Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFTA.comprehensive.plan.changesREADING ON DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE ASPEN BRANCH OF THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD CORRIDOR AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY REGULAR MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM TITLE: STAFF RESPONSIBLE: April 14, 2004 RFTA Request for Resolution Ratifying Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Debbie Quinn, Renee Black (RFTA) Description of Issue: Renee Black, attorney for the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA), will be present to answer any questions in connection with a request by RFTA to its member jurisdictions to ratify a change in the Comprehensive Plan. The change would eliminate the need for unanimous member ratification of changes to the Comprehensive Plan and would replace that requirement with unanimous approval by the RFTA directors representing the seven member jurisdictions of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority. This request is summarized in the attached letter dated February 26, 2004, and in the attached drafl resolution. As background, the Board may recall a work session on January 28, 2003, when Renee Black presented two proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan, one dealing with the present issue of member ratification, and the second dealing with a policy change to issue easements for corridor crossings instead of licenses. The Board objected to the second issue, and RFTA thus has come back with the present request to ratify only the procedural change in voting requirements. A review of Exhibit A to the attached resolution indicates that there will be an opportunity for member jurisdictions to review any proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan before RFTA directors vote on it, so that the member jurisdictions can proyide direction in advance to its member of the Board on each proposed change. This reflects the direction provided at the January 2003 work session. A copy of the agenda item summary and the minutes of that work session are also attached for your review. Because this requested change does reflect the direction of the Board from the work session last year, staff is recommending approval. Pitkin County is still free to ratify changes afler the RFTA vote, as the Board indicated it wanted to do when this issue was discussed in 2003. StaffRecommendation: Approve the Resolution. Attachments: RFTA letter dated 2/26/04 Proposed Resolution with Exhibit A attached AIS from 1/28/03 Minutes from discussion of issue on 1/28/03 Pitkin County Commissioners 530 Main Street Aspen, CO 81623 Feb. 26,2004 RE: Request for ChangeinRioGrandeRailroadCorridorComprehensive Plan Procedure Dear Pitkin County Commissioners, The History of the Rio Grande Railroad Corridor in RFTA Ownership The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority ("RFTA") is the result of the combination of two earlier government entities: The Roaring Fork Transit Authority (the bus company) and the Roaring Fork Raikoad Holding Authority ("RFRHA", the owner of the Rio Grande Rail Corridor). As you may recall, the RFTA Board of Directors is made up of a Director from each member jurisdiction, and an alternate. When RFTA assumed all the assets, obligations and legal agreements of RFRHA, it assumed a document that governs management of the Rail Corridor-- the Rio Grande Rail Corridor Comprehensive Plan. Based on the Comprehensive Plan ("CP") inherited from RFRHA, there is a lengthy process for amendment to the CP involving approval from each of the governing Boards of the original RFRHA member jurisdictions. After approval of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by each of the original RFRHA government, any change in the CP is then put before the RFTA Board. Since the original RFRI-IA governments are the same governments as make up RFTA, there appears to be a simpler method of making amendments to the Corridor management document. Request to Chan~e the Procedure for Modifying the Comprehensive Plan The RFTA Board has indicated that they believe it is redundant and unnecessary for the full governing bodies of each of the RFTA member jurisdictions to ratify actions of the RFTA Board in managing the rail corridor, since the individual member jurisdictions have their voice on the rail conidor through the RFTA Board. To protect the jurisdictions that originally banded together to purchase the Rail Corridor, the amended procedure for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan requires Unanimous Consent of all the RFTA Board members originally making up RFRHA. The first step in simplifying this process is to amend the existing Comprehensive Plan. Following the existing plan requires each of the seven individual government bodies that made up RFRHA to ratify this change. The feeling of the RFTA Board members is that the governing bodies of their local governments appointed them to serve on the RFTA Board, in part, to take care of any rail corridor issues. One RFTA Board member remarked, "That's one of the reasons we agreed to the rural transportation authority, so we wouldn't have to sit through relatively minor Corridor decisions twice--once at our local jurisdictions, and then again on the RFTA Board." Needless to say, the kind of schedule management required to bring these decisions before each of the governing boards in seven jurisdictions is also lengthy and difficult. Your approval of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will greatly improve the ability of your RFTA Board to make changes needed for the evolving plans for the Rio Grande Corridor. A copy of the language in the amended Comprehensive Plan is attached to the Draft Resolution included with this letter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Renee A. Black RFTA General Counsel RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE ASPEN BRANCH OF THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD CORRIDOR RESOLUTION NO. - 2004 RECITALS 1. Pitkin County, Eagle County, Garfield County, the City of Glenwood Springs, the City of Aspen, the Town of Carbondale, the Town of Basalt, and the Town of Snowmass Village did enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement dated December 31, 1994, to create the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority ("RFRHA"). 