Steamboat Springs City Council Agenda Feb. 3

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

AGENDA Regular Meeting NO. 2015-03 Tuesday, February 03, 2015

5:00 PM

MEETING LOCATION: Citizens’ Meeting Room, Centennial Hall; 124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO MEETING PROCEDURE: Comments from the Public are welcome at two different times during the course of the meeting: 1) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on items not scheduled on the Agenda will be heard under Public Comment; and 2) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on all scheduled public hearing items will be heard following the presentation by Staff or the Petitioner. Please wait until you are recognized by the Council President. With the exception of subjects brought up during Public Comment, on which no action will be taken or a decision made, the City Council may take action on, and may make a decision regarding, ANY item referred to in this agenda, including, without limitation, any item referenced for “review”, “update”, “report”, or “discussion”. It is City Council’s goal to adjourn all meetings by 10:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.

ROLL CALL (5:00 PM)

COMMUNITY REPORTS/CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION TOPIC:

1. Building Department Update. (Gibbs)

CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS

ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC MAY WITHDRAW ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO APPROVAL.

2. MOTION: Gooding Request for a Driveway Access Easement.

(Overstreet)

3. RESOLUTION: A resolution designating the public places for posting notices of regular and special meetings. (Franklin)

4. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance amending noise

pollution regulations to exempt City Street Sweeping operations and providing an effective date. (Anderson)

PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE SECOND READINGS

THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT PRO-TEM WILL READ EACH ORDINANCE TITLE INTO THE RECORD. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY ORDINANCE.

5. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance approving a

Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer that modifies City rights in certain property owned by the Steamboat Health and Recreation Association and providing an effective date. (DelliQuadri)

6. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance amending Article

III of Chapter 19 of the Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code relating to wildlife resistant containers; providing an effective date; and setting a hearing date. (Earp/Stabile)

PUBLIC COMMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED AT 7 P.M., OR AT THE END OF THE MEETING, (WHICHEVER COMES FIRST).

CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS:

ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE OR NO COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST AN ITEM(S) BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL ORDINANCES APPROVED BY CONSENT SHALL BE READ INTO THE RECORD BY TITLE.

PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS

PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT:

• Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner to state name and residence address/location.

• Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.

• Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes). Individuals to state name and residence address/location.

• City staff to provide a response.

7. PROJECT: Pahwintah CP-14-01

PETITION: Minor Urban Growth Boundary amendment. LOCATION: 955 Pahwintah. APPLICANT: 955 Pahwintah, LLC PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: Heard January 22, 2015; Approved 6-0.

8. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance annexing Block 2,

Idlewild addition to the Town of Steamboat Springs as an enclave and providing an effective date. (Keenan)

Staff is requesting this item be postponed to the February 24, 2015 Council meeting.

9. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance providing zoning

to .72 acres of the property described as Idlewild Addition Block 2 and the land described in the attached Exhbit A, to RE-2 (residential estate two – medium density; repealing all conflicting ordinances; providing for severability; and providing an effective date. (Keenan)

Staff is requesting this item be postponed to the February 24, 2015 Council meeting.

REPORTS

10. City Council

11. Reports

a. Agenda Review: (Franklin)

1. Regular Meeting February 24, 2015.

2. Regular Meeting March 3, 2015.

12. Staff Reports

a. City Attorney’s Update/Report. (Lettunich)

b. City Manager’s Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)

OLD BUSINESS

13. Minutes (Franklin)

a. Regular Meeting 2015-01, January 6, 2015.

ADJOURNMENT

BY: JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC

CITY CLERK

AGENDA ITEM #1.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM

FROM: Tyler Gibbs (Ext. 244)

THROUGH: Deb Hinsvark (Ext. 240) DATE: February 3, 2015

ITEM: Information related to Building Oversight Issues. NEXT STEP: None.

___ DIRECTION _x_ INFORMATION ___ ORDINANCE ___ MOTION ___ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST OR ISSUE: This conversation is designed to update you on items we have been working on and to get Council feedback.

1) Viewpoint software implementation 2) An overall building permit fee reduction 3) Charge for mileage for remote inspections 4) Use of third-parties to complete plan review

a. On large ($20mm+) projects b. To speed the process

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

No action is required. This presentation is for informational purposes.

1.1

III. FISCAL IMPACTS: Proposed Expenditure: N/A Funding Source: N/A IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Item #1, Viewpoint: As you are aware, both the City and the County purchased a permitting software called Viewpoint, a cloud based product. For the City, it is the opportunity to digitalize and store various permits that we have been handling manually. For the County, it allows them to move away from Permits Plus. In the Building Department at the County, it enables both organizations to process plans electronically. Removing the hand-to-hand sequential processing of plans and moving to a streamline process that will reduce the time it takes to get fully complete plans through an approval process. Another benefit of this software is that all City data will register on City GIS programs. Pull up a City parcel and you will see all building/permitting history related to the parcel. This is accomplished by opening a portal for sign-on to the City Viewpoint system and asking the building department to issue City permits through our system – and County permits through the County’s system. At the point of entry the Building Department staff goes into one or the other portals to start the process. Routt County was several weeks ahead of the City in terms of implementing this software for the building department and as the leading organization the County has also worked through several issues that pertain to the City’s roll out of View Point. In regards to the shared building department the County has had to work out their merchant services (new to the building department), develop workflows where everyone knows exactly what types of permits they are going to see; currently the department sends out several permits that are not applicable for some reviewers, they have developed a better labeling system for permits, and they have worked through several of the features the software was lacking like a disposition dropdown menu for permits. Our workflows are similar in our planning department and having the County take the lead on working through some of these issues will help strengthen the user’s ability to seamlessly transition to View Point in the future. At this point in the project, Viewpoint software is organized to do business in a test environment and the project is stalled while old data is being cleaned. Permits Plus (the old legacy system) was originally parcel number based, which was in sync with the assessor, so addresses were simply not important. Viewpoint is an address based system, so all those incorrect addresses are not working in the system and must be corrected. This week approximately 11,000 addresses were identified as corrupt and needing correction.

1.2

Another unresolved issue with Viewpoint is the County’s approach to credit card acceptance. We have been taking credit cards at the City for several years now and have absorbed any credit card cost into our cost of doing business. It is assumed that the building department can do the same, but the County wants to pass along the approximately $25K cost (if all sales were credit card sales) to the consumer. The cost can be averaged and included in the fees for the most part, but there may be times when the cost should be assessed to the City because the County is collecting a permit fee for the City in some cases. We will have more discussion regarding this. The solution probably lies with the two finance offices. Our current timeline shows the software being tested in March and is targeted to be in use by April. Item #2, Fee Reduction: The County’s Building Department Enterprise Fund has reserves in excess of $1.1 million at the end of 2014. Ben Grush has been charged with suggesting a fee schedule that will reduce reserves to $1 million. Item #3, Charge for mileage: It seems reasonable to have a graduated fee chart based on the location of a development within a county zone. It is certainly more costly for the Building Department to send an inspector on a 45 minute drive to do an inspection than it is for that inspector to go two blocks from the Courthouse for example. The Building Department took to their accounting office a plant to charge each project for the actual cost of mileage and time. As expected, the County accounting office balked. A simpler mechanism will be discussed with the oversight committee tomorrow. Item #4a, Using Safebuilt for large projects: As promised, the County, through County Administrator Tom Sullivan and Building Official Ben Grush, have been discussing with Safebuilt the mechanics of using Safebuilt start-to-finish on very large (over $20mm) projects. In fact, it is impossible to expect that the attention needed to be given to these very large projects can be done without compromising other ongoing projects. This seems like a good solution. Item #3b, Speeding the process with a third party plan review: The oversight committee will be discussing the use of agreed-upon third parties to provide plan review in order to expedite a developer’s project. Only approved consultants would be recognized, the developer would have to pay the building department’s normal fees plus the contract fee to the third party, but it would bump them to the front of the line. This topic has not yet been fully explored with the committee.

1.3

V. LEGAL ISSUES: None VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: None VII. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES: Staff has been working collaboratively with the County to improve processes related to development. We hope to inform Council and receive feedback from City Council tonight on these items. We have a defined Building Oversight Committee. Voting members for the City include Councilmen Kounovsky and Myller and the City Manager. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS None

1.4

View Point• Selected to replace, end of life, Permits Plus Software

• Permits Plus was developed in the 90’s

• Every permit user group from City and County participated in the selection process

• Selected for its capacity as a cloud based software to provide simultaneous reviews of plans and automated workflows

• Implementation of software started once Ben Grush, the new building official, was hired Oct. 2014

Attachment 1

1.5

View Point • Created two separate instances of V.P.

• City and County data will be completely autonomous of each other

• Set up permitting workflows in V.P.• Created bridge between City and County data• Input fees associated with permits• Mapped some historic documents attached to permits

1.6

View Point • Historic data is largely not being mapped correctly

• Parcel ID was the primary data entry method for Permits Plus and View Point is addressed based

• Historic data further than 4 years out was input many different ways

• Test environment has been created and new data could be input but moving forward without accurate historic data would be a waste

1.7

1.8

1.9

Other Building Department Updates• Fee Reduction• Increased Fees for Remote Inspections• Use of Third Parties

• For large projects• To expedite project

1.10

AGENDA ITEM #2.


FROM: Craig Robinson, Parks, Open Space and Trails Manager

Facilities Supervisor (871-7034) John Overstreet, Parks and Community Development

Director (871-7017) THROUGH: Debra Hinsvark, City Manager DATE: February 3, 2015

ITEM: Gooding Request for a Driveway Access Easement NEXT STEP: Make a Motion

___ DIRECTION ___ INFORMATION ___ ORDINANCE _X_ MOTION ___ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST OR ISSUE:

Gates Gooding has approached City staff proposing a driveway access easement across City owned lands near the entrance to the Spring Creek parking area.

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Make a Motion. III. FISCAL IMPACTS: Proposed Expenditure: Legal Fees and Construction Funding Source: Applicant

2.1

IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Gates Gooding has approached City staff to develop a driveway access easement to construct a driveway on City owned land. The 11.89 acre City parcel was dedicated to the City when Willet Heights Filing 3 was subdivided and this parcel has been managed as open space since that time. The driveway access easement request is located near the parking area of the Spring Creek Trailhead. The applicant is in the process of investigating the development of a home site on adjacent lots that are outside of City limits. With the original platting of the proposed home site parcels and the current alignment of road right of way, the applicant has legal access to the home site yet the alignment is not desirable. This access would eliminate at least two to three parking spaces and create a 5 way intersection at the corner of Amethyst Drive and East Maple Street. The applicant is requesting a driveway access easement just past the area where cars currently park at the Spring Creek Trailhead. The City’s Technical Advisory Committee has met to discuss the request and our Public Works Department would require the driveway to meet all applicable codes while in City limits. The driveway improvements may require additional drainage improvements and would allow for the general public to use the driveway as a turnaround rather than executing a multiple point turn in the existing road as currently exists. This request was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on December 10, 2014 and a unanimous motion was made advising City Council grant the requested driveway access easement with all associated costs covered by the applicant.

V. LEGAL ISSUES:

By charter only City Council can authorize easements across City property via ordinance. The applicant and their attorney can provide needed documents and signatures for this exchange at their cost. If approved by City Council, the exchange will then go to the City Planning Department for Administrative Review.

VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: There are no known conflicts or environmental concerns.

2.2

VII. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES:

Gates Gooding has approached City staff proposing a driveway access easement across City owned land near the entrance to the Spring Creek parking area. This proposal would be required to meet all applicable City codes for the portions within City limits. Certain improvements may be required by Public Works and the driveway would create a safer and easier point for the public to turnaround than currently exists today. Alternatives include:

1. A motion to grant the requested driveway access easement with all costs covered by the applicant.

2. A motion to grant the requested driveway access easement with all costs

covered by the applicant with changes.

3. A motion declining the requested easement. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Gates Gooding letter to City Deed of Dedication Lot Survey Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes

2.3

Attachment 1

2.4

Approximate ProposedBuilding Envelope

4

Lost Parking Spaces

DangerousDriveway Access

Proposed TreePlantings

2.5

2.6

2.7

Attachment 2

2.8

2.9

N88° 10' 29"W 662.70'

N04

° 05

' 51"

E98

.96'

NORTH

1

08-20-13

2257-001

2257-001-lsp

JAG

MK

LCI

30'15' 60'30'

N/A

30'

DWN. BY:DATE:

CHK. BY:JOB NO.

DWG. NO.

SHEET NO.

OF

NO. DATE REVISIONS INT

SURV. BY:

Horizontal Scale

1" =

0

Contour Interval =

141 9th Street, P.O. Box 774943Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477

Phone (970) 871-9494 Fax (970) 871-9299 www.LANDMARK-CO.com

Improvement Survey Plat

SE1/4SW1/4 SECTION 9T6N, R84W, 6TH P.M.

Attachment 3

2.10

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes December 10, 2014

1

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES December 10, 2014

The regularly scheduled meeting of the Steamboat Springs Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order at approximately 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, in the Citizens’ Meeting Room, Centennial Hall, 124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

Parks and Recreation Commission members in attendance were Doug Tumminello, Julie Alkema, JoEllen Heydon, Chair Alan Koermer, Kara Stoller, Janette Settle, Chrissy Lynch and alternate Frank Dolman. Staff members present were Director of Parks, Open Space and Recreational Services John Overstreet and Staff Assistant Ally Press.

Approval of Minutes

Commissioner Alkema reported that her name was attached to a question answer on Page 11; John Overstreet should have been indicated. Commissioner Tumminello moved to approve the November 12, 2014 meeting minutes as corrected by Commissioner Alkema. Commissioner Dolman seconded the motion.

The motion carried unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

None.

Appoint Commissioner To Community Survey Steering Committee

Winnie DelliQuadri, Government Programs Manager: The city council has put into their strategic plan and priorities for 2015 a community survey. The last time we did such a thing was 2005 and before that 2002. Both of those surveys were statistically significant, however, they did ask slightly different questions so it’s hard to compare responses from year to year. We also did a community survey in 1999, which provided interesting information but was not statistically significant. So we’re embarking on a new community survey process. One of the things staff is proposing is that rather than just having staff coordinate the community survey that we have instead a steering committee that would be composed of two city council members, a representative from the chamber, a rep from planning commission and a rep from parks and rec commission. The reason we want to do this is that I strongly believe that in order for the survey to serve a purpose

Attachment 4

2.11


2

other than being interesting and neat information, we have to understand what decisions decision makers are going to be looking at over the course of the next couple of years and what data you might find helpful to consider in that process. So I’m looking for a member of this commission to serve on the steering committee so we can inform our community survey process with the decisions that you all will be facing over the next couple of years and the data you might find helpful as you look at the questions that you’ll be looking at. So my plea tonight is please jump onboard and appoint somebody to the steering committee for the community survey. The meetings will be on an as-needed basis. I hope to get the whole thing done in six months starting in January. It will be more meetings early on because I want the committee to come together to really discuss the issues facing each board/commission and what data you would find useful as you work your way through those issues and decisions. That will inform our survey process. Once we’ve worked on that, we will be selecting a survey company and working with them; they’ll do the survey; come back with results; and we will carry those results to the public. So I think there will be more work on the front end and maybe on the tail end; not so much in the middle.

Commissioner Tumminello volunteered to serve on the committee.

MOTION

Commissioner Settle moved to appoint Commissioner Tumminello to the community survey steering committee. Commissioner Stoller seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

2.12


3

Gooding Driveway Access Easement

John Overstreet: Mr. Gooding has been through the planning commission, TAC, Craig Robinson, and we believe that this is a good alternative. We just want some guidance from the commission tonight. From here, it would go to council and then to the Planning Department for an administrative review process.

Gates Gooding: This lot is right by the Spring Creek Trailhead. Everybody in town is familiar with the area. As you’re starting up the road, it’s on the left side on the hill. It’s actually eight lots that were platted in the 1890’s, and they’ve never been built on. My plan is to purchase all eight. I have an option that’s expiring in July. The plan is to buy them all, vacate them and put them into one property, and then build an approx. 1200 square foot super-green house at the top on that plateau. I’ve been using this trail for 30 years, and I’m very sensitive to the needs of the community. I was here through the real estate boom, and I remember how frustrated people get when they feel like Steamboat’s being wrecked and the views are being degraded. I’m very aware this is a high visibility/high use area. Gooding showed the current access. Gooding: It’s bad. It would create a five-way intersection at Amethyst, which is where some people have already gotten hit by cars. It would take a couple parking spaces away. It would be really close to a neighbor. I think it would also be more unsightly because the sight lines go further as you’re driving passed Amethyst. So what makes more sense is to move the driveway access about 50 feet passed the end of the pavement there and come in at a 90-degree angle. If we did that, the bushes on either side would screen it, and we’d do some plantings along the front of it to screen it as best as possible. If we were granted this second access, it would also create the opportunity for recreational users to drive further in and use this driveway as a turnaround. I would work with Ben Beall to design that however it should be designed to make it as easy as possible.The issue is there’s a very thin strip of city open space that borders the south side of this lot. It’s 15-20 feet wide. The easement would be across 15-20 feet of city open space. Tyler Gibbs, Dan Foote and Craig Robinson have all agreed that this makes sense. They actually weren’t sure who should field this; they keep saying the city has never done anything like this in recent memory. So at a TAC meeting, they decided that Craig should lead this and that you guys should be the first decision-making body that I come to before I go to city council. So I guess I’m here today looking for a motion to either recommend it or not and to get any input you may have.

One other piece: The neighbor to the north of this is Huffington, and they have an easement across the property that I’m going to purchase – the western-most 40 feet. There was a concern that if I got the easement and they still had that easement that relied on this as-of-right access (five-way intersection,) then even if the city granted me this new easement they wouldn’t be assured that no one would use this bad access in the future. So part of the plan also is to create a

2.13


4

new easement for Huffington’s as well that would go straight with the same easement that I would have but go all the way to their property on the north. So we’d make sure that no one would ever use the other access.

Commissioner Settle confirmed the location and size of the open space strip.

Commissioner Stoller asked Overstreet if the option to widen the road prior to the driveway thereby creating additional parking spaces had been discussed. He said he was not aware of any such discussion.

Gooding: I’ve looked at multiple scenarios. The outlines of the property I’m going to purchase don’t touch the road. If the city wanted to expand that road and bulldoze some of the hillside out, that’s fine with me. If they wanted us to include that with our work plan, I think that’d be fine.

Overstreet: Craig mentioned to me that you would actually preserve those parking areas as well as improve the safety and the turnaround.

Gooding: It seems like long term a new parking situation is needed. It would be great if you could have perpendicular parking. There would be a lot more room, and it would work much better. I’d do it if I could, but it’s not really up to me.

Commissioner Lynch asked if Gooding had encountered any opposition.

Gooding: No. I’ve been very sensitive to the fact that some people may be against anything happening on this hillside. But so far when I’ve been talking to people, I haven’t really gotten any negativity.

Commissioner Tumminello said he thought something like this was more in the purview of the Planning Commission and the city attorney’s office and suggested that the commission’s motion to city council be limited to the impact on open space.

Settle said that she thought the plan was sensible.

Overstreet confirmed that Craig Robinson sees the value in this plan: preserving the parking areas, creating a safer space.

Commissioner Lynch agreed with Tumminello.

MOTION

Commissioner Stoller moved to approve Mr. Gooding’s request to move the driveway access easement up Spring Creek in regards to its open space impact and that staff look at other opportunities in future to further improve parking in that area. Commissioner Dolman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

2.14


5

Tennis Center Recap

Jim Swiggart, Steamboat Tennis Center: Showed a promotional video created with corporate partners that is one of several. It’s seen at the airport on a continual basis and particularly throughout the seasons. Swiggart recognized key tennis center contributors including Bill and Loretta Conway, who he brought on 26 months ago. Showed Trip Advisor ranking and comments: 30 excellent, one moderate. Showed slides featuring major accomplishments: 700 participants to the town every summer, not including their families, yet the tennis center is not recognized as one of the larger group bringers in town. Only in the last two years has there been a city effort to help with marketing the tennis center in conjunction to Haymaker and the ice rink. Applauded Deb Hinsvark for her response to pleas for increased marketing support.Started a travelling tournament team representing Steamboat around the state. Hosted five adaptive tennis programs. In July 4th parade. Hosted Yampa Valley Medical Center Celebrate Women Event. Raised $22,000 for youth tennis in Steamboat. Outreach to area schools. Set a Party: Leasing courts for dodge ball tournaments for all ages; leasing the conference room and upstairs viewing deck to try to generate more people coming through the facility. Pickleball: the fastest growing sport in the US. Doubled numbers from year one to this past year despite some minor difficulties. Showed pickleball participation stats over the years. 7,000 more people in 2014.

Recapped lease agreement. Current agreement has Jim’s company paying for all utilities. Heating is over $5,000 a month. Went from paying about $18,000 a year to 45-$50,000 a year in utilities. Took the burden off the city. The city currently subsidizes the tennis center by removing snow, landscaping and trash removal. Jim’s business pays all the payroll, taxes, insurance, court maintenance. The city takes care of city infrastructure, court resurfacing, HVAC. Expressed his happiness with how the center has come along, particularly over the last two years. First agreement will end October next year, and the city can renew that for another three years. Hoping that happens.

Financial overview: Down from 2007-2011. It became more profitable ’09-11 because Jim and his wife worked every shift possible and cut payroll. At least 55-60% of expenses are payroll.

2.15


6

2013 was the best year the tennis center has had since 1991. Revenues up 28.8% over prior year; expenses up 25%. Increased payroll and brought in two more people. Met all his goals for the center; very close to making the business financially viable when he and his wife eventually step down.

Swiggart said he believes a concessionaire agreement for the tennis industry makes a whole lot of sense for the city. Brings the most professional attitude towards the business; best bang for the city’s buck. Believes he has a team who can eventually take over in Loretta and Bill.

Jim Webster, Chair, Steamboat Tennis Committee: Objective of the committee was to represent users of the tennis center, which includes pickleball players, tennis players and anybody else. To provide independent oversight of the tennis center and communicate that to the city. Create a dialog with Jim (concessionaire.)We have a healthy dialog. We’ve been impressed with the improvement in the last two years in the facility. In October, we had a meeting with Jim, Bill and Loretta with a similar presentation. I wrote an email to John Overstreet and Deb Hinsvark indicating the support that we have for Jim and his team and encouraging the city to renew the contract with Jim as soon as possible in 2015 rather than waiting till September to best maintain continuity and quality of service. Would like to see this momentum continue through 2015 and beyond.

Bo Stempel, President, Steamboat Tennis Association: The STA works with the tennis center. Established in 1987. The purpose was to raise funds to help the city establish a tennis facility. After establishment, the STA changed its focus to raising funds for youth tennis, and that’s where our focus remains today. Our predecessors at the STA were responsible for arranging for the donation to the city of the land that the tennis facility sits upon. Additionally, the association raised $100,000 in private funds to be donated to the city for the center in 1991. Donated $10,000 to the city in 1996 for the construction of the current outdoor courts and another $10,000 in 2006 for the initial reconstruction project for the tennis bubble. The STA financially supports boys and girls tennis at the high school level. We are the primary funding source for that, paying for all the indoor court time for the teams to be able to practice. We’ve also recently helped Bill and Jim start Team Steamboat, which is a 16-member team of players that travel regionally (as far as Las Vegas thus far) representing Steamboat in tennis.The STA also sponsors the in-school tennis program. Free community-wide junior tennis programs. Supported the STARS program. We also do scholarships for families who have children who maybe fall in love with tennis in grade school, and they want to play beyond that. Our effort is to try to make sure that every child has the opportunity to play if they want to. It’s hard to imagine how far and above our facility is to every other facility I’ve ever been in that is non-private. Most people who walk into our facility from out of town make the automatic assumption that it’s private because it’s so nice. We’ve made an active effort to try to create a facility and staff at the facility that recognizes that children are the number one thing in this town. They’re there to play tennis, but we

2.16


7

want them to feel like the center is their playground. It has been very effective for us and has worked really great. The number of kids playing at the facility weekly is astonishing compared to two years ago, and that’s really a testament to the concessionaires.

Stempel commended Bill and Loretta Conway and Jim and Stacy Swiggart for recognizing what they could bring to the center. They were responsible for recruiting Lilly Snate, a former WTA professional who the kids are thrilled to have on the court with them. Our ability to have her join our staff is a testament to how the tennis center is perceived nationwide. One of the STA and concessionaire’s goals is to develop a youth program that is as respected and as sought after as the Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club. We’re well on our way to getting there. Our program’s reputation precedes us when we go to tournaments.

Bo requested that the commission recommend that the city council exercise the clause in the contract that will allow the center to move forward with the current management team.

Jim Swiggart: We’ve either met or exceeded every one of our goals we established in October, 2012. Lilia Snate is a member of the Stanford Tennis Hall of Fame. Stanford is probably the most renowned tennis school in the world. Won six WTA championships.

Marketing: Changed the logo. Used the tennis.com domain name and revitalized the website.

Request: Please recommend to council that they move forward sooner rather than later to renew the concession agreement that my wife and I currently have with the city.

Bill Conway, Head Pro, Tennis Center: I’ve taught all over the country. Jim sought me out, and it’s been amazing. He’s allowed me to have a lot of freedom in teaching the sport. Our junior program is about creating pathways, character and great people; tennis is secondary.With that philosophy and creating a work ethic, two players on Team Steamboat are state ranked; one was nationally ranked. Two years later, we have 16 kids that are state ranked. The only place nicer than this that I’ve taught is Stanford, Cal Berkley.

QUESTIONS:

Tumminello asked what the council’s options are in terms of the contract.

Swiggart: Their options are to put out another RFP or renew our agreement. If they opt to put it out an RFP, I’d like to know that sooner than later.

Tumminello asked about 2014 revenue numbers versus 2013.

2.17


8

Swiggart: They’re probably going to be a little less than that. We added some payroll with Lilia. Paid for her move. Flew Lilia and Danny in for an interview.

Tumminello confirmed the tennis center’s payments.

Dolman complimented Swiggart on his efforts and encouraged him to do some outreach/PR over the coming months to get the word out to the public, primarily through the newspaper. An article, testimonials from the children. Maybe 4-5 articles total.

Swiggart said that Loretta has that on her radar.

Overstreet said that working with Jim has been a pleasure; never had a contractor where he didn’t hear any complaints.

Settle asked how the commission can endorse this concessionaire.

Overstreet said that Settle could draft a letter and bring it back for endorsement by the entire commission. The commission could also move to support the renewal for the next three years of the contract.

Tumminello said a commissioner could also go before city council.

Koermer said he thinks Jim needs the certainty that he’ll be able to put his plans into effect.

Koermer said he feels that there is a consensus amongst the commissioners that they would endorse the concessionaire’s contract being renewed as soon as possible to ensure that Steamboat has a world-class facility.

This item will be on the agenda for January 14.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Gary Boyer, President, Steamboat Springs Pickleball Association: On behalf of his association, he supported everything said about Jim and his team. He commended Jim for inviting them to play pickleball at the center and expressed his happiness with the entire team. He asked that the commission recommend to extend the concessionaire’s contract.

DISCUSSION

Overstreet will draft a letter of endorsement and present it to the commission.

Director’s Report:

John Overstreet:

2.18


9

Thanked the commissioners for their guidance and leadership in setting a vision for parks and recreation in the city. Expressed his and staff’s appreciation.

ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Dolman moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately 6:44 p.m.Commissioner Stoller seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

2.19

AGENDA ITEM #3.


FROM: Julie Franklin, CMC, City Clerk

THROUGH: Deb Hinsvark, City Manager DATE: February 3, 2015

ITEM: A resolution designating the public places for posting

notices of regular and special meetings. NEXT STEP: To approve the resolution.

___ DIRECTION ___ INFORMATION ___ ORDINANCE ___ MOTION _X_ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST OR ISSUE: Approve the resolution designating the public places for posting notices of regular and special meetings. II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution designating the public places for posting notices of regular and special meetings. III. FISCAL IMPACTS:

NA IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

3.1

Although the places to post notice of regular and special meetings are designated in the City’s code, C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c) also requires that the official public posting locations be designated annually. V. LEGAL ISSUES:

This resolution ensures that the City is on compliance with State statute.

VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

NA

VII. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES: Direct staff otherwise.

3.2

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO

RESOLUTION NO. _ _

A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACES FOR POSTING NOTICES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS.

WHEREAS, C.R.S. §24-6-402(2)(c) requires the annual designation of the local

government's official public posting locations for notices of regular and special public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO, THAT:

Section 1. The following locations within the boundaries of the City of Steamboat Springs are hereby designated as the places at which notices of regular and special meetings of the City Council and meetings of the City’s advisory boards and commissions of the City shall be posted for purposes of the Colorado Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. §24-6-402(2)(c): Centennial Hall, 124 10th Street Post Office, 200 Lincoln Avenue City Market, 1825 Central Park Drive In addition to the physical locations for posting notices of regular and special meetings of the City Council and meetings of the City’s advisory boards and commissions set forth above, the City Clerk shall also post such notices on the City’s web site in the area designated for posting such notices, as that area may be modified from time to time, unless technical difficulties prevent such posting.

Section 2. The meeting notice and possible specific agenda information will be posted at the locations identified in Section 1 above not less than 24 hours before the commencement of the posted meeting. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of February, 2015.

Bart Kounovsky, President Steamboat Springs City Council ATTEST: Julie Franklin, CMC City Clerk

3.3

AAGGEENNDDAA IITTEEMM ##44..

CCIITTYY CCOOUUNNCCIILL CCOOMMMMUUNNIICCAATTIIOONN FFOORRMM

FROM: David Van Winkle (871-1807) Chuck Anderson (Ext. 204)

THROUGH: Debra Hinsvark (Ext. 228) DATE: February 3, 2015

ITEM: An ordinance amending noise pollution regulations to

exempt City Street Sweeping operations and providing an effective date.

___ DIRECTION ___ INFORMATION _X_ ORDINANCE ___ MOTION ___ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST OR ISSUE: Public Works is requesting that Street Sweeping operations be listed as an additional exemption in the Steamboat Springs Municipal Code, Article III - Noise Pollution, Section 7-65, Note 10. Currently, this note only exempts the operation of snow removal equipment for the purposes of snow removal. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Monitoring for Particulate Matter (PM) 10, an air quality standard, began in Steamboat Springs in 1985, when the City exceeded the EPA mandated threshold. It took the City almost 19 years before it reached the Attainment/Maintenance designation it holds today under the PM10 threshold. A principal technique used to keep this designation is the requirement for street sweeping operations to occur. These operations use vacuum sweepers to keep the roadways clear of debris, including the scoria used as part of our snow management operations. Sweeping operations are successfully completed throughout the day city-wide, with the exception of Yampa, Oak, U.S. 40, and the associated side streets (3rd to 12th )which can only be cleared before early morning traffic and restricted parking hours Due to this, sweeping operations need to occur at

4.1

these locations between 5:00-7:00 AM. III. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the proposed ordinance to add the exemption of the street sweeping operations. Street sweeping is critical to maintaining our current air quality level and is vital to the success of our PM-10 Maintenance Plan and agreement with federal and state entities. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: If the City exceeds the PM-10 standard, we could be required to implement more stringent requirements from the federal and/or state level. Additionally, the City can be held liable for any dangerous accumulation of snow, ice, sand, or gravel left on a roadway in connection with snow maintenance operations. The Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-106(1)(d)(1) may impose liability if the City knew about a particular dangerous accumulation of sand or gravel, had the existing means available to deal with it, and had a reasonable time to act. Street sweeping as described above helps to mitigate the safety and liability concerns caused by excess sand or gravel on roadways. V. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. VII. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES: In summary, it is in the City’s best interest to add street sweeping operations to the exemption list as reduced air quality would have a negative health impact on our citizens and visitors. Also, the excess sand or gravel left on roadways after snow maintenance operations implicates safety and liability concerns as well as environmental concerns from an air, water and stormwater perspective. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1 – Copy the Steamboat Springs Municipal Code, Article III - Noise Pollution, Section 7-62 and 7-65

4.2

Sec. 7 62. Exemptions.

