Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitco.ost.min.reg.08082001 . . . ~ Minutes OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2001 Plaza 1 Board Members Present: Tom Cardamone, Bill Fales, Jolm Starr Others Present: Pam Gabel, Temple Glassier, Barb Hogan, Kathi Morgan, Miles Stotts, Dale Will Jolm Starr called the meeting to order at approximately 9: 14 a.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes of the July 26th OSTB meeting were approved with the following amendments: I. Bill questioned if "wildlife concerns" (Rio Grande, paragraph 4) should be "wetland concerns". 2. Bill asked that "trail should be moved to on top of the rails" be changed to "trail should be moved on top of the rails". 3. Bill said he voted against the motion; he did not abstain (page 3). 4. Bill asked that "vague" be changed to "they are vague" (page 3, last paragraph, second line). 5. Jolm noted that "ballards" are spelled "bollards" (page 2, first paragraph, last line). BOARD COMMENTS Chatfield Mining Claim Tom informed the OSTB the new Chatfield Mining Claim has a big patch of thistles, he believes Canadian thistles, that needs to be addressed shortly. (Tom said the patch is located at the crest of the hill into the park, right next to the roadside). Approval of the By-Laws Article II, Section 2 Tom suggested a more positive wording of Section 2. After some discussion, the decision was made to leave the wording as is. Article III, Section 1 There were several suggestions to change the order ofthe Board's functions. Bill suggested changing the present #4 function to # I. J olm suggested changing the present #6 to #2 and the present # I to #3. Bill suggested changing #5 to #4, the present #2 to #5 and the present #3 to #6. Bill said this new order of Board functions more accurately tracks how the OSTB operates. Tom suggested including a note, stating the re-ordering of functions, while including the language ofthe Charter, more accurately reflects the emphasis ofthe present OSTB. Bill suggested dating each version/draft ofthe by-laws and other documents. Dale suggested there's a nuance in the Home Rule Charter, Section 13.1.2, not truly reflected in the by-laws, Section I, regarding the OSTB's capital improvements authority. Dale said the statement, "the acquisitions and improvements shall be selected and determined by the Board of County Commissioners from a list of recommendations brought by the Open Space Board" doesn't truly explain that the capital improvement recommendations also are based on an OSTB list of . recommendations. Dale suggested the OSTB consider the original functions #4 and #1 be expanded to encompass 75% and 25% for acquisition and improvement respectively. Such acquisitions and improvements will be determined by the BOCC from a list of recommendations from the OSTB. Dale said he foresees a possibility of much debate over improvement and maintenance and added the maintenance section doesn't include the same veto language on behalf of the OSTB. John suggested the present function #1 be expanded to include improvement-"acquisition and improvement". Miles spoke to the issue of capital improvements versus maintenance. Miles said accountants have told him that making capital improvements to a property appreciates, enhances and/or protects the value of said property. Bill said allocation of funds is also a factor in the capital improvements/maintenance discussion. The maintenance budget has been under-utilized up until this point. Dale suggested those days are over and suggested OST is approaching a point of surpassing the 5%. Dale added there may be enough money to fund the 2002 budget, but asked, if the 5% is surpassed, which other part of the funding pays for the increase? Jolm asked about the mechanism for exceeding the 5%. Miles said upon approval with the Board of County Commissioners and after consulting with the OSTB, the 5% amount may be increased or decreased by up to 10% for a certain time period. . Dale said he'll bring to the next meeting, language that more appropriately distinguishes the by-laws language from the comparable section in the Charter. Article IV, Section 5 Jolm suggested allowing one more absence (seven) and suggested it be the seventh absence that triggers action to remove a Board member. Jolm said he feels this still reinforces the fact that serving on the Board is a strong, important obligation. Dale said Board members have made the point that when the Board is lacking a member, there is added pressure on everyone else to attend. Bill and Jolm said they also miss the input and exchange of the missing member. Bill said he will agree to changing the number of allowed absences to seven, but added he wants to retain the "shall" in "the Chair shall request". Tom later asked if special meetings fall under the absence rule. Bill clarified the allowed absences refer to regular meetings. The suggestion was made to change the absence language to "more than six regular meetings". Jolm suggested approving the above by-law changes at a full meeting. Bill suggested plowing ahead in the meantime. Dale said he anticipates everyone will be present at the next meeting. Bill asked for a clean dated draft by then. Article V, Section 2 Dale asked if the OSTB still wants to go through the districts numerically. . Bill suggested striking the language regarding the Chair "currently serving from district _ and the vice-chair from district _", etc. Bill suggested simply stating the offices shall rotate by district and suggested keeping the language regarding terms. 