During a June 10 work session, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) heard from Road and Bridge Manager Eric McRae about road maintenance agreements and requirements in subdivisions throughout the county.
“We have discovered quite a few resolutions,” McRae said, explaining those resolutions date back “quite a ways.”
McRae explained that over the past 10 months he has been researching and looking for any documents relating to the county’s puzzle and mystery of why its Road and Bridge Department is “constantly struggling.”
McRae noted that he is not done researching the matter and is “open to more documents to hit the table,” mentioning he’s found documents dating from 1976 to 2006.
“This topic affects our entire community,” he added.
McRae explained that when a plat is accepted by the county, the document is stamped, signed and dated with legal dictations and waivers. One of those dictations states that streets are a right of way dictated to the public for vehicle traffic and utility access.
“This is giving the subdivision the ability to perform maintenance on right of ways,” McRae said.
He went on to explain that his first discovery was a resolution from 1998 that was an agreement between the county and 12 subdivisions stating the county would provide road maintenance in those subdivisions for a period of five years.
McRae later noted those 12 subdivisions include Blue Lakes Estates, Holiday Acres, Echo Lake Estates, Log Park, Teyuaken, Continental Estates, Pagosa Hills, Pagosa Peak Estates, Pagosa Pines, Piedra Park (Arboles), Spring Estates and Pagosa Lakes.
McRae explained that during the five-year timeframe, the community was to hold a vote on deciding to continue maintenance through “some sort of mill levy.”
“That proposal was voted down,” McRae added.
He then explained that he continued to dig up information and old documents to see what the county may have agreed to or not in terms of road maintenance.
He mentioned that the documents date as far back as 1976 and that most of the county’s subdivision roads began being developed in the 1970s.
The next discovery McRae spoke about was the Fairfield bankruptcy agreement, explaining the county agreed to maintain the arterial roads within the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (PLPOA).
He also indicated that another resolution from 2002 was discovered in which the county accepted platted roads as public roads.
McRae explained it was at this time when the community was to vote on whether or not to continue maintenance.
“And who voted it down?” Commissioner Veronica Medina asked.
“I believe the public, from my understanding,” McRae replied.
He reiterated that he is still open to new discoveries and documents that might present other information.
“We have spent quite a few months searching because we don’t want to make false statements,” McRae said.
Commissioner Warren Brown asked for clarification on if the matter was voted down during a regular public November election, which McRae confirmed to be the case.
“I don’t want to continue the way we have,” McRae stated, explaining that this is an opportunity to share discoveries with the public and explain the problems the county’s Road and Bridge Department is facing.
He noted that this affects a large percentage of roads in the county, mentioning the “community needs to understand where the county is and how we can come together to help.”
McRae explained that after the Fairfield discovery, five years had passed since Resolution 1998-82 was approved and “we were supposed to stop maintaining the said roads.”
He noted that the county is having this conversation now because it continued to maintain a lot of those roads for almost another 20 years.
McRae went on to explain his next discovery was a letter written from PLPOA to the county asking the county to accept its remaining minor collector roads in the subdivision.
“As far as we know, this letter went unanswered,” McRae said, noting it was “merely a letter that we received.”
He also mentioned a supporting document from 2005 explaining that the county would use Highway User Tax Funds (HUTF) received from the state to continue performing winter maintenance.
McRae noted that the Road and Bridge Department is maintaining a “very large percentage of roads that we were never designed and staffed to deal with.”
He mentioned that the department currently has 17 staff members — the same amount it had in 1976.
McRae commented that financial struggles over the years have caused the department to grow and shrink, also noting that today’s crews are using improved equipment.
“But, we are working tirelessly and constantly chasing our tails,” he said.
McRae commented again that he is open to any more recently dated discoveries and that he is looking to “finalize this story so that we can make an educated, mature decision as to what we can do to satisfy the needs.”
He encouraged the community to become involved and educated on the matter to see if creating homeowners associations (HOAs) or metro districts could help, or to find ways for the county to be able to fund the department to handle the workload, “which we’re obviously not able to do efficiently now.”
McRae commented that the county can’t “keep kicking the can down the road” and that “it’s time this conversation happens.”
He explained that he’s been working with the county for approximately 17 months and when he’s asked questions or receives complaints, he goes looking for answers in the county’s documents.
“This is the situation we’re all in,” he added.
Medina asked for clarification on if the 12 subdivisions listed in the 1998 resolution were subdivisions that the county would take care of.
McRae explained that over the past 20 years the department has tried to help address complaints, “and I think that’s why we’re in the position we’re in now.”
He mentioned that the Road and Bridge Department would assume it was their responsibility and now are dealing with issues of being overrun with work.
“Unfortunately, it’s our problem now to fix,” he said, explaining that some the subdivisions are quite small, while others are significantly larger, describing it as a “very unbalanced list.”