(a) Emergency vehicles. The requirements, prohibitions and terms of this article shall not apply to any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call or acting in time of emergency.

(b) Parades, fireworks and other special activities. The terms of this article shall not apply to those activities of a temporary duration permitted by law for which a license or permit has been granted by the city, including but not limited to parades, and fireworks displays.

(c)Commercial refuse haulers. The terms of this article shall not apply to the activities of commercial refuse haulers operating under a license issued pursuant to the provisions of division 2, of article II, of chapter 19 of this Code when such commercial refuse haulers operate between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. in all industrial zone districts and in commercial zone districts located within Old Town, Ski Time Square, [and] Gondola Square. For purposes of this subsection Old Town shall be deemed to be the area bounded by Oak, Yampa, Third, and Twelfth Streets, including all lots accessible from said streets. Ski Time Square shall be deemed to be Ski Time Square Drive and all streets, alleys, and parking lots accessible from Ski Time Square Drive, and Gondola Square shall be deemed to be all streets, alleys, and parking lots serving Gondola Square and located east of Mt. Werner Circle, north of Apres Ski Way, and South of Ski Time Square.

(Ord. No. 2399, § 1, 7-19-11)

Sec. 7 65. Maximum noise levels.

For the purpose of determining and classifying any noise as excessive or unusually loud as declared to be unlawful and prohibited by this article, the following test measurements and requirements may be applied. The point of measurement for determining violation shall be at the property line of the impacted property.

(1) Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency or shrillness. Sound levels of noise radiating from any property in excess of the db(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance:

Attachment 1

4.3

Zone 7:00 a.m. to next

11:00 p.m.

11:00 p.m. to next

7:00 a.m.

Residential 55 db(A) 55 db(A)

Commercial 65 db(A) 55 db(A)

Industrial 80 db(A) 75 db(A)

Agriculture and recreation (including parks and open space)

55db(A) 55db(A)

(2) Individual citations for violations of maximum noise levels shall be separated by not less than eight (8) hours.

(3) Periodic, impulsive noise including low frequency and/or shrill noises shall be considered a public nuisance when such noises are at a sound level of five (5) db(A) less than those listed in subsection (1) of this section.

(4) This section is not intended to apply to the operation of aircraft or to other activities which are subject to federal law with respect to noise control.

(5) Construction projects shall not be subject to the provisions of this article between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. for the period within which construction is to be completed pursuant to any applicable construction permit issued by proper authority or, if not time limitation is imposed, for a reasonable period of time for completion of the project. Construction projects in residential neighborhoods shall not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels from7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

(6) All railroad rights-of-way shall be considered as industrial zones for the purposes of this section, and the operation of trains shall be subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified for such zone.

4.4

(7) This section is not applicable to the use of property for purposes of conducting speed or endurance events involving motor vehicles or other vehicles, but such exception is effective only during the specific period to time within which such use of the property is authorized by the political subdivision or governmental agency having lawful jurisdiction to authorize such use.

(8) In all sound level measurements, consideration shall be given to the effect of the ambient noise level created by the encompassing noise of the environment from all sources at the time and place of such sound level measurement.

(9) This article is not applicable to the use of property for the purpose of manufacturing, maintaining or grooming machine-made as well as natural snow.

(10) This article shall not apply to the operation of snow removal equipment for purposes of snow removal.

4.5


ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NOISE POLLUTION REGULATIONS TO

EXEMPT CITY STREET SWEEPING OPERATIONS AND PROVIDING AN

EFFECTIVE DATE

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that City street sweeping operations are

necessary to maintain City compliance with federal air quality and stormwater

standards; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds street sweeping operations must take place

during early morning hours in order to allow for orderly and efficient conduct of street

sweeping operations and to avoid unnecessary conflicts with vehicular traffic; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is not feasible to conduct street

sweeping operations in accordance with existing provisions of the City’s noise pollution

ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that it is necessary to the public

health, safety, and welfare to exempt street sweeping operations from the provisions of

the City’s noise pollution ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS THAT:

SECTION 1. Section 7-65 of the City of Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code is

hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection (10):

“(11) This section shall not apply to the operation of municipal street sweeping

vehicles.”

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this

ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and

safety.

4.6

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after publication following

final passage as provided in Section 7.6(h) of the City of Steamboat Springs Home Rule

Charter.

INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published, as provided by law, by the City

Council of the City of Steamboat Springs, at its regular meeting held on the 3rd day of

February, 2015.

Bart Kounovsky, President

Steamboat Springs City Council

ATTEST:

Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk

FINALLY READ, PASSED AND APPROVED this ___ day of _____________, 2015.



ATTEST:

Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk

4.7

AGENDA ITEM #5.


FROM: Winnie DelliQuadri, Asst. to the City Mgr. (Ext. 257) THROUGH: Debra Hinsvark, City Manager (Ext. 240) DATE: February 3, 2015

ITEM: An ordinance approving a Declaration of Restrictive

Covenant and Disclaimer that modifies City rights in certain property owned by the Steamboat Health and Recreation Association and providing an effective date.

NEXT STEP: Motion to approve an ordinance approving a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer that modifies City rights in Certain Property Owned by the Steamboat Health and Recreation Association and Providing an Effective Date.

___ DIRECTION _ INFORMATION _X ORDINANCE _X_ MOTION ___ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST OR ISSUE: In 1969, the City conveyed a parcel of land to the Steamboat Springs Health and Recreation Association (SSHRA) subject to the condition that it be maintained and used as a tennis court, with reversion of the property to the City if the tennis courts were removed. SSHRA converted the property to a parking lot in September 2002. The attached covenant ratifies SSHRA’s conversion of the property to parking uses in exchange for SSHRA’s agreement that the property be open to use by the public. II. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

5.1

Staff recommends that Council make a motion to approve an Ordinance Approving A Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer that Modifies City Rights in Certain Property Owned by the Steamboat Health and Recreation Association and Providing An Effective Date. III. FISCAL IMPACTS: The cost of implementing the attached Restrictive Covenant is minimal and consists of the cost of recording the document. Staff has not conducted additional fiscal analysis and thus does not have detailed information to provide to council at this time. Other potential avenues of impact include:

• The economic impact to SSHRA operations should the City not ratify the existing use of the property for parking and instead confirm that the property has reverted to the City.

• The cost to the City should it decide to own and maintain the property as a public parking lot. (Note that access is currently through SSHRA owned property.)

• The cost to the City of converting the property to some other use.

• The impact to parking in the downtown area should the property not continue to be utilized for parking.

• The impact to parking in the downtown area should public parking not be required through the Covenant.

• The market value of the property should city council desire to sell it to SSHRA or to sell it for a different use.

IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This past spring, city staff discovered the original deed for the property (see attached) while doing research on city owned property and property transfers from the city in this section of the community. Upon discovery, staff met with Pat Carney to provide SSHRA a copy of the deed in order to alert the SSHRA board to the unique nature of the original transaction and to the fact that the conditions for the original transaction were no longer being met. It should be noted that neither the City Planning Department nor SSHRA realized that the deed language was in place when SSHRA moved the tennis courts and expanded their facility in 2002. The property in question is the western portion of the upper parking lot at the Old Town Hot Springs (OTHS) – see the attached map. The property provides access to the upper parking lot and provides for vehicle parking, which is currently available to the public and

5.2

which is critical to the successful ongoing operation of the Old Town Hot Springs. It is staff’s understanding that while the majority of the parking on the property is utilized by OTHS users, members of the public do regularly park on the property to access the Lower Spring Creek Trail. In July 2014, SSHRA submitted a pre-application for a future addition to the OTHS facility to the City Planning Department. The OTHS proposal would involve constructing an addition to the existing facility on the lower parking lot, but would not develop the property in question. Planning review found that SSHRA does not currently meet code requirements for parking for their current use, and further, that any future expansion would require additional parking. Parking on the subject property is currently a critical component of overall parking for SSHRA operations and of public parking downtown. The City planning department has requested that SSHRA resolve ownership issues on the subject property before moving forward with any future submittals for their facility. Since this issue came to light, the City Manager has been in discussion with the Executive Director of SSHRA regarding how to move forward. That the property was given to SSHRA using a deed with restrictive language indicates that at the time the property was transferred, city council wanted the opportunity to ensure that use of the property met community goals. The proposed Restrictive Covenant preserves the status quo – both of giving city council a future opportunity to ensure that use of the property meets community goals, and also of preserving the existing use of parking which is available to the public. It does this utilizing a legal tool – a Restrictive Covenant - which will be visible in a property records search and thus more visible to future decision makers. V. LEGAL ISSUES: No additional legal issues. VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: No additional conflicts or environmental issues. VII. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES: Staff propose to resolve property ownership issues and preserve the status quo of the property in question through a Restrictive Covenant. As was intended by the city council that make the original property transfer, this option will give future city councils the opportunity to ensure that future uses of the property meet community goals. The

5.3

proposed option also meets community and SSHRA needs for parking. Other alternatives include:

• Sale of the property to SSHRA or a different buyer.

• City ownership and maintenance of the property for parking. Access through SSHRA property would need to be secured for this to be an option.

• Modification or elimination of all restrictions from the property. This option was considered by staff but is not being proposed as the desired solution as it did not follow the original intent of the city council that originally transferred the property to SSHRA.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Property Map Original Deed

5.4

Attachment 1

5.5

Attachment 2

5.6


ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE

COVENANT AND DISCLAIMER THAT MODIFIES CITY RIGHTS IN

CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE STEAMBOAT HEALTH AND

RECREATION ASSOCIATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

WHEREAS, on July 11, 1969 the City by a deed recorded in the records of the Routt County Clerk and Recorder at Book 338 Page 86 (hereafter “the Deed”) conveyed to SSHRA a parcel of real property subject to the condition that the property be maintained and used as a tennis court and that upon the failure of the condition the property would revert to the City; and

WHEREAS, SSHRA maintained and used property described in the Deed (hereafter “the Property”) as a tennis court until September, 2002, at which time SSHRA relocated its tennis courts and converted the Property to a parking lot; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary and appropriate to the public health, safety, and welfare to enter into an agreement with SSHRA that ratifies SSHRA’s conversion of the Property to parking uses in exchange for SSHRA’s agreement that SSHRA maintain and use the Property as a parking lot and hold the Property open to use by the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF


SECTION 1. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is hereby approved and the City Council President or President Pro-Tem is authorized sign any documents necessary to execute said Easement Agreement.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from and after its publication following final passage, as provided in Section 13.6 of the Steamboat Springs Home Rule Charter.

5.7

INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published, as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Steamboat Springs, at its regular meeting held on the 20th day of January, 2015. Bart Kounovsky, President


ATTEST:

Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk

FINALLY READ, PASSED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of February, 2015. Bart Kounovsky, President


ATTEST:

Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk

5.8

DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DISCLAIMER

This Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer is made and entered into this __ day of _____________, 2014 by and between the City of Steamboat Springs, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation (hereafter “City”) and the Steamboat Health and Recreation Association, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation (hereafter “SSHRA”)

WHEREAS, on July 11, 1969 the City by a deed recorded in the records of the Routt County Clerk and Recorder at Book 338 Page 86 (hereafter “the Deed”) conveyed to SSHRA a parcel of real property subject to the condition that the property be maintained and used as a tennis court and that upon the failure of the condition the property would revert to the City; and

WHEREAS, SSHRA maintained and used property described in the Deed (hereafter “the Property”) as a tennis court until September, 2002, at which time SSHRA relocated its tennis courts and converted the Property to a parking lot; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to ratify SSHRA’s conversion of the Property to parking uses in exchange for SSHRA’s agreement that SSHRA maintain and use the Property as a parking lot and hold the Property open to use by the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and promises, the parties agree as follows:

1. DECLARATION. SSHRA agrees that SSHRA shall maintain and use the Property in perpetuity as a parking lot for vehicles and motor vehicles. SSHRA further agrees to permit public use of the parking lot. SSHRA may impose such regulations on the time and manner of public use of the parking lot as it imposes on its members. SSHRA shall not be required to post signs or otherwise publish or advertise the public right to use the Property as a parking lot. City agrees that City shall not post signs, publish maps, or otherwise advertise the public right to use the Property as a parking lot or as a trailhead to the Lower Spring Creek Trail.

2. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY. SSHRA, for itself, its successors, and assigns, hereby declares that the Property shall be owned, held, transferred, conveyed, sold, leased, used, and occupied subject to the covenants set forth herein. The provisions of this Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer are intended to and shall run with the land, shall inure to the benefit of the City, and shall be held by the City in gross.

Exhibit A

5.9

3. REVERTER. In the event of a breach by SSHRA of the covenant set forth herein, title to the Property shall revert to the City without the requirement of judicial action on the part of the City.

4. DISCLAIMER. The City hereby disclaims any interest in the Property other than as set forth herein, whether arising out of the Deed or otherwise.

5. BREACH/REMEDIES. In the event of a breach of any term of this declaration, the parties may resort to any and all remedies available at law or equity, including suit for specific performance.

6. MODIFICATION/TERMINATION. This declaration shall not be modified or terminated except by written agreement of the parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written.


__________________________________ Bart Kounovsky, City Council President

Attest:

_______________________________Julie Franklin, City Clerk

STEAMBOAT HEALTH AND RECREATION ASSOCIATION, INC.

_________________________________

5.10

STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ROUTT )

Subscribed to and sworn to before me this _____ day of _________________, 2014 by Bart Kounovsky, as City Council President of the City of Steamboat Springs.

Witness my hand and official seal.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires:

STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ROUTT )

Subscribed to and sworn to before me this _____ day of _________________, 2014 by ______________________________, as ___________________________________, of the Steamboat Springs Health and Recreation Association, Inc.

Witness my hand and official seal.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires:

5.11

AGENDA ITEM #6.


FROM: Jerry Stabile, Police Captain (Ext. 119) Casey Earp, Assistant to the City Manager

THROUGH: Joel Rae, Director of Public Safety (Ext. 113) Deb Hinsvark, City Manager DATE: February 3rd, 2015

ITEM: An ordinance amending Article III of Chapter 19 of the

Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code relating to wildlife resistant containers; providing an effective date; and setting a hearing date.

NEXT STEP: 2nd reading of commercial wildlife resistant containers.

___ DIRECTION ___ INFORMATION _x_ ORDINANCE ___ MOTION ___ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST OR ISSUE: Second reading of wildlife refuse container ordinance. II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve III. FISCAL IMPACTS: The City will be required to update refuse collection points in several areas and will bring a

6.1

supplemental budget to Council for this expense. IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This Ordinance will set new requirements for updating commercial dumpsters throughout Steamboat Springs. The requirement to provide approved dumpsters falls on the refuse collection companies and the property owner, where the dumpster resides, is responsible for securing the dumpster. Since first reading, the proposed ordinance has been revised to restore unintentionally deleted language prohibiting commercial storage of refuse in dumpster enclosures. The Police Department plans to increase enforcement of this ordinance effective April 1, 2015. The enforcement plan includes utilizing current Animal Control Officers, which are anticipated to have additional time for enforcement duties in the absence of Animal Shelter duties with the planned takeover of the Animal Shelter by the Routt County Humane Society. All commercial containers will be proactively patrolled and inspected for compliance. Residential containers will also be strictly enforced, however, they will be more difficult to enforce due to the period of time non-compliant containers can be left unsecured during the days of trash pickup. A public information and education campaign will take place, with neighbors and passersby being encouraged to report all non-compliant containers to police/code-enforcement. A large media blast beginning with the passing of this ordinance will also take place in the days ahead and continue well into the summer months. Increased fine amounts with more significant penalties will also be proposed to the Municipal Court Judge in the weeks ahead in order to further leverage compliance. V. LEGAL ISSUES: VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: VII. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES: LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

6.2


ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WILDLIFE RESISTANT CONTAINERS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND SETTING A HEARING DATE

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are increasing numbers of bear and

other wildlife encounters in urban areas of the City and that the increase is due to

inadequate security of household and commercial waste placed outside for collection;

and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Steamboat Springs finds it necessary

and appropriate to the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt this ordinance

requiring the storage of household and commercial waste in wildlife resistant

containers; and

WHEREAS, the regulations imposed by this ordinance apply to City refuse

containers and adoption of this ordinance will necessitate the supplemental

appropriation of funds in the fiscal year 2015 budget to replace noncompliant City

refuse containers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF


SECTION 1. Chapter 19, Article III of the City of Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal

Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ARTICLE III. - WILDLIFE PROOF RESISTANTCONTAINERS Sec. 19-100. - Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Approved container is a container used for the storage of refuse that has been approved for use in the City of Steamboat Springs by the Director of the Department of Public Safety (“Director”).

6.3

Dumpster enclosure is any structure constructioned in accordance with the structural requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the city, irrespective of the actual enclosed square footage of the structure including fully enclosed structures. The structure shall be fully enclosed.

Non residential property is any property used in whole or in part for any use described in Section 26-92 of the Community Development Code as a commercial, industrial, public, institutional, civic, agricultural, park, or open space use or for uses accessory to such uses.

Refuse container is any container, other than a wildlife proof resistant refuse container or Approved container, used for the storage of refuse.

Residential property is property that is used exclusively for one or more residential uses as defined in Section 26-92 of the Community Development Code or for uses accessory to such residential uses. Residential uses shall include home occupations and vacation home rental uses.

Wildlife proof resistant refuse container is a container used for the storage of refuse that has been certified to be wildlife proof resistant by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, the U.S. Park Service, or the U.S. Forest ServiceCity of Steamboat Springs. A container not so certified, is considered a wildlife proof resistant refuse container if it is fully enclosed, of sturdy construction, and includes a latching mechanism suitable to prevent wildlife from opening the container. Latching mechanisms shall allow a gap between the container lid of no more than ½-inch. Latching mechanisms shall keep the lid closed in the event the container is turned on its side or upside down. Wildlife proof resistant refuse containers may include drain holes no larger than one inch in any dimension.

Sec. 19-101. – Residential refuse Refuse storage requirements.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to store refuse that is attractive to or edible by wildlife on residential property out of doors other than in a wildlife proof resistant refuse container approved by theColorado Division ofParks and Wildlife or the City of Steamboat Springs. This includes commercial dumpsters whether or not they are in a dumpster enclosure.

(b) Persons with residential property curbside refuse pickup service shall not place refuse containers, other than wildlife proof resistant refuse containers, containing refuse that is attractive to or edible by wildlife at the curb for pickup until after 6:00 a.m. on the morning of their scheduled collection day. After pickup, all refuse containers, other than wildlife proof resistant refuse containers, must be returned to a building, house, garage, or dumpster enclosure by 8:00 p.m.

6.4

(c) Compliance with this article notwithstanding, the city manager, or his designee, may order any residential property owner, agent of the property owner, or tenant to purchase and use wildlife proof resistant refuse containers for all storage of refuse that is attractive to or edible by wildlife if the city manager receives more than one documented, substantiated report that any animal, whether wild or domestic, has entered into or removed refuse from a refuse container located on the property or placed at the property curbside for pickup.

Such order shall:

(1) State that a wildlife proof resistant refuse container shall be obtained for the property within seven (7) days from the date of the order;

(2) Shall be served either personally or by means of posting on the premises upon which the nuisance exists. If notice is served by posting, a copy of the notice shall also be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of record of the property a the address shown in the records of the county assessor.

(d) Penalties for violation of such an order shall be the same as for any other violation of this article.

Sec. 19-101.1 Nonresidential refuse containers

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to store refuse out of doors, including refuse storedin a dumpster enclosure, on nonresidential property or on public property in a container that is not an Approved container if the refuse is attractive to or edible by wildlife. (b) Any trash hauler who provides service to a nonresidential or public property shall provide the customer with an Approved container. The trash hauler may charge a fee for providing the Approved container. The customer shall not be required to purchase an Approved container from the trash hauler. (c) The owner(s) of nonresidential property or public property on which refuse is stored in an Approved container that is not fully secured in accordance with its design shall be liable for such violation regardless of whether the owner(s) are directly responsible for the failure to secure the Approved container in accordance with its design. (d) No person shall be liable for a violation of this subsection if the person has purchased an Approved container but has not received delivery. (e) If an Approved container is damaged to an extent that compromises its effectiveness the Director shall give the owner or user of the container written notice to

6.5

repair or replace the container. The continued use of the unrepaired Approved container seventy-two (72) or more hours after delivery of written notice to repair or replace shall be unlawful.

Sec. 19-101.5 Approved Containers

(a) The City Clerk shall maintain for public reference an official list of Approved containers. The original list and each updated list shall be dated and signed by the Director and attested to by the City Clerk. The Director shall evaluate the performance of listed containers and may on the basis of such evaluation remove from the list any container for the any reason set forth in subsection (b) of this section. The owner or user of any container that has been removed from the list shall replace the container with an Approved container within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice of such removal.

(b) The Director shall not approve a container for use if the container is not certified to be bear resistant by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (“IGBC”). The Director may decline to approve or may remove from the list an IGBC certified container upon a finding that the container is a) incompatible with local trash hauler equipment, practices, or procedures or b) is not resistant to local wildlife. The Director may in making such a finding rely on any relevant information, including the opinions of officials of other municipal governments, state agencies, or trash haulers.

Sec. 19-102. - Property maintenance.

(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any property located within the city, including properties used for special events and properties that are the site of construction activities, to permit the accumulation on the property of refuse attractive to or edible by wildlife. Refuse shall be stored on and collected from such properties and stored in accordance with the provisions of section 19-101

(b) Properties found to be in violation of this section may be deemed to be a nuisance as defined in section 15-2 of this Code and treated accordingly.

Sec. 19-103. - Feeding of wildlife.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly leave or store any refuse, recyclable, food product, pet food, grain, salt or any other materials attractive to or edible by wildlife in a manner, which may attract or entice wildlife.

(b) Bird feeders shall be permitted under this section. However, between the dates of April 15 and November 15, all feeders must be suspended on a cable or other device so that they are inaccessible to bears and other wildlife and the area below the feeders must be kept free of the accumulation of seed, seed debris, or other attractive or edible materials.

6.6

Sec. 19-104. - Penalty schedule.

(a) The municipal court is hereby authorized to establish a penalty schedule for violations of this article. The penalty schedule may establish mandatory minimum fines for violations of this article and the mandatory minimum fines may increase for repeat and multiple offenders.

(b) Mandatory minimum fines contained in a penalty schedule established per this provision shall not affect the court's authority to impose a greater fine up to the court's jurisdictional limit.

(c) The penalty schedule may authorize reduced or suspended fines upon the offender's agreement to purchase and use a an Approved wildlife resistant refuse container.

Sec. 19-105 – Presumption.

In any case involving wildlife entry into or removal of contents from a refuse container, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the contents of the refuse container were attractive to or edible by wildlife.”

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this

ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and

safety.

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take five (5) days after publication following final

passage as provided in Section 7.6(h) of the City of Steamboat Springs Home Rule

Charter.

SECTION 4. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on February 3rd, 2015, at

5:00 P.M. in the Citizens Hall meeting room, Centennial Hall, Steamboat Springs,

Colorado.

6.7

INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published, as provided by law, by the City

Council of the City of Steamboat Springs, at its regular meeting held on the 3rd day of

February, 2015.

____________________________



ATTEST:

________________________

Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk

FINALLY READ, PASSED AND APPROVED this ___ day of _____________, 2015.

____________________________



ATTEST:

___________________________

Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk

6.8

MEMORANDUM PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT

TO: President, President Pro-Tem and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Deb Hinsvark, City Manager FROM: John Overstreet, Director of Parks and Community Services DATE: January 29, 2015 RE: Parks and Recreation Commission Report The Commission met for a work session on January 28, 2015. Only three commissioners were able to make the meeting (Commissioners Lynch, Tumminello and Dolman). Around 20-25 members of the community were in attendance.

Craig Robinson gave a presentation on the Summer 2014 Yampa River numbers and

the issues of trying to enforce rules such as no littering, no drinking, illegal parking etc. Many members of the community were present including members of Friends of the Yampa, Leadership Steamboat, Steamboat Fly Fisherman, and Commercial vendors. Some of the ideas and concerns there were brought up during public comment:

o Expanding the area commercial tubers can use during high water. o Charging fees to get in the river or fees to get a sticker that goes on your

tube. o Getting a take-out put in near Bear River Park or further down the river. o Allowing vendors to rent at the river bank and enforce rules while they are

there. o Ranger program to enforce rules. o Leadership Steamboat would like to spread education and will be working

with staff on next steps for a project. o Working with property management groups that are shuttling people to

the river. Staff will be working on looking at the options and looking at opportunities to partner with local civic groups, Colorado Mountain College and the community.

1

Since there were only 3 Commissioners present they decided to postpone discussing goals until more of the group was present.

Commissioner Tumminello shared the progress of the Community Survey

Committee, the difficulty of getting the survey down to just a few questions and the summer timeline of distribution.

2


CCIITTYY CCOOUUNNCCIILL CCOOMMMMUUNNIICCAATTIIOONN FFOORRMM ____________________________________________________________

FROM: Rebecca Bessey, AICP, Principal Planner (Ext. 202)

Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of Planning and Community Development (Ext. 244)

THROUGH: Deb Hinsvark, City Manager (Ext. 240) DATE: February 3, 2015

ITEM: 955 Pahwintah Minor UGB Amendment, #CP-14-01 NEXT STEP: If City Council concurs with the Board of County Commissioners,

the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan will be amended by resolution (to be approved at a future meeting).

_____________________________________________________________ ___ ORDINANCE ___ RESOLUTION _X_ MOTION ___ DIRECTION ___ INFORMATION ________________________________________________________

PROJECT NAME: 955 Pahwintah Minor UGB Amendment, #CP-14-01

PETITION: An application for a Minor Amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary and related amendment to the Future Land Use Map designation.

LOCATION: 955 Pahwintah

APPLICANT: 955 Pahwintah, LLC

PC ACTION: January 22, 2015 Minor UGB Amendment approved 6-0 Future Land Use Map Amendment approved 4-2

7.1

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Background Information

The Applicant is requesting a Minor Amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary to include a 3.2-acre parcel located at 955 Pahwintah Street. If the UGB Amendment is approved, the application requests a Future Land Use Map designation of Neighborhood Residential – Low. The Urban Growth Boundary is adopted as part of the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan; the boundary was last amended in the 2004 SSACP update. In September 2014, the City and County jointly adopted an amendment to Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Community Plan. These amendments changed the criteria for evaluating proposed UGB changes and created distinct processes for considering major and minor changes. The City and County Planning Directors have determined that this application shall be processed as a proposed Minor UGB Change. The application was heard by the Routt County Planning Commission on January 8, the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission on January 22, and the Board of County Commissioners on January 27. Both Planning Commissions recommended approval of the Minor UGB Amendment with a Future Land Use Map designation of Estate Residential. The Board of County Commissions approved the Minor UGB Amendment and approved the amendment of the Future Land Use Map to designate the property as Estate Residential. Please refer to Attachment 1, Planning Commission packet, for more information.

2. Planning Commission Discussion

The Planning Commission discussed the criteria for Minor UGB Amendments and unanimously recommended approval of the change to the UGB finding that the request did meet the criteria for Minor Amendments. There was discussion regarding whether the appropriate Future Land Use designation is Estate Residential or Neighborhood Residential – Low, and the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend Estate Residential. Please refer to Attachment 3, draft meeting minutes, for full discussion.

3. Public Comment

A number of letters and emails were received and are included in Attachments 1 and 2. Public comments were heard at the Planning Commission meeting and were primarily concerned with future density and potential neighborhood impacts.

4. Recommended Motion

7.2

3

On January 22, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Minor UGB Amendment (#CP-14-01) with a vote of 6-0, and recommended approval of the amendment of the Future Land Use Map to designate the property as Estate Residential with a vote of 4-2.

Staff concurs with Planning Commission and recommends approval of the Minor UGB Amendment; however, we recommend a Future Land Use Map designation of Neighborhood Residential – Low.

5. Attachments

Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Packet, January 15, 2015

Attachment 2 – Additional Public Comment

Attachment 3 – Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2015

Attachment 4 – Staff Presentation

Attachment 5 – Applicant Presentation

7.3

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM # 1

Project Name: 955 Pahwintah Minor UGB Amendment #CP-14-01

Prepared By: Rebecca Bessey, AICPPrincipal Planner (Ext. 202)

Through:Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Planning &Community Development Director (Ext. 244)

Date: January 15, 2015

Planning Commission: January 22, 2015

City Council: February 3, 2015

Zoning: Routt County – AF Agriculture & Forestry

Applicant: 955 Pahwintah, LLC

Request: Applicant is requesting a Minor Amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary to incorporate a 3.2-acre parcel at 955 Pahwintah Street.

Staff Report - Table of ContentsSection Pg

I. CDC –Staff Analysis Summary 1-2II. Project Location 1-2III. Background 1-3IV. Project Description 1-3V. Project Analysis 1-4VI. Staff Findings 1-5VII. Attachments 1-6

Project Location

955Pahwintah

Attachment 1

7.4

955 Pahwintah Minor UGB Amendment #CP-14-01 PC Hearing: 1/22/2015Staff Planner: Rebecca Bessey CC Hearing: 2/3/2015

I. STEAMBOAT SPRINGS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN – STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY

II. PROJECT LOCATION

Strategy GM-1.1(b): Use criteria to consider minor UGB changes.

Criteria Consistent NotesYes No NA

1) Compatibility with community plan vision, goals, & policies

2) Significant functional impacts & inordinate long-term cost liability

3) Conformance with planned provision of urban services

4) Feasibility of infrastructure5) Contiguity with city boundary6) Appropriate for urban developmentStaff Finding: Staff finds that the Minor UGB Change proposed at 955 Pahwintah (#CP-14-01) with a Future Land Use designation of Residential Neighborhood–Low is CONSISTENT with the criteria for minor UGB changes.…. (Detailed policy analysis is located in Section V; Staff Findings are in Section VI)

City LimitUrban Growth Boundary

Department of Planning and Community Development Staff Report Page 1-27.5


III. BACKGROUND

The subject site is located in unincorporated Routt County; 63% of the property’s perimeter is contiguous to the City of Steamboat Springs’ boundary. The 3.2-acre parcel is situated directly adjacent to the north of the ends of Pahwintah, Douglas, and Yahmonite Streets. The property is zoned by Routt County as AF, Agriculture & Forestry, and is a nonconforming lot as it does not comply with the required 35-acre minimum lot area for that County zone district. It is located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which lies along the property’s south, west, and a portion of its north lot lines.

Properties south of Thornburg Street are currently zoned RN-2. Properties north of Thornburg on Uncochief Circle are currently zoned RN-1. A 4.5-acre parcel located to the north of the subject property is currently zoned RE-1. (See Zoning Map excerpt to right.)

The Urban Growth Boundary is adopted as part of the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan; the boundary was last amended in the 2004 SSACP update. In September 2014, the City and County jointly adopted an amendment to Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Community Plan. These amendments changed the criteria for evaluating proposed UGB changes and created distinct processes for considering major and minor changes. The City and County Planning Directors have determined that this application shall be processed as a proposed Minor UGB Change.

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Applicant is requesting a Minor UGB Change to the SSACP to incorporate the 3.2-acre subject property within the Urban Growth Boundary and designate it as Residential Neighborhood–Low on the Future Land Use Plan. The Plan identifies appropriate zone districts for the Residential Neighborhood–Low land use category as the Residential Neighborhood districts (RN-1, RN-2, RN-3, RN-4).



V. PROJECT ANALYSIS

The following section provides staff analysis of the application as it relates to the criteria contained in the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan for evaluating minor changes to the UGB.

Criteria for Minor UGB ChangesSSACP Strategy GM-1.1(b): Use criteria to consider Minor UGB Changes – The following criteria shall apply when the City and County evaluate a proposed minor change to the Urban Growth Boundary:

1. The proposed change is compatible with the goals, policies, and overall vision of the Area Community Plan and the preferred character of the specific planning areas.

