Skip to content
The Telluride Project

Part one of three

Finish what we started

Telluride is good at starting things. This is a list of what we owe ourselves to finish: a beloved venue, a movie house, a medical facility, a decision about the gondola, and the accountability voters deserve after approving school funding.

The Transfer Warehouse

Ask anyone about a summer night at the Transfer Warehouse: stone walls, open sky, the whole town there. Then ask how long it has been.

The problem

The Transfer Warehouse was an open-air venue residents flocked to. Telluride Arts has put more than $9 million into buying and stabilizing the historic walls: $1.5 million to acquire the building and $9.2 million in capital improvements and stabilization, finished in November 2024.

Then the enclosed building it had planned was re-estimated at more than $40 million, nearly four times the first projection, and the organization judged it out of reach. The building has no certificate of occupancy. In June 2026 the Telluride Arts board offered to hand the property to the Town, and talks continue.

Sources: Telluride Arts update, Telluride Arts financial snapshot

The plan

  • Settle it within six months. The Town and Telluride Arts agree on ownership and an operator by a public deadline.
  • Open it in its simplest form first. An open-air venue is estimated at about $10 million, a quarter of the enclosed design. Reopen for summer events as early as safety allows, and improve it in phases.
  • Publish the terms. If the Town takes ownership, residents see what it will cost to finish and to run, and who pays.
  • Set fair rules with neighbors on sound and hours at the start, so the venue is not fought over again.

Who can make these decisions

  • Ownership, operator, deadline, and public costs: Telluride Council and Telluride Arts board.
  • Phased reopening, safety permits, and neighbor sound/hour rules: owner/operator with Town staff and applicable HARC/P&Z approvals.

Public contacts checked November 10, 2026. A shared office contact is labeled when a direct work address is not confirmed. Public bodies decide collectively, not through one member acting alone.

Telluride Mayor and Town Council

Source: Official directory

Telluride Arts

Board members’ individual email addresses are not published in this directory; the executive director is the public contact, not a substitute for a board decision.

Source: Official directory

Telluride Historic & Architectural Review Commission

Individual contact details are not listed in the member directory. Ask Town Hall to route correspondence to HARC for the applicable historic and design review.

  • Mark Shambaugh, Chair — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Stacy Lake, Vice Chair — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Matt Lee — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Robert Mather — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Andrew Williamson — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Sherry Gourlay, Alternate — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Troy Gulec, Alternate — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.

Source: Official directory

Telluride Planning & Zoning Commission

Individual contact details are not listed in the member directory. Ask Town Hall to route correspondence to the commission. P&Z handles specified land-use approvals; it is not the body that appropriates Town money.

  • Angela Dye, Chair — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Kathy Green, Vice Chair — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Todd Brown — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Lee Shea Betten — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Peter Sante — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Shayni Saftler, Alternate — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Marcin Ostromecki, Alternate — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.

Source: Official directory

Why it works

The expensive part is done. The walls are saved and paid for by donors. What remains is a decision, and a modest open-air plan the community already proved it loves. Reopening it would be the most visible sign in years that Telluride can finish what it starts.

Fair questions

  • Should the Town take on another building? Only with the numbers public first. An open-air venue with a nonprofit operator is the same model the Town uses elsewhere, and it is far smaller than the $40 million version.
  • What about the neighbors? Past fights were about noise and hours. Agreeing on those rules before reopening protects neighbors and the venue alike.

Weigh in

Settle and reopen the Transfer Warehouse

The Nugget Theatre

A town this in love with film should have a movie house with its lights on.

The problem

The Nugget, the town's only movie theater, has been closed for renovation since 2024. The Telluride Film Festival now owns it, interior work began in 2025, and reopening is reported for 2027.

Sources: Telluride Times, status summary

The plan

  • Clear the path. This is a private project making real progress. The Town's job is fast permitting.
  • A public reopening timeline, updated as work proceeds.
  • Year-round films for locals when it reopens. We ask the festival to commit to regular local programming.
  • A public list of dark community buildings, with an owner, a plan, and a date for each.

Who can make these decisions

  • Permitting and the public list of dark buildings: Town Council directs Town staff; HARC reviews applicable historic alterations.
  • Reopening timeline and year-round local programming: Telluride Film Festival, the private owner.

Public contacts checked November 10, 2026. A shared office contact is labeled when a direct work address is not confirmed. Public bodies decide collectively, not through one member acting alone.

