Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitco.ost.min.reg.04192001 - . . . Minutes OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2001 Plaza I Board Members Present: Tom Cardamone, Bill Fales, Hawk Greenway, John Starr Others Present: Gary Beach, Patti Clapper, John Ely, Dorothea Farris, Pam Gabel, Greg Hall on behalf of the Eli-Cerise Ditch owners, Jeremy Heiman of the Aspen Times, Barb Hogan, Bob Noone on behalf ofRFRHA, Dale Will The meeting was called to order at 11 :08 a.m. by Hawk Greenway. Approval of Minutes The minutes for the meeting of AprilS, 2001, were approved with the following amendments. 1. Bill referred to the phrase "It was noted that the transportation easement. . ." (page 1, Mills Transportation Easement, sentence 7) and said "it was questioned whether the easement was part of the Possession and Use Agreement. . .". Dale said he had looked up the matter after the meeting; the easement is part of the P & U Agreement. 2. Hawk suggested "the trail easement is on the west side of the property, but could be moved to the river side of the proposed development" better defines the property (same paragraph, sentence 9). 3. Hawk asked that the last sentence of the same paragraph, "access to that portion of the property should be discouraged", be better defined. 4. Hawk suggested "the Board expressed concern" (Mills, paragraph 3, first sentence) be changed to read "the Board expressed its' usual dissatisfaction and dissent. .." (Even though CDOT offered the Mills property as replacement when it condemned a portion of the Moore Open Space, OST still does not have a deed to the Mills property). 5. Hawk said the last sentence of the Cramer Ditch section should be italicized, as it's an addendum. Dale and Bill said it was part of Michael Craig's report, not an addendum. Also, Bill asked that future agendas include the dates of minutes to be approved. Staff Comments Eli-Cerise Ditch Dorothea explained she is representing the RFRHA board (at the OSTB meeting) in the Eli-Cerise Ditch issue and said the ditch is now an RTA issue. Dorothea said "we are protecting the corridor as RFRHA; we are protecting the corridor based on the GOCO- A VL T agreements and standards as set. The decisions need to be made by those who hold that obligation on the corridor." Dorothea then introduced Bob Noone, representing RFRHA (and RTA in the RFRHAlRTA transition). Dorothea explained that as of today, RFRHA owns the corridor. Dale reminded everyone present of the Eli-Cerise Ditch owners' earlier request for OST to culvert parts ofthe E-C Ditch and the OSTB's subsequent conclusion that successful re-vegetation and stabilization efforts preclude the need for culverting. Last week, the Ditch Company notified Dale and Temple of plans to move a large piece of equipment through the ditch, and in the process, 1 - . . . probably increase ditch width and disturb some vegetation. Dale and Temple met with Greg Hall and some members of the Ditch Company on April13t\ and reached a "truce", which states there will be no immediate work on the ditch and states the County Asset Management Plan provisions regarding access to county right-of-ways, will be honored. Dale drew the board's attention to a letter drafted by Greg Hall on behalf of the Eli-Cerise Ditch Company, in particular sections 1 and 5, regarding a request for culverting and a request to be added to the County's liability insurance policy. The Ditch Company maintains culverting will help with maintenance and liability issues. Greg said the circumstances have changed since the Ditch Company's last request to the OSTB. Successful re-vegetation efforts have decreased the Company's request for culverted sections from an area of 1,650 feet to an area of 390 feet. Greg expressed a willingness to work with the OSTB and minimize its' financial cost, while ensuring the co-existence of the trail and ditch in light of expected run-offs. Greg stated the ditch has historically been maintained with a 60" blade; the Ditch Company is not proposing widening the ditch, but would like to re-establish the 60" width. He added OST built the trail when the ditch had not been maintained for some time. Greg said the Ditch Company does not want to affect the re-vegetation or structural integrity of the trail. Greg said the Ditch Company's main goal is to try to work together with the county and added the owners were very pleased with Dale's and Temple's site visit. Some discussion followed as to the actual blade width. Temple said Chris had said a 68" - 71" blade had been used historically. Chris now wants to use a 73" blade, which would increase the current width of the ditch by about 8" on either side. John Starr asked if there was another position among other ditch-owners, not represented by Greg Hall. Greg said he and his firm "feel comfortable that this represents a majority of