2. On June 26, 1997, Pitkin County, Eagle County, Garfield County, the City of Glenwood Springs, the City of Aspen, the Town of Carbondale, the Town of Basalt, and the Town of Snowmass Village entered into the First Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Purchase and Public Ownership of the Aspen Branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Ralkoad Right-of-Way ("First Amended RFRHA IGA"). 3. The primary change to the original RFRHA IGA was the removal of Garfield County from the RFRHA. 4. The purpose of RFRHA was to cooperate in the purchase and ownership of a portion of what is known as the Aspen Branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western raikoad corridor (the "Corridor"). 5. RFRHA completed the purchase of the Corridor. 6. Pitldn County, Eagle County, the City of Glenwood Springs, the City of Aspen, the Town of Carbondale, the Town of Basalt, and the Town of Snowmass Village, on September 12, 2000, entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement to form a Rural Transportation Authority, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority ("RFTA"), pursuant to title 43, article 4, part 6, Colorado Revised Statutes. 7. At the November 7, 2000 election, the electors within the boundaries of the proposed Transportation Authority approved the formation of RFTA. 8. Part of the intent of the formation of a Rural Transportation Authority, was for a single government entity to take over responsibili/y for transit centered in the Roaring Fork valley, including the existing Roaring Fork Transit Agency and RFRHA. 9. RFTA has now taken over all the assets, duties and liabilities or RFRHA, including ownership and management of the Raikoad Corridor. 10. The current government members of RFTA were members of RFRHA prior to RFRHA's absorption into RFTA. 11. The RFTA Board of Directors has assumed the existing Comprehensive Plan and Access Control Plan for the Railroad Corridor ("Comprehensive Plan"). 12. An agreement between RFRHA and Great Outdoors Colorado ("GOCO") requires changes to the Comprehensive Plan to be approved by GOCO. 13. The Comprehensive Plan provides for consultation with the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT") prior to adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan. 14. The Comprehensive Plan provides that changes to its terms be ratified by the individual governments who were members of RFRHA. 15. RFTA desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to delete the requirement that the governing board of each member jurisdiction t~om RFRHA approve each change to the Comprehensive Plan. 16. The proposed amendment attached as Exhibit A would continue to require unanimous consent of all the RFTA Board members who were members of RFRHA, for further amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 17, RFTA has requested that each of the KFRHA member jurisdictions ratify changes to its Comprehensive Plan, as reflected on the attached Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: 1. That the Board does hereby find and determine that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Pitkin County and the Roaring Fork Valley that RFTA be allowed to adopt changes to its Railroad Corridor Comprehensive Plan only by unanimous vote of the members of RFTA that were also members of RFRHA as listed in the First Amended RFRHA IGA (Eagle and Pitkin Counties, Aspen, Snowmass Village, Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs). 2. That the Board finds that it can provide proper oversight of the rail Corridor through its representative on the RFTA Board. 3. That the Board ratifies changes to the Corridor Comprehensive Plan as reflected in the attached Exhibit A to this resolution. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED on this day of ,2004. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITI<IN COUNTY, COLORADO Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC By: Dorothea Farris, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: John E~''~ County Attorney County Manager's Signature: Hilary F~cher Smith, County Manager Attachment A - Original and Amended Sections of Railroad Corridor Comprehensive Plan EXHIBIT A ORIGINAL SECTION OF RAILROAD CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Procedure for Modification to the Comprehensive Plan: Every five years, the RFRHA Board shall review the Comprehensive Plan and make changes to it if deemed necessary. In addition, RFR/-IA staffor Board members may propose to initiate a modification to the Comprehensive Plan because ora perceived need to do so. The RFRHA Board must approve the initiation of the modification process before it is to proceed. After approval to proceed, any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will bc initially drafted and presented to the Board. After receiving comments fi.om the RFRHA Board, the draf~ will be distributed to all member governments, including Great Outdoors Colorado and The Colorado Department of Transportation for their comments. A final draft of the amendment(s) will