The Archuleta County Public Works Department is considering abandoning multiple bridges throughout the county.
During a work session held by the Archuleta County Board County Commissioners (BoCC) on Tuesday, Nov. 12, the board heard from Public Works Director Mike Torres and Road and Bridge Manager Eric McRae in regard to abandoning four bridges throughout the county.
Those bridges include the Navajo bridge, Caracas bridge, Carrico Street bridge and the Old Gallegos Road bridge.
Torres explained the main reason for proposing to abandon the bridges is that there is no public access from the bridges and that they lead onto private property, noting the county has “bridges that lead to nowhere.”
He also mentioned that annual bridge inspections and the repairs determined by those inspections can potentially cost the county a significant amount of money.
Torres briefed the board on the Navajo bridge, which he explained is off of Colo. 151 and continues for approximately 400 feet before it enters into a private subdivision.
Torres mentioned there are no-trespassing signs posted, along with a locked gate preventing public access.
Torres mentioned that the county needs to focus on its bridges that receive high volumes of traffic.
Commissioner Ronnie Maez asked if county dollars have been used on the Navajo bridge for construction or maintenance.
Torres indicated that the county has invested a total of just over $38,000 for the Navajo bridge.
Torres went on to brief the BoCC on the Carracas bridge in southern Archuleta County, noting that since an oil company moved onto the property in the area there has been no public access to national forest land.
“Since they moved in there, we no longer have public access to the forest,” Torres said.
McRae also noted there is no trail system behind the oil company’s property.
Torres noted that the bridge leads to Southern Ute and private land that has no-trespassing signs.
“There’s no reason for us to be responsible for this bridge,” he said.
Maez commented that a previous BoCC discussed the bridge and that no county dollars have been put into it.
McRae explained that there is a list of repairs on the bridge.
“In presenting these, these are things that could potentially cost the county a significant amount of money in the future,” Torres said. “We have the roads we have.”
He went on to talk about the Carrico Street bridge, located on County Road 337, off of U.S. 84.
Torres noted the total cost to date the county has spent on this bridge is approximately $240,000.
He explained the bridge leads to an RV park and then onto private properties.
Torres mentioned that it is a fairly new bridge and, based on the price, he estimates it was rebuilt in the last 10 years.
Maez asked if it was county taxpayers’ money that went into the bridge, to which Torres confirmed it was county money spent on the bridge.
Maez also mentioned that County Road 337 used to connect to County Road 339.
McRae mentioned that the road is gated off and the two roads no longer connect.
Maez asked if the county ever inquired as to why the property owners gated off the road.
McRae explained that the county engineer pulled plot records that indicate the road becomes private property after a “few hundred feet” from U.S. 84.
Maez commented that there is no public benefit of the bridge.
“I’m basically kinda thinking, back in the day, when they put money into that bridge, they probably shouldn’t have,” Maez said.
Next, Torres explained that the county has spent more than $2,000 on the Old Gallegos Road bridge and that it is going to be needing some repairs that could cost a significant amount of money for the county.
“It really is the same situation in that it doesn’t lead anywhere,” Torres said, explaining the only public access from the bridge is to an old Catholic church.
“Which is open to the public,” Maez said, adding, “I’ll probably push back on this one.”
Maez also commented that grant money was put into the bridge “back in the day.”
County Attorney Todd Weaver clarified that grant money was put into the bridge at some point in the 1990s.
Torres explained that the inspection revealed the bridge needs to have transitions installed, be brought up to Department of Transportation standards and install abutment walls, along with multiple other improvements.
“It’s going to take a significant amount of work to get this bridge back to standards,” he said.
“That’s ‘cause we let it go for so long,” Maez commented.
Weaver commented that there is a question of if Old Gallegos Road is a county road or not.
Weaver explained that there are minutes from a BoCC meeting in 1990 indicating the board signed an agreement with John Gallegos to ensure continued public access to the church.
Weaver mentioned there is a rough draft of the agreement, but that the county can’t find the actual signed agreement.
“So, there’s a big question there,” he said.
Weaver also mentioned there is a resolution from 1996 naming the road and referring to it as a county road, but the resolution does not formally adopt the road into the county’s road system.
Colorado state law says that a road has to be deeded to the county in some way and that the board has to accept it, Weaver explained.
“We could actually say that about a lot of these other county roads,” Maez said, adding, “What I would probably say is we need to go and look at all our county roads and see what roads have that or don’t have that, and if they don’t have it we can abandon all those other roads.”
Weaver mentioned that there is a letter the county has which was drafted by a former county administrator requesting a formal easement from the Southern Ute Indian Tribe for Old Gallegos Road, but that county records do not show that the tribe ever granted formal right of way or easement to the county.
Weaver also mentioned that, in 2018, an agreement was signed amongst the private property owners granting access to each other over Old Gallegos Road and a public right of way to the church.
“Even if the county — the board — decided to vacate this road, there are easements in place that would guarantee public access to the church,” Weaver said.
Maez commented that one of the private landowners could eventually get upset and put a gate up.
Weaver noted that would become a civil matter.
“Since you guys are bringing this to light, I’d like to see it all,” Maez said. “The Gallegos needs to be protected simply because of the public access to the church, too.”
Maez went on to mention that the county could have 100 miles of roads that it has been maintaining that may not actually be county roads.
“There’s a good list in Arboles,” McRae said, noting his department has been compiling a list of roads.
Development Director Pamela Flowers interjected and asked if the discussion was about abandoning or vacating the bridges,noting the county recently assigned addresses off of Old Gallegos Road.
McRae clarified that the county would not be abandoning the addresses, but would just be giving ownership back to the private property owners.
Weaver indicated that it takes “a lot of research” to go through and determine which roads have the proper documentation.
Commissioner Veronica Medina mentioned that it may not be wise for the county to expend so many resources to figure out what is a county road or not, adding she understands the significant costs of keeping up with bridges.
“When we start talking about not servicing county roads in Arboles, or these other remote areas, … I think that’s an injustice to our constituents,” Medina said, “but we can’t just focus on the main portions where people live. We’ve got to remember Chromo and Arboles.”
clayton@pagosasun.com