Staff Analysis: Consistent. The proposed change to the UGB would not have a significant impact beyond the immediate area of change. The change is not in conflict with the overall vision, goals, and policies of the SSACP and would not necessitate any revisions to the Plan other than the Future Land Use Map. Its direct access to the existing grid street network and its contiguity with the City’s boundary make it a logical extension of the existing urban fabric.

2. Future urban development of the subject area is not likely to have significant functional impacts on transportation and public facilities and will not likely result in an unreasonable or inordinate long-term cost liability related to acceptance and maintenance of public facilities.

Staff Analysis: Consistent. The subject site is directly abutting existing City streets, including Thornburg, Yahmonite, Douglas, and Pahwintah. The existing home on the property is served by City water and wastewater. Future development of the subject area would not require major upgrade of City infrastructure and would not likely result in any significant impacts or inordinate long-term cost liability to the City. In addition, future development of the site may provide an opportunity for improved street connectivity and proper turnarounds on dead end public streets which can impact circulation, emergency access, and snow removal operations.

3. Future urban development of the subject area conforms to the adopted policies or planned provision of urban services.

Staff Analysis: Consistent. Future urban development of the subject property would be required to conform to the adopted policies and planned provision of urban services uponannexation and subdivision/development of the property. Based on staff’s review of the information provided, it appears feasible for the site to be developed in conformance with City policies and standards.



4. The property either currently has necessary infrastructure to serve the area or is an area that can be feasibly served by necessary infrastructure. Necessary infrastructure includes, but may not be limited to, access and water and wastewater service.

Staff Analysis: Consistent. The subject site is directly abutting City streets, and the existing home on the property is served by City water and wastewater. Based on staff’s review of the information provided, roadway service and utility extension to the parcel appears feasible and can meet City standards. Detailed evaluation of proposed design for compliance with all City standards would occur at time of subdivision/developmentapplication process.

5. Not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the property is contiguous with the city boundary.

Staff Analysis: Consistent. Over 60% (approximately 3/5) of the property’s perimeter is contiguous with the City boundary. The contiguity of the subject parcel makes it eligible for annexation.

6. The property is appropriate for urban development.

Staff Analysis: Consistent. Based on staff’s review of the information provided, it appears that the property could accommodate additional development. Due to the site’s topography, alley construction and further grid roadway network may be difficult to construct. Without a roadway grid network and associated alley, larger lot development consistent with the proposed Neighborhood Residential–Low land use designation (RN-1or RN-2 zone district) is likely most compatible with the land.

VI. STAFF FINDINGS

Staff finds that the Minor UGB Change proposed at 955 Pahwintah is CONSISTENT with the criteria for minor UGB changes as established in Chapter 4 of the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan and recommends approval of #CP-14-01 with a Future Land Use designation of Residential Neighborhood–Low.

While Staff believes the application is consistent with the criteria noted above, the adoption and amendment of the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan is at the discretion of the City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County upon making the following findings:

1. The existing Area Community Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment;

2. The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and is compatible with the surrounding area and the goals and policies of the Plan;

3. The proposed amendment will have no major negative impacts on service provision, including adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services, and will have minimal effect on existing and planned service provision;



4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the City’s ability to annex the property; and5. Strict adherence to the Plan would result in a situation neither intended nor in keeping with the

other key elements and policies of the Plan.

VII. ATTACHMENTS

1. Application materials2. Public comment


7.10

7.11

7.12

7.13

7.14

7.15

7.16

7.17

7.18

7.19

7.20

NORTH

”

”

”

””

””

”

”

”

7.21

30'15' 60'30'

30'

Horizontal Scale

1" =

0

NORTH

7.22

30'15' 60'30'

30'

Horizontal Scale

1" =

0

NORTH

7.23

30'15' 60'30'

30'

Horizontal Scale

1" =

0

NORTH

60'

Profile ScaleHorizontal Scale

1" =

6'Vertical Scale

1" = Access Street

Yahmonite StreetDouglas Street

7.24

From: Wes FountainTo: [email protected]; Rebecca BesseySubject: Minor Adjustment to Urban Growth Boundary- 955 PahwintaDate: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:04:25 AM

To Whom It May Concern:My name is Wes Fountain. My family (two small children and wife) and I own and live at1051 Thornburg St in very close proximity to 955 Pahwinta. The owners of this propertyhave submitted a petition to the county asking that the property be moved within the urbangrowth boundary (UGB).

I am deeply concerned about the impact that minor UGB adjustments will have to ourimmediate neighborhood as well as the precedent it will set for our community overall. Inrespect of your time I've simply listed my concerns and items for your consideration.

1. Loss of county revenue once this and subsequent properties are brought into the UGB anddeveloped.

2. The financial impact to the city in supporting new residential development. Our townderives much of its income from tax revenue (i.e. commercial real estate) not residential. Iunderstand that residential property not only does not "break even" but in most cases is aburden financially on the city. Consequently there is no monetary benefit for thisdevelopment.

3. This particular property (955 Pahwinta) sits at the outskirts of small, funky neighborhoodsand is surrounded on three sides by very large ranch property. It would be easy to argue thatthe property should remain in the county. The infrastructure in these surroundingneighborhoods is already stressed. The narrow and winding roads are already used by dozensof families with more than 30 school age children- most walking to surrounding schools. Ourneighborhood has no sidewalks and snow storage and removal is challenging. Spring and fallwater drainage and run-off is inadequate. Although initial development costs for theimmediate property can be pushed onto developers I would ask you to consider thesurrounding community at large. It would be irresponsible to support property developmentat the cost and safety of the nearby neighborhoods.

4. On a larger scale, I would simply ask you to consider the overall feel of our rural,"ranching" community. Our town feels fantastic because of small pockets of green space(regardless of designation) just like this. I would list properties like the nearby Crawfordtriangle, the open space at the bottom of Tree House, and Ritta Valentine park for yourconsideration.

I beg that you consider all implications of these decisions heavily. How will this impact ourcommunity in years to come. Thank you very much.

Respectfully,Wes Fountain970-846-7457

7.25

From: [email protected]: Rebecca BesseySubject: Minor UGB Amendment: Applicant - 955 Pahwintah LLC; Project Location - 955 PahwintahDate: Saturday, January 10, 2015 3:49:11 PM

Rebecca, please ensure my comments regarding this application are forwarded to the City PlanningCommission and City Council for consideration in their decision.

I reside at 875 Pahwintah Street, immediately adjacent to the subject property. I support theapplication, believing it meets all applicable criteria and is compatible with the goals, policies, andoverall vision of the SSACP.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,/s/ John W. Ayer

7.26

January 12, 2015

Re: CP-14-01 – 955 Pahwintah, LLCMinor Change to Urban Growth Boundary for a 3.2 acre parcel

Dear Planning Commissioners and Council Members:

We have a cattle-ranching operation in Routt County and Christy also works as a realtor for Ranch Marketing Associates, focusing on the sale and marketing of ranch properties. We are writing to express our opposition to the above-referenced application for a “Minor Change to Urban Growth Boundary.”

For the past 15 years, we have leased Deerfoot Ranch as a part of our ranching operation. Depending on the amount of rain, in any given year we’ll either run about 50 mother cows or 160 yearlings on Deerfoot.

We have found over the years that the closer residential housing is to our ranching operations, the more issues we have with dogs and trespassers. Dogs, by their nature, like to chase cattle. We work hard to maintain good relationships with all neighbors to any of our cattle operations. But dogs chase our cows creating significant stress for the animals, run them through fences which poses a danger to residents and the cattle, and the dogs themselves risk getting kicked and seriously hurt.

On Deerfoot, trespassers are an even more significant issue than dogs. Adjacent property owners have cut fences, built temporary structures, recreated and even hunted on the ranch. We patrol the ranch and issue warnings but it is an ongoing effort.

Allowing the type of development that would be permitted by the City if the UGB is changed to include applicant’s parcel would greatly exacerbate the issues we have in managing our cattle operation.

We think that approval of the applicant’s request sets a dangerous precedent. County zoning allows one residence per 35 acre parcel. Although we are staunchsupporters of private property rights, the parcel was purchased without any development entitlements beyond the existing single residence. We do not support granting any permission that would increase the density on this parcel; the character of SteamboatSprings and Routt County is deeply rooted in agriculture and allowing any change from this parcel’s historical use would negatively impact our ranching operation and the character of the area.

Sincerely,

Matt and Christy BeltonBelton Livestock, LLC970-879-7885

7.27

From: [email protected]: Rebecca BesseyCc: [email protected]: 955 PahwintahDate: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:18:29 PM

Rebecca,

As the property owner of 868 Yahmonite, I wanted to convey my support to include theRosenthal/Brinkman property at 955 Pahwintah with in the Urban Growth Boundary. I know there is agroup petitioning against smaller lots sighting that this would create more traffic and more strain on theroads, particularly at the intersection of Thornburg and Yahmonite. To me this fits within the classicscope of how Steamboat has grown by adding in subdivisions which touch the boundary, which makesfor responsible growth. I really can't imagine that traffic would be of considerable concern, traditionallypeople moving into downtown have families, and are respectful of their neighbors. Also, I believe thatdowntown needs quality building lots with well thought out design, as there is a lack of inventory ofgood lots and good homes in downtown. The scale of what can happen in this property is relativelysmall as well, so the benefits will be incremental versus flooding the market with dozen's of lots;therefore, decreasing lot values city wide. In my opinion this is smart growth, and any impact to theneighborhood will be negligible and addressable by professionals doing competent work.

Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you would like any other input.

*Could you please let me know that you received this.

Andrew M. PickingPicking Construction LLC, www.pickingconstruction.comManic Training, [email protected] 970-846-5883

7.28

Jan 13, 2015

Dear Planning Commission,

On Petition PI2014-008-

Staff comments states below-

OS-2.2 New development within and adjacent to the designated Steamboat SpringsArea Community Plan area should protect adjacent agricultural operators andpreserve sensitive wildlife areas.

Just on this policy alone, it is a “no brainer” that this petition does not fit.

Do we not all agree that agricultural lands are limited and precious in saving from development? Urban and rural communities came together and made this very clear in black and white in the Master Plan. Many of us worked very hard on this plan and can’t believe that this petition would even be considered for a boundary change.

This “red line” separates urban from rural land for many reasons. Let’s actually use our “growth management tool” we worked so hard on developing. It’s working.

Submitted with respect,

Diane HollyRoutt County Resident

7.29

7.30

7.31

7.32

7.33

7.34

7.35

7.36

7.37

7.38

FROM: Mike Shaler PO Box 775490 1095 Uncochief Circle Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Email: [email protected] January 14, 2015 TO: Rebecca Bessey Steamboat Springs City Planning Commission Email to: [email protected] This letter is in objection to the application to Adjust the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of the property known as 955 Pahwintah, Steamboat Springs, CO. We have lived on Uncochief Circle since August 1998, when we built our home at that location. We chose this location because of the proximity to Old Town Steamboat and the quiet nature of the neighborhood. The long established boundary line which adjoins the property in question provides substantial public benefits to the City, County, and residents in this neighborhood, and should remain as it currently stands. Adjusting the boundary would substantially change the nature of the neighborhood, overburden the existing roadways, and cause dangerous conditions to exist on the area roads. The streets of Uncochief, Thornburg, Yahmonite, Douglas, Pahwintah, and Merritt act as busy throughways for children going to and from Soda Creek Elementary School, and for residents walking to and from Old Town. Additionally the boundary enables the land in question to serve as a transitional buffer between the Deerfoot Ranch and its agricultural and grazing activities and the surrounding neighborhoods. For the sake of the general health and safety of the residents, please deny the application for the adjustment of the Urban Growth Boundary for the property in question. Sincerely, Michael D. and Sheila J. Shaler 1095 Uncochief Circle

7.39

Jan. 14, 2015 Dear City Planning Commission and City Council, I’m writing to express my opposition to the proposed minor amendment to the UGB recently submitted by the owners of 955 Pahwintah. Lack of specificity in what is planned for the property The applicant’s petition reads, “The applicant proposes a low density single family land use for the property. The specific number of lots and the land plan have not yet been determined.” Given this lack of detailed information, concerned neighbors have been left scrambling to fill in that void so as to determine the implications and impacts of this development on our neighborhood. City planning staff has done their best to provide what they know, and the developers provided more information about their intentions at a recent neighborhood meeting. At the end of the day, however, the only written document to go on for those of us who are concerned is the applicant’s petition, in which they state they have not yet determined detailed plans for their property, were it to be annexed into the city. What’s more, it’s not a given that the current developers will be the ones developing the property as, despite intentions and hopes, life circumstances can change. What we do know is that if the minor amendment to the UGB is approved, county land that for decades has been zoned ag/rural and used as a buffer between city residents and grazing cattle will almost certainly be converted to city lots. I’m opposed to that happening. Current and historical land use The 3-acre 955 Pahtwintah parcel is abutted on 3 of its 4 sides by the 811-acre Deerfoot Ranch (and abutted by residential development only by the 4 residences along its southern boundary). Well over half – 60% -- of the 3-acre parcel is adjacent to a working ranch. And it doesn’t abut a rancher’s “back 40,” land just sitting idle. Rather, a longtime county landowner and rancher leases the land all along the fence line between the Pahwintah property and the ranch, using it to graze 50 to 160 head of cattle throughout the growing season. That 3 acres of county land serves as a critical buffer between the city residences to the south and the grazing cattle along the property’s northern fence line. Consider this bit of “buffering history”: The northwest side of the 955 Pahwintah property abuts a 4.5 acre parcel of the Deerfoot Ranch that was zoned RE-1 by the city decades ago and purchased by the ranch in 1959. (The applicants reference this parcel on page 1 of their Project Narrative as “a vacant 4.5-acre parcel zoned Residential Estate (RE-1)” when in fact, it is 4.5 acres of ranch land used for 55 years for ag/rural purposes and designated and assessed as such.) I learned from ranch personnel that a portion of these acres of the ranch were used for grazing cattle for a short time until the ranch deemed it simply wasn’t feasible to do so, given problems with cattle and city residents (and

7.40

their dogs) trying to share a fence line with the western boundary behind some of the adjacent Uncochief Circle properties. Instead, the ranch now uses part of that 4.5 acre parcel as a buffer zone from city residences and allows the cattle to graze further to the east where for decades, there has been a similar buffer – the 955 Pahwintah county parcel. That 3 acres serves a critical ag/rural purpose and so is appropriately – even perfectly – designated ag/rural. Putting city homes on that property with their children and dogs and backyard barbecues is a lose-lose proposition for the cattle and the homeowners that will try to share that fence line. SSACP’s commitment to supporting community agriculture and the rural landscape Protecting ranchers and ag land from this very scenario is a key component of the SSACP and is repeated over and over throughout the document. Even in a quick read through it, I find the following: Goal CD-3: “Our community will maintain its rural heritage and open landscape by limiting development outside the urban growth boundary and encouraging site planning and design that fits the rural character.” The Rationale for this Goal includes, “Throughout the plan process, the community has expressed interest in maintaining the rural landscape and helping to support viable ranching to the extent possible.” Strategy CD-3.1(a) “Maintain the rural zoning classifications for lands outside the UGB.” Policy CD-3.4: “Support community agriculture and a rural way of life.” And, perhaps most pertinent to the 955 Pahwintah petition, “New development within and adjacent to the designated Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan area should protect adjacent agricultural operators and preserve sensitive wildlife areas.” All of us in Steamboat benefit from our ranching heritage. Call it cowboy or western if you’d like, it sets up apart from other ski towns and draws tourists, new businesses, second homeowners, and young families. Directly or indirectly, all our livelihoods and the lifestyle we love here are tied to our ranching heritage. We should protect it fiercely, not compromise it with development. An additional concern (one of public welfare and safety) I have ranching roots and so am passionate about preserving Routt County’s ranch land and agriculture heritage. I also have another, passionate reason for opposing the petition to amend the UGB: the safety of my three young children and the many other children in the nearby neighborhood.

7.41

I understand that a minor amendment to the UGB may be approved by county and city planning officials only if they can make five specific required findings. In my estimation, the 2nd of these required findings can’t be made in this case: “The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and is compatible with the surrounding area and the goals and policies of the Plan.” Clearly, I don’t see how the proposed amendment is “compatible with the surrounding area and the goals and policies of the Plan.” Additionally, I’ve learned through meeting with the Director of City Planning that, were the 955 Pahwintah parcel to be annexed into the city and developed into city lots, the City would “strongly recommend” access into the subdivision via an extension of Thornburg at the corner of Yahmonite, connecting over to Douglas Street. (This extension is presented and drawn as a “preliminary road design for future site access” on the applicant’s Road Exhibit, which was presented after their initial application at the request of the City. ) This corner is trafficked by nearly 30 elementary school children from the homes to the west of the parcel as they walk to and from school and town each day. There is no other route for children to use in walking/biking to school or into town (and there is no urban “grid-like street system” with side walks here). There will certainly be a negative impact on the “public welfare” and safety of our children (and all nearby residents, for that matter) if that already tricky corner goes from bad to worse in becoming an entry point to a development. In closing My grandfather, a rancher in Montana, often reminded me, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I imagine that maxim is shared by many ranchers and county landowners, including those who own the Deerfoot Ranch and those who graze cattle on it. The 955 Pahwintah county parcel designated ag/rural doesn’t appear to be “broke” and in need of “fixing” in any way. I urge you to allow land that looks like ag land, smells like ag land, and acts like ag land in buffering cattle from city residents to remain designated as ag land, and to deny the UGB minor amendment petition. Respectfully submitted, Annie Sachs 915 Yahmonite St., Steamboat Springs, CO

7.42

Jan. 14, 2015 Dear City Planning Commission and City Council, This is a little addendum to my letter, with a county map and County Assessor’s Property Record Card attached. I’ve marked ag/rural land on the county map to show more clearly than is apparent on the city zoning map submitted by the applicant that the 955 Pahwintah parcel abuts on 3 of its 4 sides the 811-acre Deerfoot Ranch. The little map on the County Assessor’s card also shows well the ranch’s (Charles Atwood) property as it abuts the Pahwintah parcel. The applicant argues their property is surrounded by residential development. I respectfully disagree and, especially when I look at the attached maps, I see their ag/rural parcel as surrounded by more ag/rural land. Respectfully, Annie Sachs 915 Yahmonite St. Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

7.43

7.44

CHARLES ATWOODCOMPANY

136 EAST MICHIGAN AVE, STE1201KALAMAZOO, MI 49007-3936

Account: R0677851Tax Area: 20SS - *RE2* SS CityLimits_Old Town+LowerFish/Tamarack Areas & near AirportAcres: 4.480

Parcel: 936081002Situs Address:

Value SummaryValue By: Market OverrideAg Land (1) $100 N/ATotal $100 $100

Legal DescriptionTR OF LAND IN W2SW4NE4 SEC 8-6-84TOTAL 4.48A

Public RemarksEntry Date Model Remark08/19/2011 8/19/11: MAILING ADD CHANGED PER 8/18/11 EMAIL FROM BECKY L. CORNWALL (AT

CHARLES ATWOOD COMPANY). SH

Ag Land Occurrence 1Property Code 4147 - GRAZING LAND-AGRIC Economic Area 2 - 10 MILESuper Neighborhood 130 - STRAWBERRY PARK AREA Neighborhood 1010 - 10 MILELand Code 1050 - 1000 - LANDCODE Land Use 10 - GRAZING BZoning RE1 Site Access 2 - YEAR-ROUNDRoad 0 - UNKNOWN Site View 0 - UNKNOWNTopography 0 - UNKNOWN Water 0 - UNKNOWNUtilities 0 - UNKNOWN Sewer 0 - UNKNOWN

SubArea ABOVE GRADELIVING

ACTUAL TOTALSQ FT

Effective SqFt -Assessor Use Only

RENTAL AREA UNIT VALUE

Acres 4.48Total 4.48

Value Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate

Property Record CardRoutt County Assessor

A#: R0677851 P#: 936081002 As of: 01/07/2015 Page 1 of 2

7.45

Ag Land Occurrence 1$100 22.32

Abstract SummaryCode Classification Actual Value Value Taxable

ValueActual Value

OverrideTaxable

Override4147 GRAZING LAND-AGRIC $100 $30 NA NATotal $100 $30 NA NA

Property Record CardRoutt County Assessor

A#: R0677851 P#: 936081002 As of: 01/07/2015 Page 2 of 2

7.46

From: mosmilksteinTo: Rebecca BesseySubject: UGB a endmentDate: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:19:35 PM

Dear Planning commission and City Council

As a long time resident of Uncochief circle I am opposed to any ammendment of the currentUGB as it pertains to the property of 955 Pawwintah.I believe this property is an inappropriate property to develop due to many reasons.#1 we need to protect the buffer zone for the adjoining ranch. I live on the western edge ofthis ranch and the close proximity of the grazing cattle to our neighborhood creates problemsfor both the ranchers and the neighbours. I believe we need to protect our ranchingcommunity whenever possible and a development would not do that.I have been told by the owners their desire is to build one more home or the property and ifthis can be accomplished in any other way I would like to see the county and city worktogether to accomplish this goal. I believe the best use of this property' is the division ofsame, into two and one and one half acre plots, as is the desire of the owners, in order tobuild their respective homes.#2 This neighbourhood has at least two available lots for sale as well as two vacant ones, notpresently for sale. I know of at least one more home that will go on the market in the spring.#3 I believe we need to infill the city before extending it's boulders to prevent the sprawlseen in other valley towns.#4 we need to preserve our rich and unique western feel which is what attracts our touristsand prevent further building in this area which cannot handle the exiting traffic, with the evergrowing young families .

SincerelyMaureen Smilkstein

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®4

7.47

From: Michael ShalerTo: Rebecca BesseyCc: Michael ShalerSubject: Re: Letter of Objection to Adjustment in Urban Growth Boundary (955 Pahwintah)Date: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:37:10 PM

Rebecca —I attended the meeting last night of the Routt County Planning Commission, to observe & determine their actions inrelation to the Urban Growth Boundary Adjustment for the 955 Pahwintah case.

I am satisfied with the outcome of the Planning Commission’s deliberations; their decision satisfies my originalobjection to the UGB Adjustment.

For this reason, I respectfully ask that my letter of objection which I sent to you on January 14, 2015 be removedfrom the packet you have prepared for the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission deliberations. I no longer havethe objections expressed in that letter.

Sincerely,Mike Shaler

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Rebecca Bessey <[email protected]> wrote:>> I received your letter and will include it in the Planning Commission packet.>> Thank you.>>> Rebecca D. Bessey, AICP>> Planning & Community Development | City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado> Phone 970.871.8202 | Fax 970.879.8285>> -----Original Message-----> From: Shaler Michael [mailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:50 PM> To: Rebecca Bessey> Cc: Michael D Shaler> Subject: Letter of Objection to Adjustment in Urban Growth Boundary (955 Pahwintah)>> Please see the attached letter.> If you have any questions, please call me at my home telephone number: (970) 879-0536.>> Thank you,> Mike Shaler>

Attachment 2

7.48

DRAFT

1

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESJanuary 22, 2015

The regularly scheduled meeting of the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission was called to order at approximately 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 2015, in the Citizens’ Meeting Room, Centennial Hall, 124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

Planning Commission members in attendance were: Jason Lacy, Michael Buckley, Kathi Meyer, Rich Levy, Charlie MacArthur, and Jerry Burns.

Staff members present were City Planner Rebecca Bessey, Director of Planning Tyler Gibbs and City Engineer Ben Beall. Kristy Winser represented Routt County Planning Department.

________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDANone.

955 Pahwintah, Metes and Bounds #CP14-01

STAFF PRESENTATION

Rebecca Bessey, City Planner:This is a proposed minor amendment to the urban growth boundary. This is a the first of this type of application that we’ve ever seen, and this comes pretty shortly after we just completed an amendment to the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan to establish this minor amendment process. The process required the city and county planning directors to make a determination of whether or not they thought this was appropriate for the minor process versus a major process. There was concurrence of the two planningdirectors that this did indeed fit the definition and intent of a minor amendment to the urban growth boundary, so we’re proceeding with the process based on that determination.

The property sits right at the north end of Pahwintah, Douglas and Yahmonite streets and on the east end of Thornburg. The current city boundary corresponds exactly with the adopted urban growth boundary, and those two lines are one and the same. It’s a 3.2-acre piece of property that is all under the ownership of the applicants at this point. There is an existing single-family home on the east portion of the property. That home has been there for many years, and it currently has city water and wastewater services, and I believe it has had those services for close to if not more than 40 years. The application materials indicate that 63% of the property is contiguous to the existing city boundary. In the application that was submitted, the applicant requested a future land use plan designation of Neighborhood Residential Low. The county planning commission heard this application last week; they recommended approval of the urban growth boundary amendment with an Estate Residential land use category.

Attachment 3

7.49

DRAFT

Planning Commission MinutesJanuary 22, 2015

2

All of the neighborhood directly abutting this property as well as the whole Old Townarea are designated on our future land use plan map as Old Town Residential, so that’s all planned for the same type of land use and density. The neighborhood to the south is currently zoned RN-2. The neighborhood to the west is currently zoned RN-1. There is a piece of undeveloped property to the northwest of this site that borders the north property line of the subject site for a ways, and that is currently zoned RE-1. Tyler and I can provide additional history and background in terms zoning.

There are two principal discussion items pertaining to this type of application; the first being whether the subject property should be included in the UGB. If the answer to that is yes, then we also need to ask how should it be designated on the future land use map.Now it’s shown as agricultural and rural, and if we were to incorporate that into the urban growth boundary it would be most appropriate to designate that with a more urban land use than AG and rural.

There are six criteria established for minor amendments to the urban growth boundary. They’re all detailed in the staff report. The first of the six states that the proposed change is compatible with the goals, policies and overall vision of the plan. As part of our staff analysis, we went through the plan and felt confident that this change would in fact be relatively minor. It would not have any significant impacts on the overall area of Steamboat Springs beyond this immediate neighborhood. We didn’t feel that there were any obvious conflicts with the overall vision, goals and policies stated in the plan, and it would not necessitate any revisions to the plan to incorporate this 3.2-acre parcel into the urban growth boundary. The only changes that we felt would be needed to the plan itself would be to the future land use map to change the boundary and then to designate it with a more urban land use category. We felt throughout our review that it appeared to be a pretty logical extension of the existing urban fabric given that it is directly abutting the established grid street network in Old Town and that it already had some public facilities and infrastructure extended to the existing single-family home.

The second criterion is that urban development is not likely to have significant functional impacts on the existing infrastructure and that it would not have the potential to create unreasonable long-term cost liability related to the acceptance and maintenance of any additional infrastructure to service this property. We worked with Public Works to take a look at this in terms of the existing infrastructure as well as what it would potentially entail to maintain and accept additional infrastructure to service this property. It has direct access to a number of public streets that are currently city right-of-way and city-maintained streets. The existing home is serviced by public water and wastewater, so we do have some public facilities extended to the property. Urban development on this property would not require major upgrades to the existing infrastructure. The streets and utility lines would be able to handle any additional development on this property, and acceptance and maintenance of any additional infrastructure and extensions would not be unreasonable to the city. There would be no inordinate cost liability associated with that. It also may provide some opportunity for improved street connectivity and proper turnarounds in this area. Pawwintah and Douglas both dead end directly at the boundary of this property, and any future development may provide some opportunity to improve the street connectivity, which has the potential to impact circulation, emergency access and snow removal in this area.

7.50

DRAFT

3

Urban development conforms to the adopted policies and planned provision of urban services. Any future development of this site upon annexation would be required to conform to our adopted plans and policies. Based on our analysis with Public Works, it appears that it is feasible to develop this property in conformance with the city’s policies and our city standards. Obviously, a more detailed review of the design of that would be conducted later on if it were to reach a subdivision application, but it did at this point appear to be feasible to service that property in accordance with our city standards.

The property currently has necessary infrastructure or can feasibly be served. It does have direct access to established and maintained city streets. It has some water and wastewater service to the property. Based on the topography and our analysis at this point, it did appear that it would be feasible to extend access and those utilities to the remainder of the property. Again, this was not a detailed evaluation of design; that would come later in a future application for development, but it appears to be feasible.

The minor UGB amendment requires that at least one sixth of the perimeter of the property is contiguous to the city boundary. This is an annexation requirement, so what we’re saying is that to be considered a minor UGB amendment, you have to be eligible for annexation at this time. Approximately three fifths of this property is bordered by the city boundary, so it clearly meets this criterion and the requirements for annexation in terms of contiguity.

Lastly, the property is appropriate for urban development. Based on our staff’s analysis and all of the utility feasibility analysis looking at the surrounding property and the topography of the site, we felt it appeared to be feasible to accommodate urban development.

Our staff’s recommendation with regard to extending the UGB would be that it does comply with the criteria that were established in the minor UGB amendment process, and we would recommend that the UGB be amended to incorporate this property. The second question is how should it be designated on the future land-use map.

Bessey showed the land use portion of the plan and highlighted the sentence that talks about directing growth to well-defined contiguous areas and how in doing that we can better accommodate efficient land use patterns and we can deliver our public facilities and services more efficiently and effectively.

Bessey: I think that’s really the key, and that’s one of the main goals of the urban growth boundary in addition to preserving open lands and natural resources and discouraging a sprawling land use pattern outside of the urban growth boundary. One of the explicit goals of the plan is that Steamboat Springs will have a compact land use pattern within a well-defined boundary, and that speaks directly to that. The plan goes on to say that areas within the urban growth boundary should be required to develop in an urban fashion, and I think that’s really important to us from the city’s perspective. I we’re considering incorporating new properties into the urban growth boundary for consideration for future annexation, we really should be looking at making sure that we’re using that land efficiently since we’ll be extending services to that property and taking it out of rural land use.

7.51

DRAFT


4

The application that was submitted to us proposed a land use designation of Neighborhood Residential Low. We ask in our application submittal package that the applicants propose what they feel is appropriate or what they would desire for their future land use designation of the property. In our view, though, we’re not just looking at that saying we agree or we don’t; we’re really looking to the overall plan and trying to provide you as the decision makers with what we feel is the most appropriate land use designation for that property. In doing so, we looked at these three main categories – the first being Old Town Residential. The future land use map for this area shows all of the surrounding neighborhoods as being planned for Old Town Residential. The plan describes that pretty broadly as being appropriate for single-family and limited multi-family residential. It corresponds pretty closely with the RO zone district in the city, and it describes it as having the character of small lots with a grid street and alley network and being compatible with the historic nature of what we consider our Old Town area. That’s what’s planned for the entire neighborhood, so it’s probably the most logical and easy designation to place on that property because it’s consistent with the rest of the map for that area. However, looking at the neighborhoods and how they’re actually zoned and then looking at the natural constraints of the property, the topography of the property, whether or not it’s feasible or likely to extend that existing street grid and alley network further to the north, we also thought it was appropriate to look at the Neighborhood Residential Low designation. The plan describes that as being single family and small-scale attached residential. All of the RN districts are considered to be appropriate for that designation. The character of that land use designation is intended for neighborhooddevelopment within walking distance to the community facilities, so it’s pretty consistent with what the actual zoning and character of those neighborhoods up in that area are. Lastly, we looked at Estate Residential, primarily because this is what the county planning commission had recommended that this property be designated as if incorporated into the urban growth boundary. That category is described as being corresponding to the city’s RE zoning as well as the county’s MRE zoning. It is described as large-lot residential; it actually references one to five acre lot sizes. Just looking at the history of that land-use designation and trying to understand that better and where it’s appropriate, the plan does talk about it being primarily intended for transition areas in the West Steamboat area. Researching the progression of our different plans, it really appears to have shown up in the 2004 plan as a product of the 1999 West Steamboat Springs Area Plan, which had introduced this concept of transitioning and transferred development rights in certain areas on the outskirts of the West Steamboat Springs area adjacent to the urban growth boundary. It shows up in a few limited areas in the future land use map in other places, but I really believe that the intent of that land use category was to implement the recommendations of the West Steamboat Springs Area Plan.

