The Pitkin County commissioners took another step Tuesday toward placing two taxing questions on the November ballot, one to better maintain county roads and another to protect local water.
At a work session, a majority of the commissioners agreed to finalize ballot language for both questions at meetings on Aug. 27 and Sept. 2.
The road funding question is a property tax that would generate $5.4 million a year and let the county improve county roads and intersections at a faster pace than current funding levels allow.
The water question is a one-tenth-of-one-cent countywide sales tax that is expected to raise $1 million annually to be spent on protecting the quantity and quality of water levels in local rivers and streams.
The road funding tax would add $16 in taxes per $100,000 valuation of residential property value. If a house is worth $2 million, the new tax would add $320 to the property’s annual tax bill.
The property tax would sunset in 20 years and would not be “de-Bruced,” meaning that the tax would not increase solely due to an increase in the assessed valuation of property. Revenue from the tax could not go to repairing or improving Highway 82, which is the responsibility of the Colorado Department of Transportation and not Pitkin County.
The county would spend some of the money on making safety upgrades at several intersections, including the three-way intersection where McLain Flats Road, Smith Way and Upper River Road come together at the entrance to Jaffee Park.
The county would also use the revenue to resurface roads at a faster pace than it otherwise could afford in order to prevent more costly repairs in the future. It would also be used to improve shoulders and drainage on county roads and stabilize slopes to prevent rockfall.
Today the county’s road and bridge budget is $1.9 million and the money comes out of the county’s general fund.
If the property tax passes, the county plans to use the $1.9 million that would be left in its general fund to cover the cost of providing existing county services as well as covering additional costs, such as new staff that was recently added at the district attorney’s office.
“We will be facing significant cuts, probably, unless we take that $1.9 million,” said Pitkin County Treasurer Tom Oken. County Manager Hilary Fletcher said the cost of providing county services was increasing, especially given the rising cost of fuel and energy, which could mean less money to keep county roads well maintained.
A telephone survey of county voters conducted this spring by a consulting firm hired by the county showed that 68 percent of voters would likely support a property tax for roads.
Brian Pettet, Pitkin County’s director of public works, spoke to numerous community groups this summer about the potential property tax to fund roads. “I think there was general support for some sort of tax to maintain our county roads,” Pettet told the commissioners on Tuesday.
Pitkin County Commissioner Michael Owsley attended many of the local meetings with Pettet and said while local roads were not a burning issue with county residents, they were generally in favor of keeping them in good shape.
Commissioner Jack Hatfield said he was not going to support the property tax hike for preventive road maintenance and repair and was the lone dissenting voice on the five-member board.
“There is a need here but it is timing ... and I think the timing is wrong,” Hatfield said, pointing to the poor economic environment and local perceptions over the cost of the Burlingame affordable housing project.
Commissioner Rachel Richards countered that “there is probably never a good time to ask for a tax increase.”
But, she pointed out that CDOT is dealing with a statewide fiscal crisis and cannot keep pace with the demands of keeping the state’s roads up to par because of a lack of a dedicated revenue stream. Richards said local voters should be given a choice if they want to keep county roads in good shape or not by approving a local dedicated revenue stream.
Commissioner Michael Owsley said the county was meeting its obligations to the citizens. The board was told by its public works director that the cost of deferring maintenance on county roads would only increase over the next 20 years and that it was prudent to seek funding now to keep the roads in good shape.
“I think we’ve done our duty and now we can ask people if they think they can afford it,” Owsley said.
All of the commissioners feel there is a growing threat to the amount of water in the watershed and how it is managed, although Hatfield declined Tuesday to say whether he would support the sales tax increase or not.
There is an increasing demand for water from the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan rivers to be diverted under the Continental Divide to the Front Range and there is a threat that the agreements that control water flows in the Colorado River basin could be changed in the future.
The county wants to levy the sales tax in order to pay for legal and technical expertise so it better understands what water rights it may have and the opportunities that may be available to keep water in local rivers and streams despite increasing competition for water. The revenue could also be used to buy water rights or to improve water efficiency, such as lining irrigation ditches to prevent leaks.
“I don’t think there could be a more important question to ask our voters right now,” said Richards, who has been spending hours attending local, regional and statewide meetings about water in an attempt to better understand water demand in Colorado.
She warned that Pitkin County could be “steamrolled” by outside water interests unless it has a solid understanding of legal and technical issues related to local water flows.
“I just do not want to see us left behind,” Richards said.
bgs@aspendailynews.com