Brown also asked for clarification about if the county agreed to maintain those 12 subdivisions for a period of five years, though the county has continued to maintain those roads beyond the agreement period, with McRae confirming that is the situation.
“I think we’re all here to serve the public the best we can,” McRae said, explaining that his predecessors were probably just trying to keep people on drivable roads.
He also noted that maintaining roads was likely not as challenging when the county had a smaller population, claiming the county’s population has doubled over the past 10 years.
Public Works Director Mike Torres joined McRae, explaining the expected costs it would take for the county to assume maintenance responsibility for all of these roads would be around $2 million.
He explained there would be costs with extra equipment and additional staff, as well extra materials.
“We all know how expensive it is to get gravel to Pagosa,” Torres added.
McRae also noted that there would be a cost in assuming roads that are not built to county standards.
“The county has definitely gone above and beyond when compared to these discoveries,” he added.
McRae explained the county is investing approximately $1.2 million into the Vista subdivision, which has historically been “greatly ignored,” in his opinion.
County Manager Jack Harper asked for McRae to speak about how tax dollars are spent on roadways.
McRae indicated that each household contributes roughly $30 to $60 of taxes that go towards roadways.
“We all pay taxes here,” McRae said, explaining a common complaint is that constituents pay taxes, yet their roads are in poor shape, adding that “the truth is” those tax dollars “are spread thin.”
He noted that the HUTF provides about $2,400 per mile, explaining the county uses those funds to plow snow in the winter.
“We lose money plowing snow,” he added, clarifying that the county plows throughout all subdivisions in the county.
“We are discussing summertime maintenance,” McRae said.
Brown then explained that metro districts receive their own HUTF dollars, as it is passed through the county.
“They get those fundings to perform their own maintenance,” Brown said, explaining that’s why there are not county plows on some roads.
McRae noted metro districts operate in Aspen Springs, Loma Linda and the San Juan River Village.
McRae also noted that HOAs do not qualify for HUTF monies.
He mentioned that some of the “benefits” of metro districts is that they give subdivisions the “power to control their community.”
He explained that metro districts are required to be approved by eligible voters in the district’s boundaries, approved by the local municipality and must provide at least two services.
He noted those services could include road maintenance, fire protection, parks and recreation, mosquito control, sanitation, solid waste disposal, transportation and water supply, television relay and translation, or safety protection.
“Metro districts are independent governmental entities that provide public service that go beyond what counties or municipalities can provide,” McRae said, also noting that metro districts are able to apply for grant funds.
Interim county attorney Lance Ingalls explained that since counties are immune for liability of roadways, the county has discretion on what level of maintenance on any roadway is appropriate.
He mentioned that it is common for counties to have more roadway needs than what it can cover in its budget.
Commissioner John Ranson described the topic as a “big deal,” commenting, “I don’t want to kick the can down the road anymore.”
McRae mentioned he hopes the county can come up with a clear policy and something “better for the future.”
Brown commented that it seems the county is getting to the discovery of the “systemic cause” of its road challenges.
Medina noted the county has increased its Road and Bridge budget every year since she’s been on the BoCC, and that it has pulled funds from the general fund to do so.
“I just hope that the public sees this is a transparent conversation,” McRae added.
Torres encouraged residents in these subdivisions to become involved in finding a solution.
McRae also noted that no decisions would be made “anytime soon.”
Medina expressed appreciation for McRae’s perspective on the matter “and not just doing what we’ve always done, because as we see, that model is broke.”
Ranson also commented that he wants the topic to remain “front and center,” and that oftentimes conversations like this are had and nothing is done.
“I don’t want this to be one of those items,” Ranson said.
Landfill regulation
opposition
During the same work session, Torres informed the BoCC that he met with the coalition of municipalities that are fighting against the state’s proposed Regulation 31, which would require additional methane monitoring and control on landfills.
He explained the coalition is planning to be represented by Chris Colcasure, an attorney with Beatty and Wozniak.
“They would like our participation in helping with some of the expense to obtain him and keep him working for us,” Torres said, explaining they are asking for any amount from $1 to $20,000.
Torres suggested that the county could contribute $10,000.
He also explained that the county’s landfill is located on Southern Ute land, but the documents “clearly stated” that it is required to follow regulations set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and would therefore be subject to Regulation 31.
Ranson explained that Mesa County spearheaded the effort to oppose the regulation and is donating “a lot of money” to this, as well opposition to other mandates.
“Might be a good investment,” Ranson said.
Brown also expressed support, stating, “I think it’s important to be a good neighbor” in helping to share the expense.
Medina commented that, “obviously we’re not making a decision,” but explained there is sufficient funding in the county’s attorney fund and that if $10,000 is sufficient, then staff could be directed to look at the budget and have the funds pulled from the attorney fund.
clayton@pagosasun.com