Through our analysis, we came to recommend to you that the property be designated Neighborhood Residential Low. That recommendation is based on the topography of the site. Working with Public Works, we feel like there may be some potential for some street connectivity there, however, an extension of that full grid and alley system is pretty unlikely or very difficult. Neighborhood Residential Low is consistent with the actual zoning of the surrounding neighborhoods as RN-1 and RN-2. We felt like even though the plan identifies the rest of this neighborhood as Old Town Residential that this probably was the right point to start transitioning to a lower future land use plan designation given the topography and the challenges of developing this site as well as

7.52

DRAFT

5

further to the north. If at any point in the future the city were to grow further north, we felt the Neighborhood Residential Low was the most appropriate designation for that property.

I want to provide some clarification with regard to the process. I did correspond with Chad Phillips, the county planning director, as well as Kristy Winser, and I feel like we have consensus. We did go back and look at how previous urban growth boundary amendments were processed in 2008; we looked at the intergovernmental agreement; and we also looked at the plan language itself. We have all agreed that both planning commissions make a recommendation to their elected bodies, and the city council and board of county commissioners have final approval authority on urban growth boundary amendments. So that’s how we’re going to be proceeding at this point.

I should also mention that we had a number of written letters and emails which I have included in your packet. There was one additional email that came in after the packet went out, which I distributed to you on Monday. That was from a Mr. Michael Shaler,and he was indicating that he was supportive of the county planning commission’s action with the estate residential designation.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Paul Brinkman, Managing Member, 955 Pahwintah, LLC.: For disclosure, the four members of the entity 955 Pahwintah, LLC. are myself, my wife, Al Rosenthal and his wife Rosanne. Starting off with a little bit of history, my wife and I moved to Steamboat about six years ago from Fort Collins, and about 2011 we moved to this neighborhood. We live at 880 Douglas, which is at the end on the east side of Douglas Street. At the time, we had three kids, and then came four, so at that point my wife and I were talking about options and next plans for our home. It just happened that we lived next door to these three acres for many years and enjoyed the property and knew the neighbors. In about early 2013, we talked to the neighbors, made an offer, and they accepted the offer. We were unable to come to terms with the purchase due to some title issues with this property. There were some issues that we’ve since cleaned up, but it impacted the process and the contract at that time. They came back to us in mid-2013 and agreed to new terms, and we moved forward with the purchase. Concurrently with that, Al and Rosanne, who live on the west side at the end of Douglas, and we had been talking with them about our plans. Prior to purchasing the lot, through their desires and ours we decided to move forward with purchasing the lot together. At the time, our desires for my wife and I were to look at building a house on the eastern side of the property, while Al and Rosanne were contemplating the possibility of building a house for themselves in the central part of the property – not knowing what might be possible down the road for future density or process. We did know that it was in the county and zoned AG, which really limited our ability to do anything other than one house. Through understanding the possibility of going through with a UGB amendment, in September, 2013, we actually submitted an application for – or we actually met with the city and county to discuss submitting an application for a UGB amendment. Back then, there had already been some conversation about the process and its effectiveness. The reality was that there had not been a property brought into the UGB in the history of the city and

7.53

DRAFT


6

county. So at that point, all four bodies started to discuss moving forward with analyzing the possibility of creating a different type of process for amendment to the UGB.

So over 16 months, the concept of the minor amendment came about, and from our standpoint, our property was used as an example of why a minor amendment may be something to consider. Obviously, the minor amendment is really the first step in the process, and from a process standpoint we have a long ways to go as an applicant moving forward with annexation, zoning and the development plan. So knowing this is the first step, we hadn’t spent a lot of time developing a site plan. We had our desires, and really the process through the minor amendment doesn’t require a lot of detail on the development plan. So we didn’t want to spend a lot of money and time until we got through the process and got feedback to understand how it may work, but in doing so, the fact that there wasn’t a lot of information provided created some uncertainty in the neighborhood. We had heard and seen the letters as they came out and talked to the neighbors and realized there was concern and uncertainty as to what our plan was going to be. So two weeks ago, we had a neighborhood meeting, and it was a good time for us to hear the concerns of our neighbors, to express our desires to build two houses on the property. I feel like we’re all aligned with those concerns, and we all want to try to address the same concerns as our neighbors. Al has lived there for 22 years; we’ve lived there for four years. We have four little kids, and a lot of the concerns revolve around our kids and our families. The concept of neighbors and neighborhood came up a lot, and after the meeting I was thinking about looking up the definition of the neighborhood because I was curious as to the context of what we were working on and how we move forward. I want to read two definitions I found: Neighborhood is a geographically localized community within a larger city, town, or rural area. Neighborhoods are often social communities with face-to-face interaction among members. A scholar named Lewis Mumford said neighborhoods exist wherever human beings congregate in permanent family dwellings. I think the key for what he said was “many of the functions of a city tend to be distributed naturally.” And for us, we feel like our property is really an extension of the neighborhood, and many of the functions of the city are distributed naturally to our neighborhood and to this three-acre parcel.We’ve talked about the location. One of the things I think is key is the walkability to both downtown and to schools. We are seven blocks on 8th Street to downtown – about a five minute walk – and about eight blocks on 9th Street… I joked in the last meeting – the schools here it’s about 800 feet from the property. My son can run from the property to school in about 30 seconds, so I think that truly is an extension of our city where he can get to school in 30 seconds. The property is on city water and sewer, and from what we can tell it’s been so since the early 70’s.

Brinkman showed the locations where water and sewer come onto the property as well as two locations for electric and gas.

Brinkman: There’s approximately 250 feet of right-of-way that abuts our property, and there are three access points: Pahwintah, Douglas and Yahmonite. From what we can tell, our property has not been assessed or used for AG land in over 45 years. To the south where Al and I currently live is RN-2; RN-1 to the west-northwest, and then RE-1, which is a field that is in city limits and currently has city zoning.

7.54

DRAFT

7

Brinkman showed photos to clarify the zoning, property locations and right-of-way.

Brinkman: Physical Characteristics: It gets a lot more flat on the western side, but it does get very steep as you move to the east and north, so the development potential on the northeast corner is very challenging; it’s more possible on the western boundary. The existing house from our standpoint is somewhat urban and hasn’t been used for AG or for ranching purposes in the history of the property.

We talked about the future land-use designation. We submitted Neighborhood Residential Low in the context of having RN-2 to the south, RN-1 to the northwest and RU1 in the city limits in the open field to the north. The Atwood property and ranch is bordered on the north side and the west side. The creek falls off on the east side of the property. The concept for us originally was to look at remodeling and adding to the existing house with another house located in here. 63% of it borders the city limits. Athird of the property is completely surrounded by city property and 50% of the property border is already developed with 250 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the property. The property line actually extends away from the right-of-way, so there is a sliver of RE-1 that comes down and part of our property is adjacent to the right-of-way. There was a portion of the property that was in no-man’s-land, and we did receive a decree through the courts in December and were awarded title of that property, which we had worked over a year and a half to obtain.

Peter Patten, Patten & Associates:Rebecca went through the six criteria for the UGB amendment. The second set of criteria is the specific findings for a community plan amendment, although it’s fairly repetitive. As we go through this, there’s three things I’d like you to keep in mind that are going to keep coming back as we get into the criteria and that is: There hasn’t been any AG activity on the parcel for 40 years; city water and sewer and road access has existed for approximately that amount of time as well; the current future land-use map designation of AG Rural is inappropriate and does not fit this property.

The first criteria says is it consistent with the area community plan, which is really the big one here. It is consistent with the vision statement. When you look at the characteristics that Paul has just described, this could be considered infill. The description of the AG Rural classification – these bulleted items are out of the plan and describe that future land use designation. It says: “Large parcels or clustered land-use patterns served by well and septic.” First of all, we’re not talking about a large parcel; we’re talking about three acres. It isn’t served by well and septic. It says: “not served by urban utilities.” This property has been for decades. So it doesn’t fit the AG Rural designation. Another area we feel where the plan supports the proposal talks about infill and land use. “Infill means the development of new housing or other buildings on scattered sites in a built-up area.” That’s really what we’re talking about here.

The description of the future land-use plan itself, that designation of AG Rural does not achieve the stated intention of conserving agricultural and ranching lands. The growth management section of the community area plan is a voluminous section; it has a lot of

7.55

DRAFT


8

different policies and actions. The proposal really complies with a number of different things in this section. They all revolve around those three things I’ve already mentioned.Let’s go to the required specific findings for community plan amendment. The first one I think we’ve covered that ground also. We’ve analyzed the community plan and the policies. It is in need of updating and correction with regard to this parcel because it does not fit that AG Rural land-use designation. “The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and is compatible with both the surrounding area and the goals and policies of the plan.” Certainly, this proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and supportive of the goals and policies which we’ve already discussed.“The proposed amendment will have no major negative impacts on service provision, urban facilities and services.” Rebecca really covered that as well. We’ve already been through TAC and had a meeting or two with Ben Beall, so as you can see there aren’t any issues at this point. We’ll get into that during annexation and zoning. “It’s consistent with the city’s ability to annex.” That was covered. It certainly meets the statute for perimeter contiguity.“The strict adherence to the plan will result in a situation neither intended nor in keeping with other key elements and policies.” A rural land-use pattern is not likely to be consistent with a three-acre parcel.

Brinkman: We agree with staff’s analysis and findings at this point. From my standpoint, our conclusion is we do believe this is consistent with the criteria, and we believe it complies with required specific findings.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Meyer:I’d like to ask Kristy a few questions. This afternoon I was able to read the minutes of the county planning commission meeting, and I think I’ve answered most of my questions, but in your report to the county commissioners, which will be the hearing next Tuesday, you said that the applicant agreed to a Residential Estate status in the meeting. Is that correct?

Kristy Winser, County Planning: That is correct. I think the basis of the decision by the planning commission was in response to the applicant amending their application from a future land-use designation of Neighborhood Residential Low to Estate Residential. I believe that was a result of a lot of the concerns that were brought forth by the community and by the planning commissionhaving to do with density, traffic and unknown future development. So as the meeting went forward, during the roundtable discussion, the applicant thought that the Estate Residential that they agreed. It was actually something that was brought forth by the planning commission as a suggestion because they thought it was a land-use category that they could still accomplish their development plan with. So yes, they agreed to that.

Meyer: Would you characterize their decision-making process as very much a linked decision that the approval of modifying the UGB was contingent or linked with an agreement by the applicant to go to an RE?

7.56

DRAFT

9

Winser: If I’m understanding it correctly, whether or not they would still approve the minor amendment…

Meyer: They didn’t have a separate discussion on two questions like we’re seeing tonight.

Winser: Right.

Meyer: Some of the comments were only one sentence, so it was a little tough for me to figure out really – I understand what the vote was, but do you think they understood that it was only if the applicant agreed to an RE designation?

Winser: It seemed as if the vote was going that way during roundtable discussion. I would say the majority of the planning commission members were leaning towards – they were uncomfortable with an approval with the original proposed land-use designation of Neighborhood Low.

Meyer: And the vote was not unanimous to do both the UGB and an RE. There was maybe one or two commissioners who said no, but the overwhelming majority voted that way. Is that true? Or am I reading the minutes wrong?

Winser: Overall, the majority was to approve it with the amendment to Estate Residential. There were I believe two or three planning commission members who were okay with the original recommendation.

Meyer: Were they against the UGB period?

Winser: I think it was more of a dense city issue with that land-use category as originally presented.

Meyer: For the applicant, you had in one of your slides that you have agreed to – you said also, going back to Slide 3 – Estate Residential. I want to make sure I know right now what we’re being asked to approve. If the county’s vote was contingent on that, the applicant agreed in that meeting. My question is: What really should be our question tonight?

Bessey: I have not been formally informed that the application has changed since it’s been submitted to us. That’s why I characterized in the beginning of the presentation that the requested designation was Neighborhood Residential Low. I am aware of what the county planning commission did. I have spoken with Peter; he asked if they needed to formally amend or if they should formally amend. My response to that question would be that we asked the applicant to propose what they would like. But in the end, I feel like the decision that planning commission and ultimately city council makes should be what you believe the appropriate designation for future land use should be on our community plan future land use map. It’s a little different than other development proposals and rezoning applications and things like that where we’re really looking to the Community Development Code to guide our decision making. In this case, we’re looking at the community area plan, which is not a regulatory document. It is developed through a

7.57

DRAFT


10

public process; it makes recommendations for future land uses; it’s more broad in nature; and it’s truly our community plan for how we want to grow in the future. That being said, I don’t know that it’s really necessary that the applicant -- what the applicant isrequesting because I feel like this body can make a recommendation based on what you think is the appropriate land-use designation.

Commissioner Lacy:But just to be clear, you are requesting Neighborhood Residential Low for the future landuse map designation, but you would accept Estate Residential.

Brinkman: Yes. We haven’t done a lot of work on the implications the different zoning designations would have on density or roadways and things. We haven’t gotten to that step in the process. But when we looked at it, you have RN-2 and RN-1 adjacent on the south and west, so naturally a Neighborhood Residential Low seemed applicable. In RE, you start to get connotations of West Steamboat with well and septic that didn’t necessarily seem appropriate for this parcel. Given that there is an RE-1 property to the north, I think people started to think maybe a little bit different. But yes, we are and have not formally revised our application and the land-use designation, but we believe that the Estate Residential designation could accomplish our goals.

Lacy: Rebecca, you mentioned that the current future land use map designation for all of the surrounding properties is Old Town Residential. That includes the RE-1 parcel and both the RN-1 and RN-2 parcels.

Bessey: Correct.

Commissioner Levy:For staff: For residential low, the potential zonings are RN-1 through RN-4. Have you looked at the high density RN-4 and the maximum possible build-out if a development plan was to come in with that zoning proposal?

Bessey: We haven’t done a detailed analysis. Through the feasibility analysis that we looked at, I think that from staff’s perspective and working with Public Works as well that the RN-1 or RN-2 would be most appropriate. When you start looking at RN-3 and especially RN-4, you’re really looking for a true grid street network with alley-loaded lots, and I think that given the topography of this site, that would be extremely challenging. In addition, one of the alleys – I think it’s the alley between Douglas and Yahmonite has already been vacated in the portion that abuts this property, so there’s not the opportunity to extend that existing alley. While we’re not necessarily speaking to specific zoning at this time, with that Neighborhood Residential Low designation I think in the future if we were to get to annexation and zoning, staff would likely be looking for an RN-1 or RN-2 zoning.

Levy: Have you come up with an estimated number of potential lots under RN-1 and RN-2?

Bessey: We have not.

7.58

DRAFT

11

Levy: I just did the math. It doesn’t allow for open space or right-of-ways or topography, but I could get anywhere from 13-16 lots just on square footage. 8,000 square feet is the smallest lot allowable on RN-2. So just considering that, is it possible that that many lots came in that this would – you said you haven’t done any analysis. So what do you think is the maximum number of lots?

Bessey: I don’t know that I can speak to a specific number. I think that the maximum that you just quoted would not be achievable given that you’d have a significant amount of land taken out for right-of-way to serve any higher number of lots. There’s an open space requirement that this site would be subject to through the subdivision process. I think that’s 15% of the gross lot area that would be designated for open space. So right-of-way and open space alone – in addition to that we have the topography that’s going to impact the layout of those lots and any potential street and access to those lots. So I don’t think there’s any way to get that many lots under an RN-2.

Tyler Gibbs, Director of Planning: I think you have to account for the infrastructure: the streets that would have to be put in, the topography that would have to be accounted for, the open space. If you just eyeball that, you can see that you probably have to cut that number in half I would think at least.

Levy: What might be the trigger where this would no longer be a minor amendment? I’ll round up and say 8-10 units. Would you think that might change our consideration for a minor versus major UGB amendment?

Gibbs: I don’t have the criteria in front of me, but we were looking at impacts on city services, existing utilities and so forth, and I do not believe that that would have changed that designation as minor.

Commissioner MacArthur: Given the very preliminary nature of a UGB, I was a bit surprised to open up the packet and see engineered road design. Maybe the applicant provided that unprompted. Regardless, I do just want to clarify that the road design shown on Sheet 1 is just a concept. This being in the packet does not hold the applicant to any sort of road design or anything of that nature, correct?

Bessey: Correct. This is not a development plan or a subdivision plan for the property. That information was provided for us to be able to further analyze feasibility of extending the road network through the property.

Levy: A couple of the public comment letters were problems from an urban neighborhood trespassing onto the adjacent AG lands and that becoming a problem. One of the area plan goals was to “protect” agriculture and ranch lands. Whose responsibility is that to protect agricultural lands and this trespass issue. If we were to put more homes adjacent to a current cattle operation, who’s responsible for protecting those activities?

Gibbs: I think we’re talking about two different things here. Protecting AG lands is ensuring that we maintain agricultural zoning in the county and are not rezoning large swaths and losing that land as opposed to trespassing in the sense of somebody actually

7.59

DRAFT


12

physically walking on the property, which is a different legal issue. It’s not the responsibility of this type of process to talk about whether or not somebody can trespass on somebody else’s property.

Lacy: Ben, I’d like to talk a little bit about Criteria 2 on Page 1.4. On this criteria, assuming we approve this application we’re supposed to find that future urban development is not likely to have significant functional impacts on transportation and public facilities and will not likely result in an unreasonable or inordinate long-term cost liability related to acceptance and maintenance of public facilities. Could you just talk to us a little bit about the projected costs and the impact you see on city infrastructure if this were to be approved and ultimately developed?

Ben Beall, City Engineer: Looking at the potential development of this site and mindful that the developer would be responsible for any improvements of infrastructure within the lot, we felt that there was sufficient infrastructure surrounding it to serve any development at this site. The roadway has the capacity to handle the lots.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Annie Meyer, lives two houses away from planned subdivision, registered her concern with what might happen to the neighborhood and recounted that the applicant agreed to an RE-1, which would allow one building per acre and explained her understanding that this was made a condition of approval from county planning commission. She registered her surprise that this was not mentioned in staff’s presentation. She argued for less dense build-up approaching the edge of the town.

Paul Sachs, representing the owners of Deerfoot Ranch which surrounds the subject property, registered the ranch’s strong opposition to the proposed amendment. Most importantly, the proposed amendment goes against perhaps the highest priority planning principal in the county master plan, which is to protect the rural character, ranch land and open space in Routt County. The 3.2 acre parcel currently serves as a buffer between the ranch operation and fairly dense city urban development. He reiterated the county’s condition of RE-1 future land use designation, which would allow the applicant to build the one additional house that he represented was the reason for the application and potentially to add an additional house at some future date. He stated that the ranch will not continue to oppose the application if the maximum number of homes on the parcel is restricted to no more than three. He stated that the vote of county planning commission to approve the application with the estate residential zoning condition was unanimous.

Maureen Smilkstein, 1035 Uncochief, registered her agreement with the prior comments and stated that that there is a real problem with having cattle abut a low-density neighborhood. There’s an issue with dogs in the neighborhood trying to impact the cattle and the cattle breaking through the fence.

Garret Baum, at 885 Yahmonite Street, also registered his agreement with Mr. Sachs’ comments in particular. He stated his belief in the importance of taking into account the positions of all stakeholders. He said that although 60% of the property is surrounded by

7.60

DRAFT

13

the city, only about 30% really borders what he would call density of residential. The other 70% is surrounded by ranch land or single homes. He encouraged commissioners to visit the site. He stated his belief that snow removal, emergency vehicle access and transportation could be dealt with in other ways than putting a road through the property and that urban style homes would have to be developed in order to support that road.

Wes Fountain, 1051 Thornburg Street, just across the main intersection from this property, said that this was a very light representation of all the people concerned about the development of this property. He felt like the surrounding neighborhood is in support of the Brinkman’s and Rosenthal’s original intent for the property. He called for caution in the planning commission’s decision. Land owners could be asked to spend a significant amount of money on infrastructure requiring additional development that they and surrounding neighborhoods don’t want. It would be a challenge to go back and correct a decision.

Annie Sachs, 915 Yahmonite, expressed her opposition to a road cutting through the property and her belief that RE-1 zoning would be sufficient for the subject property.

Arne Stemsrud, 820 Yahmonite Street, said that the Residential Estate agreement gives neighbors an idea of what to expect in the future and expressed his support for amending the UGB with that condition.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS

Levy: For staff, can you remind us what a UGB amendment entitles an owner to and what future decisions would still have to be made for any development on this property to occur?

Bessey: Our intergovernmental agreement with the county and our jointly adopted community plan indicates that the city would not entertain annexation requests for property outside the urban growth boundary. An approval of a UGB amendment to bring this within the UGB would make this property eligible for a request for annexation. Through the annexation process, the zoning of the property would be determined and then any additional development or subdivision of this property would have to go through the appropriate approval process. All of those are public processes.

Levy: Even if certain criteria are met, there is no responsibility for the city to take positive action on an annexation request. Is that correct?

Bessey: Correct. And I also wanted to note that regardless of what the future land use designation category may end up being, and while that should play a role in the decision-making process for future zoning of the property, the city doesn’t require the applicant to subdivide the property beyond what they may want to request in the future. So there’s no requirement for additional development if that’s not what the property owner would choose to pursue.

Levy: Can you tell us what the consequences are if the city planning commission adopts a different recommendation than the county planning commission?

7.61

DRAFT


14

Bessey: Sure. I apologize because I know there’s been some confusion about the process previously. I hope I cleared that up. Previously, we thought that the county planning commission action was an approval. It is a recommendation to the county commissioners. Your recommendation is a recommendation to city council. I believe strongly that city council and the county commissioners would take both of those recommendations into their consideration, but both city council and the board of county commissioners would have to agree for this amendment to move forward. It’s a jointly adopted plan; it’s a jointly adopted urban growth boundary; and we have agreed to work cooperatively to plan for our community; and that includes amendments to that plan. So the two elected bodies would need to agree on the final outcome.

Commissioner Buckley: What about county planning? Would they have to agree also?

Bessey: I spoke with the county planning director today, and he confirmed with me thathe believes that the county planning commission’s action – although it was not stated that way – would be a recommendation to the board of county commissioners. I did go back and do some research into how these were handled back in 2008. We did look at the community plan language in Appendix E, and we also reviewed the intergovernmental agreement. Chad Phillips did agree today that the action of the planning commission was a recommendation to the board of county commissioners.

Buckley: So we’re both recommending bodies; that’s it.

Bessey: Correct.

Gibbs: So even if they state that as a condition, that is a recommendation to county commissioners.

Buckley: Paul, are you agreeable to the estate residential zoning on this?

Brinkman: Just to be clear, the application requested definition on the future land use designation, not necessarily future zoning. So the request was we did agree to the estate residential future land use designation. We haven’t done any analysis on zoning, nor is this appropriate to have a conversation around zoning. My understanding of what we discussed with the county planning commission was a future land use designation of estate residential, which we agreed to.

Buckley: I guess you’re going to sit back and see which one comes out of this process.

Brinkman: From our standpoint, the designation of Neighborhood Residential Low was the most appropriate. Does Estate Residential allow us to accomplish our goals? It does also. So we can be comfortable with either future land use designation.

Meyer: For staff: I want to just clarify this so we don’t leave any misunderstandings or expectations with the neighbors. If Estate Residential as far as the land-use map is adopted or recommended and everyone agrees, then under the city rules they could apply

7.62

DRAFT

15

for RE-1 or RE-2 zoning. That minimum lot size is 13,500 square feet. Rich did the math earlier. I just want everyone who’s sitting here if they think only three houses, that would be if the applicant came in with RE-1 zoning. That’s a minimum one acre. RE-2 is the 13,500. So there could be more than three houses. Am I correct?

Bessey: I believe you’re correct. As we know, if we were to get to a point where we were trying to actually zone the property, we would be looking to the future land use map to help guide that decision. But the applicant at the time of annexation and zoning request could propose any other zoning, and we would – they’re not bound to only be requesting RE zoning at that time.

Meyer: So you’re saying if the land use designation was Estate Residential they could come in with RN-1?

Bessey: They could request it. We may not approve it, but they would have the right to ask for whatever they chose to ask for.

Lacy: For Criteria 3 on Page 1.4, this is our determination that future urban development of the subject area conforms to the adopted policies for planned provision of urban services. What policies and planned provisions are we talking about there?

Bessey: Primarily talking about water and wastewater policies and provisions.

Lacy: Maybe this is poorly written because I’m not sure how we can say that the future development of this site will conform to those policies when we’re not looking at what development is going to occur. So I’m wondering as a note for the future if we need to think about rewording that.

Bessey: I’ll agree that the wording could probably use some work.

MacArthur: But the worst-case scenario here can still be accommodated by existing urban services. Is that correct?

Lacy: I think it should probably say: “future urban development of the subject area is likely to conform to…”

Bessey: Going back to our conversations when that criterion was crafted, there are some areas where the city may know in advance that we would never want to extend services to that. I know that was part of that conversation.

Meyer: Wouldn’t Criteria 4 cover that? I’m going to make a recommendation that we take these in two parts so that in the event some people agree or not with the UGB change separate to…

Lacy: That’s probably for a motion, don’t you think?

Meyer: Absolutely.

7.63

DRAFT


16

COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION/MOTION

MacArthur: What we’ve had here tonight is a zoning conversation, and what that speaks to is that there are a number of good reasons to include the future land use map as part of this conversation, but there’s also one good reason not to, and that’s the conversation we’ve had tonight. The UGB amendment process is the first in a long series of processes. There’s a lot of public process to go from this point forward in order for the applicant to get from where they’re at today to eight, ten, two or one houses. You’ll have a lot of input. So regardless of where this commission lands tonight, I’d like the public to just understand that their voices have certainly been heard, and they will have the opportunity to speak again. Our role as the planning commission is not to shepherd an application through to development; our role is not to make the most people in the room as happy as possible. Sometimes it works out that way; often times unfortunately it doesn’t. But our role here tonight is kind of two-fold, and I happen to agree with Kathi’s recommendation that we split this into two. It’s to look at existing zoning, existing future land use, and determine what makes sense moving forward – not what everybody in the neighborhood would like to see. Our role is certainly not to create buffers between existing county land and city land. It’s to look at what’s there and determine what fits best. That’s the role that city staff took in preparing their recommendation. It really doesn’t matter what makes everybody feel good. It’s looking at this 30-50 years down the road and what fits. So with that being said, I’ll make a recommendation to approve #CP-14-01 approval of the UGB amendment, and then I’ll make a second recommendation to approve #CP-14-01 with the future land use designation of Neighborhood Residential Low.

MOTIONCommissioner MacArthur moved to approve #CP-14-01, the urban growth boundary amendment.Commissioner Meyer seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON MOTIONMeyer: I believe that the UGB request is a logical extension and that all criteria 1-6 have been met.

Levy: The biggest hurdle for me I think was the ranching activities on the property next door, but in reality, we don’t have a guarantee that they will still be here in 50 years. In 50 years, they might be coming to us for an annexation so they can subdivide, in which case this UGB change is a logical progression for the city, and I’ll be supporting this motion.

Commissioner Burns: I’ll be supporting the motion for the change in boundary; it certainly meets all the requirements that we’ve reviewed here tonight, and I think Charlie made some good points about what our role is here tonight in terms of the planning commission and the recommendations that have been presented to us. So I think we really need to keep that in focus.

Lacy: I’ll be supporting the motion as well. I think the criteria have clearly been met. I think the next part of the discussion about future land use map designation is probably

7.64

DRAFT

17

going to be a little more interesting, but I think at this point it’s pretty clear to me that these six items have been met. So I’ll be supporting the motion.

VOTEVote: 6-0 Voting for approval of motion to approve: MacArthur, Lacy, Levy, Meyer, Burns and Buckley

MOTION

Commissioner Meyer moved to accept the future land use designation to Estate Residential.Commissioner Levy seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Meyer: Monday I was prepared to leave this discussion to a later date. I now understand after reading the minutes and listening to the county staff that the applicant has made a commitment, and I think this should be an applicant-driven process. The city staff is on record, and I understand the long-range vision, but I really believe this is one where the applicant can’t have both. They can’t sit here and say we’ll take the highest density. In my mind, they made a commitment to Estate Residential.

Levy: I’ll be supporting the motion mainly because I don’t want to see the city and county at loggerheads over this one issue. This process needs to go forward. The applicant certainly has the ability to change their request at time of annexation or evenafter that. Personally, I would rather see higher density than RE-1. I’m more of an infill all the way to the edges kind of philosophy. But this needs to move forward, and this is the best way to accomplish that.

Burns: I would agree with what Kathi and Rich has said. I would tend to want to see more development here, but as Kathi has stated, the applicant has basically gone on the record and said this is what we’re doing. I’d like to see this actually happen for the applicant. I know it’s a long process and they still have a long way to go to make this happen for them, so I’ll be supporting this motion.

Buckley: I’ll be supporting it, too. I believe these guys made a commitment to Estate Residential, so I’ll support the motion.

MacArthur: I won’t be supporting the motion. As I mentioned before, our role is not to shepherd this process through as quickly as possible or as easily as possible. Our role as planners here is to look at the appropriate land use designation for this parcel of property, and I just heard at least two of you say that the appropriate designation is not an Estate Residential designation here. So yes, the applicant can come back through; they can change things; but really, I can’t imagine that’s what anybody in this room wants either tohave this conversation over again. So from my perspective, the task that I heard staff lay out for us was that we need to look at this process and determine what we believe to be

7.65

DRAFT


18

the proper land use designation for this parcel. That’s what I’m doing, and that’s why I will not be supporting this motion.

Lacy: I’m not going to be supporting the motion, either. I certainly hear everyone’s concerns, and I can certainly recognize that, but at the same time, as we’ve talked about exhaustively tonight, this is the very beginning of a very long process for any development that could ever occur. This is not any kind of development approval; this isn’t saying that any kind of proposal fits or doesn’t fit or anything like that. Our job is to help the master planners for our community, and when I look at the map, all the surrounding area has a future land use map designation of Old Town Residential, which is much higher than is even being requested here. When I look at other statements and particularly in our community plan where it’s our job to make sure that we approve future land use map designations without creating inefficient land use patterns. When I look around at the surrounding area having Old Town Residetial designation. Even the zoning in these areas is RN-1 and RN-2. I’m having a hard time philosophically saying that’s what we should approve on the Estate Residential side. Certainly not saying that lots and lots of units are the right answer for this property. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I’m just trying to be mindful of our role as a planning commission, and I think our role is to make a recommendation for what is in our opinion the right future land use map designation. I don’t think Estate Residential is it; I think it’s a Neighborhood Residential Low. So I won’t be supporting the motion.

Levy: I’ll point out at RE-2, maximum lots without taking out for additional open space or infrastructure, they could still have almost 10 lots on RE-2.

VOTE

Vote: 4-2 Voting for approval of motion to approve: Levy, Meyer, Burns and Buckley Opposing: MacArthur, Lacy

7.66

01/28/2015

1

955 PahwintahMinor Urban Growth Boundary Amendment

City LimitUrban Growth Boundary

Future Land Use MapSteamboat Springs Area Community Plan

Attachment 4

7.67

01/28/2015

2

Zoning MapCity of Steamboat Springs

Discussion Items

• Should the subject property be includedin the UBG?

• If yes, how should it be designated on theFuture Land Use Map?

7.68

01/28/2015

3

Criteria for Consideration1. The proposed change is compatible with the

goals, policies, and overall vision of the Plan.Staff analysis:• Would not have a significant impact beyond the

immediate area of change.• Does not conflict with overall vision, goals, and

policies of the Plan.• Would not necessitate any other revisions to the Plan.• Appears to be a logical extension of the existing urban

fabric.

Criteria for Consideration2. Urban development is not likely to have significant

functional impacts on existing infrastructure or anunreasonable long term cost liability related toacceptance and maintenance of publicinfrastructure.

Staff analysis:• Has direct access to public streets, and existing home is

already served by public water & wastewater.• Would not require major upgrades of existing infrastructure.• Would not be an unreasonable cost liability.• May provide opportunity for improved street connectivity

and proper turnarounds.