Telluride Mayor and Town Council

Source: Official directory

Telluride Film Festival / Nugget owner

Source: Official directory

Source: 2026 director reporting

Telluride Historic & Architectural Review Commission

Individual contact details are not listed in the member directory. Ask Town Hall to route correspondence to HARC for the applicable historic and design review.

  • Mark Shambaugh, Chair — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Stacy Lake, Vice Chair — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Matt Lee — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Robert Mather — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Andrew Williamson — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Sherry Gourlay, Alternate — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.
  • Troy Gulec, Alternate — contact through Town Hall: 970-728-5700.

Source: Official directory

Why it works

The festival is doing the hard part with its own money. A little attention from the Town keeps it moving, and a public list makes sure no beloved building sits dark without anyone asking why.

Fair questions

  • Isn't this the festival's business? Yes, and we are grateful for it. We ask only for speed on the Town's side and a place for local audiences when the doors open.

Weigh in

Clear the path for the Nugget Theatre

The medical facility

When it is your child, your parent, or your own heart, the distance to care is the only number that matters.

The problem

The plan for a new medical facility has narrowed over time. In 2022 voters approved borrowing for a small hospital with inpatient beds. The March 2026 plan describes expanded primary, emergency, and urgent care, with specialty care through a regional health-system partner, a helipad for transfers, and space for mobile MRI. It targets construction and opening between 2028 and 2030, funded by philanthropy, with no increase in the existing tax rate. The district has since described a possible two-site model with an operating partner.

The nearest inpatient care is 65 miles or more away. In the Town's 2025 survey, 22% of residents rated the availability of affordable quality health care positively.

Sources: 2022 election, Hospital District, March 2026, meeting coverage, August 2026, 2016 strategic plan, 2025 Community Survey

The plan

A full hospital with on-site specialists is unlikely for a community this size. That makes the terms of the partnership the decision that matters most. We ask the Hospital District to:

  • Publish the partnership terms for public comment before signing.
  • Publish the cost estimate and scope, including what was removed from earlier plans and why.
  • Build out overnight observation beds, so a night of monitoring does not require a long drive.
  • Write visiting specialist clinics into the agreement, including cardiology, on a set schedule.
  • Set transfer-time standards and report on them yearly.
  • Keep primary care easy to reach in town.

Who can make these decisions

  • Partnership terms, scope, costs, observation beds, specialist commitments, transfer standards, and in-town access: Hospital District board; an operating partner must agree to the service commitments.

Public contacts checked November 10, 2026. A shared office contact is labeled when a direct work address is not confirmed. Public bodies decide collectively, not through one member acting alone.

Telluride Hospital District Board

The district publishes a shared board-administration contact, not individual director email addresses. Ask that your message be forwarded to all directors; any operating partner must separately agree to its clinical obligations.

Source: Official directory

Why it works

The size of our community limits what can be built here. Nothing limits how well the agreement is written. The partnership terms will decide what care residents receive for decades, and they are being set now. People can accept limits they understand. They cannot accept learning about them after the contract is signed. Good care close to home is also what lets people grow old here: only 40% of residents rate Telluride positively as a place to retire.

Fair questions

  • Why not push for a real hospital? The district's own analysis points to a model that can pay for itself without raising taxes. We would rather win specific things, such as overnight beds and visiting specialists, than campaign for something the numbers do not support.
  • Is the district doing something wrong? No. It has secured land and a path after nearly two decades of trying. We are asking for the terms in public before they are final.

Weigh in

Make the medical partnership terms public

The gondola

It is how kids get to practice and how workers get home. It deserves a decision the whole community can stand behind.

The problem

The gondola is essential public transit, and it must keep running. The question is how. Officials cited a replacement cost of at least $60 million in 2024. The current planning estimate is $135 million to $187 million. The funding plan assumes about $140 million, with half hoped for from a federal transit grant that no gondola has used before. Construction could begin in 2031 at the earliest and would close the line for about a year.

The system is about 30 years old, has run more than 145,000 hours, and is at capacity at roughly 1,070 passengers an hour. The ski company withdrew a planned $1.5 million yearly contribution. A lift ticket tax to replace it passed in Mountain Village and failed in Telluride by fewer than 20 votes.

