear that they will support us in securing funding for projects in Golden that have Jefferson County’s buy-in. None of them want to get in the middle of a disagreement between Jefferson County and Golden.

3) The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) funding process. This is the primary option. Funding through this process is based on a points system. Golden has lost points in its effort to secure funding for Highway 93 safety improvements because we didn’t have political or financial support from Jefferson County. Many communities secure project funding despite not having the highest-scoring projects, but securing funding in this way is extremely difficult if the directly impacted jurisdictions themselves object (and every one of Golden’s projects is within Jefferson County, of course). On the other hand, where we have the support of other directly impacted communities, we have been able to secure funding. Since I’ve represented Golden at DRCOG, I’ve been able to secure funding for both of the projects I went after (our initial community bus feasibility study and the Golden Bluffs Connector bicycle/pedestrian path in southern Golden) in part because I had built support from other jurisdictions. This is true for other communities as well; while some projects just score high enough outright to get funded (ours probably won’t), most projects like ours that get funded end up on the list because the proponents have built strong support among the other impacted communities. Without Jefferson County on board, we probably won’t be able to do this.

In other words, while it is theoretically possible for Golden to secure funding to implement the Golden Plan for transportation improvements, it is very difficult and unlikely if the local jurisdictions aren’t in agreement.

Just to be clear, this is only one factor in deciding whether to reach an agreement with Jefferson County. But this basic reality of transportation funding is a key reason that our options have such pronounced tradeoffs. There are some advantages to the “no agreement with Jefferson County” option, but this is one serious downside: we probably won’t be able to fund any of our “Safe, Slow, and Quiet” Muller Plan improvements.

Keeping the Beltway Out of Golden – "Get The Facts Golden" Web Site Live

I have been and remain a committed opponent of the beltway, and during my five years on City Council I’ve worked extremely hard – successfully – to keep the beltway out of Golden. I believe this is true of everyone on the City Council (and city staff as well) . . . you will find across the board a fierce commitment to protecting our community from the beltway.

Golden is at a crossroads in this multi-decade fight and we are energetically reaching out to share with everyone the options and the risks and trade-offs of each.

One important part: the brand new “Get the Facts Golden” web site. We’ve done our best to lay out the options based on the best facts and analysis, and to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each. We’ve included maps and drawings of Golden’s own “Muller Plan” for fixing transportation problems in Golden now and preventing them in the future, and maps illustrating the beltway proponents’ current proposal for a shorter “Jefferson Parkway” north of Golden. Those challenges include noise, pollution, congestion, neighborhood connections, and safety. We invite all Golden residents to ask questions – we will answer them all – and to weigh in with your views.

In addition to the web site, we’ve got four neighborhood open houses scheduled in the coming weeks. You are welcome to come to whichever one best fits your schedule.

* Southern Neighborhoods: Monday, Jan. 31, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Shelton Elementary
* Central Neighborhoods: Tuesday, Feb. 1, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Fossil Trace Clubhouse
* Northern Neighborhoods: Wednesday, Feb. 9, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Mitchell Elementary
* Daytime Open House: Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1-3 p.m. at City Council Chambers

One group of Golden residents has taken a sharp position on the question of which strategy makes the most sense going forward, arguing that Golden should never reach an agreement with Jefferson County even if it means that Golden’s own traffic problems – noise, pollution, safety, neighborhood connections, and congestion – continue to worsen. This view has some advantages and disadvantages just like the other main option of trying to work out an agreement with Jefferson County. It is a legitimate view, and I respect their opinion, but their tone and approach is disappointing: they are disparaging community members who disagree with them and they are misrepresenting City Council’s own views. Our job on the City Council is to make sure everyone in the community has access to good information about both options and that everyone has a chance to weigh in, and we are following through on that responsibility.

Everyone is committed to the fight against the beltway, and our challenge now is to have a respectful community conversation about which of our options makes the most sense. I don’t expect everyone to agree – I’ve heard views from community members that span the entire range of opinions – but we will work hard to make sure everyone has good information and a fair assessment of the options.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Keeping the Beltway Out of Golden – “Get The Facts Golden” Web Site Live

I have been and remain a committed opponent of the beltway, and during my five years on City Council I’ve worked extremely hard – successfully – to keep the beltway out of Golden. I believe this is true of everyone on the City Council (and city staff as well) . . . you will find across the board a fierce commitment to protecting our community from the beltway.