7.69

01/28/2015

4

Criteria for Consideration3. Urban development conforms to the adopted

policies or planned provision of urbanservices.

Staff analysis:• Would be required to conform to plans and policies

upon annexation and subdivision of the property.• Appears feasible to develop in conformance with City

policies and standards.

Criteria for Consideration4. Currently has necessary infrastructure or can

be feasibly served by necessary infrastructure.Staff analysis:• Directly abutting existing City streets.• Already has some water and wastewater service to

the property.• Access and utility extensions appear feasible and able

to meet City standards.• Detailed evaluation of design would occur at time of

subdivision.

7.70

01/28/2015

5

Criteria for Consideration5. Not less than 1/6 of the perimeter of the

property is contiguous with the City boundary.Staff analysis:• Over 60% or approximately 3/5 of the property’s

perimeter is contiguous with the City boundary.

Criteria for Consideration6. The property is appropriate for urban

development.Staff analysis:• Appears feasible to accommodate urban

development.

7.71

01/28/2015

6

Discussion Items

• Should the subject property be includedin the UBG?Staff recommendation: Yes

• If yes, how should it be designated on theFuture Land Use Map?

Future Land Use Designation

Land Use Plan Background and Intent

“The intent of this plan is to shape growth in amanner that preserves our region’s naturalenvironment, livability, and sense of community.By directing growth to well defined contiguousareas, growth can be better accommodatedwithout encouraging inefficient land use patterns,open lands and natural resources can be betterprotected; and public facilities and services canbe delivered more effectively.”

7.72

01/28/2015

7


Goal GM 1: Steamboat Springs will have acompact land use pattern within a well definedboundary.

“Areas within the UGB will be required to developin an urban fashion and to annex to the City priorto or at the time of development, assuming thatannexation criteria can be met.”

Future Land Use DesignationFuture Land Use Related

ZoningUses Character

Old TownResidential

RO Single family andlimited multiplefamily residential

Small lots with grid streets andalleysCompatible with historic natureof Old Town area

NeighborhoodResidential – Low

RN 1RN 2RN 3RN 4

Single family andsmall scale attachedresidential

Neighborhood developmentwithin walking distance tocommunity facilities

Estate Residential RE 1RE 2MRE

Large lot residential 1 5 acre lotsPrimarily intended for transitionareas in West Steamboat(product of the 1999 WSSAP)

FLUP designation of surrounding neighborhood

Consistent with zoning of surrounding neighborhood

7.73

01/28/2015

8


Staff recommendation:Neighborhood Residential – Low

• Based on topography of the site, completeextension of the grid street and alley networkwould likely be difficult.

• More consistent with the surroundingneighborhood.

• Appropriate point to transition to a lowerresidential FLUP designation.

Discussion Items

• How should it be designated on theFuture Land Use Map?

Staff recommendation:Neighborhood Residential – Low

Planning Commission recommendation:Estate Residential

Board of County Commissioners approval:Estate Residential

7.74

01/28/2015

1

City of Steamboat SpringsCity Council Presentation

February 3, 2015

1

Property History and Applicant Vision Current Process and City and County Collaboration over the last 16 monthsNeighborhood

2

Attachment 5

7.75

01/28/2015

2

3

LOOKING NORTHWEST

LOOKING SOUTHWEST

4

7.76

01/28/2015

3

LOOKING SOUTH TO DOUGLAS STREET

LOOKING SOUTHEAST

5

EXISTING HOUSE BUILT IN EARLY 1970’S

6

7.77

01/28/2015

4

NR-L will facilitate an appropriate land use transition between the medium density RN-2 neighborhood to the south, the RE-1 zoning to the northwest and the 811 acre Charles Atwood Company ranch to the north and eastApplicant also agrees to a FLUP Designation of Estate ResidentialSpecific number of lots and the land plan will be provided at the annexation and zoning level of review.

7

1. The proposed change is compatible with the goals, policies, and overall vision of the Area Community Plan and the preferred character of specific planning areas.

The proposal supports many goals, policies and vision statements in the SSACP – some examples:

Chapter 2: The Vision: Concentrate Urban and Infill Development

The proposal will allow a minor change to the UGB and allow new development to occur adjacent to an already developed area.

8

7.78

01/28/2015

5

Chapter 3: Land UseTable LU-4: Land Use Summary TableAgricultural ClassificationAgricultural/Rural Primary: Agricultural and rural residential uses.

Outside the UGB.Large parcels or clustered land use patterns.Served by well and septic; not served by urban utilities.Routt County will encourage clustered residential development through the Land Preservation Subdivision (LPS) process.

This is the current FLUP land use designation and it clearly is unfitting as it describes land in this classification as large parcels and “served by well and septic; not served by urban utilities.”

9

Goal LU-2: Our community supports infill and redevelopment of core areas.

Rationale: Infill means the development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant sites in a built-up area.

The minor UGB adjustment will support this goal by allowing infill to occur, complementing an existing stable neighborhood and provide an appropriate low density residential buffer to the adjacent rural land.

Description of Future Land Use PlanThe Future Land Use Plan clearly delineates the differences between future urban growth areas and rural land uses through the UGB. The agricultural/rural land use designations are intended to conserve agricultural and ranching lands, and create opportunities for non-tourism related economic diversification.

The current FLUP designation of Agricultural/Rural for this small parcel is inappropriate and does not achieve the stated intention of conserving agricultural and ranching lands.

10

7.79

01/28/2015

6

Chapter 4: Growth ManagementIn the Growth Management Goals and Policies section there are many statements that it is the intention to have development served by City water and sewer and accessed by City roads within the UGB. This site has been served by these City services and roads for over 40 years and should be within the UGB to be compliant with the SSACP. Additionally, the property is outside the UGB is intended for agricultural and rural land uses. The proposal involves property that is not suitable for these uses. Here are some examples

Urban growth boundaries bring certainty to the issue of which lands will be developed and which lands will be kept open or in rural use. Outside of the UGB, the County will only permit rural development patterns and the City will discourage annexation.The ability to provide urban services (e.g., water, wastewater, police protection, and schools) cost-effectively.The plan encourages urban land uses to locate only within incorporated areas to obtain City services, utilities, and fire protection.

11

2. Future urban development of the subject area is not likely to have significant functional impacts on transportation and public facilities and will not likely result in an unreasonable or inordinate long-term cost liability related to acceptance and maintenance of public facilities.

The property has been served by the City’s water and sewer district for many years and will not have significant functional impacts on transportation and public facilities.

3. Future urban development of the subject area conforms to the adopted policies or planned provision of urban services.

Since urban services are existing, the future development of the property conforms to the adopted policies or planned provision of urban services.

4. The property either currently has necessary infrastructure to serve the area or is an area that can feasibly be served by necessary infrastructure. Necessary infrastructure includes, but may not be not limited to, access and water and wastewater service.

See criteria 2 and 3 above. 12

7.80

01/28/2015

7

5. Not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the property is contiguous with the City boundary.

63%of the perimeter of the property is contiguous with the City boundary.

6. The property is appropriate for urban development.

The property is appropriate for urban development because of the adjacent urban development and City roads, existing urban services and physical characteristics appropriate for low density residential development.

13

1. The existing Area Community Plan and/or any related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment;

The SSACP and FLUP are in need of updating and correction primarily because the FLUP Land Use Designation does not fit the property characteristics of not a large parcel, no agricultural use and no well/septic.

2. The proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and is compatible with the surrounding area, and the goals and policies of the Plan;

See Use Criteria #1 above for compatibility with the goals and policies of the plan. See Use Criteria #6 above and Section II Site Description for compatibility with surrounding area.

3. The proposed amendment will have no major negative impacts on service provision, including adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services, and will have minimal effect on existing and planned service provision;

Urban services exist on the property so no major negative impacts will occur on service provision, including adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services. The applicant is not aware of any capacity issue or inability of the City to serve an additional low density single family property. 14

7.81

01/28/2015

8

4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the City’s ability to annex the property; and

The property meets state statute requirements for 1/6 perimeter contiguity.

5. Strict adherence to the Plan would result in a situation neither intended nor in keeping with other key elements and policies of the Plan;

See Specific Finding #1 and Use Criteria #1 stating that the plan’s intention is to adopt a UGB that is basically contiguous with an urban service area and that outside of the UGB only, the rural development patterns will be allowed. A rural land use pattern is not likely to be established on a 3 acre parcel.

15

UGB Minor Change Criteria Consistent

1. Compatibility with community planvision, goals, & policies

yes

2. Significant functional impacts &inordinate long-term cost liability

yes

3. Conformance with planned provisionof urban services

yes

4. Feasibility of infrastructure yes

5. Contiguity with city boundary yes

6. Appropriate for urban development yes

City Staff Finding: Staff finds that the Minor UGB Change proposed at 955 Pahwintah (#CP-14-01) with a Future Land Use designation of Residential Neighborhood–Low is CONSISTENT with the criteria for minor UGB changes.

16

7.82

01/28/2015

9

955 Pahwintah Minor Change to the UGB :

1. Is consistent with the Use Criteria to Consider Minor UGB Amendments Changes

2. Complies with the Required Specific Findings

Thank you for your time and consideration

17

7.83



FROM: Bob Keenan, Senior Planner (Ext. 260)


THROUGH: Debra Hinsvark, City Manager, (Ext. 228) DATE: February 3, 2015 ITEM: RECOMMENDED TABLING: ZMA-14-02, Idlewild

Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13

___ ORDINANCE RESOLUTION X_ MOTION DIRECTION _ INFORMATION

Staff is requesting that this item be tabled to the February 24th meeting of the City Council to accommodate the required State of Colorado noticing requirements for annexations.

8.1



FROM: Bob Keenan, Senior Planner (Ext. 260)


THROUGH: Debra Hinsvark, City Manager, (Ext. 228) DATE: February 3, 2015 ITEM: RECOMMENDED TABLING: #ANX-14-01: Idlewild

Subdivision, Blk. 2, Lots 1-13

___ ORDINANCE RESOLUTION X_ MOTION DIRECTION _ INFORMATION

Staff is requesting that this item be tabled to the February 24th meeting of the City Council to accommodate the required State of Colorado noticing requirements for annexations.

9.1

February 03, 2015

SMyller cc report

USPro Cycling August

- 8/12 staff and teams begin arriving

- 8/14 community ride

- 8/15 stinger race

- 8/16 founders ride, festival set up,

- 8/17 circuit race

- 8/18 road race start

The Organizing Committee is meeting monthly and I have been attending

There are a lot of other activities going this week as well and will be quite a busy time!

Yampa Valley Housing Authority

Elk River Parcel

The Authority had a successful RFP process to find a tax credit developer and we are working through contract negotiations at this point.

In a nutshell, they are bringing $9M in tax credit money, financing the balance the YVHA owes on the land, and constructing 48 or more rental units that will be for 60% AMI residents. The tax credit period is 15 years, after which the Authority will be in a position to take over ownership.

As part of the application to CHAFA for these tax credits - they typically look preferentially at projects that have community buy in. At the moment we are considering a few options that we will be bringing back later for Council approval. Ideas are: Cash into the project, cash to cover tap fees, cash to cover hwy 129 intersection improvements. The County is also being asked to participate as well.

This type of project is exactly the type of leveraging that was anticipated when we revised the Community Housing fee in lieu which assumed a leverage rate of about 4x. I look forward to seeing how this council values workforce housing in the next couple of months. The tax credit application is due in May.

1

AGENDA ITEM #10

10.1

Macys Council Report 2.3.15 Attended a CAST meeting in Dillon. Topics covered included affordable housing, marijuana legislation and a proposal to study the impacts of Air B N B and VRBO to mountain towns' housing markets. Breckenridge was used as an example on affordable housing. Their goal is to house 48% of the town workforce in town. Their theory is that housing people in town makes a more significant positive contribution to the local economy than having them live in outlying areas and saves vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and therefore emissions Conversations with other municipalities included learning more about the following: Silverthorne is looking for ways to build more of a downtown, given a state highway that runs through their town; they are talking about how to welcome Steamboat Springs residents because they recognize how many of our residents shop there. Breckenridge is discussing flouride; they are looking at how to deal with filming in their town- maybe we can share data on the recently established Film Committee? Ouray's ice park is very popular. So popular that they are having issues with too many people using it and being shuttled there (not guided by permitted guides). Nederland is building a new facility that will be 100% solar powered, To minimize energy loss, all electrical will be outfitted with DC. As I network with other elected officials, I am continually impressed by the positive results that are gained by a strong City/County collaboration. Currently attending the Colorado Water Congress. It is an incredibly valuable experience and I will share my notes and relevant information at the next meeting. Kudos to our police for finding our neighborhood rogue dog, Nick, and being so helpful, pleasant and courteous to his owners. Kudos to our police for respecting the City's participation in the "spare the air" anti-idling campaign. A constituent complained to me that she observed five 'police cars' idling at Jimmy John's on Wednesday January 14th while the 'police' we're eating lunch. I was so surprised that our police would do that and requested clarification. Upon further discussion, it was not our police force but a neighboring law enforcement team. What a relief!

10.2

The local resilience project is wrapping up and the report is slated to be complete in late February. I'd like to schedule some agenda time for a presentation on that after it is complete. Updates requested: I have heard that "the city" is working on repealing SB 05-152. Follow the link to learn more about SB 05-152... http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2005a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/FA216226F45192FE87256F41007B483C/$FILE/152_enr.pdf Is that true? If we were thinking about that, would we work through the entities we pay to lobby (e.g. AGNC, NWCOG, CML)? And, at what point would Council be brought into the conversation? Can we get an update on where we stand with the Fire IGA? When are we due to have our next meeting with the County Commissioners? Several issues of shared concern have been discussed recently by Council (i.e. URA, affordable housing). It would be good to talk to the Commissioners about these. I apologize to the public for my role in having a URA discussion in January 2015 when this Council voted, in September 2014, that we not would discuss the URA unless the BID passed. The September motion passed by 4-3 yet the URA item was still added to a December agenda. I seconded a motion (which passed 7-0) to move that agenda item from the December agenda to a January agenda. According to our Council leadership, that action gave tacit approval to having the URA discussion. That was not my intention. I am sorry that I did not remember the September motion. Here it is: MOTION: Council Member Connell moved and City Council President Kounovsky seconded to continue the URAstructure discussion with additional information on caps on both the low and high end, project definitions and alternatives including parking structures, partnering structures on "do no harm" with some inflation with the taxing partners, agreement to dissolve the URA in this area when the debt is paid, requirement that the BID be approved in order for this process to continue, information on contribution by land owners for civic uses or infrastructure cost sharing, governance structure that includes partner participation in some form and transparency, information on sales tax growth, and additional matrixes on those projections, additional matrixes and projections on residential, commercial and retail uses, variety of assumptions on what mix would be included, information on and confirmation agreement to dissolve when debt is paid and that this can't be "undone" by future Councils.

10.3

The motion carried 4/3 with the friendly amendment. Council Members Macys, Magill and Ford opposed ____________________________ Sonja Macys Steamboat Springs City Council District 3

10.4

Scott L. Ford City Council Report For February 3, 2015 Friday, January 23rd Planning Group for the Community Survey

This was the first meeting of the planning committee. In addition to myself, Tony Connell, Jason Lacey (Planning Commission) and Doug Tumminello (Parks & Rec. Commission) are on the committee. Staff support is being provided by Winnie Delliquadri. During this first meeting we had discussions about past community surveys done in 1999, 2002 and 2004. It has been over 10 years since a community survey has been done. What is the purpose of a Community Survey?

A City of Steamboat Springs Citizen Survey serves as a consumer report card for the city residents by providing residents the opportunity to rate the quality of life in the city and their satisfaction with community amenities and services of local government.

A survey also allows residents to provide feedback to the City government on what is working well and what is not, and their desired priorities for community planning and resource allocation.

What will make the Community Survey a valuable and useful tool?

It must have robust and defendable credibility that it is an accurate assessment of the intended purpose of the survey in the purposes.

The survey results need to be “benchmarked” to other communities that share similar social/economic characteristics to Steamboat Springs.

The timeline for the survey is likely early summer with results being summarized and presented to City Council and the community in late August or early September.

Wednesday, January 28th Steamboat Springs Economic Development Council

A presentation was given by Yampa Valley Data Partners on the status of the economy in Steamboat Springs area. The take away for me was that with the exception of the Construction employment all segments of the economy are back to and beyond pre-recession levels. Signs are that construction will making a strong recovery as well. The economy is more diverse in its sources of income than it is in its sources of employment. However, both indicators indicate a diverse economy.

10.5

Planning Group for the Community Survey – Follow up meeting The focus of this meeting was to discuss what information we needed and how would we plan to use it. This effort was to help avoid the temptation to get a collection of fun-facts but not actionable information that would inform policy decisions.

Steamboat Springs Parks & Recreation Commission (Work Session). The purpose of this work session was to discuss the current Yampa River Management Plan. After a presentation by Craig Robinson there was a number of folks in the audience provided the commission on what was working well and gave suggestion on how it could be improved.

Thursday, January 29th Yampa Valley Young Professional Network – Affordable Housing Presentation

Data had been collected from members of the group prior to the meeting. A summary of this data is attached. After the data presentation a panel that consisted of a mortgage broker, relator and YVHA made a presentations and responded to questions.

General Topics A City Council Misfire –

Last week a Steamboat Springs School Board member made me aware that City Council “misfired” regarding a motion passed during the September 2nd meeting. A key element of the motion indicated that Council would not proceed forward with discussions about the URA/TIF if the vote on the Business Improvement District (BID) failed. The BID vote failed. On December 2nd during agenda review I saw that discussions about the Police Station and the URA were planned for the City Council meeting on December 16th. I made the motion that we separate the two items and postpone URA discussion until the January 20th meeting. This motion passed 7/0. The key “misfire” is that the URA should not been on the agenda in the first place since the BID vote failed. In the 3 months that passed I had forgotten about the September 2nd vote. Collectively we all missed the September 2nd motion and proceeded forward with discussions about the URA. This highlights a need that we need to do a better job on how avoid this type of misfire in the future. I would like to discuss process and responsibilities so we have a shared understanding.

County Commissioners request for a joint meeting

My understanding is that the County Manager at the direction of the County Commissioners contacted the City Manager last week to arrange a joint meeting. The City Manager subsequently let the County Manager know that the earliest a meeting could be arranged would be sometime in April. I do not understand the reasoning behind why this request from another elected body of officials is being delayed for two months. To me this seems like it should be treated as a priority and that we could fit in a meeting with them before 60 days have elapsed. I would like to discuss if we can agree to have this meeting sooner.

10.6

Young Professionals NetworkHousing Options for YPs

Attachment 1

10.7

How oldare you?

25-34 76 70%35-44 19 18%45-54 7 6%18-24 3 3%55-64 2 2%

10.8

Your Relationship

Status

Married 34 31%Single 40 37%Cohabitating 23 21%Partnership 4 4%Divorced 3 3%Widowed 2 2%

10.9

What is your income?

$25K-49K 32 30%

$50K-74K 29 27%

$75K-99K 20 19%

To $149K 15 14%

$0-24K 8 7%

$150k+ 5 5%

10.10

Where do you work? • Nonprofit• On the mountain• Business • Retail • Marketing / Design • Service industry • Legal • Unemployed• Education

• Real Estate • Intellectual Technology • Professional writer• Banking • Stay-at-home parent• Medical • Science• Construction • CDL

10.11

Do you Rent or Own?

Rent 62 57%Own 37 34%Other 8 7%

10.12

Where do you Live?

Stbt Spgs 94 87%Oak Creek / Stagecoach / S. Routt

7 6%

Hayden 1 1%Clark 2 2%Other 2 2%

10.13

How much do you pay for

rent or mortgage?

10.14

How do our rental prices compare?

Higher 69 64%Similar 19 18%Lower 7 6%N/A 7 6%

10.15

Misc. • Is renting or owning a better investment?

– Owning (91%)

• Are you year-round or seasonal? – Year-round (96%)

• Are you behind on your mortgage or rent? – No (96%)

10.16

Obstacles in Getting a Mortgage

• Can’t “get ahead” • Can’t afford a down

payment • Property costs are

too high • High cost of living

• Too many other obligations (loans)

• Seasonal income • Credit concerns • Rent keeps increasing• Don’t understand the

process

10.17

Obstacles in Getting a Rental

• Animals

• Affordability

• Month-to-month

10.18

Misc. concerns

• More housing for seasonal employees

• Housing to accommodate pets

• More townhomes • Price increases

• More “low income” housing

• Accessible and integrated needed

• Limited housing under $300K

• The market isn’t bad

10.19

10.20

*****TENATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2015***** This agenda is tentative and the information is subject to change until the agenda is finalized.


AGENDAREGULAR MEETING NO. 2015-04 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015

5:00 P.M.

MEETING LOCATION: Citizens’ Meeting Room, Centennial Hall; 124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO

MEETING PROCEDURE: Comments from the Public are welcome at two different times during the course of the meeting: 1) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on items not scheduled on the Agenda will be heard under Public Comment; and 2) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on all scheduled public hearing items will be heard following the presentation by Staff or the Petitioner. Please wait until you are recognized by the Council President. With the exception of subjects brought up during Public Comment, on which no action will be taken or a decision made, the City Council may take action on, and may make a decision regarding, ANY item referred to in this agenda, including, without limitation, any item referenced for “review”, “update”, “report”, or “discussion”. It is City Council’s goal to adjourn all meetings by 10:00 p.m.

A City Council meeting packet is available for public review in the lobby of City Hall, 137 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO, or on our website at http://steamboatsprings.net/city_council/council_meetings. The e-packet is typically available by 1pm on the Friday before the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.

A. ROLL CALL

Liquor Licensing Authority Meeting – after roll call the City Council will adjourn and reconvene in their capacity as the Steamboat Springs Liquor Licensing Authority and follow the attached Liquor Licensing Authority agenda.

AGENDA ITEM #11a1.

11.a.1.1


At the conclusion of the Steamboat Springs Liquor License Authority Meeting, the City Council will reconvene as the Steamboat Springs City Council and proceed with the following agenda:

B. PROCLAMATIONS _________________________________________________________________

C. COMMUNITY REPORTS/CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION TOPIC:

1. Iron Horse RFP. (Small) 2. Police Station Site Selection Committee Criteria. (Small) 3. Sustainability Update. (Earp)

D. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS


There are no items scheduled for this portion of the agenda.

E. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE SECOND READINGS


4. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance vacating a portion of East Spruce Street in the Idlewild Addition. (Anderson)

5. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance amending noise pollution regulations to exempt City Street Sweeping operations and providing an effective date. (Anderson)

F. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSEADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.

11.a.1.2


G. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT ________________________________________________________________________

H. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

I. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS: ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE OR NO COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST AN ITEM(S) BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL ORDINANCES APPROVED BY CONSENT SHALL BE READ INTO THE RECORD BY TITLE.

6. PROJECT: Original Town of Steamboat Springs, BLK 31, Lots 7-12, BLK 32, Lots 10-12. (Keenan) PETITION: Development plan. LOCATION: 21 10th Street. APPLICANT:PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: To be heard February 12, 2015.

____________________________________________________

J. PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS

PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT: Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner to state name and residence address/location. Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes).Individuals to state name and residence address/location. City staff to provide a response.

7. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance annexing Block 2, Idlewild addition to the Town of Steamboat Springs as an enclave and providing an effective date. (Keenan)

This item was postponed from the February 3, 2015 Council meeting.

8. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance providing zoning to .72 acres of the property described as Idlewild Addition Block 2 and the land described in the attached Exhibit A, to RE-2 (residential estate two – medium density; repealing all conflicting ordinances; providing for severability; and providing an effective date. (Keenan)

This item was postponed from the February 3, 2015 Council meeting.

11.a.1.3


K. REPORTS

9. City Council

10. Reports a. Agenda Review (Franklin):

1.) Regular meeting March 3, 2015. 2.) Regular meeting March 17, 2015.

11. Staff Reports a. City Attorney’s Update/Report. (Lettunich) b. City Manager’s Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)

L. EXECUTIVE SESSION

To discuss the topics set forth below. The specific citation to the provision or provisions of C.R.S. §24-6-402, subsection (4) that authorize(s) the City Council to meet in an executive session is set out below. The description of the topic is intended to identify the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized:

a. A discussion of personnel matters. This discussion is authorized under the following provisions:

§24-6-402(4)(f)(I), which permits an executive session to discuss “[p]ersonnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting.”

M. ADJOURNMENT BY: JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC CITY CLERK

11.a.1.4

*****TENATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 3, 2015***** This agenda is tentative and the information is subject to change until the agenda is finalized.


AGENDAREGULAR MEETING NO. 2015-05

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015

5:00 P.M.

MEETING LOCATION: Citizens’ Meeting Room, Centennial Hall; 124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO

MEETING PROCEDURE: Comments from the Public are welcome at two different times during the course of the meeting: 1) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on items not scheduled on the Agenda will be heard under Public Comment; and 2) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on all scheduled public hearing items will be heard following the presentation by Staff or the Petitioner. Please wait until you are recognized by the Council President. With the exception of subjects brought up during Public Comment, on which no action will be taken or a decision made, the City Council may take action on, and may make a decision regarding, ANY item referred to in this agenda, including, without limitation, any item referenced for “review”, “update”, “report”, or “discussion”. It is City Council’s goal to adjourn all meetings by 10:00 p.m.

A City Council meeting packet is available for public review in the lobby of City Hall, 137 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO, or on our website at http://steamboatsprings.net/city_council/council_meetings. The e-packet is typically available by 1pm on the Friday before the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.

A. ROLL CALL

B. PROCLAMATIONS _________________________________________________________________

AGENDA ITEM #11a2.

11.a.2.1


C. COMMUNITY REPORTS/CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION TOPIC:

1. Downtown Investment Plan. (Earp/Gibbs)

D. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS


2. RESOLUTION:

3. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE:

E. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE SECOND READINGS


4. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE:

F. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSEADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.

G. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT ________________________________________________________________________

H. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

I. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS: ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE OR NO COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST AN ITEM(S) BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL ORDINANCES APPROVED BY CONSENT SHALL BE READ INTO THE RECORD BY TITLE.

11.a.2.2


5. PROJECT: PETITION:LOCATION: APPLICANT:PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE:

J. PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS

PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT: Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner to state name and residence address/location. Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes).Individuals to state name and residence address/location. City staff to provide a response.

6. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE:

K. REPORTS

7. City Council

8. Reports a. Agenda Review (Franklin):

1.) Regular Meeting March 17, 2015.2.) Regular Meeting April 7, 2015.

9. Staff Reports a. City Attorney’s Update/Report. (Lettunich) b. City Manager’s Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)

L. OLD BUSINESS

10. Minutes (Franklin) a. Regular Meeting 2015-02, January 20, 2015.

b. Regular Meeting 2015-03, February 3, 2015. c. Regular Meeting 2015-04, February 24, 2015.

M. ADJOURNMENT BY: JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC

11.a.2.3


CITY CLERK

11.a.2.4

AGENDA ITEM #12

STAFF REPORTS:

a) City Attorney’s Update/Report. The above is a discussion item

b) City Manager’s Report: Ongoing Projects. Report to follow this page

12.1

1

CITY MANAGER REPORT February 3, 2015

FOLLOW UP ITEMS FROM PRIOR MEETING

1. Scott Royer – Flag at Howelsen Scott Royer who came before Council to ask for a US Flag to be prominently displayed at Howelsen has

contacted the City Manager. Management Team is on-board and is considering options to carry out Mr. Royer’s request.

2. Non-Profit Sales Tax Collection Council asked for further information on sales tax collection and remittance by our non-profit organizations.

Finance Director, Kim Weber has supplied the following in response.

City Sales Tax Collections - Non-Profits:

Currently 35-40 non-profits licensed. 4% Sales Tax collections $60k-$70k in sales tax per year. Includes Colorado Mountain College, City of Steamboat Springs, Routt County, Library, SS Free Summer

Concert, Steamboat Arts Council, Lift-Up, SS Youth Soccer, YVMC, Yampatika, SSWSC, Strings, Tread of Pioneers Museum, Old Town Hot Springs etc.

Almost all 35-40 of the licensed vendors would fall under the State guidelines for remitting sales tax based selling for more than 12 days in a calendar year or net sales proceeds being over $25,000. Therefore liable for State and County sales tax collections for all tangible personal property sales as defined by the State of Colorado.

Existing City of Steamboat Springs Sales Tax Code and Regulation:

Sec. 22-145. - Special Accounting—Sales by qualified non-profit organizations.

Non-profit organizations selling Taxable Tangible Personal Property or services as defined by this Code must collect Sales Tax and Purchasers must pay Sales Tax on such Sales, subject to the conditions set forth below. It is the desire of the City Council of Steamboat Springs that the Taxes collected by qualified non-profit organizations be retained by that organization as a contribution of additional funds to be used in the course of that organization's charitable service to the community. Therefore, organizations are not required to remit or report Sales Tax collections to the City provided that the organization meets the following criteria:

(1) The organization has been authorized in writing by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501(c)(3) organization or has been approved in writing by the Treasurer as being a voluntary, not for profit organization whose fund raising activities are primarily for the providing of services; and

(2) The City Sales Tax shall be included in the stated selling Price and the total proceeds of the Sale of Taxable Tangible Personal Property or services shall be retained and expended by the qualifying organization to provide charitable services; and

(3) The activity at which Taxable Tangible Property or Service is being sold is an occasional Business activity specifically held for fund raising.

AGENDA ITEM #12b.

12.b.1

2

REGULATION 22.145

Occasional business activity is characterized as once annually, for a duration not to exceed three consecutive days.

State of Colorado-Excerpt from a FYI document published by the Colorado Department of Revenue Taxpayer Services Division in April of 2014:

SALES BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS Charitable organizations that hold an IRS section 501(c)(3) qualification letter and have a Colorado exemption certificate may be exempt from collecting sales tax during fund raising events. If the charitable organization conducts sales for a total of 12 days or less during a calendar year and the net proceeds from all these events do not exceed $25,000 in that calendar year, the sales are not subject to sales tax. [Net proceeds are total gross events receipt(s) less expenses attributable to the event(s).] As soon as the organization reaches either $25,000 in net proceeds, or conducts sales for more than 12 days a year, the organization must obtain a sales tax license from the department and remit sales tax on all sales that occurred in that calendar year, including sales in that calendar year that were previously exempt prior to the date when the threshold was exceeded. [§39-26-718,C.R.S.] Charitable organizations should contact their local government to find out if a similar exemption is allowed for local taxes.

ITEMS NEEDING COUNCIL DIRECTION

1. Vendors in Public Areas Staff have been approached by a paddleboard vendor who wishes to locate a mobile paddleboard rental station at the Stockbridge transit center. If this were a park, the request would go through the Parks & Rec Commission and they routinely approve these uses on a revenue sharing basis. Staff would like your feedback on the idea of having this type of use in a public parking lot.

12.b.2

3

2. Workman Park/Butcherknife Culvert

Staff needs direction on whether Council has interest in seeing a supplemental budget request to complete an initial phase of the Workman Park development. In fall 2015 Public Works is going to replace the culvert adjacent to the Workman Property. The current project is slated to replace the culvert walls “as-is” (picture below.) This Culvert is a high priority due to the continued deterioration of the structure. The Yampa St. 2A fund currently has $40,000 remaining after the purchase of the property. Public works has budgeted $50,000 in CIP funds to replace the culvert. With an additional $125,000 in advanced 2A money, the CIP funds could be leveraged and the retaining walls could be rebuilt in a way that would conform to the park development design. This budget would also enable staff to demolish the building, remove the retaining wall along the river, improve river and creek banks and create green space with grass and landscaping on the property – essentially complete Phase I of the park improvements. We would need to “borrow” $125,000 against the 2016 allotment for Yampa 2A. There are sufficient funds available to do so.

