Town Facing $22 Million Bill with Infrastructure and Capital Improvement Needs
Rick Langenberg
The town of Green Mountain Falls is facing a massive capital improvement bill of $22 million, with serious bridge, road and equipment needs not to mention park enhancements and critical building projects.
And with grant money drying up, elected GMF leaders hope to get approval from the voters this November for a proposed 1 percent sales and use tax to help address this problem and make a dent in a growing laundry list of planned projects that haven’t been started. Moreover, they want to boost GMF’s limited capital improvement fund.
But some civic leaders worry that this tax won’t be enough in grappling with big city-like infrastructure challenges, and question whether more aggressive tactics should be pursued, such as selling town property and doing a bond issue or having an additional mill levy. And once again, the question has recirculated regarding the merits of having a town manager for a community as small as Green Mountain Falls, and whether more funds should get allocated from this position into addressing capital needs. Another option is to do nothing and not go to the voters with any type of proposition.
These were some of the highlights from a public workshop last week on a pending and complex 2025 ballot proposition (or propositions) local voters could face dealing with the town’s finances and ways to fund future improvements. Town leaders must decide within the next month, if they want to pursue a ballot issue for the November election. Currently, the GMF trustees are mulling two possible ballot proposals that would generate an extra $83,000 or so a year to fund capital improvement needs. One of the questions also may call for some of the money to pay for extra staff and part-time positions.
Town in Good Shape, Financially
On the upside, local residents learned at the workshop that the town is not in dire fiscal shape, as some leaders had previously reported. In fact, the town is showing relatively good financial numbers with revenue outpacing expenses by a sizeable amount. “Based on previous audited history and preliminary 2024 data, a tax increase is not required to support the town’s current level of operation,” concluded a report compiled by town officials. Moreover, this means the town can afford its current town manager form of government.
But on the downside, GMF is facing a huge gap in addressing capital improvement needs and using current funds to deal with the problem. Based on new information, the town is facing a pending expense bill of nearly $22 million, capped by a significant project to address the deteriorating Ute Pass Avenue bridge, serious road issues, including redoing possibly 100 culverts and paving certain highly traveled areas, along with addressing town building projects, equipment needs and park upgrades. “We are behind on infrastructure,” said GMF Town Manager Caleb Patterson. “A lot of grants are getting cut…We are falling behind on a lot of these projects.” “We can’t afford our capital improvements,” added Mayor Todd Dixon.
With the downsizing of the federal government, many of the grants GMF received in the past are now gone.
Most trustees expressed optimism that the current financial data indicates that the town is bringing in more money than it is spending and is operating clearly in the black.
But the one exception to this trend of thought came from veteran Trustee Sean Ives. “We are $24 million in the hole,” blasted Ives. “You can’t do that.”
He said GMF’s crumbling infrastructure tells a different story than the town’s overly optimistic budget statements. “We are always behind the eight-ball. This style of government (we have now) is too much.”
Ives has been a big critic of GMF operating with a town manager, a form of government that the town started resorting to about 10 years ago. And according to some civic leaders, this style of government has experienced limited success, with much turnover in this position.
But at last week’s forum, most attendees favored keeping the town manager setup. Resident Nancy Dixon noted that by having a town manager, GMF was able to generate a hefty amount of grants. Trustee John Bell echoed similar sentiments, saying the town has come to rely too much on volunteers and certain philanthropy ventures and nonprofits.
And some residents contend that more money is needed to help fill this capital improvement gap. “$83,000 (the amount the prospective tax could generate annually) isn’t going to cut it,” said one forum participant.
Ives believes town residents should get a chance to vote on whether they want a town manager. He stated that this form of government was never really approved by the residents. “We have a lot of government for a tiny town,” said Ives. Some civic leaders, such as planning commission member Rocco Blasi, agree. They have stressed that the town government ran much better, prior to the town manager experiment.
According to the current ballot proposals, the town manager question would not be specifically addressed in the forthcoming election.
But whatever ballot decision is made, the clock is ticking. The trustees will most likely have to make a final ballot decision at their next regular meeting in June.
In other GMF news, Don Walker, one of the more outspoken and colorful trustees, resigned his spot on the board. In a brief email to the clerk’s office with no explanation, Walker cited May 1 as his last day as a GMF trustee.
A new trustee will now get appointed. At last week’s regular meeting, the board favored picking the next big vote-getter during the most recent municipal election, as the preferred successor, to Walker’s position. They mayor agreed to review the results from this election and offer the position to the person who had the most tallies among the candidates that didn’t win a seat to the board in the 2024 election.
