Last November, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) heard from Public Works Director Mike Torres and Road and Bridge Manager Eric McRae in regard to the county potentially vacating four bridges throughout the county.
Those four bridges include a portion of County Road 337 and Carrico Bridge, a portion of County Road 557 and Carracas Bridge, a portion of Navajo Road and bridge, and Old Gallegos Road and bridge.
Then, on Tuesday, Jan. 7, the BoCC voted unanimously on four separate resolutions to not move forward with vacating those four bridges.
During the Nov. 12, 2024, work session, Torres explained the main reason for vacating those bridges is mainly due to there being no public access from the bridges and that they lead onto private property, noting the county has “bridges that lead to nowhere.”
During the Jan. 7 meeting, Torres stated the matter of vacating the bridges was originally proposed “just because these bridges lead to private land,” adding that the county may have to pay for future repairs and maintenance on the bridges.
Before voting on the first of four resolutions, concerning the Carrico Bridge, Commissioner Veronica Medina opened the floor for public comment on the matter.
One man stated that he was unsure as to what exactly it means for the county to “vacate” the bridge.
He also noted that he has been taking care of maintenance on his own street since 2005, noting the county road grader comes just across the Carrico Bridge before turning around.
“So, I’m trying to get my head around what’s changing … because the county hasn’t spent any money on our road at least … 19 years that I’m aware of,” he said.
County Attorney Todd Weaver explained that when a county vacates a road it goes back to the private property owner, making it a private bridge and private road.
Torres added that there are other bridges throughout the county that are private and the maintenance is taken care of by the residents.
He added that an easement would be put in place for the use of the bridge for property owners in the area.
“Before any action would be taken, we would make sure that an easement would be put in place for that,” Torres said.
Commissioner Ronnie Maez asked how the bridge ended up there, stating that the county likely had to “pony up” some money at some point to have the bridge constructed.
Torres explained County Road 337 used to make a loop connecting to County Road 339, providing public access, but has since been shut down, eliminating public access.
Maez commented that the county has collected tax dollars over the years for these roads, adding that he is not in favor of vacating the bridge.
Medina commented that these are county roads, but they are not up to county standards, asking, “so a lot of the roads do not receive maintenance, is that correct?”
Torres replied that some roads do not receive “a whole lot of maintenance” because of the length and where they lead to, adding that traffic counts are also taken into consideration when prioritizing road maintenance.
Torres estimated that “half of these have been accepted and the other half haven’t.”
Maez asked if the county is obligated to maintain a road if it is a county road.
Weaver indicated that there is no mandate for the county to maintain a county road.
Torres added that roads can be accepted as a county road, but have to be accepted into the county maintenance plan to receive maintenance.
Medina added that in order for the county to accept the maintenance of a road, it has to be up to the county standards, which Torres confirmed.
Commissioner Warren Brown noted there is a state statute for roads that have been designated as county roads that would prevent the county from vacating the road and asked, “is that not correct?”
Weaver confirmed there are certain conditions that have to be met for a county to vacate a county road.
He explained that if the land joining does not have access to another public road, there needs to be a private easement agreement in place “so that there still could be access to a public road. That would have to happen first, if that situation would arise.”
Weaver added that he was unsure if that is the case with the Carrico Bridge, noting that if the BoCC decided to move forward vacating the bridge it could make a condition for such easement to be put in place.
“The county’s put money into that bridge,” Maez said, adding that taxpayers live on the other side of the bridge.
Another public comment on the matter was given, with a man explaining that he would be affected by the county vacating the bridge.
He explained that his RV park is located across the bridge and averages 27,000 visitors annually.
He added that the property owners in the area have been taking care of the bridge and doing the majority of plowing in the winter.
Maez motioned not to adopt Resolution 2025-5, which was unanimously approved.
The BoCC then considered Resolution 2025-6, vacating a portion of County Road 557 and the Carracas Bridge.
“Same thing,” Torres said, explaining the bridge is near the New Mexico border and leads to private land that is gated off on the other side.
He also mentioned the oil company in the area rebuilt the bridge approximately 15 years ago.
Weaver explained that the easement condition would not apply in the situation because the adjacent property has access from County Road 500 and is Southern Ute tribal land.
“So, there is no need to have that private access agreement easement in place,” Weaver said, adding he was unsure if there had been any communication with the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in regard to the matter, noting it would be a “professional courtesy.”
“Sometimes I think we do a disservice by trying to do a service, “ Maez commented. “None of this really makes sense to me, anyway.”
Brown also commented on the matter, saying, “Sometimes it’s not worth saving a dime, leaving the citizens to wonder how in the world their taxpaying money is helping them in their lives … To me, this is not the right way to go. Although it makes sense on paper, when it comes to the people, it does not make sense and the people are the ones that we should most be concerned about.”
Brown then motioned not to adopt the resolution, which was unanimously approved.
Torres then presented Resolution 2025-7, to vacate a portion of Navajo Road and bridge, explaining he had conversations with the land owner about the matter.
“We haven’t been able to locate an easement for that road,” Torres said.
Maez asked about Southern Ute Indian Tribe roads in the area and mentioned that before vacating anything, he would like to have conversations with the tribe.
Maez motioned not to adopt the resolution, which was unanimously approved.
The last bridge being considered for vacating was the Old Gallegos Road and bridge, under Resolution 2025-8.
Multiple public comments were given on the matter, with the first commenter explaining the bridge provides access to an old church that was built in 1916.
She added that the county vacating the bridge is “certainly a major concern to those who utilize the road and the bridge.”
The commentator also claimed that the road has been used for more than 100 years and leads to a public facility, with that being the church.
Following public comment and discussion on the matter, Brown motioned not to adopt the resolution, which was unanimously approved.
clayton@pagosasun.com