then be brought back to the RFRI-IA Board for their final acceptance. Once accepted by the RFRI-IA Board, the amendment(s) will be sent back to the member goveroments for their ratification. All member governments must approve of the amendment(s) before they are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. AMENDED SECTION OF RAILROAD CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Procedure for Modification to the Comprehensive Plan: Every five years, the R.FTA Board shall review the Comprehensive Plan and make changes to it if deemad necessary. In addition. RFTA staff or Board members may propose to initiate a modification to the Comprehensive Plan because of a perceived need to doso. A dmft of the proposed changes will be disttibuted to the Colorado Department of Transportation for its comments, and to Great Outdoors Colorado for its approval. A dral~ of the proposed changes will be disa'ibuted to all RFTA members and planning departments. A final ckaft of the amendment(s) will then be brought back to thc RFTA Board for fmal acceptance. The Comprehensive Plan can only be amended if approved by a unanimous vote of the original members of RFRHA (Pitkin County, Eagle County, Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Basalt, Carbondalc and Glanwood Springs). AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY WORK SESSION DATE: AGENDA ITEM TITLE: STAFF RESPONSIBLE: January 28, 2003 RFTA Request for Resolution Ratifying Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Debbie Quirm DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: By letter dated December 30, 2002, RFTA has requested that each former RFRHA member agree to two changes in the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: 1. Adjust language in the Access Control Plan (part of the Comprehensive Plan) to issue easements, rather than licenses, for agricultural, and residential landowners who historically crossed the corridor. 2. Remove the procedure in the Comprehensive Plan that requires ail changes to the Plan to be ratified by each RFRHA member jurisdiction. Discussion: On the first issue, RFTA's cover letter, attached, explains its rationaie for the change, that property owners might not be able to sell their property with only a license personal to the owner, and that an easement that runs with the land would allow a permanent right to cross the corridor to a particular parcel of land. The draft easement is attached. Dale Will and John Ely have begun a review of the draft easement to determine whether the proposed language adequately protects the County's trail easement. One concern are that the draft easement does not quantify the extent of use, nor the extent to which it would apply to expanded uses, for example, one that RFRHA deait with at length was changing Sanders Ranch from a single agricultural ranch and residence to a golf course, subdivision, etc. The more problematic concern is that the Easement appears to ailow RFTA's Director of Property and Trails to consent to improvements on the corridor within these easements, without notice to Pitkin County Open Space, when our trail could be significantly impacted. Pitkin County was granted a Trail Easement on the corridor through Pitkin County, and RFTA's proposed granting of crossing easements is problematic in Pitkin County unless such somehow merely memoriaiizes third party rights that pre-existed the granting of the Trail Easement. The preliminary analysis by Dale and John is that RFTA cannot unilaterally grant easements to cross our trail. Hence, RFTA's draft easement form should be revised to call out the Pitkin County Trail specifically in paragraph 3, which should be amended to include a statement such as: Grantee recognizes the existence of a trail easement held by Pitldn County and any fights granted herein are subordinate to that. Grantee agrees that this Easement does not provide a tight to cross the Pitkin County Trail. Grantee further agrees to seek permission fi'om Pitkin County prior to undertaking such crossings. Another approach to the issue was taken in the Private Road Crossing Agreement that RFRHA, Pitkin County, and the Roaring Fork Club negotiated in 1997, which provides in part: Section 5. PROTECTION OF ... TRAIL EASEMENT (a) The property of Licensor (RFRItA) is encumbered by a ...Deed of Trail Easement for the ... benefit of... Pitkin County, through its Open Space and Trails Board .... The Licensee agrees not to undertake any paving activity within the fight-of-way not authorized herein without first obtaining the written approval of the grantees of the ...Trail Easement. The notice address for the grantee(s) is: Pitldn County Open Space and Trails Board 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Chairman The language "paving activity" would need to be changed to reflect the extent of activity RFTA wishes to grant in these crossing easements. On the second issue, RFTA is proposing to allow its Board to approve amendments to the Comprehensive Plan without requiting ratification of all member jurisdictions, as a means of promoting efficiency in RFTA's operations. What follows is background information on the existing RFTA IGA, the Restated RFRHA IGA, and discussion about the existing consent requirement. RFTA IGA section 3.09 provides: Resolutions and Voting. All actions of the Board shall be by resolution, which may be written or oral. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.10 hereof, resolutions of the Board shall be adopted upon the affn-mative vote at a meeting open to the public of at least two-thirds of the Directors then in office who are eligible to vote thereon voting (which, if all Initial Signatories become Initial Members and no Director is ineligible to vote, will be five of the seven initial Directors). The Authority shall provide at least 48 hours' written notice of meetings to each Director and Alternate Director and to the Governing Body of each Member. