CB South trail a long and winding process

STOR advises county to proceed with engineering study

[  By Katherine Nettles  ]

During a Gunnison County Sustainable Tourism and Outdoor Recreation (STOR) Committee meeting last week, the charged topic of the county’s proposed multimodal path between Crested Butte and Crested Butte South got most of the airtime as committee members discussed whether the current proposal along Highway 135 should be abandoned completely or followed through to determine engineering costs. Some STOR members and other attendees argued for an alternate alignment away from the highway, even if it will take more time and money. After a discussion of potential other routes, challenges and legal concerns, the committee recommended that Gunnison County commissioners and their planning staff continue their current directive and finish a partial engineering study for the trail along Highway 135 in the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right of way. 

Finishing the engineering study will not preclude a potential alternative alignment, however, and the committee agreed to discuss it again once the study is finished and more information on costs is available.

The county hosted an open house to share its trail alignment options last month and has received extensive feedback from community members who hoped for a trail alignment set back farther from the highway on a more scenic route between the communities. 

Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association (CBMBA) also spoke out in opposition to a highway alignment, and the county agreed to extend the survey deadline to October 8. 

As the STOR committee took up the topic, Laura Puckett Daniels, the county commissioner representative on the STOR committee, commented that the controversy over alignment along a highway or through private property has been around a while. She noted that minutes from a previous 2002 trails commission meeting were “almost verbatim to the current discussion.” But she urged everyone to keep working on it. 

Puckett Daniels apologized that the county did not, in the weeks leading up to the open house forum and in the concurrent survey process, provide enough public engagement. “It’s become clear to us that the public was not included enough,” she said. “We made some assumptions, and we could have done a better job communicating.” 

 Cathie Pagano, assistant county manager for community and economic development, gave a presentation on the “long and winding road” of seeking stakeholder consensus for the multimodal path, an effort that started more than 20 years ago. She reviewed the county’s recent efforts to engage with private property owners along three alternate off-highway pathways, including an extension off Teocalli Road, through the Spann Ranch’s property up to Buckhorn or from the Spann Ranchland to the private Hidden River Ranches Road. But Pagano said they proved unsuccessful in securing a route off the CDOT right of way with the needed property owners. “While they support the trail in general and certainly alignment along the highway, they were not interested at all in alignment across their property,” she summarized.

County attorney Matthew Hoyt reviewed how using eminent domain could work, since some alternative trail proponents asked for the county to explore that option. He said the process would roughly require preparatory research, subcontracted attorney fees, expert witnesses and court costs amounting to an estimated $590,000–925,000 per property, or about $6 to $9 million total. Then the county would be purchasing the lands from approximately 11 different property owners, for an estimated $1 million per property, totaling around $20 million just to acquire the property, prior to any development of it. Hoyt said these were rough estimates and that expenses could be higher. He also said that while some of this work could be accomplished internally by the county attorney’s office, it would take away legal resources from other county-priority projects, such as affordable housing, the Mt. Emmons mine land exchange, and the recently published Land Management Plan for the Gunnison National Forest. Hoyt said it could take between four to eight years just to acquire the properties through eminent domain, not including the time it would take to build the trail.

The county’s engineering study, being conducted by Design Workshop and Collins Engineers, was not complete yet so they could not yet compare estimated costs for the three alternative plans within the CDOT right of way.  

One property owner, Spann Ranches Inc., has agreed to work with the county and sell about a half-mile strip of land at the north end of CB South to the county for $1 million and in exchange for being tied into CB South water, sewer, electric and roads and being allowed to further subdivide the land at a density similar to CB South. Hoyt explained that the county cannot make land use decisions as part of a transaction, however, and that even if a deal was reached with the Spanns there were at least 11 other properties owners whom the County would need to negotiate with and possibly sue to obtain their respective properties for a public trail.

Doug Washburn, who is part of the Spann ranching family, attended the meeting and said the family’s strong preference is that a trail not run alongside the highway and interfere with their cattle drives and irrigation.

“Our stance has always been that we don’t want to sell any ground for another bike trail. But the way the community has changed and the way that highway has changed, we want to avoid that highway at all costs. And we want less commotion out there,” he said. Construction of a trail and further interrupting the ranch’s water flow across the highway and culverts would create more problems for them, Washburn said. 

He said it would be safer for their operations to just go through their property in the sagebrush uphill of their irrigation ditch. 

Pagano noted that there were no other private property owners that agreed this location was the right place and were interested in negotiations for a trail alignment on their property.

Washburn said some of the neighboring landowners might be more open to some incentives like being granted access to further subdivision, water, sewer, electricity and roads as well. “I understand from the county attorney that that’s not possible, but there are ways to be creative in this day and age,” he suggested, including the involvement of other organizations.

Washburn said if the county were to build the trail along the highway, the Spann family would no longer be willing to offer their property for any additional trails.

“I’ve spent a ridiculous amount on this trail that I don’t want at all. But if we’re going to do it, let’s do it in the right place.”

Derek Harwell, CB South Property Owners’ Association manager, said he has heard a lot from his association’s members who want an alignment off the highway. He said CB South is isolated, and a trail off the roadway would be the most inviting and usable way to connect CB South to the North Valley.

“A commuter trail sells the vision short,” he said.

Committee chair Jake Jones said the decision before the STOR Committee was to give direction to the commissioners to either continue their high-level engineering study “or to sort of walk away from this process potentially and allow others to carry the torch.”

Puckett Daniels said while she could not speak for the whole board of county commissioners, she would personally rather stop a process if it wasn’t the right fit for the community. 

Puckett Daniels said there could be some unintended consequences to any trail alignment.

“Ranching is under a lot of pressures…and if they give up and sell and move on we would not have the open meadows…things would be really, real different here if ag goes away,” she said.

Joellen Fonken spoke from the audience to remind the committee that she had been on the trails commission in the past and the original vision was for a Gunnison to CB trail.

She also reminded the committee members that often these things take small steps forward, with private property easements that don’t connect until something changes down the line.

Jones, who also serves as executive director of the CB Land Trust, explained that acquiring land from willing landowners is the only model the Land Trust follows. He echoed Fonken’s point that there have been easements that went nowhere and later found a connection, such as with the Lupine Trail. “The notion of taking property involuntarily is something I’m not willing to discuss,” he said, and would end with the Land Trust removing itself from the STOR Committee.

Ian Billick, mayor of Crested Butte, agreed that he doesn’t support eminent domain. But he suggested finishing the current highway right-of-way engineering plan to get a sense of what it would cost. “Then we could narrow in on a decision, maybe do a survey,” he said. “I think there’s going to be a lot of value in that study.” 

Derrick Nehrenberg, MetRec district manager, agreed it would make sense to finish the engineering study.

Jones made an informal motion to advise the county to continue with Design Workshop on the current planning process. Steve Gurrieri, a committee member representing the Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association, amended the motion to include the suggestion of working with the Spann/Washburn family and all neighbors impacted by the process. The committee members present voted unanimously in favor, and Pagano said the county will take that suggestion into account and continue with the current process.

The county has extended the survey for community members to weigh in until October 8, which can be found along with more information about the process at https://www.gunnisoncounty.org/1048/Crested-Butte-to-Crested-Butte-South-mul.

The engineering study is expected to be complete by the end of the year, but Pagano said with the public survey extended they might extend the contract into January.