GOALS UPDATES

1. Sustainability Goal At the January 6, 2015 Council meeting, Casey was directed to put cost/benefit analysis together to

determine if the City would be better off to create in-house sustainability goals that measured only City operations or go with the Star program and a broader view of the community. This week, we received a technical assistance grant from the EPA that will factor into Casey’s calculations. He’ll have those ready for Council to review at the February 24 meeting.

12.b.3

4

2. Employee Goal Mountain States Employers Council was in our offices last week to meet with each supervisor of personnel

in every department. During the weeks preceding, we had reviewed all job descriptions for accuracy and submitted those to Mountain States. Using a combination of Public and Private information, MSEC then attempted to “match” our jobs to the duties of other jobs. The meetings last week were designed to confirm that the jobs are matching up accurately. Sometimes one of our jobs was a blending of two or more jobs in MSEC’s survey data. This was an intensive process where all directors and supervisors met individually with MSEC to discuss the appropriate job matches which verifies the current description accurately reflects the work being done today. We will meet with MSEC again in March to discuss their initial findings and then move on to the next steps of analyzing the City’s benefit package as part of a complete compensation analysis.

3. Community Survey The community survey committee has met twice with a goal of having a survey designed, conducted,

analyzed and results compiled by June.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Winter Carnival Once again Winter Carnival is here and we are going to see another of Tim Borden’s 36 inch mortars! I

hope to see everyone there. Last year I joined Meg Bentley to witness the craziest bike event I’ve ever seen, and I can’t wait to see it again. I am always impressed by the City’s Howelsen crew and other City staff and volunteers for all the work they do to make this an annual event we can enjoy and be proud of. Thanks for another year of your dedication!

2. Low Snow/Warm Temps On the topic of Winter Carnival, we are very concerned about the lack of snow and the need to manufacture

snow in warm temperatures to fill the downtown streets for our crazy ski and sled and shovel events. We’re doing the snow dance, hoping for cold weather and staying in contact with the Chamber and the Winter Sports Club. Right now, it looks like we will be able to deliver.

3. Tubing Operations In January we received a heads-up from a visitor regarding an unsafe condition in the tubing operation at

Howelsen. John Overstreet’s crew looked into the issue. As a result of meetings held with SSWSC, additional barriers have been installed on the tubing runs to improve safety.

12.b.4

5

4. Trails Grant Our trails grant application for the Howelsen Directional Trails was the highest scoring application of all of

the trails construction projects and is being recommended for full funding. This will provide funds for construction and also for CYC work weeks.

5. LMD The Local Marketing District voted on January 16, 2015 to direct Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation to

pursue a contract for daily service from Houston to Yampa Valley Regional Airport this summer. The 2015 service will be June 25 – August 31, plus 2 round trip flights around Labor Day weekend. During the 2015 budget presentation from the LMD to City Council, the LMD Board indicated that they were budgeting to spend $250,000 on summer service. The change to daily service has increased that amount by about $75,000. However, with the expected savings on winter air service and the expected savings on summer air service this should not create a budget issue. Therefore, there isn’t a need to adjust the budget, but the need to notify City Council of the adjusted use of funds.

6. Parks Items Of interest in Parks: The Ice Arena hosted a very successful community skate party on Sunday, January

24th/ Staff are finalizing the plan for bear proof trash cans throughout the City parks and downtown/ Winter adult leagues are up and running/ The Teen Snowboard Outreach Society is active offering the Learn to Ride and University programs. All 40 participant spots are full and there is a waitlist/ John Overstreet is the chair of the technical committee for the USA Pro Challenge.

7. Transit A great deal of interest has been shown in our transit operations this winter. I am attaching Jonathan’s raw

data regarding each line to this report if you are inclined to want to review that much data. Overall, transit ridership has dropped by 1point to 11% below last year’s count. The on-time performance percentages for this week’s transit buses are as follows:

1/22 83% on time 1/23 74% on time 1/24 80% on time 1/25 88% on time 1/26 85% on time 1/27 83% on time

The Transit group hosted Holland American Princess Cruise Line representatives last weekend to recruit bus drivers up to Alaska for the upcoming summer employment season. In return, an SST representative will be travelling to Alaska this spring for our own recruiting event.

8. Utilities In spite of an increase in the fee for late payment, our door hangar notices continue to be high. This week

we will be delivering 110 Water and Sewer door hangars.

12.b.5

Aq/Cin. 7th to CMC CMC to West West to Fair Fair to Dtwn Total Cost per pax Cost Cum, Pas Cum. Cost Cum. CPP Yellow Line1 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!2 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!3 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!4 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!5 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!6 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!7 Dec 14 37 49 195 55 336 $6.81 $2,288.16 336 $2,288.16 $6.818 Dec 14 56 113 235 58 462 $4.95 $2,288.16 798 $4,576.32 $5.73 8.69$ 9 Dec 14 65 140 272 65 542 $4.22 $2,288.16 1340 $6,864.48 $5.12 6.29$

10 Dec 14 76 115 251 27 469 $4.88 $2,288.16 1809 $9,152.64 $5.06 5.64$ 11 Dec 14 73 130 276 27 506 $4.52 $2,288.16 2315 $11,440.80 $4.94 5.62$ 12 Dec 14 133 100 245 115 593 $3.86 $2,288.16 2908 $13,728.96 $4.72 5.76$ 13 Dec 14 36 63 189 90 378 $6.05 $2,288.16 3286 $16,017.12 $4.87 5.91$ 14 Dec 14 24 81 294 108 507 $4.51 $2,288.16 3793 $18,305.28 $4.83 6.36$ 15 Dec 14 51 120 243 138 552 $4.15 $2,288.16 4345 $20,593.44 $4.74 6.82$ 16 Dec 14 34 169 357 75 635 $3.60 $2,288.16 4980 $22,881.60 $4.59 7.14$ 17 Dec 14 28 79 343 80 530 $4.32 $2,288.16 5510 $25,169.76 $4.57 7.09$ 18 Dec 14 53 62 252 164 531 $4.31 $2,288.16 6041 $27,457.92 $4.55 7.00$ 19 Dec 14 100 141 318 69 628 $3.64 $2,288.16 6669 $29,746.08 $4.46 7.24$ 20 Dec 14 67 99 299 76 541 $4.23 $2,288.16 7210 $32,034.24 $4.44 7.44$ 21 Dec 14 14 67 380 74 535 $4.28 $2,288.16 7745 $34,322.40 $4.43 7.75$ 22 Dec 14 54 91 311 116 572 $4.00 $2,288.16 8317 $36,610.56 $4.40 7.92$ 23 Dec 14 16 83 398 98 595 $3.85 $2,288.16 8912 $38,898.72 $4.36 8.05$ 24 Dec 14 20 66 297 128 511 $4.48 $2,288.16 9423 $41,186.88 $4.37 8.26$ 25 Dec 14 15 83 235 71 404 $5.66 $2,288.16 9827 $43,475.04 $4.42 8.46$ 26 Dec 14 72 107 352 86 617 $3.71 $2,288.16 10444 $45,763.20 $4.38 8.60$ 27 Dec 14 14 58 319 141 532 $4.30 $2,288.16 10976 $48,051.36 $4.38 8.56$ 28 Dec 14 29 43 385 131 588 $3.89 $2,288.16 11564 $50,339.52 $4.35 8.59$ 29 Dec 14 52 108 302 158 620 $3.69 $2,288.16 12184 $52,627.68 $4.32 8.71$ 30 Dec 14 9 58 385 60 512 $4.47 $2,288.16 12696 $54,915.84 $4.33 8.57$ 31 Dec 14 25 67 320 101 513 $4.46 $2,288.16 13209 $57,204.00 $4.33 8.55$

1153 $49.61 $57,204.00 9.5

Aqua Cinnamon

12.b.6

Aq/Cin. 7th to CMC CMC to West West to Fair Fair to Dtwn Total Cost per pax Cost Cum, Pas Cum. Cost Cum. CPP Yellow Line1 Jan 15 27 51 279 120 477 $4.80 $2,288.16 477 $2,288.16 $4.80 10.48$ 2 Jan 15 28 93 439 147 707 $3.24 $2,288.16 1184 $4,576.32 $3.87 10.75$ 3 Jan 15 23 65 322 137 547 $4.18 $2,288.16 1731 $6,864.48 $3.97 9.39$ 4 Jan 15 37 106 264 98 505 $4.53 $2,288.16 2236 $9,152.64 $4.09 9.79$ 5 Jan 15 34 139 323 173 669 $3.42 $2,288.16 2905 $11,440.80 $3.94 10.42$ 6 Jan 15 18 76 467 121 682 $3.36 $2,288.16 3587 $13,728.96 $3.83 10.22$ 7 Jan 15 17 136 486 134 773 $2.96 $2,288.16 4360 $16,017.12 $3.67 10.05$ 8 Jan 15 17 82 412 116 627 $3.65 $2,288.16 4987 $18,305.28 $3.67 9.79$ 9 Jan 15 33 119 394 199 745 $3.07 $2,288.16 5732 $20,593.44 $3.59 9.75$

10 Jan 15 32 111 346 108 597 $3.83 $2,288.16 6329 $22,881.60 $3.62 9.31$ 11 Jan 15 59 111 326 68 564 $4.06 $2,288.16 6893 $25,169.76 $3.65 9.04$ 12 Jan 15 53 168 346 73 640 $3.58 $2,288.16 7533 $27,457.92 $3.65 9.04$ 13 Jan 15 52 107 308 73 540 $4.24 $2,288.16 8073 $29,746.08 $3.68 8.72$ 14 Jan 15 62 129 345 81 617 $3.71 $2,288.16 8690 $32,034.24 $3.69 8.05$ 15 Jan 15 70 141 264 107 582 $3.93 $2,288.16 9272 $34,322.40 $3.70 7.41$ 16 Jan 15 50 126 399 167 742 $3.08 $2,288.16 10014 $36,610.56 $3.66 6.91$ 17 Jan 15 39 89 352 122 602 $3.80 $2,288.16 10616 $38,898.72 $3.66 6.93$ 18 Jan 15 61 83 303 106 553 $4.14 $2,288.16 11169 $41,186.88 $3.69 6.87$ 19 Jan 15 52 92 257 72 473 $4.84 $2,288.16 11642 $43,475.04 $3.73 6.87$ 20 Jan 15 52 83 348 86 569 $4.02 $2,288.16 12211 $45,763.20 $3.75 6.69$ 21 Jan 15 38 92 330 76 536 $4.27 $2,288.16 12747 $48,051.36 $3.77 6.51$ 22 Jan 15 73 106 308 65 552 $4.15 $2,288.16 13299 $50,339.52 $3.79 6.41$ 23 Jan 15 74 102 336 129 641 $3.57 $2,288.16 13940 $52,627.68 $3.78 6.33$ 24 Jan 15 34 62 237 84 417 $5.49 $2,288.16 14357 $54,915.84 $3.83 6.28$ 25 Jan 15 26 58 224 71 379 $6.04 $2,288.16 14736 $57,204.00 $3.88 6.21$ 26 Jan 15 59 119 285 74 537 $4.26 $2,288.16 15273 $59,492.16 $3.90 6.21$ 27 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $2,288.16 15273 $61,780.32 $4.05 6.12$ 28 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $2,288.16 15273 $64,068.48 $4.19 6.04$ 29 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $2,288.16 15273 $66,356.64 $4.34 5.97$ 30 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $2,288.16 15273 $68,644.80 $4.49 5.94$ 31 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $2,288.16 15273 $70,932.96 $4.64 5.92$

1120 $63.33 $70,932.96 012.b.7

Blue X Mountain Bnd Condos Town Bound Total Cost Per Pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP Red 13-141 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 2 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 3 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 4 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 5 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 6 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 7 Dec 14 115 105 125 345 $5.79 $1,997.60 345 $1,997.60 $5.79 -$ 8 Dec 14 149 73 174 396 $5.04 $1,997.60 741 $3,995.20 $5.39 3.15$ 9 Dec 14 194 77 171 442 $4.52 $1,997.60 1183 $5,992.80 $5.07 3.10$

10 Dec 14 190 72 148 410 $4.87 $1,997.60 1593 $7,990.40 $5.02 3.17$ 11 Dec 14 133 71 142 346 $5.77 $1,997.60 1939 $9,988.00 $5.15 3.14$ 12 Dec 14 187 78 198 463 $4.31 $1,997.60 2402 $11,985.60 $4.99 3.15$ 13 Dec 14 159 123 141 423 $4.72 $1,997.60 2825 $13,983.20 $4.95 3.01$ 14 Dec 14 191 207 187 585 $3.41 $1,997.60 3410 $15,980.80 $4.69 2.90$ 15 Dec 14 273 166 329 768 $2.60 $1,997.60 4178 $17,978.40 $4.30 2.83$ 16 Dec 14 177 169 211 557 $3.59 $1,997.60 4735 $19,976.00 $4.22 2.74$ 17 Dec 14 125 117 68 310 $6.44 $1,997.60 5045 $21,973.60 $4.36 2.72$ 18 Dec 14 48 157 83 288 $6.94 $1,997.60 5333 $23,971.20 $4.49 2.67$ 19 Dec 14 300 247 347 894 $2.23 $1,997.60 6227 $25,968.80 $4.17 2.64$ 20 Dec 14 287 246 230 763 $2.62 $1,997.60 6990 $27,966.40 $4.00 2.58$ 21 Dec 14 343 380 398 1121 $1.78 $1,997.60 8111 $29,964.00 $3.69 2.52$ 22 Dec 14 351 245 265 861 $2.32 $1,997.60 8972 $31,961.60 $3.56 2.44$ 23 Dec 14 498 408 374 1280 $1.56 $1,997.60 10252 $33,959.20 $3.31 2.32$ 24 Dec 14 325 431 433 1189 $1.68 $1,997.60 11441 $35,956.80 $3.14 2.29$ 25 Dec 14 219 327 341 887 $2.25 $1,997.60 12328 $37,954.40 $3.08 2.26$ 26 Dec 14 381 396 457 1234 $1.62 $1,997.60 13562 $39,952.00 $2.95 2.20$ 27 Dec 14 446 546 359 1351 $1.48 $1,997.60 14913 $41,949.60 $2.81 2.13$ 28 Dec 14 389 568 418 1375 $1.45 $1,997.60 16288 $43,947.20 $2.70 2.09$ 29 Dec 14 461 419 392 1272 $1.57 $1,997.60 17560 $45,944.80 $2.62 2.05$ 30 Dec 14 450 534 475 1459 $1.37 $1,997.60 19019 $47,942.40 $2.52 2.00$ 31 Dec 14 373 1136 325 1834 $1.09 $1,997.60 20853 $49,940.00 $2.39 1.92$

20853 $2.39 $49,940.00

Blue Extra

12.b.8

Blue X Mountain Bnd Condos Town Bound Total Cost Per Pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP Red 13-141 Jan 15 313 510 367 1190 $1.68 $1,997.60 1190 $1,997.60 $1.68 1.46$ 2 Jan 15 447 608 671 1726 $1.16 $1,997.60 2916 $3,995.20 $1.37 1.39$ 3 Jan 15 315 321 318 954 $2.09 $1,997.60 3870 $5,992.80 $1.55 1.44$ 4 Jan 15 192 307 320 819 $2.44 $1,997.60 4689 $7,990.40 $1.70 1.41$ 5 Jan 15 342 332 368 1042 $1.92 $1,997.60 5731 $9,988.00 $1.74 1.43$ 6 Jan 15 367 348 409 1124 $1.78 $1,997.60 6855 $11,985.60 $1.75 1.45$ 7 Jan 15 548 350 324 1222 $1.63 $1,997.60 8077 $13,983.20 $1.73 1.49$ 8 Jan 15 331 316 333 980 $2.04 $1,997.60 9057 $15,980.80 $1.76 1.50$ 9 Jan 15 297 260 314 871 $2.29 $1,997.60 9928 $17,978.40 $1.81 1.52$

10 Jan 15 250 242 221 713 $2.80 $1,997.60 10641 $19,976.00 $1.88 1.51$ 11 Jan 15 207 209 259 675 $2.96 $1,997.60 11316 $21,973.60 $1.94 1.51$ 12 Jan 15 218 260 243 721 $2.77 $1,997.60 12037 $23,971.20 $1.99 1.53$ 13 Jan 15 254 227 230 711 $2.81 $1,997.60 12748 $25,968.80 $2.04 1.54$ 14 Jan 15 217 166 256 639 $3.13 $1,997.60 13387 $27,966.40 $2.09 1.57$ 15 Jan 15 312 205 251 768 $2.60 $1,997.60 14155 $29,964.00 $2.12 1.59$ 16 Jan 15 352 334 359 1045 $1.91 $1,997.60 15200 $31,961.60 $2.10 1.61$ 17 Jan 15 328 546 381 1255 $1.59 $1,997.60 16455 $33,959.20 $2.06 1.62$ 18 Jan 15 269 317 214 800 $2.50 $1,997.60 17255 $35,956.80 $2.08 1.60$ 19 Jan 15 253 273 265 791 $2.53 $1,997.60 18046 $37,954.40 $2.10 1.60$ 20 Jan 15 352 175 262 789 $2.53 $1,997.60 18835 $39,952.00 $2.12 1.60$ 21 Jan 15 246 170 186 602 $3.32 $1,997.60 19437 $41,949.60 $2.16 1.62$ 22 Jan 15 228 234 243 705 $2.83 $1,997.60 20142 $43,947.20 $2.18 1.64$ 23 Jan 15 264 170 216 650 $3.07 $1,997.60 20792 $45,944.80 $2.21 1.66$ 24 Jan 15 275 295 330 900 $2.22 $1,997.60 21692 $47,942.40 $2.21 1.66$ 25 Jan 15 203 187 263 653 $3.06 $1,997.60 22345 $49,940.00 $2.23 1.65$ 26 Jan 15 236 217 288 741 $2.70 $1,997.60 23086 $51,937.60 $2.25 1.65$ 27 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $1,997.60 23086 $53,935.20 $2.34 1.67$ 28 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $1,997.60 23086 $55,932.80 $2.42 1.68$ 29 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $1,997.60 23086 $57,930.40 $2.51 1.70$ 30 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $1,997.60 23086 $59,928.00 $2.60 1.70$ 31 Jan 15 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $1,997.60 23086 $61,925.60 $2.68 1.69$

23086 $2.68 $61,925.60

12.b.9

Blue Line Mountain Bnd Condos Town Bound Total Cost Per Pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP 2013-20141 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 2 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 3 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 4 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 5 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 6 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 7 Dec 14 485 528 367 1380 $2.32 $3,196.16 1380 $3,196.16 $2.32 -$ 8 Dec 14 521 386 374 1281 $2.50 $3,196.16 2661 $6,392.32 $2.40 $2.909 Dec 14 557 418 408 1383 $2.31 $3,196.16 4044 $9,588.48 $2.37 $2.88

10 Dec 14 507 371 395 1273 $2.51 $3,196.16 5317 $12,784.64 $2.40 $2.8611 Dec 14 539 403 352 1294 $2.47 $3,196.16 6611 $15,980.80 $2.42 $2.8112 Dec 14 560 465 430 1455 $2.20 $3,196.16 8066 $19,176.96 $2.38 $2.8213 Dec 14 666 604 496 1766 $1.81 $3,196.16 9832 $22,373.12 $2.28 $2.8014 Dec 14 634 794 629 2057 $1.55 $3,196.16 11889 $25,569.28 $2.15 $2.7215 Dec 14 597 587 497 1681 $1.90 $3,196.16 13570 $28,765.44 $2.12 $2.6816 Dec 14 773 537 564 1874 $1.71 $3,196.16 15444 $31,961.60 $2.07 $2.6817 Dec 14 784 487 586 1857 $1.72 $3,196.16 17301 $35,157.76 $2.03 $2.6418 Dec 14 841 537 696 2074 $1.54 $3,196.16 19375 $38,353.92 $1.98 $2.6119 Dec 14 840 534 671 2045 $1.56 $3,196.16 21420 $41,550.08 $1.94 $2.6120 Dec 14 734 667 679 2080 $1.54 $3,196.16 23500 $44,746.24 $1.90 $2.5821 Dec 14 781 888 605 2274 $1.41 $3,196.16 25774 $47,942.40 $1.86 $2.5422 Dec 14 883 681 810 2374 $1.35 $3,196.16 28148 $51,138.56 $1.82 $2.4823 Dec 14 751 683 706 2140 $1.49 $3,196.16 30288 $54,334.72 $1.79 $2.4124 Dec 14 814 792 581 2187 $1.46 $3,196.16 32475 $57,530.88 $1.77 $2.3825 Dec 14 632 814 610 2056 $1.55 $3,196.16 34531 $60,727.04 $1.76 $2.3826 Dec 14 742 847 784 2373 $1.35 $3,196.16 36904 $63,923.20 $1.73 $2.3627 Dec 14 958 897 833 2688 $1.19 $3,196.16 39592 $67,119.36 $1.70 $2.3228 Dec 14 802 967 663 2432 $1.31 $3,196.16 42024 $70,315.52 $1.67 $2.2629 Dec 14 898 1030 896 2824 $1.13 $3,196.16 44848 $73,511.68 $1.64 $2.1830 Dec 14 805 830 744 2379 $1.34 $3,196.16 47227 $76,707.84 $1.62 $2.1531 Dec 14 667 697 654 2018 $1.58 $3,196.16 49245 $79,904.00 $1.62 $2.09

49245 $1.62 $79,904.00

Blue Line

12.b.10

Blue Line Mountain Bnd Condos Town Bound Total Cost Per Pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP 2013-20141 Jan 15 775 998 712 2485 $1.29 $3,196.16 2485 $3,196.16 $1.29 1.69$ 2 Jan 15 913 950 742 2605 $1.23 $3,196.16 5090 $6,392.32 $1.26 1.71$ 3 Jan 15 800 830 605 2235 $1.43 $3,196.16 7325 $9,588.48 $1.31 1.66$ 4 Jan 15 754 906 696 2356 $1.36 $3,196.16 9681 $12,784.64 $1.32 1.59$ 5 Jan 15 766 641 635 2042 $1.57 $3,196.16 11723 $15,980.80 $1.36 1.59$ 6 Jan 15 921 811 652 2384 $1.34 $3,196.16 14107 $19,176.96 $1.36 1.59$ 7 Jan 15 832 685 661 2178 $1.47 $3,196.16 16285 $22,373.12 $1.37 1.58$ 8 Jan 15 937 859 740 2536 $1.26 $3,196.16 18821 $25,569.28 $1.36 1.58$ 9 Jan 15 1023 781 722 2526 $1.27 $3,196.16 21347 $28,765.44 $1.35 1.62$


55313 $1.79 $99,080.96

12.b.11

Overall 2013 2014 Cost Cost PP Cum. Pax Cum. TTL Cost Cum TTL CPP 2014 15 Cost Cost PP Cum. Pax Cum. TTL Cost Cum TTL CPP 13 14vs14 15December 7 2,588 $10,496.48 $4.06December 8 3064 $11,404.48 $3.72 2,701 $10,496.48 $3.89 5,289 $20,992.96 $3.97 ($3.97)December 9 3240 $11,404.48 $3.52 6304 $22,808.96 $3.62 2,952 $10,496.48 $3.56 8,241 $31,489.44 $3.82 ($0.20)December 10 3154 $11,404.48 $3.62 9458 $34,213.44 $3.62 2,713 $10,496.48 $3.87 10,954 $41,985.92 $3.83 ($0.22)December 11 3359 $11,404.48 $3.40 12817 $45,617.92 $3.56 2,896 $10,496.48 $3.62 13,850 $52,482.40 $3.79 ($0.23)December 12 3341 $11,404.48 $3.41 16158 $57,022.40 $3.53 3,504 $10,496.48 $3.00 17,354 $62,978.88 $3.63 ($0.10)December 13 4052 $11,404.48 $2.81 20210 $68,426.88 $3.39 3,633 $10,496.48 $2.89 20,987 $73,475.36 $3.50 ($0.12)December 14 4412 $11,404.48 $2.58 24622 $79,831.36 $3.24 3,796 $10,496.48 $2.77 24,783 $83,971.84 $3.39 ($0.15)December 15 4025 $11,404.48 $2.83 28647 $91,235.84 $3.18 3,891 $10,496.48 $2.70 28,674 $94,468.32 $3.29 ($0.11)December 16 4011 $11,404.48 $2.84 32658 $102,640.32 $3.14 4,038 $10,496.48 $2.60 32,712 $104,964.80 $3.21 ($0.07)December 17 4122 $11,404.48 $2.77 36780 $114,044.80 $3.10 3,667 $10,496.48 $2.86 36,379 $115,461.28 $3.17 ($0.07)December 18 4270 $11,404.48 $2.67 41050 $125,449.28 $3.06 3,912 $10,496.48 $2.68 40,291 $125,957.76 $3.13 ($0.07)December 19 4093 $11,404.48 $2.79 45143 $136,853.76 $3.03 4,709 $10,496.48 $2.23 45,000 $136,454.24 $3.03 ($0.00)December 20 4990 $11,404.48 $2.29 50133 $148,258.24 $2.96 4,760 $10,496.48 $2.21 49,760 $146,950.72 $2.95 $0.00December 21 5002 $11,404.48 $2.28 55135 $159,662.72 $2.90 4,945 $10,496.48 $2.12 54,705 $157,447.20 $2.88 $0.02December 22 5343 $11,404.48 $2.13 60478 $171,067.20 $2.83 5,284 $10,496.48 $1.99 59,989 $167,943.68 $2.80 $0.03December 23 6163 $11,404.48 $1.85 66641 $182,471.68 $2.74 5,415 $10,496.48 $1.94 65,404 $178,440.16 $2.73 $0.01December 24 5149 $11,404.48 $2.21 71790 $193,876.16 $2.70 5,189 $10,496.48 $2.02 70,593 $188,936.64 $2.68 $0.02December 25 4446 $11,404.48 $2.57 76236 $205,280.64 $2.69 4,427 $10,496.48 $2.37 75,020 $199,433.12 $2.66 $0.03December 26 5703 $11,404.48 $2.00 81939 $216,685.12 $2.64 5,857 $10,496.48 $1.79 80,877 $209,929.60 $2.60 $0.05December 27 6669 $11,404.48 $1.71 88608 $228,089.60 $2.57 6,255 $10,496.48 $1.68 87,132 $220,426.08 $2.53 $0.04December 28 7147 $11,404.48 $1.60 95755 $239,494.08 $2.50 5,896 $10,496.48 $1.78 93,028 $230,922.56 $2.48 $0.02December 29 6965 $11,404.48 $1.64 102720 $250,898.56 $2.44 6,835 $10,496.48 $1.54 99,863 $241,419.04 $2.42 $0.03December 30 6829 $11,404.48 $1.67 109549 $262,303.04 $2.39 6,081 $10,496.48 $1.73 105,944 $251,915.52 $2.38 $0.02December 31 9501 $11,404.48 $1.20 119050 $273,707.52 $2.30 8,829 $10,496.48 $1.19 114,773 $262,412.00 $2.29 $0.01

Cost per Passenger

12.b.12

Overall 2013 2014 Cost Cost PP Cum. Pax Cum. TTL Cost Cum TTL CPP 2014 15 Cost Cost PP Cum. Pax Cum. TTL Cost Cum TTL CPP 13 14vs14 15January 1 6219 $11,404.48 $1.83 125,269 $285,112.00 $2.28 5549 $10,496.48 1.891598 120,322 $272,908.48 $2.27 $0.01January 2 6491 $11,404.48 $1.76 131,760 $296,516.48 $2.25 6616 $10,496.48 1.58653 126,938 $283,404.96 $2.23 $0.02January 3 6677 $11,404.48 $1.71 138,437 $307,920.96 $2.22 5322 $10,496.48 1.972281 132,260 $293,901.44 $2.22 $0.00January 4 7942 $11,404.48 $1.44 146,379 $319,325.44 $2.18 5238 $10,496.48 2.00391 137,498 $304,397.92 $2.21 ($0.03)January 5 6598 $11,404.48 $1.73 152,977 $330,729.92 $2.16 5780 $10,496.48 1.816 143,278 $314,894.40 $2.20 ($0.04)January 6 6548 $11,404.48 $1.74 159,525 $342,134.40 $2.14 6031 $10,496.48 1.740421 149,309 $325,390.88 $2.18 ($0.03)January 7 6406 $11,404.48 $1.78 165,931 $353,538.88 $2.13 5910 $10,496.48 1.776054 155,219 $335,887.36 $2.16 ($0.03)January 8 6499 $11,404.48 $1.75 172,430 $364,943.36 $2.12 5955 $10,496.48 1.762633 161,174 $346,383.84 $2.15 ($0.03)January 9 5405 $11,404.48 $2.11 177,835 $376,347.84 $2.12 6141 $10,496.48 1.709246 167,315 $356,880.32 $2.13 ($0.02)January 10 6410 $11,404.48 $1.78 184,245 $387,752.32 $2.10 5224 $10,496.48 2.00928 172,539 $367,376.80 $2.13 ($0.02)January 11 6383 $11,404.48 $1.79 190,628 $399,156.80 $2.09 3967 $10,496.48 2.645949 176,506 $377,873.28 $2.14 ($0.05)January 12 5567 $11,404.48 $2.05 196,195 $410,561.28 $2.09 3960 $10,496.48 2.650626 180,466 $388,369.76 $2.15 ($0.06)January 13 5241 $11,404.48 $2.18 201,436 $421,965.76 $2.09 4045 $10,496.48 2.594927 184,511 $398,866.24 $2.16 ($0.07)January 14 4812 $11,404.48 $2.37 206,248 $433,370.24 $2.10 3993 $10,496.48 2.62872 188,504 $409,362.72 $2.17 ($0.07)January 15 4930 $11,404.48 $2.31 211,178 $444,774.72 $2.11 4119 $10,496.48 2.548308 192,623 $419,859.20 $2.18 ($0.07)January 16 5007 $11,404.48 $2.28 216,185 $456,179.20 $2.11 5545 $10,496.48 1.892963 198,168 $430,355.68 $2.17 ($0.06)January 17 5826 $11,404.48 $1.96 222,011 $467,583.68 $2.11 6695 $10,496.48 1.567809 204,863 $440,852.16 $2.15 ($0.05)January 18 7026 $11,404.48 $1.62 229,037 $478,988.16 $2.09 5371 $10,496.48 1.954288 210,234 $451,348.64 $2.15 ($0.06)January 19 6503 $11,404.48 $1.75 235,540 $490,392.64 $2.08 4307 $10,859.68 2.521402 214,541 $462,208.32 $2.15 ($0.07)January 20 5577 $11,404.48 $2.04 241,117 $501,797.12 $2.08 4110 $11,077.60 2.69528 218,651 $473,285.92 $2.16 ($0.08)January 21 4643 $11,404.48 $2.46 245,760 $513,201.60 $2.09 4034 $11,077.60 2.746059 222,685 $484,363.52 $2.18 ($0.09)January 22 4438 $11,404.48 $2.57 250,198 $524,606.08 $2.10 3833 $11,077.60 2.89006 226,518 $495,441.12 $2.19 ($0.09)January 23 4621 $11,404.48 $2.47 254,819 $536,010.56 $2.10 4721 $11,077.60 2.346452 231,239 $506,518.72 $2.19 ($0.09)January 24 5272 $11,404.48 $2.16 260,091 $547,415.04 $2.10 5013 $11,077.60 2.209775 236,252 $517,596.32 $2.19 ($0.09)January 25 6776 $11,404.48 $1.68 266,867 $558,819.52 $2.09 3834 $11,077.60 2.889306 240,086 $528,673.92 $2.20 ($0.11)January 26 4859 $11,404.48 $2.35 271,726 $570,224.00 $2.10 4105 $11,077.60 2.698563 244,191 $539,751.52 $2.21 ($0.11)January 27 4318 $11,404.48 $2.64 276,044 $581,628.48 $2.11 0 $11,077.60 #DIV/0! 244,191 $550,829.12 $2.26 ($0.15)January 28 4658 $11,404.48 $2.45 280,702 $593,032.96 $2.11 0 $11,077.60 #DIV/0! 244,191 $561,906.72 $2.30 ($0.19)January 29 4561 $11,404.48 $2.50 285,263 $604,437.44 $2.12 0 $11,077.60 #DIV/0! 244,191 $572,984.32 $2.35 ($0.23)January 30 5220 $11,404.48 $2.18 290,483 $615,841.92 $2.12 0 $11,077.60 #DIV/0! 244,191 $584,061.92 $2.39 ($0.27)January 31 6586 $11,404.48 $1.73 297,069 $627,246.40 $2.11 0 $11,077.60 #DIV/0! 244,191 $595,139.52 $2.44 ($0.33)

