During a work session held by the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on Tuesday, Aug. 4, the board heard a presentation from Public Works Director Mike Torres covering the history of county adopted roads and maps, and what obligations the county does and does not have when it comes to maintaining certain roads.
“This is our findings that we have found throughout our investigation of what is really going on with the road systems,” Torres said, bringing up the terms “primary” and “secondary” road.
“Road and Bridge has struggled to keep up with regular maintenance,” Torres said, comparing the 1998 county adopted road map to the most recent adopted road map, which is from 2017.
He explained that the BoCC approved a resolution in 1998 that had the county take over maintenance of subdivision roads through the end of 2003.
Torres then provided a list of primary roads that were accepted by the county for maintenance in 2004.
“So, all of this stuff is dated from back then,” he said.
According to Torres’ presentation, the roads include multiple classifications which are:
• Arterials: County Road (CR) 500 (Trujillo Road) and CR 600 (Piedra Road) — U.S. 160 to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) boundary.
• Collectors: Buttress Avenue — South Pagosa Boulevard to Cascade Avenue, Cascade Avenue, CR 119 (Light Plant Road), CR 335 (Lower Blanco Road), CR 359 (Coyote Park Road), CR 700 (Cat Creek Road) — U.S. 160 to Orange Court, Meadows Drive, Mission Drive, North Pagosa Boulevard, Park Avenue — North Pagosa Boulevard to Carlee Place, Pinon Causeway, South Pagosa Boulevard, Trails Boulevard — U.S. 160 to Ranger Park Drive and Vista Boulevard.
• Agricultural Access: CR 391 (Edith Road), CR 542 (Montezuma Road), CR 551 (Juanita Road) and CR 700 (Cat Creek Road) — Orange Court to CR 500.
• Recreational Access: CR 113 (Fawn Gulch Road), CR 146 (Turkey Springs Road), CR 166 (First Fork Road), CR 200 (Snowball Road), CR 302 (Mill Creek Road), CR 326 (Blanco Basin Road), CR 382 (Upper Navajo Road) to USFS 731 (Price Lakes Road), CR 400 (Four Mile Road), CR 982 (entrance to Navajo State Park), CR 988 (entrance to Navajo State Park) — South of Colo. 151 and Eight Mile Mesa Road.
“As you’re aware, we receive numerous phone calls throughout the year in regard to road maintenance in subdivisions,” Torres stated, explaining that “for decades” subdivisions dedicated roads to the public, “but the county never accepted most of the roads for maintenance.”
He explained that the BoCC’s formal policy approved in 2006 states that secondary roads receive no routine maintenance beyond one blading per year and snow plowing as needed.
Torres also explained that Highway Users Tax Funds (HUTFs) received from the state only cover about a tenth of what full maintenance of all roads would cost.
He went on to explain that the county updated its map in 2017, labeling secondary roads, “which means not county-maintained.”
“So, our current county map does not clearly distinguish the difference between all classifications as listed,” Torres added, indicating that is where the public’s confusion may lie.
Torres mentioned that all too often staff receives calls from the public stating the county has not been maintaining their road. Many of those roads were dedicated to the public decades ago, but were never accepted by the county for maintenance.
Torres noted that, as a courtesy, the county will occasionally grade roads that have not been accepted into the county’s road system, adding that providing that courtesy service does not create an obligation for the county to keep doing it.
“The county does not have the resources to keep every road in good condition,” Torres said.
He reiterated that roads classified as secondary do not get county maintenance, and also that secondary roads are public roads, not a county-maintained road.
Torres reviewed what each road system, primary and secondary, actually gets in terms of maintenance, noting that a primary road receives routine maintenance year-round, a capital improvement program, snow removal, signage, reconstruction to county road standards and HUTFs.
Secondary roads receive a minimum of one blading per year, snow plowing when necessary, no capital improvement program, no reconstruction to county road standards, no year-round service and no HUTFs unless located within a special district.
As for how county roads can get accepted in the county’s primary road system, Torres explained there is a formal discretionary process once a year in which the county considers petitions to accept roads into its maintenance system.
The deadline for petitions to be submitted is May 31, Torres indicated, also noting that through that process the “burden” is on the requesting party to document the existing nature of the road and provide a cost estimate and funding plan to bring the road up to county standards.
He also explained that the county engineer and director “weigh” economic impacts and the practicality before making a decision to accept the road for primary maintenance or not.
In response to a question from Commissioner Veronica Medina, Torres mentioned that during his three years of working for the county he has not received any formal petitions for roads to be accepted into the county’s maintenance system.
Torres responded to another question from Medina, stating that the petition process is explained in the county’s standards, which are posted online, adding that “yes” the county informs people of the process, “but it is not clearly stated.
Commissioner John Ranson asked if the application of magnesium chloride is considered routine maintenance, to which Torres explained that service is considered a maintenance cost by the county.
“That is another topic,” Torres added, mentioning that could be addressed as the county moves along with reviewing its road map and maintenance system.
“This is just an informative conversation to bring you guys up to speed of where we’re at and what we think is going on,” he said.
