Council looks at impacts of possible Whetstone annexation

Debate on finances, voting, livability…

By Mark Reaman

While discussing the general philosophy of whether to annex the Whetstone affordable housing project into Crested Butte, provide it with municipal water and/or sewer utility service, or do nothing as drastic as those two options, Crested Butte councilmembers all said they wanted more information on the ramifications of any action. During a work session on June 20, councilmembers mostly expressed strong support for the proposed 231-unit project located two miles south of town by Brush Creek Road, and indicated they wanted to work with Gunnison County, which is developing the project to make it happen as soon as feasibly possible.

Crested Butte community development director Troy Russ told the council that town staff has been looking at the various options from an engineering and financial perspective. Department heads gathered Tuesday to start determining levels of service provided to the current town and what adding a Whetstone annexation would mean to their departments; for example, determining whether an additional marshal or new snow storage and plowing equipment needs would be necessary in future budgets. Russ wanted to get a feel from the council at the June 20 meeting over so-called non-financial or non-technical considerations with the hope the council will move toward a definitive decision on how to proceed by this fall. 

“Any annexation would be a legislative matter so could be discussed by councilmembers with anyone,” he explained. “In an annexation, everything is negotiable. You can vote on emotion. You could turn it down if John Cattles from the county came in wearing an earring you didn’t like.”

Mayor Ian Billick said it was important to him to frame the annexation discussion less as a negotiation with a private developer making a profit on the project, and more as an “alignment” with the county that wasn’t making a profit and had the same goal as town of providing workforce housing. “It is better framing perhaps with this subtle difference,” he said.

Russ said the non-technical elements are also important when making such a major decision. 

Russ provided a general outline of three such areas the council might want to consider including: community character and land use control that included imposing similar design standards and zoning in place in town in the annexation; development influence that would come by extending the Three Mile Plan to places in the nearby area; and enhanced sense of community and voting representation where residents could not only vote but also sit on town boards. 

Councilmember Jason MacMillan said given that the annexed property would be two miles from the current town, he saw little reason to strictly keep the same design guidelines or zoning standards.  “It is an opportunity to look different from the town,” he said.

Russ said the right strategy might be “to work with the county and determine what sort of community you want to have out there and then reverse engineer things like design guidelines that might not fit there.”

Councilmember Chris Haver agreed that adjusting guidelines might be appropriate on that piece of property.

Russ said the term “livability” is frequently used as a goal of the project but noted that the meaning of that term can be vague. As a civic planner, he might see livability as the inclusion of a pedestrian community with parks and easy access to Crested Butte, but Russ wanted more definition about the council’s thoughts on livability. Council agreed with those ideas and added the values of creating quality places to live and providing space to store the toys that come in a recreational community.

“We want people to be excited to live there,” said Billick.

“Livability includes being happy where you live and being able to connect with the people around you,” added councilmember Anna Fenerty. 

The idea of adding a big chunk to the Crested Butte voting rolls found both initial support and concern.

“Adding 200-plus votes and participation is probably a good thing. On the other side, would other people in, say CB South, want to vote in town matters as well,” asked councilmember Jason MacMillan.

“I am interested in how it is tied to cost and how that cost would be shared,” said Haver. “That’s where I am really interested. Adding 200 units means more people using the parks for example. It is worth noting that people in CB South use our parks but wouldn’t use our marshals or snowplows.”

“If more than 90% of the town revenue is brought in through sales tax, adding 200 units will stretch the current finances without directly adding to the revenues since there won’t be much if any commercial on that property,” said Billick. “But for me, I’m good with that because I think it is ethical. The people will work in town and shop in town. I’m good with getting stretched a bit.”

“Having the conversation without more solid financial numbers doesn’t sit well with me,” countered councilmember Gabi Prochaska. “It may be fine that the finances get stretched for everyone but what is the cost? The discussion is frustrating to have without more solid numbers.”

Billick and Russ said those financial numbers would be tabulated and given to council when determined probably later this summer. 

“What are the unintended consequences of adding voters from there,” asked Macmillan. “What are the other things to think about?”

“It’s one thing to add voters in an annexation but another to add voters from outside town,” said Fenerty. “Where does it stop? Wildbird? Riverbend? A lot of people don’t want to be part of town. Does it set a precedent with future developments?”

“If the future developments are all affordable housing it would be a great precedent,” said Billick. “That would be enfranchising the working community.”

“I could see a 30% or more increase in Crested Butte voters which is very significant,” said Prochaska. “How they vote would impact people now living in town.”

“I look forward to hearing feedback from in-town constituents,” said councilmember Beth Goldstone. “So far I see the benefit of extending voting.”

Council agreed to schedule another work session to continue the philosophical discussion.

“I want to keep gathering information and be as informed as possible with the clear understanding I am very supportive of this project,” said Haver. “My information seeking is not looking for stoppers or flaws, it is to make the best decision.”

“I agree,” said Billick. “I do not want the town to create barriers to the project. I want the project to get done and want it to be a regional community approach. The people living there will be our workers and community members, so I again see a very ethical element to this.”

Russ said the staff will continue to gather feasibility and fiscal analysis information.

Billick said he would also be interested in hearing what the county officially thinks about the idea of an annexation and/or a utility extension.

Everyone understood there will be plenty of opportunity for more information sharing and public comment on the developing project as it progresses.