Golden is at a crossroads in this multi-decade fight and we are energetically reaching out to share with everyone the options and the risks and trade-offs of each.

One important part: the brand new “Get the Facts Golden” web site. We’ve done our best to lay out the options based on the best facts and analysis, and to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each. We’ve included maps and drawings of Golden’s own “Muller Plan” for fixing transportation problems in Golden now and preventing them in the future, and maps illustrating the beltway proponents’ current proposal for a shorter “Jefferson Parkway” north of Golden. Those challenges include noise, pollution, congestion, neighborhood connections, and safety. We invite all Golden residents to ask questions – we will answer them all – and to weigh in with your views.

In addition to the web site, we’ve got four neighborhood open houses scheduled in the coming weeks. You are welcome to come to whichever one best fits your schedule.

* Southern Neighborhoods: Monday, Jan. 31, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Shelton Elementary
* Central Neighborhoods: Tuesday, Feb. 1, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Fossil Trace Clubhouse
* Northern Neighborhoods: Wednesday, Feb. 9, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Mitchell Elementary
* Daytime Open House: Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1-3 p.m. at City Council Chambers

One group of Golden residents has taken a sharp position on the question of which strategy makes the most sense going forward, arguing that Golden should never reach an agreement with Jefferson County even if it means that Golden’s own traffic problems – noise, pollution, safety, neighborhood connections, and congestion – continue to worsen. This view has some advantages and disadvantages just like the other main option of trying to work out an agreement with Jefferson County. It is a legitimate view, and I respect their opinion, but their tone and approach is disappointing: they are disparaging community members who disagree with them and they are misrepresenting City Council’s own views. Our job on the City Council is to make sure everyone in the community has access to good information about both options and that everyone has a chance to weigh in, and we are following through on that responsibility.

Everyone is committed to the fight against the beltway, and our challenge now is to have a respectful community conversation about which of our options makes the most sense. I don’t expect everyone to agree – I’ve heard views from community members that span the entire range of opinions – but we will work hard to make sure everyone has good information and a fair assessment of the options.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Flashing Yellow Turn Arrow to be Installed at U.S. 6 and 19t St.

The intersection at U.S. 6 and 19th Street in Golden is one of the most congested and hazardous in town, in part because of the number of cyclists and pedestrians that cross U.S. 6, including Beverly Heights residents, students living at Mines Park, cyclists riding Lookout Mountain, and others.  The long-term solution is to rebuild the intersection by lowering U.S. 6, building an overpass for 19th Street with on- and off-ramps for accessing U.S. 6, and incorporating wide sidewalks and bike lanes, similar to the new Washington Avenue bridge over Highway 58. We’ve been working on updated Muller Plan drawings of what this will look like and we’ll get them online as soon as they are ready.

But we’ve been unable to secure the funding for this project because of the ongoing fight with Jefferson County over the beltway, and in the interim we’ve been implementing smaller projects to at least improve safety at the intersection, including the addition of “pedestrian refuges” and relocating the crosswalk buttons to be more accessible.  As a result of a Beverly Heights neighborhood meeting several months ago, we’ve now got another project queued up: CDOT will be installing a new flashing yellow turn arrow to help reduce left-hand turn problems.  The flashing yellow turn arrow will be situated for cars on 19th heading west and turning left (south) onto U.S. 6 to help reduce the number of vehicles that turn left in front of oncoming traffic, creating safety problems and driver frustration for folks heading downhill from Beverly Heights and Mines Park.

Cars making the left-hand turn onto southbound U.S. 6 will have a protected green arrow, but when that finishes the light will change to a flashing yellow turn arrow to indicate that turns are permitted but that turning cars must yield to drivers driving straight through the intersection.  This is a new system that’s been tested in a few other cities and seems to work well at reducing the hazards of these left-hand turns.

Here is a CDOT flier explaining the new flashing yellow light and how it works. Look for it in the next couple of weeks.

Golden's Two Main Options for Keeping the Beltway Out of Town

Over the next month or so, the Golden community and the Golden City Council will need to evaluate our two major options for keeping the beltway out of Golden. Each of the two options involve trade-offs and they both have pros and cons.