2 . . . Jolm asked about the new state rule regarding minutes-taking at executive sessions and asked if the rule needs to be addressed in the by-laws. Dale said he doesn't believe so, but that the OSTB will be required to tape executive sessions and keep said tapes for 90 days. The rule will also require a new protocol that requires the chair to state for the record, the statutory reasons for an executive session. (For example, the particular code section-acquisition, personnel, litigations, etc.). Dale needs to clarify with Jolm Ely whether the Chair will need to certify that the minutes adequately reflect the meeting's actual content and questions whether the tapes may actually have to be transcribed. Bill suggested revisiting the rule, after Dale seeks advice from Jolm Ely, to see ifthe OSTB needs to adjust its' minutes-taking for regular or executive sessions. Dale said he feels the OSTB is very clean in its' Executive Session use and considers the rule more housekeeping than anything. Dale added the rule will be in effect by the next OSTB meeting. Art. VI, Section 6 Jolm suggested removing the section's 3 parentheticals. Section 7 The suggestion was made to also remove Section Ts parenthetical. Bill explained the person could be someone working for the Director, not necessarily the Director. Bill said he thought the OSTB had approved "3 days or 72 hours' advance notice" regarding meetings and agendas. Section 9 Jolm asked Dale to fill in the current statute number. Article VII Dale said the model for the Conflict of Interest section is drawn from County policy, leaving out more extreme parts not applicable to the OSTB. Dale explained, in answer to questions, that the Policy A section describes the Charter, not the policy- makers. Tom questioned the language of2B; Jolm agreed, stating the OSTB has a higher obligation. Dale pointed out that 2A is more clarifying. Bill said a conflict is a conflict and added the language is derived from the County's Conflict policy. Jolm agreed that Section 2's language is sufficient to cover any confusion left by Section 1. Jolm questioned in 2B, if a conflict of interest should also be divulged to the Board. Bill said it's appropriate for the County Attorney to determine and conflict and to inform the Board of any such confli ct. Article II revisited Bill proposed that "Purpose" be Section I and "Policy" be Section 2, since the listed OSTB policies further the OSTB purpose. Jolm agreed. Bill also suggested inserting two sub-sections, A and B, under Section 2 Policy. Sub-section A would include the eight articles already listed under Policy. Sub-section B would address eminent domain and condemnation, stating condemnation is the 3 . exclusive province of the BOCC. The OSTB shall not participate, nor shall any OSTB funds be used in non-friendly condemnation. Jolm said he has no problem with the concept of including condenmation language somewhere, perhaps in a policy statement reflected in the minutes, but feels the bylaws are not the appropriate place. Jolm added he is uncomfortable adding the language to the by-laws, since the OSTB is an elected board. Bill said the problem with policy statements is finding them after they're passed, but agreed to table the condemnation issue for the time being. Tom said condenmation is a power that should be available in extreme cases, where public safety is concerned, for example. Bill said including condemnation language in the by-laws would not limit the BOCC. Tom pointed out funds would be unavailable. Tom also said he'd rather not tie the hands of future boards, in the event of extreme scenarios. Jolm suggested including a clean copy ofthe by-laws on the agenda, for final approval by the OSTB and the BOCC. Dale suggested the minutes reflect that the OSTB is in consensus on the by-laws draft. STAFF COMMENTS Rio Grande Trail Dale said Kevin Wright and Jonathan Lowsky last week withdrew their previous objections to the alternate trail alignment; so both alignments were approved. The alternative alignment would go along Basalt High School property, follow the fence line up to the ditch line, travel along the top of the pasture through some re-vegetated areas and then rejoin the trail. Kevin and Jonathan did recommend . a dog closure on the upper alignment from hunting season through early May. Temple said fencing is not presently allowed on either alignment. If there are wildlife and/or livestock and/or trespass conflicts, that policy can be revisited. Bill said the property is incredibly well-managed and is in incredible condition. Bill said of all the crossing solutions Temple had suggested previously, remote-controlled gates are still the best solution. Bill said the right of way alignment is better for commuting, but the upper alignment is better for recreational purposes, has better views and has less impact on the agricultural operation. He added that going around the high school fence is a natural switchback. Bill said he and Dale had talked to Reno and said an easement agreement would allows for either alignment, but not both. If the trail is put on the upper alignment, and the train should later come through, the upper easement/trail would probably be abandoned. Jolm questioned if this discussion might set a precedent for other property owners who want to move trails to alternate routes. Bill said this situation differs from others such as Wingo Junction, for example, because alternate routes were not provided. Jolm stressed the importance ofOST being a good citizen and neighbor. Temple agreed that the alternate alignment is a nice amenity recreationally. Possible problems she sees with the alternate alignment involve vegetation, people cutting across on the right of way and in . other parts of the property, irrigation, higher costs and fencing. 4 . There are three sections where vegetation comes down into the alternate alignment. One area is easy to traverse, but trees will need to be removed in the other two areas. Temple questioned whether some people might still try to use the right ofway. Temple said the OST can't really prevent such use, since it is still a public right of way. It was suggested that this is an RTA issue. Dale added he's heard it mentioned at various public meetings, that the right of way is public; people are becoming very aware of it. Temple expressed concerns that people might also attempt to cross the property in other areas. Temple also expressed concerns that the trail not impede Reno's flood irrigation in any way. The alternate will require a lot of fill, due to the slope and the inability to cut into the hillside. Temple questioned how to obtain good fill, that won't introduce weeds, bad weeds, to Reno's property, especially with the fill being in such close proximity to the irrigation