RTA board needs more clarity on potential impact fees

If not an impact fee… then what?

By Mark Reaman

The Gunnison Valley Rural Transportation Authority seemed to hit a speed bump at its May 9 board meeting over the idea of requesting transportation impact fees for new developments in the county, particularly in the North Valley. The idea of asking Gunnison County and/or other governmental entities to impose such fees on new developments has been discussed at recent meetings given what appears to be dense developments lining up for approval in the county.

RTA board member and Gunnison County commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels informed the board at its recent meeting that county attorney Matthew Hoyt had looked into the idea and didn’t feel it could be done under current state law.  She said Hoyt had sent several questions to RTA attorney Kathy Fogo about the legality of transit impact fees for the RTA. “Right now, he’s pretty sure the county cannot do this,” Puckett Daniels said.

RTA executive director Scott Truex said he was unaware of Hoyt’s opinion but would get with Fogo to discuss the situation.

“We need to be in problem solving mode,” said RTA board member and Crested Butte mayor Ian Billick. “This is an issue we need to solve. We all understand it is probably not a quick and simple conversation, but the reality is we are experiencing significant impact and the question is, who is going to subsidize who? 

“When we see large subdivisions approved in the north end of the valley and effectively what’s happened at Meridian — it puts a huge amount of pressure on the town’s parking,” Billick continued. “So the intent of this initial RTA letter is to explain the logic of the costs to the RTA and prompt the opportunity to explore how to solve this problem.”

“To play devil’s advocate, the RTA benefits from sales tax which goes up with increased people in the valley,” said Puckett Daniels. “The town also benefits from increased sales tax with more people. So the argument could be made that the RTA benefits from development.”

“That increase in sales tax won’t cover the $14 million for the Whetstone transit campus that Mountain Express needs to add more buses,” responded Billick, citing how Mountain Express buses transport RTA passengers from the Four-way to the ski area in winter storms since the RTA can’t make it up the Gothic Road hill safely. “I don’t know what the solution is, but I know what the problem is and I’d encourage us to be in problem-solving mode. We will run into significant pushback from this community in five years when we have big powder days and can’t increase the number of buses needed to serve the people. We’ll be very upset as a community.”

“I agree we need to work toward solutions,” said Puckett Daniels. “Matt (Hoyt) says this won’t work.”

“I appreciate the work he has done but we need to get beyond one attorney’s opinion and get beyond just saying no,” said Billick. “We can model the increase in sales tax and see what that would bring in. Maybe I’m wrong and it’s enough.”

Truex estimated sales tax revenue increases from a larger population could cover operational expense increases but probably not additional capital needs. He said the state has moved toward allowing RTAs to ask voters for more money.

“This issue feels like one of many spokes in a bicycle wheel,” commented RTA board member and county commissioner Liz Smith.

Real world example

In that vein, a small RTA discussion took place about the comments the organization would submit for the proposed Starview subdivision near the entrance to Cement Creek Road. RTA board members and county commissioners Puckett Daniels and Smith recused themselves from the discussion since they will ultimately vote on the proposal. Truex told the remaining board members that most of the original comments would be similar to what had been submitted before the proposal increased density. He said the new submittal would acknowledge and support a parking lot near a proposed bus stop at the edge of the subdivision.

The board members, particularly Billick and Anna Fenerty, wanted the RTA to ask that the parking lot be useable for the general public. “This goes right to the idea of the impact fees,” said Billick. “As approved subdivisions come online, there are public pressures created so the mitigations should be available to the public.”

A park-and-ride near the main CB South bus stop is included in its parks master plan and that is expected to accommodate about 50 vehicles but there is no timeline on when that might be produced.

“Personally, I think this has to be a public amenity,” reiterated Billick. “The subdivision is creating demand. It’s like having a rec path only available to the subdivision. It should be public.”

“Unless they are prepared to spend a lot of time and money monitoring the lot, other people will use it and that should be fine,” added Fenerty.

Info gathering phase

On the general idea of a transit impact fee, board members concluded the county and RTA could expect to get less financial support from the state. “That’s another reason to get ahead of this curve to keep the journey moving forward,” said Billick. “I’m not expecting a particular fee to be enacted in six or 12 months, but we need to be strategic. It’s a long conversation, especially as the county and town head into the corridor planning.”

The board agreed to have the two attorneys get together to discuss the issue while board members will reach out to other government representatives in the state and see how they have addressed such issues.

“If the answer is that we can’t do it then I would like a well-articulated reason why to share with our citizens,” said Billick.

“There are several different threads to this conversation,” said Puckett Daniels. “Let’s also see if there are tools other than a transit impact fee.”

Truex told the board more definitive information was needed before any letter from the RTA was sent out to local government entities requesting potential transit impact fees, so he will keep the item on the RTA agendas as a continuing issue item.