Torres then provided a timeline of significant events related to the history of the county’s road maps and maintenance systems.
He explained that the state first requested counties create maps displaying their arterial roads in 1953.
“To our knowledge, this map was not created,” he said, clarifying that staff has been unable to find a road map from that far back.
In 1998, the county began accepting subdivisions, explaining that Resolution 98-82 was approved by the BoCC, describing it as a five-year fix for 12 subdivisions throughout the county.
Once that resolution ended in 2004, the general consensus in the community that what the county was doing was not working, Torres explained.
He explained that, in 2005, county staff created a primary and secondary road map meeting nationwide standards.
Then, in 2006, the BoCC voted to end routine maintenance on secondary roads within the county, Torres explained.
The map was updated again in 2017, with roads being relabeled, “and the confusion begins,” Torres said, noting there was a heavy staff turnover rate in the county from 2006 to 2008.
He also mentioned that with the 1998 resolution the county agreed to accept certain roads from 12 different subdivisions, “but only temporarily, and only if it could afford to.”
After the five-year period defined in that resolution ended, the roads were “transferred” back to their respective subdivisions for maintenance, Torres explained.
He also explained that “arterial roads” in subdivisions were the only roads to be permanently maintained by the county, “specifically subject to the county’s financial ability to do such maintenance.”
He added, “So, if we didn’t have the money, they only got bare minimum.”
Torres offered a county comparison from 2003 and 2004, comparing the Archuleta County Road and Bridge Department to Summit County’s, which he noted would not be an accurate comparison today, but was suitable for that time period.
He mentioned that the budget was comparable between the two counties, but that Archuleta County was trying to maintain “more than three times the road mileage.”
According to Torres’ presentation, during that time period, Archuleta County had 474.5 miles of roads, compared to Summit County’s 142.5.
Torres’ presentation also mentioned “the money cannot reach every road” as he explained total HUTF funds received by the county for all primary and secondary roads account for less than 10 percent of revenue needed to maintain the entire road system.
According to Torres, in 2004 the county received roughly $1.42 million in HUTFs, with the Road and Bridge annual budget set at 3.74 million and the total cost to reach “very good” status with road conditions listed at $13.24 million.
Torres then offered a modern county comparison with Archuleta, Chaffee and Teller counties.
He noted that, today, Archuleta County has a population of about 14,500, a 15-employee Road and Bridge Department with a $7.2 million budget and is responsible for about 482 miles of road.
Chaffee County has a population of about 20,300, an $8.5 million Road and Bridge Department budget with 22 to 25 employees and is responsible for about 300 miles of road. Teller County has a population of about 26,000, a Road and Bridge Department budget of $8.5 million with 26 employees and is responsible for about 554 miles of road.
Torres explained that his takeaways from those comparisons were that Archuleta County has the smallest budget and population, but has the largest system per capita and the widest funding gap.
“No comparison county is responsible for nearly 500 miles on a budget under $7.5 million,” Torres said.
During his presentation, Torres also reviewed the costs associated with maintaining gravel roads compared to maintaining paved roads.
“Almost everything we maintain is gravel,” Torres said, noting that as a separating factor between Archuleta County and Teller and Chaffee counties.
“Our system is overwhelmingly unpaved, and gravel is the expensive kind to keep up,” he said.
Torres noted the county maintains about 70 miles of paved road and about 412 miles of unpaved road.
Chaffee County has roughly 200 unpaved miles, and Teller County has about 390 unpaved miles.
“As we’ve witnessed, gravel degrades almost immediately,” Torres said, explaining how washboards, ruts and potholes can occur within days after a weather event, leading to drainage failure on the roads.
“Maintenance never stops,” he said, mentioning that gravel roads need grading as often as every two weeks, whereas paved roads need resurfacing every 10 to 20 years.
Torres also commented that gravel is usually washed away after storms and has to be replaced yearly on the same roads.
“Hauling and grading are slow, skilled work that wears equipment fast,” he added.
Given the cost to blade 1 mile of a dirt road is $2,910, Torres explained that it would cost about $1.2 million to blade all 412 miles of unpaved road in the county.
He also mentioned that the cost to reconstruct 1 mile of a paved road runs about $1.1 million, and the cost to convert a gravel road to a paved road is approximately $1.3 million.
Torres offered more clarification on the resolution passed by the BoCC in 2006, explaining what voters “actually authorized” was “funding general Archuleta County government operations to include routine maintenance of all county roads.”
However, he further explained that “did not promise maintenance for every platted or dedicated street shown on a subdivision plat.”
Torres mentioned that in 2006 the county attorney advised staff that the initial road map requested by the state had never been created, and that staff researched right of way access for every public road in the county, sorting which roads meet the definition for “primary.”
“All others became secondary,” he said.
Torres indicated that the BoCC adopted the road map by a 2-1 vote in January 2006.
According to his presentation, “The Road & Bridge budget did not allow for reasonable maintenance of all County roads. Staff recommended a system the County could actually sustain.”
Torres mentioned that, during that time, the county concentrated limited resources “on the roads that matter most to county-wide travel.”
