Peter Runyon
Candidate for Commissioner
District 1
Eagle County Colorado, U.S.A

In the recent quality of life survey the citizens spoke very loudly that they wanted two things that are, by their very nature, in conflict. On the one hand they want to: control traffic (86%) slow growth (80%), and preserve open space (78%), but, on the other hand, they want reasonable cost of living (70%) and more affordable housing (76%). I agree with all of those goals, but resolving their inherit conflict in a County where the available land is rapidly disappearing keeps me up at night.

Eagle County is in the midst of an epic explosion of growth that began in 1990, continues to this day, and shows little sign of slowing down. Most of this growth was approved by towns and previous Boards of County Commissioners for high-end second home properties. With a few notable exceptions, little thought was given to answering the question of where the workers to staff this expansion were going to live. At the time, the simplistic and idealistic solution was, "the free-market will provide."

Well, the market didn't provide. There was simply too much profit to be made in $1000 per square foot homes, for developers to "waste" their time and money setting aside land and building for average hard working locals. The result was the steady increase in the gap between the number of high-end properties and local affordable housing. This gap is being further increased by the relentless process of working families selling their long held free-market homes for prices that similar working people can no longer afford.

Because we failed to plan properly for the future, we, your governments, in cooperation with the businesses, are faced with the unenviable job of picking up the pieces, as well as planning for yet more impacts to come from the estimated 10,000 to 14,000 additional second homes already approved but not yet built. (Eagle County, in conjunction with the towns, is in the process of updating and refining those numbers).

Here is the rub: The very solutions, more deed restricted housing and more rent controlled properties, are going to accelerate the very growth rate problem, which we are also trying to mitigate. More traffic. More people. More schools. More jobs. More pollution. More crime. More everything. Conflicting priorities.

Does this mean that we throw our collective hands in the air and do nothing? Certainly not! What it does mean, is that we should fully consider all of our options as well as their impacts, particularly on receiving communities.

No matter where you live along this I-70 corridor in Eagle County, every citizen moved here, stayed here, and invested here for quality of life. They came here for a mountain lifestyle, not to live in an urban town that happens to be in the mountains. Very few move into one of our communities and say, "I just can't wait until we have more traffic." Therefore, it is imperative that we balance these legitimate concerns with the ongoing need for affordable housing. It is this core conflict of priorities that keeps me pacing. We must consider solutions that may not make everyone happy but which everyone can accept.

At the county, one of our goals is to attack the housing problem by purchasing parcels of land, some large, some small, spread up and down the valley. We will then partner with others, towns and businesses, to develop a range of housing products, single family homes, condos and apartments, deed restricted for sale units as well as units for rent. Ideally, we will recover all or most of our original investment, which we can then roll over into additional projects. It will be a long term project requiring careful thought and collaboration.

Within this strategy the single best solution is often also the most expensive... surprise, surprise. Specifically: buying free market units as well as un-built, but previously approved developments around the valley (e.g. Stratton Flats in Gypsum), discount them a modest amount, and cap their appreciation with a deed restriction. This has the huge advantage of a zero net growth and minimizes incremental impacts on existing communities.

The next best solution, is Wolcott. All of our communities along the corridor are steadily growing up as well as out. And all are struggling with constantly mounting traffic problems. All, that is, except one: Wolcott. In an ideal world, I would choose to preserve it from the bulldozers, (indeed I voted, in vain, to deny The Vines at Vail, precisely because affordable housing mitigation was inadequately addressed). But that is not the world we live in. We live in a world that needs obtainable housing now and in the future. With partners from the private sector, we can and should build a charming local centric deed restricted Wolcott village.

There are also a number of other parcels of varying sizes that we are considering up and down the valley. Predictably, these offer additional complexities and questions. How much is the land worth? How much density is appropriate for the existing community? Can the community absorb the additional impacts and retain their quality of life? What will the traffic impacts be?

.

Wild Accusations about Reserves.

It continues to surprise me that people can throw accusations at the county without checking the facts. The group attempting to recall Commissioner Menconi alleges that he "dangerously reduced county reserve funds from 25% to 15%." As a county commissioner I also approved that policy because is it not dangerous or irresponsible, but in fact is a much more responsible use of taxpayer's money.

The independent auditors that monitor Eagle County's finances recommend we keep a reserve between 15 and 25%. We are, and have always been, within that guideline. Some counties keep their reserves closer to 25% primarily because most of their income comes from property tax, which is only collected in the spring and late summer. Eagle County does not rely heavily on property tax because of our unusually low mil levy. In fact, we receive only about 20% of our total revenues from property taxes. The remainder of our revenue comes from sales taxes, fees for services, licenses, state and federal programs and other sources. Because of this, cash flow in Eagle County is fairly constant throughout the year compared to other counties, making large reserves unnecessary.

Despite our new 15% policy, we currently maintain invested cash funds that are close to 50% of our annual budgeted expenditures. We are fully prepared to handle any fiscal emergency we may encounter. Additionally, our 15% identified reserve is seven times the Tabor required emergency reserve of approximately $2 million. Perhaps most significant of all is the fact that our bond rating didn't fall when we changed our policy, and we continue with the same high "A" rating that we have enjoyed for decades. Further, as an additional indication of financial strength, the County has no general obligation debt.

Keeping unnecessarily large reserves in a bank account earning a paltry 4.5 to 5.0%, depending on interest rates, does not help the county serve the needs of its residents. Instead, tax money must also be invested wisely and responsibly in infrastructure and much-needed services. Every growth projection for Eagle County indicates future land shortages, and increases in construction and other infrastructure costs. The taxpayer's money is better invested in those infrastructure items now than when costs are dramatically higher in the future. An example is the El Jebel road and bridge building which the County has known needed to be replaced for years but delayed doing so because the funds weren't available under the 25% reserve policy. Meanwhile the cost of construction and land has been going up at 15% per year.

We have been accused of not saving for a "disaster". Let's take a look at the "disaster" we are saving for. We know that it will have to be worse than 9/11 because we didn't have to dip into our reserves that year. So we know it's going to be very bad; perhaps a couple of years of warm winters and no snow. If that should happen, will our commissioners say, "It doesn't exist! Spend the reserves!" I sincerely doubt it. No, they will be responsible and progressively cut back services to match projected cash flows.

Please know that my top priority as a county commissioner is always being fiscally responsible and using your tax dollars wisely. Accusing this board of doing otherwise is irresponsible and ignores the true facts.

Proud to be a Democrat!
Proud to work across party lines!