RTA considers requesting impact fees as valley grows

Asking development to chip in on future capital expenses

By Katherine Nettles

In the spirit of having development pay its own way, the Gunnison Valley Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) board of directors is considering the potential value of implementing transit impact fees for new development in the valley. The board discussed the possibilities at length during their March 28 meeting before deciding they still needed more information and the input of the entities the board members each represent. If they decide to approve a proposal in the future it will be up to either Gunnison County, or the municipalities in the valley—or all the above—to pass such fees based on the RTA’s input.

 The subject of impact fees came up briefly at the RTA’s February meeting, and last month executive director Scott Truex came back with more information about how they work. “I believe this was specifically meant for development in the Highway 135 corridor, but it could also be discussed across the district,” wrote Truex in a memo to the board prior to the meeting.

Transit impact fees would be one-time charges to new development projects to help fund capital projects and improvements such as bus stops or other transit facilities. The fees would ensure that new development projects contribute to the costs of infrastructure improvements or expansion created by those projects and the resulting increases in traffic and transit needs, but they could not be used for operational expenses or existing problems. The fees would likely be assessed at the time a building permit or certificate of occupancy was issued, according to Truex. 

The board had mixed feelings and a lot more questions at their March meeting.

They discussed federal budget cuts to many grant programs, including some cuts that have cancelled previously approved funding for new RTA buses this year.

Steve Morris, who represents the town of Mt. Crested Butte on the board, expressed concern about assessing fees for developments that would not be using RTA services. Morris used the example of Upper Prospect, whose inhabitants are probably using the RTA very little or not at all. 

Board member Ian Billick, representing the town of Crested Butte on the board, responded that the system works as a whole with increased traffic anywhere driving more demand for parking and transit in other areas. The Four-Way parking in the town of Crested Butte, he noted, draws drivers from both ends of the valley who park there.

The board discussed how to assess such fees, at the county level or as individual municipalities, as well as how to calculate the fee itself. The RTA itself could not assess the fee but could inform other entities on the need and recommend fee rates. 

The RTA has about $19 million invested currently in capital projects and its bus fleet, so that figure would be divided by the number of existing units in the valley to determine a per-unit fee for any new development. Truex estimated there are about 12,000 housing units in the valley total.

Board member Laura Puckett Daniels, representing Gunnison County, said she was having trouble with the impact fees being for capital expenditures only. “The fact that it could help buy new buses is helpful,” she said, but she mostly tended to associate new developments with an increase in ridership and operating expenses. “I don’t see the RTA making huge changes in the capital building infrastructure,” she said. 

Billick said that the fixed costs don’t relieve people of other incremental costs. “If there’s a development and we need to increase bus circulation, we’re going to need more buses. And we’re talking about coming up with money for intercept lots. I don’t think it’s our community’s responsibility to subsidize the free market development. If a project comes in and they want to drop 500 units, I don’t think that they should get to live off the capital investment however the community came up with it,” he said.

Truex also pointed out that operating expenses are covered by sales tax. “So if there’s more people living here there should be more sales tax, in theory,” he said. 

Puckett Daniels asked if a county-wide impact fee would apply to development projects anywhere in the unincorporated county, including areas not in the RTA district and which are not served by the RTA. She also wanted to know if the impact fee has to identify the recipient.

“So for example if Mt. Crested Butte did a transit impact fee and it was Mt. Crested Butte’s fee to collect on a new development, they may decide they are going to give a portion of that to Mountain Express or a portion of it to RTA,” she said.

“We can’t do [an impact fee],” agreed Truex about the RTA’s inability to charge the impact fee itself. 

“I would be comfortable with the county deciding where it goes,” said Billick. I think the role of the RTA is just to lay out the logic of what we see the impact is and pass it along to the county.

“It’s very possible that two municipalities are into it and two aren’t,” added Matt Schwartz, a board member representing the city of Gunnison. “If this ends up being a municipality thing and it can’t get steam behind certain municipalities or county commissioners, then what?” he asked. 

Board member Anna Fenerty, representing the town of Crested Butte, suggested that the fee could also apply to the Gunnison senior transit, and there were several questions around the purview of a fee in any areas current or prospectively. Puckett Daniels suggested the RTA prepare two proposals, one for the municipalities and one for the county to consider. 

Schwartz suggested they dig in deeper with more information first and discuss the concept more with their respective towns/county boards then come back with more fleshed-out preferences. “I think at this point we all need a little more information, and we need to see which way the wind blows with our boards. And come back and talk,” he said.

Truex said he could put together a draft proposal (or two) for consideration once the board is ready.