Western Slope voters will be weighing several ballot questions asking them to either raise taxes or debt to fund large infrastructure projects. And in at least a couple communities — Mesa County and Aspen — the proposals are facing stiff opposition.
Who will decide the future of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport?
Pitkin County voters have two measures to consider that are directly linked to the future of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. Should decisions of whether to widen the runway and expand the separation between the runway and taxiway lie with residents or the county commissioners.
The measures they’ll be voting on — citizen-initiated 200 and commissioner-introduced 1C — both address a fundamental question: Should the runway be altered to accommodate planes with wider wingspans, or should the runway maintain its current dimensions.
But here’s where the two ballot measures get tricky.
The first — 200 — asks voters to decide whether to amend Pitkin County’s home rule charter to specify that the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners does not have sole power to authorize the expansion or relocation of any runway at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport beyond limitations that existed before Jan. 1, 2024, without voter approval.
And the second — 1C — asks voters to “reaffirm” the commissioners’ authority to approve and implement a runway layout, along with other airport decisions, by way of another home rule charter amendment.
The group behind 200, Our Airport Our Vote, says the measure will decide whether the people of Pitkin County in the future will be able to vote on a broad range of major decisions, not just those relating to the airport, and that the ballot “concerns not just the widening of the airport runway, but growth of the entire Roaring Fork Valley.”
And the group behind 1C, A Whole Lot of People for a Better Airport, says “Referendum 1C authorizes the board of county commissioners to use federal funds to improve the airport, which has not been updated in 40 years. 1C will modernize the airport, increase safety, and reduce airport carbon and noise pollution.”
Pitkin and Weld counties are the only Colorado counties with home rule charters, first authorized for cities and municipalities by the legislature in 1902, and then extended to counties through an amendment to the constitution in 1970. Home rule gives them the authority to govern themselves with more local control than counties following state law, and allows for more control over matters of local significance.
The question of whether to build a runway that can accommodate larger aircraft has been a matter of local significance for years, said commissioner Greg Poschman, who was born in Aspen in 1959, has lived there ever since and has run uncontested since his first term in 2016. But at no time has the question been more critical, he said, because the runway is in dire need of repair.
“It’s got a crack that runs 2,500 feet down the center line. The substrate under it is wet. It’s very thick, with road bases and various layers, but what they’ve discovered is that the bottom half of it is rotten. If you pull out a core sample, it just turns to gravel and falls away,” Poschman said.
But in order to receive funding to repair it, Pitkin County “has to work with the FAA to meet their safety standards,” he added, and that means adhering to the 400-foot runway/taxiway dimensions, as well as grant assurances the county has already made to the FAA to get its funding.
“So if we were to, say, tell them all to go to hell, it’s like telling your business partner who has a contract with you that you’re not going to honor the contract any longer, and they can go get stuffed,” Poschman said. “We have experts, on the other hand, telling us, you guys better pay attention to what the FAA is telling you, because, you know, there will be consequences.”
Opponents believe the county can find other funding sources to make the needed repairs and modernize the airport, thus avoiding the widening requirement.
But “the real issue at hand isn’t a public vote or the runway anymore,” said Matt Moseley, president of the Ignition Strategy Group and communications consultant on the Aspen airport since 2018. “The real issue is can the BOCC make these decisions without voters? Who should have ultimate power? Should it be the county staff and airport management, SkiCo (Aspen Skiing Company), the manufacturers of bigger private jets or the citizens of Pitkin County?”
But even if 200 gets more votes than 1C, the commissioners say a clause in their amendment will let them retain decision-making power. That clause states that “notwithstanding, any provision of the Home Rule Charter to the contrary, the Board of County Commissioners shall have the power and authority to approve and implement a physical layout.”
Our Airport Our Vote attorneys Mark Grueskin and Nate Bruggeman reviewed 1C and said the clause “offends the U.S. Constitution,” however, because the home rule charter states the measure receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail.
In a letter to the editor in The Aspen Times on Oct. 14, Pitkin County Commissioner Francie Jacober volleyed back, saying the commission rejected Grueskin and Bruggeman’s claim and that 1C was “thoroughly researched and legally vetted before it was placed on the ballot.”
And she told The Colorado Sun, “the rub with their campaign, which I find a bit disingenuous, is they’re telling people we’re trying to rob them of the vote. But in fact, one of the reasons we put our ballot measure on there was to give the people the vote. So our ballot measure is their vote. If our ballot measure passes, that means that the majority of people voted that yes, they want this airport layout plan, which we’ve submitted.”
Voters will have to decide if they want the plan and how they want decisions about Aspen’s future to be made.
Will those decisions be the sole discretion of the commissioners, who Mick Ireland, mayor of Aspen from 2007 to 2013, said in an unsolicited email to The Sun “continue to green light ski area expansion, more huge 2nd homes…2nd homes staffed by a dozen or more people, dogs being the only passenger on a private jet,” and “out of control traffic serving the real estate / construction complex”?