ditch. Temple said she'll keep a very close eye on the situation for the next two years. Temple's plan for the alternate alignment will also use culverts. Temple said the alternate alignment will add approximately $170,000 to the trail cost, primarily for the 2,000 extra linear feet ofthe alternate, and for the aforementioned fill. Temple reiterated there presently is no permission for fencing on either trail, but said the issue may come up again later. The main wildlife movement in the area consists of deer going up into the cottonwoods found on the alternate trail. Dale suggested the OSTB engage the public in a conversation, should the OSTB decide on the alternate alignment. Dale asked what sort of public process is adequate to cover the issue and how . soon that decision should be made, in consideration of construction scheduling. Temple said the public process is a good idea and said there is some flexibility in construction scheduling. Jolm said OST will also need to involve RTAlRFRHA. Temple said she has already shown RTAlRFRHA both alignments and said they seemed amenable. Bill gave the example ofthe Forest Service moving a trail on Snowmass Creek Ranch from the middle of the ranch, to a higher point and said the public seems to have had little problem with moving the trail. Bill also questioned how much public process is needed if the OSTB decides on the alternate; the OSTB is an open board; agendas and notices are public. Bill didn't recall public process regarding Snowmass Creek Ranch. Jolm said it would be a mistake to not have public process. Dale said OST cannot add the $170,000 amount to the budget without approval. Jolm suggested including the trail alignment in the next meeting's agenda, to get Rick and Hawk's input, and then including it in the joint meeting's agenda. . Tom said a primary concern should be a provision to protect the open agricultural space. The first steps in protection are the trail route and commuter issues--discouraging commuters from using the straight shot and from using other short-cuts. While Tom considers the upper alignment a more aesthetic experience, he suggested using the railroad grade (with absolutely no dogs and no fences), because commuters will use the right of way anyway. Bill added that some cattle breeds are more protective than others; some might help speed up commuters. There was a consensus that a fence may 5 . . . be a very real possibility anyway, especially with the right of way alignment. (And especially in calving season). Temple said a fence will create crossing issues. Bill reiterated his idea of remote controlled gates. Tom suggested "a more aesthetic" possibility of a little arched bridge, if the right of way alignment is approved. Bill questioned whether lowering the rails is a possibility. He pointed out the rail bed had been removed for the highway; lowering the rails would also make the crossing much lower and easier for Reno to navigate. J olm said lowering the rails/rail bed would require going through R T A and would greatly delay Temple's construction schedule. Bill said if the rail bed was lowered, there would need to be an agreement to restore it to its' previous state, should the rail come through. Barb said lowering the rails is a NEP A and R T A issue. Dale said as long as the trail ends at Emma, people may enjoy the upper alignment. But as the trail reaches further down valley and is used by serious commuters, people might prefer a straight shot. Dale said he is torn between the two alignments and their agricultural versus recreational emphasis. Jolm suggested tabling the discussion 'till the next meeting, and including the BOCC in the discussion. Jolm said he is not opposed to the upper alignment, but is presently leaning toward keeping the right of way alignment. Bill said the OSTB will better understand Reno's concerns when they visit the property. Temple begged the OSTB to think through all their "red flags", so they can come to a decision at the next meeting. Bill said the OSTB's alignment decision will have a big impact on Reno, and asked that Reno be included in the discussion. Jolm suggested the Board consider what it can do to accommodate Reno, should the OSTB decide on the right of way alignment. Temple said she'll provide the OSTB with pictures of the alignments and information and recommendations on crossings, various gates and fencing costs. Temple asked if the OSTB would like to join her in a site visit before the OSTB and joint meetings of the 22nd. Dale added he would like to approach the BOCC about the alignments before the 22nd Dale said a choice of the alternate alignment might involve a long-term agreement with Reno, to vacate the right of way. Dale said it is difficult to judge until negotiations with Reno's counsel. Bill and Jolm questioned how the existing easement will be affected by either alignment. Dale said it's not fair to ask Reno to start paying legal fees, until there is a consensus of the OSTB on the alignment. Doggie Signs Temple presented the OSTB with a paper copy of Michael' s new signs regarding dogs on trails. Bill suggested the next batch of signs state that dogs must be kept on leash at all times, instead of dogs must be kept on leash when livestock or wildlife are present. Airport Ranch Miles updated the Board on the Airport Ranch property boundary quandary. There is title insurance, which is contingent on obtaining a receipt of a valid property survey. Said survey is approximately 253 feet off. Miles has given the survey back to the engineering firm, in hopes that a simple typo may be involved. Otherwise, it's new survey time. EXECUTIVE SESSION Bill made a motion to enter into Executive Session for the purposes of acquisition discussions. 6 . . . . Tom made a motion that the OSTB recommend approval of the Joy Smith Management Plan to the BOCC. All in favor. Dale said the BOCC has reserved an RTA bus for the APA tour on 9/21, and has invited the OSTB. The next OSTB meeting will be held on 8/22, at 9:00, with a joint meeting beginning at noon. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at approximately II :35 a.m. Approved Approved as to Form &iJgr~ Chair ./" ~/ 7