Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rtd Board Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora committee opposes RTD board restructuring after ridership metric removed
Summary
Aurora staff recommended and city committee members agreed to oppose a state bill that would change RTD board composition after a proposed amendment to weigh ridership in appointments was not restored, raising concerns about Aurora’s representation.
The Pfizer committee of Aurora City recommended opposing a state bill to restructure the Regional Transportation District (RTD) board after staff said amendments the city sought were not adopted.
Staff member Liz said the measure had been amended in several ways — including language to require appointment criteria and geographic diversity and a proposal that all voting directors be elected — but that an amendment restoring ridership as a factor for appointing director districts was removed. "As the city of Aurora, we have 13% ridership of RTD and like over 1,000 bus stops," Liz said, arguing that removing ridership would leave Aurora underrepresented. "Based on what this committee has spoken about and the concerns with lack of representation at RTD ... the city and staff are recommending that we move to an opposed position on this bill due to not being able to achieve the amendments that we are seeking." (Staff member Liz.)
Vice Chair Jackson voiced support for the recommendation: "I support the opposed position." Council member Wiles also agreed: "I do support the opposed position." The chair affirmed the consensus.
Why it matters: Aurora officials said the change shifts how director districts would be drawn and how appointments would be evaluated, potentially prioritizing population counts over actual transit ridership. City staff and members said that could dilute representation for communities with high transit use.
What comes next: Liz said staff will update the city’s registered position and work with the delegation to oppose the bill. The committee did not cast a formal roll-call vote on a motion recorded in minutes; members on the record voiced agreement to take the opposed position.
The committee discussed a range of proposed amendments, including requiring elected voting members, adding expertise criteria for appointees, and geographic diversity requirements; several of those elements were reported as included in recent amendments, while the ridership consideration was not reinserted.