the ditch- owners." Bob Noone explained that Pitkin County and the OSTB can enter into an agreement with the ditch owners, but cannot move forward with culverting, etc., as RFRHA owns the corridor. The RFRHA and RTA boards had put a "lower priority status" on a final overall corridor maintenance policy, during the RFRHAlRTA transition. At the same time, RFRHA and RTA have encouraged owners along the corridor ditches to communicate any maintenance projects, etc., to the county and OST, to comply with notice procedures and to avoid damaging trail areas. Several questions arose regarding insurance and liability. Bob explained that historically (for the last 1 00 years), "all licenses, easements and leases entered into by the owners of the rail corridor and adjacent property owners, have obligated the adjacent property-owners to provide insurance for the owner of the corridor", contrary to what is presently being proposed. Bill stated when OSTB . builds a trail on county-owned land and thus dramatically increases public use of that property, "it's incumbent on us to insure the existing user". He suggested the county take out an insurance policy, ifthe insurance company will not consider supplemental amendments on current policies. Bill said his suggestion "might not have legal merit, but I think it has other merit." Bill added his comments apply to Eli-Cerise Ditch for this summer only, while the long-range details and issues are being resolved. 2 -- . Bob said RFRHA prefers that any insurance discussions take place in the context of corridor-wide policy discussions, versus piecemeal, case by case discussions. John Ely stated that it would be necessary to establish a duty between the county and the ditch owners before the county could insure the ditch. Greg stated the county and the OSTB have governmental immunity. Greg reiterated the need to resolve maintenance issues in the next few weeks. He stated it's impossible, in certain areas of the ditch, to do typical ditch cleaning and maintenance without harming the trail. Dale said there is an open question about whether the existing width of the Eli-Cerise Ditch may currently handle all the water it's legally entitled to carry. Dale said the use of a 72" wide blade will disturb the re-vegetation or compromise the outside bank and asked whether such an extensive re-work of the ditch is needed for this spring. Gary said, for the last 10 years, the ditch has carried an average of 4.9 cfs. (This is in sync with figuring one cubic foot of water per irrigating 40 acres of land, with a high of 209 acres being irrigated). While the ditch is legally entitled to carry a higher cfs, Gary questioned the need to greatly increase the cfs, considering the above irrigation numbers. Greg said that is a decision for a water court. Gary countered he is not suggesting the owners curtail their water use or rights, but said the condition of the ditch suggests it has not been maintained with a 72" blade. Sections in question average 3 or 4 feet in width. Gary said a very adequate water supply can be maintained . without expanding the ditch size to 72". Bob said there is a larger issue here involving the conservation easement. Bob said the legal ditch right of 15 cfs is simply the uppermost limit that can be claimed under decree; that right is limited by actual historic use. Based on Gary's estimation, Bob suggests the actual legal right is approximately one-third of the total adjudicated right. Bob said A VLT should be informed ofthe proposal to widen the ditch; A VLT will decide whether any ditch-widening constitutes an encroachment of the conservation easement. Bill asked Greg ifhis clients can live with the ditch, as recently maintained, until various issues are resolved. Greg said his clients are not proposing expanded usage; the ditch now has trail fill and rocks related to the trail construction. Greg said a mere "hand-cleaning" will simply raise water levels and create more erosion. John Starr expressed major concerns with the conservation easement issues and culverting and said Greg and the ditch-owners need to resolve these issues with RFRHA and RTA. Bob said RFRHAlR T A, at their most recent meeting, cited the adoption of a corridor irrigation ditch policy as a top priority. He expects culverting and liability negotiations to begin soon. John Starr questioned the notice provision of Greg's letter and said the ditch-owners must adhere to county standards and notice provisions. Greg said it was the intention of his clients to fully comply with the county requirements. . 