12.b.13

Night Line Mountain Bnd Condos Town Bound Total Cost Per Pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP 2013-20141 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 2 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 3 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 4 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 5 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 6 Dec 14 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0! -$ 7 Dec 14 173 67 54 294 $5.81 $1,707.04 294 $1,707.04 $5.81 -$ 8 Dec 14 168 51 69 288 $5.93 $1,707.04 582 $3,414.08 $5.87 5.98$ 9 Dec 14 167 71 99 337 $5.07 $1,707.04 919 $5,121.12 $5.57 5.83$

10 Dec 14 164 40 75 279 $6.12 $1,707.04 1198 $6,828.16 $5.70 5.68$ 11 Dec 14 216 81 119 416 $4.10 $1,707.04 1614 $8,535.20 $5.29 5.56$ 12 Dec 14 385 158 151 694 $2.46 $1,707.04 2308 $10,242.24 $4.44 5.04$ 13 Dec 14 382 178 197 757 $2.26 $1,707.04 3065 $11,949.28 $3.90 4.30$ 14 Dec 14 152 63 87 302 $5.65 $1,707.04 3367 $13,656.32 $4.06 3.79$ 15 Dec 14 279 107 80 466 $3.66 $1,707.04 3833 $15,363.36 $4.01 3.72$ 16 Dec 14 245 123 173 541 $3.16 $1,707.04 4374 $17,070.40 $3.90 3.70$ 17 Dec 14 274 71 100 445 $3.84 $1,707.04 4819 $18,777.44 $3.90 3.59$ 18 Dec 14 316 120 112 548 $3.12 $1,707.04 5367 $20,484.48 $3.82 3.55$ 19 Dec 14 402 159 163 724 $2.36 $1,707.04 6091 $22,191.52 $3.64 3.46$ 20 Dec 14 410 189 237 836 $2.04 $1,707.04 6927 $23,898.56 $3.45 3.22$ 21 Dec 14 154 92 162 408 $4.18 $1,707.04 7335 $25,605.60 $3.49 3.11$ 22 Dec 14 331 99 189 619 $2.76 $1,707.04 7954 $27,312.64 $3.43 3.11$ 23 Dec 14 326 121 141 588 $2.90 $1,707.04 8542 $29,019.68 $3.40 3.11$ 24 Dec 14 306 143 153 602 $2.84 $1,707.04 9144 $30,726.72 $3.36 3.10$ 25 Dec 14 206 94 116 416 $4.10 $1,707.04 9560 $32,433.76 $3.39 3.14$ 26 Dec 14 368 134 242 744 $2.29 $1,707.04 10304 $34,140.80 $3.31 3.10$ 27 Dec 14 399 158 217 774 $2.21 $1,707.04 11078 $35,847.84 $3.24 3.02$ 28 Dec 14 318 115 138 571 $2.99 $1,707.04 11649 $37,554.88 $3.22 2.88$ 29 Dec 14 430 195 206 831 $2.05 $1,707.04 12480 $39,261.92 $3.15 2.85$ 30 Dec 14 354 161 211 726 $2.35 $1,707.04 13206 $40,968.96 $3.10 2.79$ 31 Dec 14 1238 1451 420 3109 $0.55 $1,707.04 16315 $42,676.00 $2.62 2.60$

16315 $2.62 $42,676.00

Night Route

12.b.14

Night Line Mountain Bnd Condos Town Bound Total Cost Per Pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP 2013-20141 Jan 15 270 106 139 515 $3.31 $1,707.04 515 $1,707.04 $3.31 2.46$ 2 Jan 15 363 163 187 713 $2.39 $1,707.04 1228 $3,414.08 $2.78 2.37$ 3 Jan 15 389 198 217 804 $2.12 $1,707.04 2032 $5,121.12 $2.52 2.04$ 4 Jan 15 569 211 192 972 $1.76 $1,707.04 3004 $6,828.16 $2.27 1.65$ 5 Jan 15 862 243 254 1359 $1.26 $1,707.04 4363 $8,535.20 $1.96 1.65$ 6 Jan 15 370 372 273 1015 $1.68 $1,707.04 5378 $10,242.24 $1.90 1.61$ 7 Jan 15 320 303 200 823 $2.07 $1,707.04 6201 $11,949.28 $1.93 1.58$ 8 Jan 15 472 345 241 1058 $1.61 $1,707.04 7259 $13,656.32 $1.88 1.57$ 9 Jan 15 505 413 355 1273 $1.34 $1,707.04 8532 $15,363.36 $1.80 1.62$


19597 $2.70 $52,918.24

12.b.15

Orange Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP1 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!2 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!3 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!4 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!5 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!6 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!7 Dec 14 216 $3.19 $690.08 216 $690.08 $3.198 Dec 14 262 $2.63 $690.08 478 $1,380.16 $2.899 Dec 14 226 $3.05 $690.08 704 $2,070.24 $2.94

10 Dec 14 259 $2.66 $690.08 963 $2,760.32 $2.8711 Dec 14 306 $2.26 $690.08 1269 $3,450.40 $2.7212 Dec 14 264 $2.61 $690.08 1533 $4,140.48 $2.7013 Dec 14 291 $2.37 $690.08 1824 $4,830.56 $2.6514 Dec 14 273 $2.53 $690.08 2097 $5,520.64 $2.6315 Dec 14 355 $1.94 $690.08 2452 $6,210.72 $2.5316 Dec 14 367 $1.88 $690.08 2819 $6,900.80 $2.4517 Dec 14 460 $1.50 $690.08 3279 $7,590.88 $2.3118 Dec 14 419 $1.65 $690.08 3698 $8,280.96 $2.2419 Dec 14 326 $2.12 $690.08 4024 $8,971.04 $2.2320 Dec 14 439 $1.57 $690.08 4463 $9,661.12 $2.1621 Dec 14 472 $1.46 $690.08 4935 $10,351.20 $2.1022 Dec 14 621 $1.11 $690.08 5556 $11,041.28 $1.9923 Dec 14 554 $1.25 $690.08 6110 $11,731.36 $1.9224 Dec 14 554 $1.25 $690.08 6664 $12,421.44 $1.8625 Dec 14 498 $1.39 $690.08 7162 $13,111.52 $1.8326 Dec 14 594 $1.16 $690.08 7756 $13,801.60 $1.7827 Dec 14 661 $1.04 $690.08 8417 $14,491.68 $1.7228 Dec 14 652 $1.06 $690.08 9069 $15,181.76 $1.6729 Dec 14 967 $0.71 $690.08 10036 $15,871.84 $1.5830 Dec 14 674 $1.02 $690.08 10710 $16,561.92 $1.5531 Dec 14 1093 $0.63 $690.08 11803 $17,252.00 $1.46

11803 $1.46 $17,252.00 10

Orange Route

12.b.16

Orange Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP1 Jan 15 669 $1.03 $690.08 669 $690.08 $1.032 Jan 15 655 $1.05 $690.08 1324 $1,380.16 $1.043 Jan 15 586 $1.18 $690.08 1910 $2,070.24 $1.084 Jan 15 471 $1.47 $690.08 2381 $2,760.32 $1.165 Jan 15 528 $1.31 $690.08 2909 $3,450.40 $1.196 Jan 15 638 $1.08 $690.08 3547 $4,140.48 $1.177 Jan 15 778 $0.89 $690.08 4325 $4,830.56 $1.128 Jan 15 575 $1.20 $690.08 4900 $5,520.64 $1.139 Jan 15 522 $1.32 $690.08 5422 $6,210.72 $1.15

10 Jan 15 447 $1.54 $690.08 5869 $6,900.80 $1.1811 Jan 15 360 $1.92 $690.08 6229 $7,590.88 $1.2212 Jan 15 350 $1.97 $690.08 6579 $8,280.96 $1.2613 Jan 15 353 $1.95 $690.08 6932 $8,971.04 $1.2914 Jan 15 364 $1.90 $690.08 7296 $9,661.12 $1.3215 Jan 15 366 $1.89 $690.08 7662 $10,351.20 $1.3516 Jan 15 401 $1.72 $690.08 8063 $11,041.28 $1.3717 Jan 15 690 $1.00 $690.08 8753 $11,731.36 $1.3418 Jan 15 519 $1.33 $690.08 9272 $12,421.44 $1.3419 Jan 15 385 $1.79 $690.08 9657 $13,111.52 $1.3620 Jan 15 326 $2.12 $690.08 9983 $13,801.60 $1.3821 Jan 15 313 $2.20 $690.08 10296 $14,491.68 $1.4122 Jan 15 296 $2.33 $690.08 10592 $15,181.76 $1.4323 Jan 15 308 $2.24 $690.08 10900 $15,871.84 $1.4624 Jan 15 358 $1.93 $690.08 11258 $16,561.92 $1.4725 Jan 15 271 $2.55 $690.08 11529 $17,252.00 $1.5026 Jan 15 341 $2.02 $690.08 11870 $17,942.08 $1.5127 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $690.08 11870 $18,632.16 $1.5728 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $690.08 11870 $19,322.24 $1.6329 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $690.08 11870 $20,012.32 $1.6930 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $690.08 11870 $20,702.40 $1.7431 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $690.08 11870 $21,392.48 $1.80

11870 $1.80 $21,392.48 10

Orange Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP

12.b.17

Purple Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP 2013-20141 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!2 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!3 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!4 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!5 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!6 Dec 14 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!7 Dec 14 17 $36.32 $617.44 17 $617.44 $36.328 Dec 14 12 $51.45 $617.44 29 $1,234.88 $42.58 32.37$ 9 Dec 14 22 $28.07 $617.44 51 $1,852.32 $36.32 23.27$

10 Dec 14 23 $26.85 $617.44 74 $2,469.76 $33.38 23.51$ 11 Dec 14 28 $22.05 $617.44 102 $3,087.20 $30.27 18.61$ 12 Dec 14 35 $17.64 $617.44 137 $3,704.64 $27.04 17.16$ 13 Dec 14 18 $34.30 $617.44 155 $4,322.08 $27.88 14.94$ 14 Dec 14 56 $11.03 $617.44 211 $4,939.52 $23.41 12.74$ 15 Dec 14 69 $8.95 $617.44 280 $5,556.96 $19.85 11.89$ 16 Dec 14 64 $9.65 $617.44 344 $6,174.40 $17.95 11.13$ 17 Dec 14 65 $9.50 $617.44 409 $6,791.84 $16.61 10.76$ 18 Dec 14 52 $11.87 $617.44 461 $7,409.28 $16.07 10.35$ 19 Dec 14 92 $6.71 $617.44 553 $8,026.72 $14.51 10.14$ 20 Dec 14 101 $6.11 $617.44 654 $8,644.16 $13.22 9.78$ 21 Dec 14 135 $4.57 $617.44 789 $9,261.60 $11.74 9.03$ 22 Dec 14 237 $2.61 $617.44 1026 $9,879.04 $9.63 8.74$ 23 Dec 14 258 $2.39 $617.44 1284 $10,496.48 $8.17 7.80$ 24 Dec 14 146 $4.23 $617.44 1430 $11,113.92 $7.77 7.14$ 25 Dec 14 166 $3.72 $617.44 1596 $11,731.36 $7.35 6.72$ 26 Dec 14 295 $2.09 $617.44 1891 $12,348.80 $6.53 6.24$ 27 Dec 14 249 $2.48 $617.44 2140 $12,966.24 $6.06 5.85$ 28 Dec 14 278 $2.22 $617.44 2418 $13,583.68 $5.62 5.07$ 29 Dec 14 321 $1.92 $617.44 2739 $14,201.12 $5.18 4.89$ 30 Dec 14 331 $1.87 $617.44 3070 $14,818.56 $4.83 4.73$ 31 Dec 14 262 $2.36 $617.44 3332 $15,436.00 $4.63 4.55$

3332 $4.63 $15,436.00 10

Purple Route

12.b.18

Purple Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP 2013-20141 Jan 15 213 $2.90 $617.44 213 $617.44 $2.90 2.55$ 2 Jan 15 210 $2.94 $617.44 423 $1,234.88 $2.92 2.50$ 3 Jan 15 196 $3.15 $617.44 619 $1,852.32 $2.99 2.58$ 4 Jan 15 115 $5.37 $617.44 734 $2,469.76 $3.36 2.58$ 5 Jan 15 140 $4.41 $617.44 874 $3,087.20 $3.53 2.75$ 6 Jan 15 188 $3.28 $617.44 1062 $3,704.64 $3.49 2.99$ 7 Jan 15 136 $4.54 $617.44 1198 $4,322.08 $3.61 3.15$ 8 Jan 15 179 $3.45 $617.44 1377 $4,939.52 $3.59 3.36$ 9 Jan 15 204 $3.03 $617.44 1581 $5,556.96 $3.51 3.57$

10 Jan 15 150 $4.12 $617.44 1731 $6,174.40 $3.57 3.60$ 11 Jan 15 55 $11.23 $617.44 1786 $6,791.84 $3.80 3.49$ 12 Jan 15 53 $11.65 $617.44 1839 $7,409.28 $4.03 3.48$ 13 Jan 15 74 $8.34 $617.44 1913 $8,026.72 $4.20 3.61$ 14 Jan 15 57 $10.83 $617.44 1970 $8,644.16 $4.39 3.75$ 15 Jan 15 77 $8.02 $617.44 2047 $9,261.60 $4.52 3.83$ 16 Jan 15 175 $3.53 $617.44 2222 $9,879.04 $4.45 3.91$ 17 Jan 15 404 $1.53 $617.44 2626 $10,496.48 $4.00 3.87$ 18 Jan 15 269 $2.30 $617.44 2895 $11,113.92 $3.84 3.57$ 19 Jan 15 127 $4.86 $617.44 3022 $11,731.36 $3.88 3.36$ 20 Jan 15 91 $6.79 $617.44 3113 $12,348.80 $3.97 3.39$ 21 Jan 15 76 $8.12 $617.44 3189 $12,966.24 $4.07 3.49$ 22 Jan 15 108 $5.72 $617.44 3297 $13,583.68 $4.12 3.55$ 23 Jan 15 216 $2.86 $617.44 3513 $14,201.12 $4.04 3.59$ 24 Jan 15 159 $3.88 $617.44 3672 $14,818.56 $4.04 3.61$ 25 Jan 15 90 $6.86 $617.44 3762 $15,436.00 $4.10 3.56$ 26 Jan 15 90 $6.86 $617.44 3852 $16,053.44 $4.17 3.61$ 27 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $617.44 3852 $16,670.88 $4.33 3.68$ 28 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $617.44 3852 $17,288.32 $4.49 3.73$ 29 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $617.44 3852 $17,905.76 $4.65 3.78$ 30 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $617.44 3852 $18,523.20 $4.81 3.78$ 31 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $617.44 3852 $19,140.64 $4.97 3.77$

3852 $4.97 $19,140.64 10

Purple Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP 2013-2014

12.b.19

Westie Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP1 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!2 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!3 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!4 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!5 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!6 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!7 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!8 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!9 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!

10 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!11 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!12 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!13 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!14 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!15 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!16 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!17 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!18 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $0.00 0 $0.00 #DIV/0!19 Jan 15 38 $9.56 $363.20 38 $363.20 $9.5620 Jan 15 83 $7.00 $581.12 121 $944.32 $7.8021 Jan 15 60 $9.69 $581.12 181 $1,525.44 $8.4322 Jan 15 63 $9.22 $581.12 244 $2,106.56 $8.6323 Jan 15 40 $14.53 $581.12 284 $2,687.68 $9.4624 Jan 15 44 $13.21 $581.12 328 $3,268.80 $9.9725 Jan 15 36 $16.14 $581.12 364 $3,849.92 $10.5826 Jan 15 63 $9.22 $581.12 427 $4,431.04 $10.3827 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $581.12 427 $5,012.16 $11.7428 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $581.12 427 $5,593.28 $13.1029 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $581.12 427 $6,174.40 $14.4630 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $581.12 427 $6,755.52 $15.8231 Jan 15 0 #DIV/0! $581.12 427 $7,336.64 $17.18

427 $17.18 $7,336.64 10

Westie Passengers Cost per pax Cost Cum. Pax Cum. Cost Cum. CPP

West Route

12.b.20


Regular Meeting NO. 2015-01

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

Mr. Bart Kounovsky, City Council President, called Regular Meeting No. 2015-01 of the Steamboat Springs City Council to order at 5:00pm, Tuesday, January 6, 2015, in Centennial Hall, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

City Council Members present: City Council President Kounovsky, City Council President Pro Tem Myller, Council Member Macys, Council Member Magill, Council Member Council Member Reisman, Council Member Connell and Council Member Ford.

Staff Members present: Deb Hinsvark, City Manager; Anne Small, Director of General Services; Tony Lettunich, City Attorney; Tyler Gibbs, Director of Planning and Community Development; Kim Weber, Director of Financial Services; Julie Franklin, City Clerk; John Overstreet, Director of Parks and Community Services; Dan Foote, Staff Attorney; Jerry Stabile, Police Captain; Winnie DelliQuadri, Assistant to the City Manager; Casey Earp, Assistant to the City Manager; Mel Stewart, Fire Chief; Craig Robinson, Open Space/Howelsen Hill Supervisor; Toby Stauffer, City Planner; Rebecca Bessey, Principal Planner; Joel Rae, Director of Public Safety and Chuck Anderson, Director of Public Works.

ROLL CALL (5:00 PM)

Liquor Licensing Authority Meeting – after roll call the City Council will adjourn and reconvene in their capacity as the Steamboat Springs Liquor Licensing Authority and follow the attached Liquor Licensing Authority agenda.

At the conclusion of the Steamboat Springs Liquor License Authority Meeting, the City Council will reconvene as the Steamboat Springs City Council and proceed with the following agenda:

PROCLAMATIONS:

1. A proclamation acknowledging the 100th year anniversary of Howelsen Hill Ski Area in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller read the proclamation into the record.

Crosby Perry-Smith, Candice Lombardo, Jim Boyne, Penny Fletcher, Sarah Floyd and Pete Wither were present to accept the proclamation.

AGENDA ITEM #13a.

13.a.1

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting NO. 2014-01 Tuesday, January 06, 2015

2

COMMUNITY REPORTS/CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION TOPIC:

2. Police Station Update.

City Council President Kounovsky and Connell stepped down.

Ms. Small provided a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the selected sites. Ms. Weber continued with the budget history, Council decision timeline; and the CIP prioritization that was presented to Council on September 2, 2014.

Mr. Earp spoke to the downtown vision, contiguous commercial space; the revitalization of Union Station and Cherry Creek North and the opportunity with the Yampa Valley Electric Association (YVEA).

Mr. Gibbs spoke to programming; Ms. Small provided the construction site estimate; and Ms. DelliQuadri spoke to funding sources.

Council Member Magill asked if fire trucks would be stored in industrial space. Ms. Small stated yes.

Mr. Rae stated the City has an agreement with Search and Rescue and the Rural Fire Protection District to rent a few bays in the ambulance barn downtown to house our equipment. Other equipment is in industrialized because it is not connected to the Fire Department, there are no sleeping bays. It’s not practical to have that and we don’t have the space to do that in the current facility. So we do know that in repurposing that building there will be a need somewhere downtown between the Stockbridge area near west Steamboat to have a fire station built.

Council Member Magill asked about the price per square foot. Mr. Rae stated that the total project cost without land is $8.1 million.

Council Member Reisman asked if the money will come out of reserves if we don’t get the grant. Ms. DelliQuadri stated that if we do not get the grant we can find out what the issues were and apply again. She stated that the City has been 100% successful in getting grants for facilities. Ms. Weber clarified that if we do not get the grant it is factored into the 6 year Capital Improvements Program (CIP). She is confident with excess taxes that Council could choose to cover that.

Council Member Ford is puzzled by the slides in the PowerPoint about downtown because he thought Council made the decision on June 17, 2014 to move out of downtown. He believes this this reinforces that Council is being sold something without being given options. He feels like Council is being told this is a one-time offer.

13.a.2


3

Council Member Macys asked what other facilities have been built with grant funds. Ms. DelliQuadri stated Centennial Hall, expansion of the Police Department, the expansion of Parks and Recreation and the streets shop, the Community Center and the Mountain Fire Station. Council Member Macys asked about the grant size for those projects. Ms. DelliQuadri stated that the City always applies for the maximum available at the time, and that amount has changed over time. The City has never applied for a grant in the time period when there was $2 million available. She will get those grant amounts to Council but the most the City has received is $600,000 because that was the old cap.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that the City’s fiscal policy stated that when we budget to use grant funds and we don’t get the grant then we don’t do the project.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller asked about the garage and sally port. Mr. Rae stated that a lot of the comments over the last couple of years were about size and efficiencies. So in working with Jim McClaren and Steamboat Architectural we had major sally port on one end of the building that would allow for the parking of vehicles inside, prisoner processing area, gun cleaning stations, combined emergency response room, decontamination area, and a vehicle exam bay. What they did in order to make this as efficient and practical as possible was to downsize the area from 18,000 to a 15,058 square foot building. So now on one side you can bring prisoners into a secure area and transport them securely into the facility. This is a sterile facility; there is nothing in this garage that can be used as a weapon. You drive in and you are basically locked in unless you push a button to exit. It limits the ability to escape. The other side has a vehicle exam bay area where a vehicle can be processed; this also has an entire lab area and a retractable gate. The other space has a green solar paneled roof on a parking area that is covered.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Chad Stewart, Forest Service District Ranger, asked why their Hilltop property is not being considered. He noted that the parcel is still available if the Council wants to consider it.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller noted that Council is being asked to approve a conceptual design and budget.

13.a.3


4

Council Member Magill stated that there is an Executive Session scheduled at the end of the meeting to talk about price and preferred sites but we know what they are and can talk about it in open session. The City has been talking about this for a long time and it is a need. It is a 40 year old building and we are growing. The site is important and he prefers the Highway 40/Hampton Inn site. The City has vetted 29 sites and the City is trying to achieve two points of entry for the Station. The Hampton Inn site also gets us farther along with Emerald Park access. The City can continue to wait but the Police Department is working out of a 6,000 square foot building that does not work well and is not safe. The Police Department is an asset to the community and it is time to do something. It would be very hard for a Police Station to pass in a public vote, but they are there when you need them.

Council Member Macys does not want to go into executive session; she does not think the information is too proprietary. When you look at the alternatives there are two radical choices. It feels like it is either “all in or all out”. She would like to find some middle ground. She would like the Forest Service site to be considered as well. Lastly there are only five Council members seated and this will only take a vote of three. She would like to slow down and think about the design after discussion about the land.

Council Member Ford would like to look further at the design. Are there things we can do without? Have the sites been ranked? This would be the largest capital expenditure made in 150 years and he would like the ability to be methodical.

Council Member Reisman sees this as a question of need and we need a new police station. There are different reasons and efficiencies but they pale in comparison to the safety need. In light of recent national events, the safety of the people who keep us safe needs to be a priority. He has a hard time hearing that a 20 year conversation is all of a sudden seen as rushed. The need is there and it has been ignored. He agrees that it is a huge responsibility to spend this money but that is why Council was elected. It is not easy and has come with a lot of forethought. Lastly he is proud of being able to build it without having to borrowing money.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller agrees that this is a need and has been discussed for seven years. He does not understand the desire to slow down. He stated that he appreciated the Yampa Street discussion because it could have a higher and better use. He agrees that it is a “big spend” but the City has saved for it and has the cash.

Council Member Macys would like to have this discussion after the executive session.

13.a.4


5

City Council President Pro Tem Myller asked if the City is done designing. Ms. Hinsvark stated that this is absolutely conceptual at this point. Council Member Magill asked Council Member Ford where he thinks we need to go. The Council did rank the sites and the City hosted a website with extensive information about all 29 sites. Does Council Member Ford want to see square footage per officer, crime stats, etc.? He agrees that it would be better to have a 5/0 vote on the site but if Council members want more information they need to ask for it. Additionally, slow down until when?

Council Member Ford stated that this project “hung” on the parked project list and was going to stay there until the issue of a potential sale of the building to BAP came up. That was the catalyst. What it comes down to is that Council could emerge from the Executive Session with none of the sites working. Is Council willing to reset and look at remodeling downtown?

Council Member Macys stated that one reason to slow down is that the Hilltop parcel was ranked number 1 at one time. The features of the site allow for an indoor training and a shooting range. She is not convinced the site was thoroughly considered and thinks that it should be in the competition. Additionally there is a different District Ranger now.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that there are 29 sites that are viable and staff has honed them down to three through a rigorous process. At one time the TIC site was the favorite, then it was the Rita Valentine site, then the Forest Service site. Staff has worked collaboratively with District Ranger Chad Stewart as it did with the past District Ranger. The site was dismissed due to the grade and the need for two access roads. The grades made it more expensive and it doesn’t have utilities. For these reasons the site paled in comparison.

Mr. Rae stated that additionally the six foot sidewalk along the property added to the costs, as well as the switchbacks and grades. The City engineer looked at the site very attentively.

Council Member Macys stated that it was dismissed because it is expensive yet we have no idea of the costs of the other sites? Ms. Hinsvark stated that the City would have to buy this site in one way or another and staff can only do so much vetting on each site because it is expensive. The criteria for site evaluation are on the website.

Council Member Magill asked if Council would like to discuss more sites with the entire Council; go backwards in order to go forward? Council needs to direct staff on the next step.

MOTION: Council Member Reisman moved and Council Member Magill seconded to approve the conceptual design.

Discussion during the motion:

13.a.5


6

Council Member Macys needs assurance that the City is not missing out on the Forest Service site. She would like to use staff resources to save money. This could be a “win win” and could take more time.

Council Member Reisman stated that the Forest Service site does not allow the best use of the building when you talk about access. It was vetted and it was not a good site.

The motion carried 3/2. Council Members Macys and Ford opposed. Council Members Kounovsky and Connell stepped down.

Council Members Kounovsky and Connell returned to the meeting.

3. Future of the Iron Horse.

Ms. Small stated that the collateral obligation for the debt on the Iron Horse was moved to the Public Works campus which relieves the Iron Horse from restraints. The Iron Horse has been operated under a variety of scenarios and is now being used as a dorm. It was a successful conversion and the Sheraton has rented almost all of the rooms. The City has spent $400,000 in capital improvements. If Council wishes to continue with the status quo, the Sheraton may want to rent it again in the summer and following winter. So staff is seeking direction on next steps; put out an RFP to redevelop, take bids to sell it or status quo?

Council Member Ford stated that he was surprised to hear that the Sheraton is subleasing some of the rooms. Ms. Small stated yes. Council Member Ford asked if the City was aware of that. Ms. Small stated yes. The Sheraton could not fill the rooms with their staff so they subleased some rooms. It was a part of their business model in which they needed to guarantee housing for their employees not knowing how many rooms it would need.

Council Member Macys spoke to the request for quote (RFQ) in 2008 that the City did it with the idea of mixed ownership, rental by developer and public/private partnership. Ms. Small stated that the 2008 process was long and thoroughly vetted. It looked to redevelop but the mainly the responses were for affordable housing scenarios. There was no way that the City wasn’t going to have to give money to make these scenarios work.

Council Member Macys stated that it bothers her that the purchase included $1 million for renovations and the money was not spent that way. Where did the $600,000 go that was financed? Is it accessible? Ms. Weber stated that Council at that time voted and approved to use the money to make the first three years of debt service and this was approved by the lender.

13.a.6


7

Council Member Ford stated that the City used borrowed money to pay the loan. Ms. Weber stated yes. There was no desire by Council to invest the money in the facility.

Council Member Magill asked if there is the possibility of a year round lease. Ms. Small stated that staff is still talking to the Sheraton; they have not said no.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Mark Scully stated that the timing of real estate is very important. There was no transaction to be had in 2008 and 2009, but now is the best time to dispose of an asset. There could be a “p3 rider”, not put it on the tax rolls and flow through to the residents of the affordable housing property.

Mr. Steven Caragol believes that affordable housing is critical and there are not many projects in the mountains because construction costs are high. He urged Council to explore the opportunity to use the Iron Horse for affordable housing and suggested rent caps.

Council Member Magill stated that justification for ownership is applicable now and the City needs to decide if it wants to be in the hotel or affordable housing business and now we are a landlord. He believes that this is a good parcel for affordable housing and an opportunity for redevelopment; the problem is that we have a $5 million note. What is the best use for the public? He thinks it would be better as a five story apartment building because it is a good location. He would like to accept competitive proposals for redevelopment because he does not want to be in a landlord situation.

Council Member Ford stated that the City needs to decide if it wants to be in workforce housing or a different path. The economy has changed and there is a workforce shortage. However, he does not think that this is an essential City service.

Council Member Reisman stated that he sees this as a question the role of government versus a financial question.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller stated that this needs to be analyzed without the $5 million debt. Do we sell it, keep it or give it away? He needs to look at the numbers and he could consider investing in affordable housing.

Council Member Connell stated that the City should go through parallel paths in the interim to maximize cash flow. There may be a development opportunity where there is no risk to the City. He may not be “married” to affordable housing but there may be some opportunities that are not deed restricted.

Council Member Macys spoke to the disposition of assets and she does not want to look at one asset alone. The up side of selling may not be there and we have seen that the needs and purposes for which it was originally acquired are real and they are back.

13.a.7


8

The City could go back to workforce housing for the bus drivers as part of the compensation package. There may also be government money for redevelopment for affordable housing. She is attachment to the intent of affordable housing because there is a need.

City Council President Kounovsky does not want to be in the affordable housing business. This is an asset and at some point soon the City needs to look at partnership as long as there is no risk to the City for divestiture. He does not want look at it in a short time frame and would like to see some ideas from the community and does not want to constrain the ideas to only affordable housing.

MOTION: Council Member Magill moved and Council Member Macys seconded to direct staff to come back with an RFQ for partnership, purchase or development.


Council Member Reisman would like to add continuing the conversation with the Sheraton for a longer term lease. This may be a commodity that someone wants to “lock up”.

Council Member Macys clarified that the RFQ will not be limited. Council Member Magill stated yes and that he would like to see the RFQ (to include the current use) on the February 24, 2015 agenda.

The motion carried 7/0.

4. Sustainability Update.

Mr. Earp provided a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the following: sustainability history; options to move forward; internal plan; STAR community rating system; built by and for local governments; STAR communities; other communities; bringing in a consultant; and the pros and cons of each option.

Council Member Ford asked for an estimate of staff time. Mr. Earp stated that most communities that use STAR have a coordinator that spends 10 hours a week on it for a year; however it can range. The City does already have a framework. Council Member Ford asked if it would be between .25 and .5 full time equivalent (FTE). Mr. Earp stated yes, that is a good estimate. Council Member Ford asked how much the audit costs. Mr. Earp stated that if the City becomes a “leadership community” we would have the ability to access their information; they would help us research and do the audit all for $7,500.

Council Member Ford asked what the advantage of achieving a 3 star rating is; bragging rights? Or will we then want to be a 4 star? Mr. Earp stated that that could be discussed after the audit; however we could use it to leverage grants in the future.

13.a.8


9

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Ms. Sarah Jones, Yampa Valley Sustainability Council (YVSC), endorses the STAR community approach because it provides the best opportunities, the metrics are clear and vetted and the City can get points for work that is already done. This is National recognition, but sustainability also increases livability and cost savings. This program allows us to play to our strength and the knowledge base is way beyond anything we have locally. The City could leverage and also transition from City to community.