He clarified that in January 2006 the board formally ended routine maintenance of secondary roads, and staff was directed “to no longer maintain secondary roads except in emergency situations.”
Torres’ presentation notes, “This is the policy still in effect today — and the strongest legal foundation for the County’s position.”
He explained that in November 2006, the BoCC amended its policy again, with all secondary roads receiving a minimum of one blading per year, plowing as needed, no capital improvement program and no HUTF funding unless in a metro district.
Torres also reviewed what the county’s obligations currently are with maintaining roads, noting that the county is obligated to maintain primary roads year-round, maintain signage, safety and capital work on primary roads, provide emergency access on all public roads, and regulate rights of way.
He explained the county is not obligated to maintain secondary roads, plow secondary roads (except for emergencies), maintain subdivision roads never accepted by the county and maintain roads below standard or without adequate right of way.
Torres went on to mention there are various classifications of roads that he believes the county should be using with both the primary and secondary road system on the county’s road map.
“The map needs to reflect those classifications, in my opinion,” he said, indicating that would make things more clear for the public.
Torres also mentioned that the BoCC made changes in 2017 with Resolution 2017-19 that included things like allowing for variances for hardship, making parking on county roads illegal, stating that anyone who damages property in the county right of way must restore it to original condition or better, and clarifying that roads never accepted for county maintenance are the responsibility of residents, homeowners associations or special districts.
“To our knowledge this is not new policy,” Torres said, explaining that he is “not trying to change the county’s philosophy.”
“We are realigning practice with the standards, maps, and resolutions the County already adopted – decades ago,” Torres’ presentation states.
He concluded his presentation by explaining that he was asking the BoCC to affirm the county’s 2006 policy, communicate clearly, support district formation and “hold the line on acceptance” of new roads.
“It’s really up to you what we decide to do,” Torres said to the BoCC.
Ranson asked Torres if he was simply asking the board to affirm “what’s technically in place, or should be in place.”
Torres explained that he wanted to bring the board “up to speed” and wanted to “spark the conversation now.”
He added that the Road and Bridge Department is “constantly struggling with budget.”
“We need to really take a look at this moving forward and see what it is we can do,” Torres added.
Ranson recalled the comparison to Teller and Chaffee counties, asking if those departments have more asphalt and less gravel roads making it more “doable.”
“Yes,” Torres said, explaining that it is also because they follow somewhat of a secondary road maintenance system that provides minimal service to certain roads.
County Engineer Ethan Kegley joined Torres in the presentation and explained that Teller County had similar conversations nearly 20 years ago and that it took them almost four years to implement a clearly defined maintenance system, “and ever since then everybody’s kind of been on the same page.”
Kegley also mentioned that the county would get calls about roads that are not in its maintenance system, but staff would go address them as a courtesy and do their best to maintain those roads.
“Although legally … they don’t fall under the system that we discussed in 2006,” Kegley said.
He stressed that the department is not saying it doesn’t want to help people on secondary roads, “but we’re just following the documentation.”
Kegley also commented that “the community’s obviously growing,” claiming that people are buying properties “and they’re not being informed that they do not live on a county-maintained road.”
Ranson asked if most of these secondary roads are located with the Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (PLPOA), to which Torres responded, “A lot of the roads in the PLPOA are secondary roads.”
Torres explained that some of those secondary roads in PLPOA are also classified as “collectors.”
“I would like to create a new map that distinguishes those types of classifications and present that to the board for approval,” Torres said.
“I’d sure like to see it,” Ranson commented.
He then spoke about how he believes the county could be doing more to fund its own community.
“This is another reason that I’ve been complaining about giving money away to these different places that we’re giving money away, but we can’t even take care of our own people,” he said.
Ranson also mentioned the updated map won’t solve everything, “but we can sure do a better job, if we stop funding everybody else and start funding our county folks.”
Medina commended Torres’ work and the efficiency of the Road and Bridge Department since he began working for the county, noting that she would also like to have staff create a new map in order to provide a “good visual” of the situation for the public.
Commissioner Warren Brown commented, “I think there is a vast amount of confusion based upon varying interpretations of what a county road is and what a county-maintained road is.”
Brown also spoke about how the county responds to calls about roads that are not technically in its maintenance system as a courtesy, “and I think that has created an unrealistic expectation of continued service.”
County Attorney Cathleen Giovannini mentioned that there are 11 “potential” metro districts in the county, indicating that nine of those have their own road maintenance system.
She commented that the two remaining have never chosen to form a metro district, noting that “PLPOA comes to mind.”
Ranson offered more comments, suggesting that the BoCC is “gonna have to search our souls that we’re gonna have the gumption to do something about it, because that’s gonna be a lot of work.”
He stated that it’s not fair to residents living in the “outlying areas that we’re not taking care of them like others in the community are being taken care of.”
Ranson suggested that the county has to find a way “to balance that out.”
Brown concluded the discussion by stating that the board would like to see staff create this new map to “try to provide some clarity to our community,” and identify what the county is required to do, what it can do and what it will do for its road maintenance system.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>