The Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved the referral of a ballot measure for the Nov. 3 election that would impose a new 0.5 percent sales tax in the county to support road maintenance at its July 21 meeting.
The BoCC also approved a resolution supporting this ballot measure and outlining the reasons the board chose to pursue it.
Gunnison County Assistant County Manager for Public Works, Martin Schmidt explained to the board that the clauses included in this resolution are all backed by financial data, public conversations, and the county’s long-term financial decisions and had been compiled in the resolution.
The resolution outlines the extensive amount of roadways and infrastructure the county is responsible for maintaining, the $38 million backlog of road maintenance the county faces, and its difficulty in securing revenues to fund this maintenance, which resulted in the need for a sales tax increase.
“The intent behind this resolution is that it clearly identifies why such a hard question would be asked of the voters of Gunnison County,” he said.
Commissioner Elizabeth Smith said that she appreciated how comprehensive and detailed the reasoning presented in the resolution was and how it covered the questions of community residents.
Commissioner Johnathan Houck also expressed his appreciation for how “thorough” the resolution was.
Smith said that the only thing she would potentially add is language referencing how addressing transportation infrastructure issues strategically would not only reduce costs but also reflect “sound financial stewardship.”
“I just want it to state that part of that thinking is really by beginning to take care of this backlog now … and by having some thoughtfully mapped out what the impact costs are and deferred maintenance and what we expect things to look like going into the future, that that is really a commitment that the organization has but is also reflected here too about the sound financial stewardship of what the taxpayers pay,” Smith said. “It’s being thoughtful about what it costs to do this work and to not increase costs by delaying any longer.”
“The old saying is the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, the next best time is today, and I think that’s where we’re at with this particular situation,” said Schmidt. “I applaud the bravery and the concern for the public and the public’s funds that the board has with this request.”
Smith and Houck then voted to approve the resolution, with Commissioner Laura Daniels not voting due to being absent.
The discussion moved on to the resolution approving the referral of the ballot measure.
Schmidt said that the resolution referring the ballot issue, prescribing its form and referring it to the county clerk follows the ballot language rules laid out in the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and was formatted by the county attorney’s office.
County Attorney Matthew Hoyt said the resolution needed to be adopted by July 24 to be placed on the ballot, meaning this was the BoCC’s last chance to adopt it at a regular meeting, and that, upon adoption, Fair Campaign Practices Act restrictions on advocacy would come into effect.
He explained that board members, unlike staff, would be free to advocate for the ballot measure as much as they wished so long as they did not spend more than $50 of public money doing so.
He said that advocacy by county staff “could be construed” to run afoul of the act but elected officials could advocate as long as they do not violate the dollar limitation.
Hoyt advised the commissioners to use “their own instrumentalities” as much as possible to prevent any violations of this limit, such as using their own social media channels.
In response to a question from Gunnison County Manager Matthew Birnie, Hoyt added that using previously created documents, like the resolution the board just passed, to promote the ballot issue would not count toward the cost limit.
Birnie added that public employees are also free to advocate for any issue they want on their own time, including a ballot measure such as this.
Hoyt also said that, following the approval of referring the ballot measure, staff would have to provide pro and con statements for any inquiries about the resolution, although he wanted to be “careful” about discussing specific scenarios on the public record since they are case-specific.
Schmidt said that the county also has to take certain actions due to state law, such as noticing the ballot measure four times in the local newspaper, which would cost public funds but would not be considered advocacy.
Smith asked if the county could use previously generated materials about the ballot measure that are not for or against it but are merely educational.
Hoyt stated that the county could recirculate these materials but would have to follow spending limits in terms of county funds spent to distribute this information.
“I’m really excited to see this resolution in front of us,” Smith said. “I’m really grateful for all the thoughtfulness that has gone into getting it to this point, including the very expensive consulting and mapping and calculations and Martin, I know that you have been working with a lot of partners on that and that collectively our team has been doing a lot to pull this together in a way that really illustrates the need and how other measures that are proposing to bring revenues potentially into road and bridge funding are not sufficient and how we have exhausted all of our other legal financial resources,” Smith said. “And so, I just wanted to acknowledge all of the time and effort it’s taken to get to this point, the tremendous work … our staff have done in order to get it here, and this has been many years in the making since Marlene was sitting in front of us and we were contemplating this with a different board composition. … So, it’s really exciting to see this opportunity come before us today.”
Houck asked Hoyt whether, under the items that would not be taxed that were listed in the ballot measure, residential utilities would include delivery of propane for people who use it as a utility.
Hoyt said that it was the intent to include delivery of propane as a residential utility, although he said that there would likely be further questions about what counts as a residential utility that would have to be resolved in the future, such as for utility types that do not currently exist.
Schmidt added that residential utilities are also defined in state sales tax collections and that the county intended to build upon that definition.
Smith said that she was pleased the question had arisen since the tax proposal excludes many things that residents spend discretionary income on.
Schmidt said that the resolution excludes food for domestic home consumption, prescriptions, school activities and residential utilities, among other things, from taxation.
The BoCC then voted to approve the resolution to refer the ballot measure, specify its contents and refer the ballot issue to the county clerk.
The approved text of the ballot measure reads,”Shall Gunnison County taxes be increased by $3,388,719 annually (estimated first fiscal year dollar increase starting in 2027), and by any additional amount as may be raised each year thereafter, through an additional 0.50% (50 cents on $100) countywide sales tax to commence on January 1, 2027, for the purposes of:
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here