CB South Metro sues county over CBS road ownership

Metro board against county issue 1A

by Katherine Nettles

After several months of discussion, a dispute between the Crested Butte South Metropolitan District and Gunnison County over the roads within Crested Butte South has come to a head this month. The metro district has filed a lawsuit and issued a resolution stating its board of directors’ opposition to the county’s 1A ballot question asking for a half-cent sales tax increase to fund road and bridge maintenance. The two parties currently appear to be working to find a resolution outside of court however, and the county’s ballot question will be determined by the election that ends on November 3.

CB South Metro, which handles water and sewer for the subdivision, filed a complaint in Gunnison District Court on October 9, and on October 13 the district board of directors passed a resolution outlining various reasons for opposing Gunnison County ballot measure 1A.

The dispute over who owns or is financially responsible for maintaining the roads in CB South seems to have begun last spring when the CB South Property Owner’s Association (POA) began asking openly whether the county would consider using any new road revenue to benefit CB South roads. During a POA board meeting in April, assistant county manager for public works Martin Schmidt and county commissioner Laura Puckett Daniels had given a presentation describing the county’s recent comprehensive assessment study of its roads and bridges to determine deferred maintenance costs; the county ultimately prepared a ballot question for this fall to raise more funds for that maintenance.

Schmidt and Puckett Daniels had answered several questions from the POA board of directors and members of the public during that meeting and confirmed CB Souths’ non-inclusion in the roads assessment study or maintenance priorities if the county’s ballot measure to fund roads were to pass.

On May 15, following that meeting, Schmidt sent a follow-up letter to the POA manager Derek Harwell and its board. “We were recently forwarded the latest CB South POA newsletter and were concerned to see several statements that do not accurately reflect the facts regarding road ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and the county’s role in Crested Butte South,” the letter stated. “Because these issues are important to your residents, and because they are central to broader community conversations about transportation funding and road conditions, we want to ensure the information being shared is accurate and complete.”

The letter listed several clarifications addressing the county’s deferred maintenance assessment for roads and bridges, as well as ownership and responsibility for the roads within CB South. “Roads within Crested Butte South are not county roads and therefore were not included in that analysis. Including them would have added several million dollars more to the maintenance backlog total and reduced the accuracy of the assessment,” wrote Schmidt.

“CB South roads are the responsibility of the Crested Butte South Metropolitan District, as established through the road plat dedication, district service plan, monthly road fees, and long-standing funding agreements. The county collaboratively contracts with the district to perform certain maintenance projects to save the district money and facilitates HUTF (Highway Users Tax Fund) revenue for the district as a courtesy, but the legal responsibility for maintenance remains with the district,” Schmidt continued.

He then addressed the county’s authority over and role in maintaining those roads.

“There is some confusion about the county authority on the district’s roads. Due to the county having the enforcement authority (Sheriff) over the traffic laws in all of unincorporated Gunnison County, the responsibility to ensure that road treatments maintain legality on roads open to the public ultimately falls to the county. This does not make roads “county roads,” but instead reflects the county acting in the public’s interest.

“The County has not decreased its role in CB South roads,” added Schmidt. “In fact, our involvement has remained consistent since the 1970s, including plowing services. Additionally, we have worked collaboratively with the Metro District since 2017 to increase state funding support for CB South roads by approximately $20,000–$30,000 annually…Any discussions about modifying the county’s role have occurred at the request of the Metro District, not as a unilateral county action. When a proposed change to the agreement was not supported, the county maintained the existing structure.”

Schmidt had concluded his letter asking for action. “To that end, we respectfully request that the POA include a clarification or correction in your next newsletter to address the inaccuracies noted above. Failing to pass along accurate information only creates the confusion that has caused many residents to be frustrated about issues that should be clear. For your convenience, we have included a concise and objective version of this information suitable for publication in your next newsletter.”

The POA did not include Schmidt’s requested clarification in any messages to the POA membership; however the CB South Metro District let the county know it was not happy with its request.

After several months of discussion between the county, the POA and the district, the Metro district turned to the court. The district has asked for a declaratory judgement regarding three questions: “1) does Gunnison County own the roads in CB South; 2) are the roads in CB South part of the county road system; and 3) are CB South roads eligible for county road funds?”

Attorney Marcus Lock, who is representing the district, describes in the complaint that four recorded subdivision plats for CB South all contain public dedication language for the roads which were approved by county commissioners. The district alleges that none of the plats refer to the Metro District, and the district “did not approve, sign or accept the plats or any public dedications of the roads,” according to the court filing. It alleges that it was formed in 1977 to provide water and sewer systems to the subdivision, and that its service plan outlined that the district would construct the subdivision’s roads with financing from the developer “but the service plan did not address ongoing maintenance or other responsibilities related to the roads in CB South.”

