Roger Baker, County Manager.   Now that it’s September (already) maybe we’ll get a couple of months—weeks?—of dry weather before the snow begins. It certainly has been one of the wettest summers in recent memory.

That’s been wonderful for keeping things green, and for keeping the fire danger down. Last year we went to Stage I fire restrictions (a “burn ban”) in June, but we certainly didn’t want to face another scary summer like that.

On the other hand, we also don’t want the sort of rains we had last September; our Public Works crews, like a lot of individual homeowners, are still recovering from that.

Still, the rain has pushed a lot of road projects back, and it would be nice if we had a good dry month or two to catch up with the grading before the crews have to put the snowplows back on the trucks for winter.

Already our Public Works (including road & bridge) budget is stretched thin, and that’s with transferring about $750,000 in gaming dollars to that fund; as we mentioned last week, those dollars are now under threat from Amendment 68, the measure on the November ballot that would allow a huge racetrack casino in Arapahoe County (and potentially Pueblo & Grand Junction).

Even without that threat, though, there probably needs to be some thought given to a permanent and more stable funding solution for road & bridge purposes.

By Colorado law, County general fund money isn’t to be used for road maintenance; so most road & bridge/public works departments have their own mill levy.

Some small counties have imposed a pretty hefty mill levy for these operations: neighboring Clear Creek County has a 7.75 levy (that’s more than Gilpin’s general fund mill levy, through which we operate the entire County, of 7.690), and Crowley County has 6.75. Other counties, like Gilpin, have pretty small road & bridge levies: ours is only .847, Teller’s just .553, and Hinsdale’s a minuscule .335.

The other main source of revenue for road maintenance operations is the local share of the Highway User Tax Fund (HUTF), the gas tax that motorists pay when filling up their vehicles. But use of better fuel mileage vehicles (to say nothing of electric or alternative-fuel cars) has caused a steady decline in this funding source in recent years.

Some counties have explored creative alternatives to deal with increasing road maintenance costs: Boulder County just tried establishing a “local improvement district” to perform major rebuilding on many of its county roads. But that plan was rejected by a judge on fairly technical grounds.

In Gilpin County, having a larger, and dedicated, mill levy for road maintenance is probably an option that will have to be considered, regardless of what happens with Amendment 68. Major maintenance can be deferred only so long, and the decline in HUTF funding means that other funding mechanisms will definitely need to be identified.

That discussion will also have to include what is a reasonable level of road maintenance—that is, what people are willing to pay for. Clear Creek County, for example, doesn’t plow snow at night. That keeps costs down, and takes full advantage of the warm Colorado sunshine, but must make for some messy mornings.

Then there’s the question of which roads are to be maintained at what level. As our discussions lately with the folks outside Russell Gulch have indicated, what used to be considered shared private driveways are now becoming more and more integrated into our road system, but without any corresponding increase in road & bridge revenue.

Of course, we could save a lot of money on road maintenance this winter if it doesn’t snow at all, but that would bring another set of problems—and much worse ones—next spring.