Option #1: Golden can continue to fight the building of the Jefferson Parkway five miles north of Golden but make no progress on fixing existing and future transportation problems on U.S. 6 and Highway 93 in town.

or

Option #2: Golden can reach an agreement with Jefferson County that allows us to begin implementing Golden’s own Muller Plan for improving City connections and protecting against traffic impacts on 6 and 93 in exchange for not suing to stop the Jefferson Parkway north of town.

Over the next couple of weeks, the city will put up a website explaining both of the options and those trade-offs so that everyone in the community can ask hard questions, kick the tires, and weigh in with your thoughts.

Here are a few questions I encourage everyone to ask about both of these options:

  1. What are the trade-offs with each option? What does Golden gain and what does Golden give up?
  2. What are the risks with each option?
  3. What are the impacts to Golden of traffic growth with or without the Jefferson Parkway, and what are the additional impacts that occur if the Jefferson Parkway is built?
  4. Regarding Option #1: if Golden sues to stop the Jefferson Parkway outside of Golden, what will it cost, what is the likelihood of Golden prevailing, and what are the consequences if we lose? When it comes to the courts, no outcome is ever certain, regardless of the strength of our case.
  5. Regarding Option #2: if Golden agrees not to sue to stop the Jefferson Parkway north of Golden and, in exchange, Golden makes progress on the Muller Plan improvements, how much does that improve transportation and neighborhood connectivity in Golden, and how much does that strengthen the City’s ability to ensure that no one ever is able to build a six- or eight-lane high-speed beltway through Golden?

I strongly encourage everyone to become informed about both of our options for trying to keep the beltway out of Golden, and about the trade-offs of both.

Golden’s Two Main Options for Keeping the Beltway Out of Town

Over the next month or so, the Golden community and the Golden City Council will need to evaluate our two major options for keeping the beltway out of Golden. Each of the two options involve trade-offs and they both have pros and cons.

Option #1: Golden can continue to fight the building of the Jefferson Parkway five miles north of Golden but make no progress on fixing existing and future transportation problems on U.S. 6 and Highway 93 in town.

or

Option #2: Golden can reach an agreement with Jefferson County that allows us to begin implementing Golden’s own Muller Plan for improving City connections and protecting against traffic impacts on 6 and 93 in exchange for not suing to stop the Jefferson Parkway north of town.

Over the next couple of weeks, the city will put up a website explaining both of the options and those trade-offs so that everyone in the community can ask hard questions, kick the tires, and weigh in with your thoughts.

Here are a few questions I encourage everyone to ask about both of these options:

  1. What are the trade-offs with each option? What does Golden gain and what does Golden give up?
  2. What are the risks with each option?
  3. What are the impacts to Golden of traffic growth with or without the Jefferson Parkway, and what are the additional impacts that occur if the Jefferson Parkway is built?
  4. Regarding Option #1: if Golden sues to stop the Jefferson Parkway outside of Golden, what will it cost, what is the likelihood of Golden prevailing, and what are the consequences if we lose? When it comes to the courts, no outcome is ever certain, regardless of the strength of our case.
  5. Regarding Option #2: if Golden agrees not to sue to stop the Jefferson Parkway north of Golden and, in exchange, Golden makes progress on the Muller Plan improvements, how much does that improve transportation and neighborhood connectivity in Golden, and how much does that strengthen the City’s ability to ensure that no one ever is able to build a six- or eight-lane high-speed beltway through Golden?

I strongly encourage everyone to become informed about both of our options for trying to keep the beltway out of Golden, and about the trade-offs of both.

Keeping the Beltway Out of Golden: Neighborhood Meetings Scheduled

As part of community conversation about how best to keep the beltway out of Golden, we’ve scheduled four neighborhood open houses in late January and early February.  You’ll have a chance to review the history of Golden’s beltway fight, compare the two main options for continuing to keep the beltway out of Golden, get all your questions answered, and weigh in with your thoughts.  We’ll also have updated maps and descriptions of Golden’s community-based Muller Plan, our own plan for fixing transportation issues in Golden like noise, pollution, congestion, neighborhood connections, and safety.

  • Southern Neighborhoods: Monday, Jan. 31 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Shelton Elementary
  • Central Neighborhoods: Tuesday, Feb. 1  6:30-8:30 p.m. at Fossil Trace Clubhouse
  • Northern Neighborhoods: Wednesday, Feb. 9  6:30-8:30 p.m. at Mitchell Elementary
  • Daytime Open House: Wednesday, Feb. 9  1-3 p.m. at City Council Chambers