The filing outlines an extensive history of the roads as well as various district and county actions and agreements in the time since the district formed, and requests that the court declare the CB South roads are part of the county road system, are owned by the county and are eligible for county road funding.

The district then issued a resolution passed by its board of directors opposing 1A. The resolution states that the county has denied ownership of CB South roads, and after placing 1A on the November 2026 ballot, wrote a letter to the POA demanding that the POA inform residents of road ownership from the county’s perspective.

The resolution alleges the county “demanded that the POA inform all of its residents (who are also district residents) that CB South roads are district-owned roads, not county roads and that CB South roads are not eligible for funds that would be generated by the proposed sales tax increase in Ballot Measure 1A.”

POA manager Derek Harwell commented to the Crested Butte News on the dispute this week: “In short, though the POA is referenced in the complaint, the POA is not a party to either side of the complaint. While Martin Schmidt did send us the letter referenced in the complaint, the POA did not share the perspective outlined in the letter with the CB South community.”

The district took issue with the county’s correspondence, stating that the county “did not inform the district of its written demand to the POA and did not permit the district to provide input even though the county knew its demand was directly contrary to the district’s stated position.” The district says it requested a meeting with the county to resolve its disagreements, to no avail.

“The county did not respond to agree to the district’s offer to meet and resolve the disagreements until October 8, 2026 and expressed that any such meeting could not occur until November 2026,” states the resolution. It also asserts that the county then accused the district of “fraud and intentional misconduct” for seeking a determination on the road ownership.

The district did acknowledge in its resolution that even if CB South roads are determined to be owned by the county and are a part of its road system, the county has discretion to determine how it spends its road funds.  

The News reached out to both the county and district for comment. Schmidt responded, “I think that they are referencing a letter I wrote earlier this summer to the Crested Butte South Property Owners Association when they reference our ‘demands.’  This letter was not a “demand“, but rather an effort to correct misinformation being shared with residents about responsibility for CB South roads.” Schmidt provided a copy of the letter and commented, “Any reader can see that ours was a respectful request, not a demand.

“The Crested Butte South Metropolitan District was established in the 1970s to provide essential services, including road maintenance,” continued Schmidt. “For decades, Gunnison County has stepped up to assist CB South, first by voluntarily plowing lower subdivision roads and later, in 2017, by entering into an agreement to share state Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF) revenues to support road maintenance. These were good-faith efforts to help our neighbors, not agreements to assume permanent responsibility for the roads. Although these roads are located within Gunnison County, responsibility for these public roads has always rested with the Metro District. Not all public roads in the county are county roads, and the Metro District is a government formed to take care of the roads in CB South,” concluded Schmidt. “Our goal has always been to work cooperatively with CB South Metro to maintain safe, reliable roads for its residents.”

 Gunnison County attorney Matthew Hoyt also responded. “While Gunnison County generally does not comment on active litigation, we believe the public deserves an accurate understanding of this dispute and its impact on taxpayers,” wrote Hoyt.

“The Crested Butte South Metropolitan District’s decision to sue the County is both disappointing and unnecessary. Since 2022, county staff and elected officials have made repeated good-faith efforts to resolve issues around road maintenance responsibilities and funding. Most recently, the district requested renewal of an agreement substantially similar to the one signed in 2017, only to subsequently initiate litigation and use this same agreement against the county,” said Hoyt.

“The county has consistently sought a reasonable resolution through discussion and compromise. We are now engaged in negotiations that could lead to formal mediation regarding this latest lawsuit, and we remain willing to pursue that path.”

Hoyt expressed interest in resolving the matter out of court and ceasing “the unnecessary expenditure of public time and money, so that taxpayer dollars could be better directed toward serving our community.” He expressed concern that “Residents of Crested Butte South deserve to see their public dollars invested in road maintenance and other essential services, not an avoidable legal battle.” Hoyt also said the county was disappointed by the district’s decision to issue a resolution regarding the ballot measure in the midst of this dispute. “We believe decisions about public policy should be made on their merits, not influenced by disagreements between local governments,” wrote Hoyt.

“Gunnison County remains committed to finding a fair, responsible solution. We believe our community is best served when local governments work together to solve problems rather than spend public resources fighting one another,” Hoyt concluded.

The district did not comment on the litigation or mediation.