The Steamboat Springs City Council spent nearly an hour during its regular meeting Tuesday discussing complexities of forming and funding a proposed Regional Transportation Authority that could provide expansive transit options — and higher taxes — across the Yampa Valley. 

City Attorney Dan Foote began the discussion with an overview of the potential RTA. Foote explained what an “authority” is, comparing it to the Yampa Valley Housing Authority and the Steamboat Springs Renewal Authority, while clarifying that “authorities are like snowflakes” — no two are the same. 

The Yampa Valley Transportation Authority, which would be governed by state RTA law, would require a minimum of two member jurisdictions, though as many as six could be involved: the city of Steamboat Springs, Routt County, Hayden, Craig, Yampa and Oak Creek. Steamboat Ski Resort would also participate, though not as a member jurisdiction. 

---

---

Because transportation authority board members would be appointed by participating member jurisdictions, Foote noted, Steamboat Springs would have less authority than what it has over the YVHA, where the board is appointed by the city and county, or the Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority, where the city functions as the board. The transportation authority would also have broader taxing powers than the housing authority or the redevelopment authority.

A 2024 memorandum of understanding — a non-binding agreement that outlines how two or more parties will work together — provided that each member jurisdiction, as well as the Steamboat Resort, appoint an elected official (a non-elected representative for the resort) to a formation committee to create an intergovernmental agreement detailing how the YVTA would work and the breadth of its taxing powers.

---

---

The intergovernmental agreement must be approved by both the council and voters of each local government, Foote explained. Once the current draft of the agreement is complete, it will move forward as a resolution to be approved through two public hearings, currently scheduled for March 4 and March 18, with dates likely to change due to continued developments in the draft. The agreement draft was made available to council members following the meeting for their review and feedback. 

Following approval of the intergovernmental agreement — and before an RTA formation question can go on a ballot — the agreement must be sent to the Colorado Department of Transportation and neighboring jurisdictions (any county or town bordering a member jurisdiction, such as Moffat and Eagle counties) to address any objections within 180 days. Preliminary feedback from CDOT, Foote said, shows no substantive objections thus far. 

Council member Michael Buccino, Steamboat’s representative on the formation committee, said the committee is on schedule for the agreement draft to be complete in March or April. He hoped that the council could spend the summer polling city residents regarding the ballot language for November to “take temperature” as to whether it should be a combined RTA formation and tax question, a formation question only, or if the issue should be pushed entirely to November 2026. Because tax elections must be held in November only, posing the formation question on its own would push the tax question, and overall development of the RTA, back by a year. 

“Of course people are going to say ‘yes’ to an RTA,” said council member Amy Dickson. “It’s the funding question that folks are getting hung up on.” 

Buccino stated that the city would need $20,000 to $50,000 to fund polling efforts. Because ballot language must be finalized 60 days in advance of the Nov. 4 election, Buccino said he hopes to finish polling city voters by August. The agreement can still be amended during this time, even after the resolution approval planned for the spring. 

The question of whether to form the RTA will pass or fail based on the votes of each member jurisdiction. For example, if Craig and Hayden vote no, they would not participate in the RTA, but it would not preclude the other four jurisdictions that vote yes from participating in the RTA. 

Foote also mentioned discussions over the city and Routt County being considered essential members of the RTA, in which case, if the other four jurisdictions voted yes on the formation question, and the city and county voted no, the RTA would not move forward.

There may also be provisions in the intergovernmental agreement for a minimum number of member jurisdictions, exceeding the current minimum of two, to be involved for the RTA to form. These questions have not yet been resolved.

Bill Ray, the hired consultant for the formation committee, cited his experience helping manage the creation of the Eagle Valley RTA, the most recent RTA in the state, two years ago. Changes to the intergovernmental agreement were made until mid-August. The Eagle Valley RTA combined the formation and tax question (a half-penny sales tax), using an “all-in approach” for required jurisdictions.

While seven member jurisdictions considered the RTA, four were required to vote yes in order for the RTA to move forward: Vail, Avon, Beaver Creek and Unincorporated Eagle County. Had any of these four voted no, the RTA would not have moved forward. In Eagle Valley’s case, Gypsum, one of the seven jurisdictions but not part of the four required, was the only member to vote no, allowing the RTA to progress successfully. 

Council member Dakotah McGinlay raised concerns about the council’s ability to provide feedback on the intergovernmental agreement in a timely manner. Ray estimated that CDOT would not need more than 30-45 days to review the agreement and was confident council would have ample time to provide comments.

Buccino also mentioned recent formation of a technical committee tasked with working backwards to develop a service plan for the RTA to ascertain how much it will cost and how much revenue it will need. The technical committee, which met for the first time Monday, is also responsible for figuring out the logistics of the YVTA, including bus routes and stops. 

Buccino confirmed to Dickson, who asked for clarification, that the formation committee was the entity responsible for determining funding mechanisms for the RTA. 

“Looking at the formation committee, I think the loudest voices should be those that are representing and elected to represent their communities … where (Steamboat Resort) has their own interests in this,” said Dickson. “And I appreciate that they’re at the table. But to me, the most important voices are those that are representing their communities.” 

“The (resort) is not actually on the formation committee. They are only on the technical committee,” Buccino responded. He explained that the resort has a representative on the formation committee but that representative is not a voting member, and that the formation committee is made up of elected officials, whereas the technical committee is comprised of non-elected individuals.

Council member Steve Muntean asked Buccino if the assumption is that the RTA would provide transportation that offers free ridership. Buccino said this was currently uncertain and would be determined later, once the technical committee has finished establishing project costs. 

At the close of the discussion, Buccino also pointed to a particular section in the draft intergovernmental agreement that states that the Steamboat Springs Transit Authority would be taken over by the RTA if the RTA is established. 

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article incorrectly wrote that Council Member Buccino said that a section of the IGA stated that the regional Steamboat Springs Transit would be taken over by the RTA. This article was updated Thursday to reflect that only the Region Route of Steamboat Springs Transit would be relinquished to the RTA if it were to proceed.