3 Tom reiterated the OSTB's conclusion (at its' 2/01101 meeting) that the ditch requires roughly Yz . day's work and questioned the need for this discussion. Hawk agreed with Tom. He added the ditch's main limitation is its' present 36" flume. Hawk expressed the OSTB's desire to be good neighbors, to get the ditch running and to avoid any "precipitous action" on behalf of owners. Hawk suggested county staff and the ditch owners meet and do the needed maintenance to improve water flow. Bill asked for a motion regarding insurance liability. Hawk said OSTB and the county don't insure adjacent landowners on other properties. Dale said the county provides insurance for county-owned trails easements which traverse private property. In contrast, the trail runs parallel to the Eli-Cerise Ditch; it doesn't overlay the Ditch Company's property. Dorothea reiterated that insurance is a RFRHA issue. Dale did a recent walk-through of the ditch. While there are one or two large rocks that may need to be moved, Dale said the ditch appears to be the same capacity in most sections, as it was before the trail was built. Dorothea reiterated the RFRHA Board considers the irrigation ditch policy issue a high priority and said the integrity of the trail and the ditch (as it's been maintained in the past 9 years) are important. Insurance, blading and culverting are big issues that will need to be resolved over time. . John Starr reiterated the need for an adequate advance notice. Dale said Section 6.2 of the County Assets Management Plan requires any necessary permits be obtained a week in advance of any construction work on a county right-of-way. Dorothea reiterated a need to notify A VLT. Temple stated a need for the OSTB to quickly address the ditchlright-of-way issue. John Starr suggested the OSTB actively participate with RFRHA and RT A in corridor ditch irrigation issues to meet Temple's concerns. Dorothea stated a need to closely monitor the Eli-Cerise ditch this season (the first season with the trail). Hawk urged Greg to keep diversion records and to monitor the ditch this season and said OST will monitor it as well. Greg said the ditch issue comes down to a "battle of the experts". The ditch-owners' engineer, Scott Pfeiffer, disagrees with Gary's estimation of projected impacts on the trail, on the length of culverting required and on whether culverting is the most appropriate solution. But Gary feels he and Scott can reach a compromise, which protects the trail and the ditch and which satisfies the needs of both parties. Greg said his clients will be disappointed in the outcome of to day's meeting, but said they will proceed with ditch cleaning and will comply with the notice provisions of the County's Asset Management Plan. . Moore Open Space Management Plan Bill made a motion to adopt the Moore Open Space Management Plan, provided the plan includes all oflast meeting's suggestions. Dale said the suggestions have been included. Tom asked if the water rights research will be continued. Dale said he found no reference to the water rights in the transaction documents. The decision was made to strike the water rights language. Tom suggested that staff investigate the use of golf course or Marolt water to provide water to the Moore cottonwoods. 4 . . . Bill again moved to adopt the Moore Management Plan and recommend its' approval to the BOCC. John seconded the motion. (Some discussion followed whether to recommend the management plan as a NEPA-style process). All in favor of Bill's motion. Hawk said the Moore plan is "great, a big step in the right direction in the management of open space" . John requested a cost assessment of producing management plans for remaining OST properties. Executive Session John made a motion to enter Executive Session for the purpose of property acquisition discussions. Upon exiting Executive Session, Bill made a motion to approve Dale's resolution (as drafted) to purchase the Greenwald property. Hawk seconded the motion. All in favor. Inventory of Open Space and Trails Barb provided the OSTB with an amazing array of orphan county properties she has discovered, including 3 fishing easements, a trail easement and a conservation easement, all conveyed in 2000, and some properties conveyed before the origin of the OST program. Barb's search for orphan properties is ongoing; she'll provide more updates in upcoming OSTB meetings. Dale suggested it's appropriate to designate the properties; the properties are important ecological assets and the OSTB has the capability to manage the properties. Dale also wants the properties included on the OST map. Dale also suggested broaching at the next joint meeting, the topics of designating a second round of County Open Space and instituting a more effective process or protocol communicating the acquisition of such properties. The suggestion was also made to alert Hilary of these issues. Hawk cited Barb's inventory work so far as "pretty impressive". The meeting was adjourned. The next OSTB meeting will be held on Thursday, May 3rd. The meeting scheduled for May 17th, will be changed to a joint meeting on Wednesday, May 23rd. Approved Approved as to Form Director 5