CB council split on street and alley funding tax increase

Does keeping rough edges mean bigger potholes and gravel streets?

By Mark Reaman 

As part of the 2026 budget discussions, the majority of the Crested Butte town councilmembers are reluctant to raise the street and alley fund mill levy more than one mill next year. That’s despite understanding some town roads need significant maintenance to stay in good shape. In fact, some councilmembers threw out the idea of letting the town roads deteriorate on purpose, and are even willing to entertain the idea of letting some streets go back to gravel.

Increasing the street and alley mills from the current eight mills to nine would raise another $196,000 per year for street maintenance, repair and equipment. That, along with a transfer of funds from the general fund in 2026 and new $243,000 revenue from the so-called Specific Ownership Tax (SOT) would hit the mark of ending 2026 with a zero net spendable fund balance. With a one mill increase to nine mills, the town would transfer about $1.18 million in general funds to achieve that goal and the net spendable fund balance in 2030 would be projected at a negative $468,000. 

Town staff had recommended moving the mill levy from eight to 10 mills, moving $975,000 in a general fund transfer to get to the 2026 zero net spendable fund balance. That would result with a $336,000 net spendable fund balance in the street and alley fund in 2030. 

Each additional mill would cost residential homeowners about $69 for every $1 million in property valuation. For commercial property, the impact would be approximately $295 for every $1 million in valuation. Interim finance director Rob Sweeney told the council at the October 20 budget work session that a two mill increase along with SOT revenue would keep up with maintenance costs. The last time the mill levy was raised was in 2016.

“Staying at eight mills doesn’t seem viable,” said councilmember John O’Neal.

“I’m getting a lot of feedback from constituents about not raising the mills at all,” said councilmember Kent Cowherd. “I’m standing at raising it one mill and then evaluate the situation going forward.  Let’s take small, steady steps.”

“I’m with Kent. I am okay going to nine mills and reevaluating in 2028 and 29,” said councilmember Beth Goldstone.

“I’m in the same corner with nine mills,” said councilmember Anna Fenerty. “The problem came about by waiting to do big projects every 10 years and costs increased a lot. That’s the root of the problem. I would like to explore more before raising more mills. Can we do roads differently than the way we do them now?”

“It seems to me the problem is the costs went up five-X,” said mayor Ian Billick.

“There are other options to consider. Other materials that can be used to pave roads,” said Fenerty. “We can preserve some roads and allow only localized traffic to cut down on use. Maybe look at the big Elk Avenue project for some cost savings? Can the paving of the roads be narrower?”

“The easy button seems to raise it two or three mills,” said O’Neal. “Do we keep doing that to get to the approved 16 mills? To keep raising mills goes against the affordability for locals. We need to find additional revenue sources. I don’t know what that would be, but costs will continue to go up. We also need to do something now, so I am in favor of nine mills.”

“To me, increasing mills now doesn’t mean we’re on a fast track to 16,” said Billick. “There’s been a quick cost escalation the last five years but that doesn’t mean it will keep going up so fast.”

“We’re all having consternation over this which is understandable,” said Cowherd. “We all say we want rough edges. So, this is a way to have rough surfaces. It’s something I’ve been contemplating. Potholes can act as reverse speed bumps.”

“So you’re advocating keeping the money in the general fund and accept that the roads will deteriorate with big potholes,” asked Billick.

“Maybe not that dramatic,” responded Cowherd. “Push out the maintenance schedule five or 10 years. Have our roads be C grade instead of B or A level roads.”

“If we don’t address the roads currently in the B and C level, they will go to D, E and F quality roads and cost four times as much to eventually repair them,” said Public Works director Shea Earley.

“What about doing overlays instead of FDRs (Full Depth Reclamation),” asked Goldstone.

“Roads already in the D quality won’t get a lot worse until the road just goes away,” said Earley. “The staff wants to maintain the B and C quality roads. We can use the less expensive ‘mill and overlay’ treatment on the B and C level roads and get more life out of them but once they get to a D rating, the only option to repair them becomes the much more disruptive and expensive full depth reclamation.”

“I want it to minimally work but find another path,” said Cowherd.

“We can do other material like chip-and-seal,” said Earley. “But they don’t last as long. We’ll be doing some every summer. Last time we did that, the community didn’t like chip-and-seal.”

“The question is, is it worth having a different finish on the road instead of raising the property mill,” said Fenerty.

“I could see this leading us to having some gravel roads gain,” said Earley. “The problems compound into greater problems over time.”

“It’s hard to raise taxes but I feel we need to keep up with our streets and alleys,” said councilmember Gabi Prochaska. “If we can be more creative, great. But the staff modelling on cost is probably optimistic. I fall on the side of raising it two mills to 10. It is a responsibility to long-term planning and thinking. Council could eventually find itself in a position like with water and sewer fees where they had to impose a giant rate increase all at once instead of slowly addressing the situation as it came up.”

“I’m comfortable that the staff is optimizing the modeling,” said Billick. “I am willing to explore alternative ideas but don’t think there is cheaper materials out there. People don’t like increased taxes and they also don’t like reduced services. Either way is a difficult choice, and some people won’t be happy. Going back to gravel won’t work. We would certainly hear a lot about that.”

“Some neighborhoods would be interested in going to gravel,” said Fenerty citing the Red Lady Avenue neighborhood.

“We’re a town that has tried to clean up, reduce emissions and slow down pollution,” said Earley. “Going gravel would damage the rights of way and it would spread around the town. It would be everywhere. Gravel debris would be tracked around through snow removal operations. In particular, it would end up in snow storage areas adjacent to the Town Ranch wetlands and we have been working hard to reduce the amount of impact and contaminants there.” 

“I could possibly support the two mill increase if maybe we get extra services like occasionally plowing the alleys where ADU units are located,” said O’Neal.

“I’m at the point where I think we need to maintain the current level of service with our roads,” concluded Billick. But he saw the writing on the road that there were four councilmembers, Fenerty, Cowherd, Goldstone and Mallika Magner who would not support going to 10 mills.

The budget hearing is scheduled for November 3 and it will include a one mill increase in the street and alley fund but staff will be prepared with a model raising it two mills in case there is a change of heart.