As Montezuma County commissioners push for a Seventh Street extension, the city of Cortez is considering giving a small piece of land to the county to avoid paying high road construction costs.

The road extension has been discussed for years as a way to alleviate Main Street traffic and create an additional route to the high school. Half of the proposed half-mile road segment is owned by the county and the other portion by the city.

Initially, the plan was for the two entities to collaborate on the project, with each to build its respective road portion. However, the current talks come at a time when Cortez finances are tight.

“I feel that right now Cortez needs to keep its money here, and get ourselves situated, until we know exactly where we’re at with the budget,” said Councilor Sue Betts at a work session Tuesday night. “And then we can proceed.”

The proposed extension would connect the eastern edge of Seventh Street – after the road has turned into Sligo Street – to County Road 27.

The city’s portion runs along the south side of the high school property, while the rest is on county land. Montezuma-Cortez School District Re-1 transportation staff have also expressed support for the plan – the district’s bus garage is located along County Road 27, and a new road could allow buses to avoid Main Street, and avoid a precarious left turn from Hawkins Street onto Main.

At a previous joint meeting, councilors and commissioners debated road standards, cost, and a possible timeline. Commissioners told the council they hoped to get the road at least “roughed in” this year, with councilors responding that once they had a cost estimate, they could decide if the project could get underway this year.

But since then, the city’s financial situation was thrown a wrench, after City Manager John Dougherty discovered that it appeared a former employee had embezzled funds from the city.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigations is currently investigating the case, and has instructed the city not to “clean up” its financial accounts, for reasons of evidence, according to city Finance Manager Ben Burkett.

This poses a problem, though, since Cortez is still in the process of catching up on three years’ worth of financial audits – now that the city has to freeze its accounts, it has to halt this process, and without up-to-date audits it cannot apply for certain state funding streams.

At Tuesday night’s work session, City Engineer Chad Hill presented three separate cost estimates for the project: from the county, the city of Cortez, and Stoner Engineering, which submitted a bid when the county was talking about contracting the project out.

The county’s estimate was $482,747.84, Stoner’s was $605,541, and the city’s was $849,800. The cost discrepancies mostly come from differences in standards based on a geotechnical study the city conducted, landscaping costs, and different width standards for roads – the city’s portion is required to be 42 feet wide and the county’s only 30 feet wide.

Hill said that the city would need to “shift money” and scale back on other road repair projects.

“We cannot afford to deteriorate our streets, because we can’t afford to rebuild them,” he said. “Look at the costs.”

Mayor Karen Sheek recalled a point raised from the previous joint meeting, and asked about a possible long-term payment plan with the county.

“It depends on how much time we’re talking about,” said Commissioner Keenan Ertel. “I was thinking in the next budget year.”

The overall consensus from councilors was that the road extension is a good plan, but not currently financially feasible for the city.

“We need to right our financial ship right now,” said Councilor Ty Keel. There were some additional doubts about the urgency of the project.

As an alternative, County Administrator Shak Powers asked about the possibility of de-annexing the land to the county, and letting the county build the whole segment.

“That wouldn’t cost you anything,” Powers said.

The council wasn’t opposed to the idea, but City Attorney Mike Green said he needed to look into the legalities of the proposition, and whether it would need to go to a vote or not.

“You guys may have to have an election, because it would be selling city property that’s in your inventory,” he told the council.

Councilors directed him to look into the issue, and bring it back for a decision to the next meeting or two.

ealvero@the-journal.com