Or will major decisions be made with the input of Pitkin County citizens, including 57% of 300 contacted by New Bridge Strategy, a Republican polling firm, who said they oppose widening the runway and increasing separation between the runway and taxiway to allow for larger planes?
Poschman said either way, “at the end of the day, regardless of the vote outcome, the FAA will get its way. The real question for us is, who will pay for it and how will commercial air service change?”
“Financial fiasco” or “a win for everybody” in Mesa County?
Mesa County voters will consider increasing the county’s debt to pay for an estimated $80 million interchange at 29 Road and Interstate 70.
The county and city of Grand Junction, citing estimated increases in jobs and population in the region, concluded in 2020 that north and south road improvements I-70 were warranted. The county and city’s two-year, 151-page September 2020 study recommended a new interchange at I-70 and 29 Road, along with a roadway north of I-70 and improvements to 29 Road, as the best option, citing fewer property rights issues and fewer environmental and community impacts.
The $80 million project would complete a loop of roads that began in the 1980s to improve circulation around the region without relying on I-70. Grand Junction and Mesa County have spent $205 million on seven projects since 2001 to improve roads as part of that regional loop plan.
The 29 Road highway interchange is estimated to cost $68 million and $12 million in improvements to 29 Road includes two additional lanes and pedestrian and bike paths.
Grand Junction council members tried to put funding on the city’s 2023 ballot but four members of the city council rejected the proposal.
In September, the Mesa County Board of Commissioners approved ballot language asking voters to fund the 29 Road interchange project. The ballot measure would allow the county to issue $80 million in bonds to pay for the new interstate ramps and road improvements, with a total of $173.4 million in repayment costs coming from existing sales tax revenues.
“If you look at the science and the data, it shows the interchange will reduce greenhouse gases. It’s going to increase miles traveled and reduce hours on the road. You get to go to more places and do more things with your family, and there will be less impact on the environment,” Commissioner Cody Davis said in a statement announcing the ballot measure. “That’s a win for everybody. Especially for our community, which wants more time to do what’s important in life. And that’s what we hope to give them: the gift of time.”
A group of residents has formed in opposition to Ballot Issue 1A. The No on 29 Road Debt group says additional road improvements to address safety concerns would increase construction costs to $143.6 million with total debt repayment of $277 million. The group argues that final approvals by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration could increase the cost of construction.
The group also argues that the construction and road improvements would increase traffic and safety issues on 29 Road and also impact Patterson Road, a major east-west route across town south of I-70. The debt burden would delay other city and county projects, the group contends.
The No on 29 group has been hosting public meetings to share its opposition to the project.
“We want people to understand the level of debt we are taking on here,” said Grand Junction Councimember Scott Beilfuss, who is opposed to the 29 Road project. “This is a financial fiasco. We have a housing crisis here and we spring into action and build an interchange? This very much means we are not going to do park things and road maintenance things and other capital projects because it will go toward this.”
(Palisade voters will vote on a proposal to double the town’s sales tax — to 4% from 2% — to generate about $1.4 million for road improvements and public safety.)
A new way to pay for Telluride’s gondola
San Miguel County voters will weigh increases in sales tax, lodging tax and property tax to fund the operation of the gondola between Mountain Village and Telluride as well as regional bus service.
Ballot Question 3A could increase the sales tax collections by $4.6 million, increase lodging tax collections by $2 million and increase property taxes by $89 per $1 million of home value, with a goal of raising $8.2 million a year to fund operations for the gondola and start saving for the looming $60 million replacement of the 27-year-old aerial transit system.
The new funding model also includes the Telluride Ski and Golf Co. directing about $1.5 million a year, collected from a fee on passes and tickets sold to visitors who do not live in the San Miguel Authority Regional Transportation District, toward the gondola.
The Telluride gondola is the first and only free public transportation aerial tramway in the country, running 16 hours a day for about 38 weeks a year. The system opened in 1996 as a partnership among Telluride Ski and Golf Co., San Miguel County and the developer of Mountain Village as a way to reduce car traffic between Telluride and the growing resort village.
That first year there were 165,000 riders. Today there are closer to 3 million a year — as many as 20,000 riders a day in peak season — and traffic is expected to reach 4 million by 2037.
A 1999 agreement among the ski resort, Mountain Village and the county established funding with public bonds and revenue from lift tickets. That deal expires at the end of 2027 and five years of collaborative meetings between local governments and businesses has led to 3A.
The San Miguel County commissioners and council members at Mountain Village and Telluride have urged voters to support 3A.
“None of us take a tax increase lightly, but considering the benefits of the gondola to our environment, economy and quality of life, your local elected officials feel this is a prudent proposal for the East End of the county,” San Miguel County Commissioner Anne Brown wrote in the Telluride Daily Planet earlier this month.