Sources: Mountain Village, 2024, SMART project FAQ, SMART committee packet, June 2026.pdf>), TMVOA gondola plan, SnowBrains

The plan

The decision to replace instead of upgrade was made at the lower price. It deserves a second look at the higher one. We ask the transit authority and its partners to:

  • Publish the structural and lifecycle study commissioned this year.
  • Publish a side-by-side comparison: full replacement against staged modernization, with cost, added capacity, years of life gained, and downtime for each.
  • Name the fallback plan if the federal grant does not come through.
  • Share the cost fairly. The ski company and new hotels benefit most from added capacity. Their capital contributions belong in the funding plan.
  • Plan for the closure year with businesses and workers before it is scheduled.

Who can make these decisions

  • Study, modernization/replacement comparison, fallback funding, and closure-year service plan: SMART board, with its staff and project partners.
  • Capital cost sharing: SMART, both town councils, County Commissioners, TMVOA, and ski company; any new hotel contribution must be agreed by that developer and the approving jurisdiction.

Public contacts checked November 10, 2026. A shared office contact is labeled when a direct work address is not confirmed. Public bodies decide collectively, not through one member acting alone.

SMART Board of Directors

Source: Official directory

SMART implementation and project contacts

Source: Official directory

Telluride Mayor and Town Council

Source: Official directory

Mountain Village Town Council

Whole council: council@mtnvillage.org.

Source: Official directory

San Miguel County Commissioners

Whole board: bocc@sanmiguelcountyco.gov; office: 970-728-3844.

Source: Official directory

TMVOA Board of Directors

Source: Official directory

Telluride Ski & Golf

  • Chuck Horning, owner — public resort office: info@telski.com; 970-728-6900. Ask for ownership/management correspondence to be forwarded. An individual owner email is not confirmed.

Source: Official directory

Source: Ownership reporting, July 2026

Why it works

A decision this large should survive a second look. If replacement is the right call, a public comparison will prove it and build the support a local funding vote will need. If a staged upgrade does the job for far less, the community saves tens of millions of dollars and avoids a year without its main transit link. Either way, residents win by seeing the evidence.

Fair questions

  • Didn't the experts already choose replacement? They did, when the estimate was about $60 million. An upgrade also may not add capacity, which matters. We are asking to see the comparison at today's price, not assuming its answer.
  • Is this safe to delay? Safety comes first, and the study will say what the system needs and when. Publishing it is how everyone finds out.

Weigh in

Compare gondola upgrade and replacement

School funding: keep the promise of 5A

Voters stepped up for our schools. Regular, plain-language reporting is how the district builds the confidence to keep that support.

The problem

Telluride School District voters approved Ballot Issue 5A in November 2026. The election results are still unofficial. That support is a commitment to students, teachers, and the future of this community. It should also come with an ongoing, public account of how the proceeds are used and what the district is doing to control costs.

Source: Telluride Times election coverage, November 2026

The plan

  • Report regularly, not just at election time. Include a plain-language 5A update at regular public school board meetings and keep the reports together on the district’s website.
  • Show where the proceeds go. Publish revenue received, spending by purpose, commitments still outstanding, and any balance carried forward. Compare the spending with what voters were told the measure would support.
  • Show the cost-cutting work. Report savings achieved, efficiencies underway, and the effect of those decisions on classrooms and staff. Distinguish recurring savings from one-time cuts.
  • Explain changes early. When revenue, enrollment, or expenses differ from the plan, explain why and how the district will respond.
  • Make questions welcome. Give residents a clear way to ask about the reports and publish answers without exposing private student or personnel information.

Who can make these decisions

  • All five actions—regular 5A updates, proceeds reporting, cost-cutting reports, early explanations, and public questions—are overseen by the five voting school board members below. The board directs district administration to prepare and publish the reports.

Public contacts checked November 10, 2026. A shared office contact is labeled when a direct work address is not confirmed. Public bodies decide collectively, not through one member acting alone.

Telluride School District Board of Education

These are the five voting board members. Student ex officio representatives provide input rather than the governing votes on budgets and 5A reporting.

Source: Official directory

Why it works

Transparency is not a punishment for asking voters to invest. It is how the district shows that the investment is being handled carefully. Reporting both the use of proceeds and the work to reduce costs builds voter confidence while keeping students at the center.

Fair questions

  • Is this a demand to cut classrooms after voters supported schools? No. The goal is to show how resources reach students, where costs can be reduced responsibly, and what trade-offs the district faces.
  • Doesn’t the district already publish financial information? Existing budgets and reports are a starting point. A regular, easy-to-follow 5A update makes the link between voter promises, proceeds, spending, and savings clear.

Finishing is how a town earns the right to start something new.

Next: Fix what's brokenAdd your name