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, a Director shall disqualify himself or herself fi'om voting on any issue with respect to which he or she has a conflict of interest, unless he or she has disclosed such conflict of interest in compliance with sections 18-8-308 and 24-18-101 et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Section 8.03 provides, in part: (f) Provisions conceming access contained in the Roaring Fork Raikoad Holding Authority Intergovernmental Agreement shall be honored by the Authority. Section 12.01 provides: Amendments Generally. Except as otherwise specifically provided in Sections 12.02, 12.03 and 12.04 hereof, this Agreement may be amended only by resolution of the Board. Under the RFRHA First Amended and Restated IGA, approved by RFRHA members prior to closing on the purchase of the rail corridor, the IGA could not be amended without unanimous consent of the members. In addition, that Agreement required that the approval of a Comprehensive Plan and any amendment had to be by unanimous approval of all eligible voting Directors and in a manner consistent with the various grant agreements. When the Comprehensive Plan was approved, it included the unanimous ratification requirement, which RFTA now is seeking to change. I have consulted with a few of the players involved with me in the negotiations for the restated RFRHA IGA, including John Womester, Bob Emerson, and Tom Newland. All of us recalled that the reason for the unanimous consent requirement on the comprehensive plan was that none of the member governments was willing to allow a majority of the member governments to dictate the uses of the corridor within each jursdicfion. In other words, the requirement for consensus assured that a majority would not impose a use over the objection of one impacted jurisdiction. Carbondale, in particular, was most concerned, since the corridor hms right through the Town. Another rationale for the consensus requirement was that it provided some measure of protection for the financial investments made by the member governments. Dale Will has indicated that he is more comfortable with the existing arrangement, since it assures our ability to protect our Trail Easement. Finally, having a consensus requirement also promotes co- operation among the jurisdictions, whereas a majority decision could lead to divisiveness when minority positions are overruled. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that any agreement on the granting of crossing easements be subject to language approved by the County Attorney that adequately protects the County Trail Easement. On the amendment to the consensus requirement for changes in the Comprehensive Plan, this is a policy decision for the Board. Staffwill prepare any necessary resolutions based upon BOCC direction. Attachments: 12/30/02 RFTA letter, with draft Easement and draft Eagle County Resolution Partial MINUTES OF WORK SESSION Date: January 28, 2003 Commissioners present: [] Jack Hatfield [] Dorothea Fan-is [] Michael Ireland [] Shellie Roy [] Patti Clapper Meeting Start Time: 1:43pm Commissioners not present: [] Jack Hatfield [] Dorothea Farris [] Michael Ireland [] Shellie Roy [] Patti Clapper WORK SESSION ITEM: RFTA Comprehensive Plan Changes, Debbie Quiun STAFF DIRECTION: Renee Black was in attendance for RFTA. Ms. Black discussed the request to eliminate the ratification requirement on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, stating that she has proposed new language that will still eliminate the ratification requirement, but that any amendments to the comprehensive plan would need unanimous consent of the RFTA board. Commissioner Clapper liked the ratification requirement because it requires elected officials to actively discuss changes to the plan for the corridor. Commissioner Roy indicated that the ratification requirement does create problems with scheduling, and Ms. Black added that it sometimes takes six months to obtain ratification from all members because some jurisdictions are not able to add items to agendas as quickly as Pitkin County can. Commissioner Ireland suggested that each member jurisdiction decide whether it wants to ratify decisions of the RFTA board, but that the decisions on amendments should be unanimous by the RFTA board. Direction of the Board was that Pitldn County would continue to ratify these amendments. It was further directed that the unanimous vote be by all members of the RFTA board, not just those present at a meeting. Renee Black will dratl language to address this BOCC direction. On the easement issue, Commissioner Ireland objected to the granting of easements over the corridor, and suggested that hcenses be used instead. He used Highway 82 access between Lazy Glen and Basalt as an example of how landowners will be unreasonable in insisting upon access fights. Commissioner Farris explained that the owners along the corridor requested easements, and that the RFTA board thought that a restrictive easement was a workable solution. Commissioner Clapper was supportive of the granting of restrictive easements. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Hatfield stated that the railroad had been here for years, and that it would be a dangerous precedent to grant easements because it could lessen our control and use of the corridor. He was unwilling to expand existing property fights. Suggestions for RFTA included long-term licenses, and reducing monthly fees. A majority of the Board was unwilling to agree to grant easements.