Ms. Angela Ashby, YVSC, provided a historical perspective noting that they have had many meetings in the past on metrics and standards and would just “spin their wheels”. She encouraged Council to move forward.

Ms. Catherine Carson, YVSC, thanked Council, Mr. Earp and the Green Team. She supports the program because of the measurements and the flexibility to personalize it. This is a great opportunity for Nationwide accountability.

Mr. John Fielding commended the City for being involved in this. He would like to see a substitute for the recycling drop off at Safeway. He would also like to see relaxation of zoning to encourage urban farming (to allow for the construction of greenhouse structures) and the production of wholesome food.

Mr. Roger Stein is pleased to see the City being active in environmental efforts. He thinks the STAR program is a nice tool because it already has established metrics. He noted that another benefit is that tourists are looking for environmentally sensitive resorts and we don’t want to be behind on that.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Bill Whitmore voiced concern with the poor bus service is this winter. He stated that he can’t understand why Council decided to change it and encouraged them to change it back as soon as possible. He suggested financing the transit system with additional sales tax.

Ms. Lexi Miller voiced concern with the elimination of yellow line and stated that the new schedule has affected people all over town. Mountain employees have to drive and people are waiting for over an hour. People are losing faith in the bus and these budget cuts could be fatal to the bus line. If the bus is not reliable then ridership will go down and the changes have been detrimental.

Mr. Bill Pass stated that the posted schedules are not achievable so people are often stranded and people are using their cars more. The biggest impacts are on those who don’t have the option to drive, locals and tourists. He voiced concern with safety, tardiness, impacts on business, negative feedback, and increased drinking and driving.

13.a.9


10

Mr. Alan Sills stated that the new bus service is dangerous and destructive and it was a short sighted decision. He voiced concern that bus drivers are calling in sick because they are stressed and if tourists are not happy they will go elsewhere. He suggested renting a van and hiring a driver that does not need a commercial driver’s license (CDL) to do a Stockbridge/campground loop.

Unknown speaker supports getting the funding back to get more drivers.

Mr. Shawn Allen stated that it seems that the City is not thinking about the people who actually work here and make everything work.

Ms. Candace Noriega stated that the City has done Steamboat Springs a disservice with the ridiculous bus service. People are frustrated and the drivers need to have a break. Winter carnival will be a mess and the hotels west of town are hurting because skiers can't get to the mountain.

Mr. Luke Tellier suggested charging a bus fare.

Mr. John Fielding suggested that the City “roll back” restrictions in order to increase the availability of less expensive housing. The City’s tap fees are prohibitive.

Mr. Jim Moochey, manager at KOA, stated that the transit system is unacceptable because people sometimes have to wait an hour to an hour and a half. It is time to take action.

Return to the sustainability agenda item:

Council Member Macys stated that the STAR program provides information that cities incorporate in adopted plans and reports and the information is in a digestible format and good for the public. She is not too concerned with the number of stars; the City can benchmark and decide where it wants to be. Additionally, Colorado Mountain College (CMC) is interested in partnering with the City on this. In terms of staff time, much of the work has already been done. She stated that the Colorado Municipal League (CML) Local Resilience Task Force is talking about the food production issue brought up by Fielding.

Council Member Reisman would like clarification on how this would roll out internally and how it relates to the existing Green Team. Mr. Earp stated that it is made up of the areas that we need to collect data in so it would be split up and then the Green Team would go line by line and figure out what the actions are. Council Member Reisman asked if there is a need for a coordinator. Mr. Earp stated that he was just providing reasonable expectations of timing and staff time. Council Member Reisman stated that he can support option 2 and he likes the customization part of it. His concern is the rating system because it may move into something that is outside of the scope of what we are trying to accomplish, chasing another organization’s criteria.

13.a.10


11

Council Member Connell stated that he appreciates staff executing Council’s strategic plan and he likes the data and measure. He also likes the STAR program, the discipline and the best practices; however he thought there would be more cost data; every department will have sustainability time, commitment and measurement that should be budgeted. He would like to do internal preparation, look long term and add it to the budget. Also we need to ask why, what are the solutions for?

Council Member Magill agrees with Council Member Connell. Option #1 is the only thing he could recommend for 2015. The STAR program looks interesting however there is an unknown cost factor. He doesn’t think we could go in that direction at this time but he thinks we could move forward. By following in house stuff then we could be ready for consideration next year.

Council Member Ford stated that he is intrigued; if we measure what will we want to improve?

Council Member Macys caution on trying to do stuff in house that stars can do.

MOTION: Council Member Reisman moved and Council Member Macys seconded to direct staff to focus on option 2 for the STARS program; hold off on full involvement and bring back full costs.


Council Member Connell would like the costs for all three options.

Council Member Reisman asked Council if there is any appetite for option 3? Council Member Macys stated that she is totally opposed to hiring a consultant and only supports options 1 and 2. She would also like to know what staff will not be working on when they are working on this?

Council Member Reisman stated that staff’s workplan is not his purview, but he would like to see the costs associated. City Council President Kounovsky stated that he may be interested in a consultant or temporary help to look at that but not sustainability.

Council Member Reisman: FRIENDLY AMENDMENET: Staff to bring costs on options 1 and 2.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that as staff looks at the costs it would also look at temporary help.

Council Member Magill stated that he opposed the motion. He thinks the City is doing a good job and can continue to do so in-house.

The motion carried 6/1. Council Member Magill opposed.

13.a.11


12

CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS

There were no items scheduled for this portion of the agenda.

PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE SECOND READINGS

5. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance amending Article III of Chapter 19 of the Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code relating to wildlife resistant containers; providing an effective date; and setting a hearing date.

City Council President Kounovsky read the ordinance title into the record.

Mr. Earp stated that staff added language the language directed at the last meeting about the International Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) approved containers. Staff is currently looking at containers for City parks and potential options of recycling and trash side by side.

Council Member Reisman asked if route time will increase with the implementation of residential containers. Steve Weinland, Aces High, estimated about 10-15%.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. John Fielding stated that there are two issues, a bear problem and a container solution. He suggested that trash haulers offer the option to rent the containers and he thinks that the IGBC certified container is overkill. He also thinks that there should be leeway for other types of containers that are already working. He stated that keeping them out of the trash will only solve the trash spills; they may start to enter homes. We need them to leave town and we need a repellant program. He urged Council to consider the issues separately.

Mr. Chuck McConnell voiced concern that this ordinance would pull $500,000 out of the economies of the people who live here. He has never had a problem with bears and it is not fair for those who don’t have a problem to have to pay for it. The company making the containers is the only one who will benefit. He suggested having Council buy the containers for the citizens. Additionally the cost of a longer route time may be passed on to customers. He suggested making it voluntary.

Mr. Dave McGurben thinks this is a reasonable first step. The City’s bear/trash measures are out dated and have not been enforced. He suggested a price break if containers are purchased in bulk and noted that maybe people can share a bin. Additionally, there may be local craftsman that could alter existing containers. We will also need bear proof containers for recycling as well.

13.a.12


13

Mr. Paul Stettner stated that bears are here to stay and encouraged Council to hold off on this as it has a lot of details and the community needs to be well informed. This needs a program outline and the issues need to be prioritized. He suggested starting with restaurants and grocery stores and to take it one step at a time.

Ms. Mary Liz Gale stated that she only had one problem with bears the whole time she has lived here and she figured out how to fix it; the trash cans stays in the garage. She stated that she would be offended to be told that she has to spend money correcting a problem that she does not have. She stated that land owners should be responsible not renters and that recyclables should also be included.

Mr. Jim Hicks stated that the problem is that people put their containers out overnight. Bear proof containers will go a long way to solve the problem and there are cheaper containers available. The main issue is composting.

Mr. Roddy Beall stated that he grew up here and wildlife is very important; we are not the only kid on the block. He stated that they made their compost and trash containers bear proof. The containers have lids and latches and it has worked for three years at about $50. You can do a lot of good without it costing too much.

Mr. Marlin Mullet, Twin Enviro Landfill, stated that requiring all residents to have bear proof containers is very burdensome and not necessary for everyone. There are many individual solutions. He asked that Council reconsider the residential element.

Ms. Angela Ashby stated that many multi-dwelling complexes have dumpsters and noted that it is the humans that need to be trained. She noted the need to look at fines and to involve property management companies.

Council Member Riesman stated that he has “flipped” on this ordinance. He thinks the costs to the customer were underestimated (containers and the slower routes). He does not think it is right to make people pay who are not having a problem because there are many people who do the right thing. He spoke to the larger issue of food waste and recycling. If people remove food waste from trash then the containers are not necessary. We need to be partners with the haulers because they are the ones who see who is not following the rules. Maybe the haulers could communicate code enforcement? He would like to jumpstart the commercial regulations and postpone the residential portion.

Council Member Macys stated that there are three elements to this: the City, commercial and residential. She would like to move forward with either the City or commercial first.

Council Member Magill would like to postpone the whole thing. He gets that there is a timeline with spring but it does need to be spilt up and it comes down to enforcement. He suggested having an open house on the ordinance.

13.a.13


14

MOTION: Council Member Magill moved and Council Member Ford seconded to table this item to the first meeting in February.

The motion failed 3/4. Council Members Kounovsky, Myller, Macys and Reisman opposed.

MOTION: Council Member Macys moved and City Council President Pro Tem Myller seconded to support moving forward with the City portion.


Council Member Reisman asked if this should include recycling. Council Member Macys does not believe recycling is a part of the issue because the bears are not sustaining themselves on what is in the recycling. But they are sustaining themselves on what is in the trash.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that the estimated costs do not include recycling.

Council Member Reisman would like to see a cost estimate on recycling containers.


Council Member Macys supports the commercial elements of the ordinance.

Mr. Lettunich stated that Council can postpone the ordinance with direction to revise it only focusing on commercial or Council could deny the second reading and direct staff to start over.

Mr. Rae stated that the current ordinance “on the books” addresses commercial.

MOTION: City Council President Pro Tem Myller moved and Council Member Connell seconded to deny the second reading and direct staff to come back with an ordinance addressing commercial.


Council Member Macys stated that it is interesting to go from a 6/1 vote on first reading to denying the ordinance. If this is denied she wants to make sure it is on the calendar to look at this. There was a collaborative effort on this and there has been significant positive community feedback.

City Council President Kounovsky stated that the denial is purely procedural. The intent is to bring an ordinance back that addresses commercial.

The motion carried 6/1. Council Member Macys opposed.

13.a.14


15

Council Member Connell spoke to education and volunteer recommendations and the need to enforce and monitor the number of visits, costs and to benchmark. He stated that the commercial latch is not consistent and spoke to commercial enclosures, camera technology and illegal dumping. He suggested changing the existing language to say “resistant” instead of “proof”. He noted the need to take out references to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Parks and Wildlife because we are not using their standards. He also likes allowing people to “MacGyver” alternatives.

Council Member Macys would like to support the Police Department enforcing the fines.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller stated that the commercial use language in the proposed ordinance was a starting point. Mr. Rae stated that it still needs to be “tweaked”; the current language is enforceable but is has not been enforced. The proposed language is proposed.

MOTION: City Council President Pro Tem Myller moved and Council Member Reisman seconded direct staff to bring back an ordinance addressing commercial only.

Mr. Rae noted that the current ordinance allows people without a container to store their refuse in their garage.

Council Member Reisman added the FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to have staff come back with a new commercial ordinance and have the existing residential language stay in place.

The motion carried 6/1. Council Member Magill opposed.

Council Member Reisman would like to see solutions at a future meeting to enhance enforcement, but not necessarily from the Police Department, maybe there are some potential partnerships. Council Member Macys stated that we do have existing ordinance. Ms. Hinsvark stated that the existing ordinance can’t be enforced. The ordinance needs to be subjective and clear and it would still be hard to enforce because of the logistics of covering a 10 square mile area. We need to “beef up” enforcement in order to make a difference and staff can come back with some ideas but would most likely be asking for funds, potentially for Community Service Officers (CSO) to do the enforcement. Mr. Rae stated that there are three different trash companies to coordinate pick up days in the 10 square mile area. In some cases the officer would have to go into to a trash container to see what is in it to see if there is a violation, and Police Officers can’t do that if the container is in the driveway because it’s on private property and would need a search warrant. The bottom line is the police officers do not have time to do that.

13.a.15


16

Council Member Macys stated that the ordinance was on the books and enforceable. Council Member Reisman stated that it was not enforceable in a way to make a difference.

DIRECTION: Staff to bring back information on what is “doable” on the realm of enforcement and at what cost.

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT

No report was provided.

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

A written report was provided.

CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS:

6. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance to amend Sections 26-92: Use Classifications, 26-145: Special Setback Standards, 26-402: Definitions and Use Criteria; and add Section 26-140: Outdoor Display and Storage.

City Council President Kounovsky read the ordinance title into the record.

MOTION: City Council President Pro Tem Myller moved and Council Member Connell seconded to approve an ordinance to amend Sections 26-92: Use Classifications, 26-145: Special Setback Standards, 26-402: Definitions and Use Criteria; and add Section 26-140: Outdoor Display and Storage.


PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. James Pavlik stated that he owns a retail business in an industrial zone area. They take great pride in their business and are concerned with not requiring screening between properties. This is necessary for those who do not take pride in their business.

Ms. Loretta Van Norstrand concerned about changes to the Community Development Code (CDC) and a pattern of changes not reviewed by the community. The process has been stepped down and it makes it possible for staff to make changes at their whim. Additionally, adjacent property owner notification is not taking place and people have to look in the paper for notification of changes to the CDC. Their neighbors business is a junk lot and needs to be screened. She asked why this was it not enforced for a year and why Council allowed that without public input.

13.a.16


17

Ms. Stauffer stated that enforcement of the screening requirement for outdoor storage was suspended in 2014 while staff looked at revising regulations. The decision to suspend enforcement went through a public process that included three public hearings and was decided on by City Council. Staff has recommended to not require screening in between properties that are of the same zoning, in the industrial zone district because it is anticipated that all uses within an industrial district would be similar and compatible; screening is required between properties that are not zoned the same and it has a different character than others in the area.

Council Member Reisman sees what they are saying. City Council President Kounovsky recalled that Council direction to staff was that screening requirements between properties was burdensome in the industrial area. Planning Commission approved the change 6/0 there was notice and public process.

7. PROJECT: DP-14-09 Alpenglow Condos Units C4 & C5. PETITION: Conditional use to locate office use (brokerage and financial services) on the pedestrian level.LOCATION: 601 Lincoln Avenue. APPLICANT: Alpenglow, LLC. PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: Approved 6/0 on December 11, 2014.

City Council President Kounovsky read the project into the record.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller removed this item from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller asked if the request is to have both units c4 and c5 carry this office use. Did the Planning Commission only want one?

Ms. Bessey stated that this is a development plan for conditional use for office space. The applicant requested approval of the conditional use for office in two units. Unit C4 currently houses a nail salon and C5 is vacant. Planning staff had concerns about approval of office use in the unit that currently has a commercial tenant. Staff did provide a couple of optional motions for Planning Commission to consider. One of those was to approve the conditional use for both units, or to approve the conditional use for only one of the units. The Planning Commission’s motion was to recommend approval of office use in both units for seven years. Along with that they recommended approval of a variance of one required parking space.

CONDITION:

1. The Conditional Use approval shall be limited to a term of seven (7) years from the date of the approval, at which time the applicant shall have to apply for and receive approval of a new Conditional Use permit in order to continue the use.

13.a.17


18

MOTION: City Council President Pro Tem Myller moved and Council Member Magill seconded to approve the Alpenglow Condos development plan conditional use to locate office use (brokerage and financial services) on the pedestrian level with condition 1.


PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS

There were no items scheduled for this portion of the agenda.

REPORTS

8. City Council

Council Member Macys asked if Council supports putting the transit issue on a future agenda. Council Member Reisman stated yes. He agrees that this is a serious problem and does not feel that he made the best decision. He asked if staff has any solutions right now.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that the City could not have recruited any more drivers than what we have now; we are lucky to have what we have now. If we tried to run the old route with this amount of drivers it would be worse. Mr. Flint is looking into the driver issues. Council Member Reisman stated that the delays are burdensome and asked if we should change the posted times just so people know when buses come. Ms. Hinsvark stated that we are currently short three drivers for this route.

Mr. Anderson stated that staff will look into contract shuttle service that may help the situation.

Council Member Macys asked if there is the possibility to partner with other municipalities who have similar vehicles. She wants to solve the problem now and into the future.

Council Member Magill noted that this is not just financial; we just do not have the drivers. The City was proactive to reduce the schedule knowing that there weren’t enough drivers. Nevertheless, it has been negative. He noted the need to look for funding to support our bus service. Council Member Macys suggested looking at the Local Marketing District. She is committed to solving this problem.

Council Member Connell noted the need to look at a financing mechanism. He believes this was an emergency before Christmas and he does not believe there is nothing we can do. There must be temporary services and recruiters that could be utilized.

13.a.18


19

Ms. Hinsvark stated that staff is working to solve the issue.

9. Reports

a. Agenda Review:

1. Regular Meeting January 20, 2015. 2. Regular Meeting February 3, 2015.

Council reviewed the above agendas.

10. Staff Reports

a. City Attorney’s Update/Report.

Mr. Lettunich had no report.

b. City Manager’s Report: Ongoing Projects.

Ms. Hinsvark provided a written report.

Council Member Macys asked about the Yampa Valley Housing Authority (YVHA) update and if the infrastructure funding for the Fish Creek Trailer Park is complete; a $480,000 loan that was immediately forgiven? Ms. Hinsvark stated yes. It was the Water Authority. Council Member Macys asked wasn’t that supposed to be a loan that was paid over time? City Council President Kounovsky stated that this part was always going to be immediately forgiven. Ms. Hinsvark stated that the City is subordinate to the loan but it was forgiven.

Council Member Ford spoke to the fact that the City is looking for committee volunteers and suggested having the chair of each committee let Council know what they are looking for. This may help Council fill the positions.

Council Member Reisman voiced concern with bias once Council knows who the candidates are. It may be helpful to have that information well in advance of the interviews. City Council President Kounovsky supports having a representative or the group come to Council for ideas and thoughts on what they think they need. Or perhaps a paragraph from the committee.

Council Member Connell asked about the 18 worker’s compensation claims. Ms. Small stated she will report back with that data as well as how staff plans to address the issue.

13.a.19


20

OLD BUSINESS

11. Minutes

a. Regular Meeting 2014-22, November 18, 2014.

MOTION: Council Member Macys moved and Council Member Magill seconded to approve Regular Meeting 2014-22, November 18, 2014.


b. Regular Meeting 2014-21, December 2, 2014.

MOTION: Council Member Macys moved and Council Member Magill seconded to approve Regular Meeting 2014-21, December 2, 2014.


c. Regular Meeting 2014-22, December 16, 2014.

MOTION: Council Member Macys moved and City Council President Pro Tem Myller seconded to approve Regular Meeting 2014-22, December 16, 2014.


EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE SESSION: To discuss the topics set forth below. The specific citations to the provisions of C.R.S. §24-6-402, subsection (4) that authorize the City Council to meet in an executive session are set out below. The description of the topic is intended to identify the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized:

a. A discussion regarding possible acquisition and sale of real property related to the relocation of the fire department and police department.

§24-6-402(4)(a). The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; except that no executive session shall be held for the purpose of concealing the fact that a member of the local public body has a personal interest in such purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale;

13.a.20


21

§24-6-402(4)(b). Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. Mere presence or participation of an attorney at an executive session of the local public body is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this subsection; and

§24-6-402(4)(e). Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators.

City Council President Kounovsky and Connell down.

MOTION: Council Member Magill moved and Council Member Reisman seconded to approve to go into Executive Session for the reasons set forth above.

The motion carried 3/2. Council Members Ford and Macys opposed. However a vote of 4/1 is required to go into Executive Session.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that the City gets the “best bang” when it can discuss real estate acquisitions in Executive Session but staff is prepared to discuss this issue publicly.

Council Member Magill stated that if the City puts together a bid and discusses it publicly then the seller has an advantage.

Council Member Macys asked if other Council members have information of the prices for the properties. Council Members Reisman, Myller, Magill and Ford stated no.

Council Member Ford believes that this process needs to be very transparent. Macys is concerned that this is a very limited group that is able to make a decision on this and she wants to err on the side of transparency.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that a few weeks ago members of the team met with a man named Will Welch from Fort Collins who was recommended by Council Member Connell. She soon learned that he brings a wealth of information that could assist in site selection. Additionally, he is Council Member Connell’s brother in law.

Mr. Lettunich clarified that there are no limitations to this public discussion; the normal rules apply. If a group or person involved in a negotiation wanted it in Executive Session then that would need to happen. But that is not the case here.

Council Member Macys asked how close Council needs to stick to the topic. Mr. Lettunich stated real estate acquisition for a Police Station.

13.a.21


22

Ms. Hinsvark stated that Council Member Connell has stepped down from the discussion due to his investment in one of the properties, but the truth is that he stands to never receive any return on his investment. For this reason she was comfortable with hiring Mr. Welch to talk to Council about the pros and cons of each site. Council Member Ford asked if the City is compensating Mr. Welch. Ms. Hinsvark stated yes.

Council Member Reisman asked if staff really could not find anyone else to do this type of work. Ms. Hinsvark stated not with this level of expertise.

Council Member Magill stated that he thinks this is a mistake and is too close to home. However he is okay with going through the information on the spreadsheet provided by Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch noted that he has no interest in Council Member Connell's business. He is not aware of it, they haven’t talked about it and Council Member Connell has not seen this spreadsheet. He was charged to look at these two sites and took the data provided to him by staff and analyzed it. The first thing is the appraisal that the City commissioned. It is also based on the landmark drawings for each site.

He explained the layout of the spreadsheet and stated that the information bolded is what people usually ask about. He spoke to land area.

Council Member Macys asked in determining what is developable, are wetlands excluded? Mr. Welch stated that there are a little bit of wetlands impacted. There is a huge bank that goes up the back of that property. So the developable acres do include wetlands? Mr. Welch stated yes.

Mr. Welch continued stating that the civil engineer is estimating that 3.38 acres of Highway 40 is developable and 2.26. So you need to understand the assumptions that are in the appraisal. The other thing to remember is that everything is based on cost, scope and schedule. The scope of the land needs to be understood before you start talking about money.

Mr. Welch spoke to asking land cost, the Highway 40 site is $1,300,000 and Fox Creek is $975,000. These numbers are based on discussions in July 2014.

He explained the amount added to the building costs and the appraised land value. The Fox Creek appraisal assumes that there is only 43,563 square feet of buildable, that’s why the appraisal is so low.

13.a.22


23

Council Member Reisman asked if the asking land costs are also from July, if so that is the number we are working off of? Ms. Hinsvark stated yes. Council Member Macys stated that she is challenged by seeing four times the appraised land value on one, asking price versus appraised value. Mr. Welch stated that the reality is that under the asking price, both of these land owners bought their land at the height of the market. The Highway 40 property was purchased for $1,525,000 and Fox Creek $1 million.

Mr. Welch then explained the common land costs and that the cost of zoned Community Commercial (CC) property that is listed and available is $18-20 a square foot. Council Member Ford asked if it is possible to break that down by zones. Mr. Welch stated yes. Ms. Hinsvark asked where the CC zoned land is in the City. Mr. Gibbs stated that it is primarily along south Lincoln to City Market.

What follows is an assessment of the lands themselves in text and reviews and approvals required. The Highway 40 site needs a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) approved emergency access off 40. The access is drawn but not yet approved and CDOT could say no. On the Fox Creek site there are wetlands impacted that will require an administrative review. The needed second curb cut is on Hilltop Parkway and there would need to be a setback variance. He stated that there are wetlands on the Highway 40 site but they are minimally impacted.

He noted that Council needs to remember not to talk about this project like a commercial building. It is a Police facility in a commercial zone. So as Council assesses the site they need to assess it in terms of security issues rather than views.

Mr. Welch then reviewed the positive and negative property characteristics. Highway 40’s positive characteristics are that it has the Highway 40 frontage and visibility which is very important, utilities are available, and the site can be “over parked” and allow parking for Emerald Park. Positives for Fox Creek are Hilltop Parkway frontage and visibility and utilities are available.

Negative aspects from a commercial basis for Highway 40 there was a preliminary soils report that was done five or six years ago that shows that there is uncontrolled fill and there would need to be a specialty foundation system for that building at that site. So that is a cost that would need to be dealt with. CDOT still needs to approve and the site is a little low in relation to US 40 (from the assessor’s evaluation). In talking to the architect today, based on the design, they no longer believe that to be true. They believe that the grade for the building pad will approximate the grade for Highway 40. Fox Creek has steep, unusable areas on the back perimeter; both curb cuts are proposed on the same street which is not desirable from a life/safety standpoint. There are extensive cuts and fills required and there are multiple existing easements. In addition there is a sewer main that bisects the property that the parking lot would be built over; if the sewer main were to erupt they will come in and fix it and the parking lot and improvements that are in that easement.

13.a.23


24

There is also a creek that bisects the property that would have to be piped which is a fairly good expense and would add a risk to the City because there would be a water conveyance structure under the parking lot.

Council Member Reisman stated that page 2-14 of the packet where costs are broken down, there was just one price for the cost of the building ($350 a square foot) which bumped up when things like the access road are added in. For the two different sites is there a cost difference that these negative characteristics present? Mr. Welch stated yes. Council Member Reisman asked if he did any calculation of that. Mr. Welch stated no, he was not asked to do that. Council Member Macys asked if Bill Rangitsch may have some insight into that.

Mr. Rangitsch stated that the numbers provided are based on the Highway 40 site which is simpler and more straight forward. Negatives to the site that are more expensive would be above and beyond these numbers. On the site work it would probably be 50% higher cause of the fill that needs to be done on the Hilltop site. Ms. Hinsvark asked if there are other offsets to other things that keep us at the $8.2/$8.3 number. Mr. Rangitsch stated that there were offsets on the Hilltop site because there is not as much parking. Mr. Welch stated that one other negative factor is expansion of the building on the Fox Creek site is much more difficult because of the easements and physical restrictions on the site. Expanding the building in the future would be much more difficult. There are places on the Highway 40 site where they have laid out phases that could be done because of that sites geometry and topography it is a much easier site to expand on.

Council Member Macys asked if we take into consideration adjacent land uses and impacts to adjacent land owners when looking at these sites. Mr. Rangitsch stated that it would have to go through the Planning process but for the Highway 40 site there is the hotel to the north and vacant land and the Pet Care. To the west is Emerald Mountain Park and across the highway is the Highway House. Downhill of the Hilltop property are the car repair shop and the Forest Service property; uphill has a greenspace area, affordable housing units and small office developments.

Mr. Welch stated that from his experience in Police stations and the Police Chiefs that he has worked with, he would not consider the Hilltop site because of the height ground on two sides, making it very exposed. He wonders if the Forest Service property would have that same type of condition. The Highway 40 site does not have that concern and also has high visibility. The other positive is the potential two street accesses if you can get CDOT approval.

Positive aspects of Fox Creek from a police perspective: desirable location in the City, visible from Highway 40.

He did not really have any police negatives for Highway 40. Fox Creek is not on a main street, is surrounded by high ground, and having both accesses from a single street.

13.a.24


25

Council Member Reisman asked about the potential of getting CDOT approval for a second access.

Council Member Magill stated that we did a West of Steamboat Access Plan on consolidating accesses but we would be able to do 200-400 feet apart so they would accept that access. Mr. Rae stated that that is his understanding. And if it is not when we first went into site development for this site both access points were off of the side street; it would be the new street heading into Emerald Park. Due to the cut and fill that was discussed, filling that into the grade for that access made sense because we have to put the dirt somewhere.

Mr. Rangitsch stated that it would not be a regular access but more of an emergency access with a crash gate, similar to the mountain fire access.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that if she looks at the appraised value on Fox Creek at $280,000 based on the fact that the appraiser felt we could only build on an acre, is it fair to at least double that number? Mr. Welch stated that we need to go back to the appraiser and challenge some of his assumptions. Ms. Hinsvark asked if there is a reason to challenge that if we feel like there is a value to it that we can calculate. Mr. Welch stated he doesn’t know what Council’s obligation is if we have a theoretically valid appraisal on a purchase of a piece of property.

Mr. Lettunich stated that the general rule is that we shouldn’t pay more than the appraised value. The exception is if there is a “unique” parcel that is only available to the particular needs we have, like if a lot needed to be on the Yampa River that would be basis for paying more. However, appraised value is looking behind; there is some rationale to looking at what current sales are. Where there isn’t any “play” is if we were selling something we can’t sell it for less than the appraised value.

Mr. Welch stated that if that was the site that was the most desirable we could take the current site plan and could go back to the appraiser with that plan the civil engineer believes is buildable and ask if the appraiser will issue a “letter update” which would give us another 6-8 months’ worth of sales as well as a site plan that is buildable.

Ms. DelliQuadri stated that the Citizens’ Hall property was purchased by a Council that paid more than the appraised value because of the desire to have a City Hall campus.

Council Member Macys stated that Council has received a lot of information and it is very late. She would like to adjourn and think about it. Ms. Hinsvark stated that she would like more information and feedback from Council on how to go forward with negotiations; a place to start on an offer. Council Member Ford stated that he is not comfortable with that. Ms. Hinsvark stated that she would like to hear from all of Council on if there is a favorite site and what their upper limits are on price.

13.a.25


26

Council Member Magill believes that the best parcel is the US Highway 40/Hampton Inn parcel. It enhances the community and if the City could get it for less than $1 million that would be a good purchase. He stated that the Fox Creek site does not work for him.

Mr. Lettunich stated that staff is looking to know whether Council feels comfortable giving staff direction to negotiate and work on a contract with a specific number for one of the sites. If the City entered into a contract it would be conditioned upon passage of an ordinance in two readings.

Council Member Reisman asked if Council needs four votes to pass that ordinance but could approve putting together an offer with less than four votes. Mr. Lettunich confirmed that is the case.

Council Member Reisman stated that he prefers the Highway 40/Hampton site. The location is better with easier access and the second entry is key. He also likes dual service for Emerald Park. It is a better building; it is safer and allows for future expansion. His top price would be $1 million or $1.5. For Fox Creek/Hilltop his top price is $600-800,000.

City Council President Pro Tem Myller prefers the Highway 40/Hampton Inn site because of the ability to expand in the future and the connection to Emerald Park. Though he still thinks the hospital site was best. $1.15 is his top price for Highway 40 and $560,000 for Fox Creek.

Council Member Ford would like the opportunity to direct staff to look at more sites, like the Forest Service site. Also the appearance of having Council Member Connell's brother in law involved is concerning.

Council Member Macys stated that Council makes poor decisions when it’s so late. She stated that she is not a “no” just to be no against this project. However she has low confidence in how this project has been handled and she is concerned with conflict of interest. She asked about any other conflicts with Colorado Group Realty. Council Member Reisman stated that would receive no benefit from any of these sites. Council Member Macys stated that it all does not look good and her confidence is even lower. There should have been a public discussion on hiring Mr. Welch and it makes her question whether or not we can successfully do this. She does not like being pushed into a corner and told this is the only choice.

Council Member Reisman appreciates that. What he is hearing is that we are not doing this the right way and that this is not the right site. What he would like to hear from Council Member Ford and Macys in the future is what is the right way and what are the right site characteristics. What do they think the solution is? If Council agrees there is a need for a new Police Station Council needs to figure it out.

13.a.26


27

Council Member Macys stated that she did offer a different way and that was to form a citizens committee as opposed to this being driven by staff.

Council Member Reisman stated that since Council would never get a fourth vote on the Highway 40/Hampton site there is no need to send staff on a “goose chase”.

Ms. Hinsvark stated that staff does deal in absolutes and staff was given three options and staff brought two back to Council. Staff felt comfortable with working with Mr. Welch because Council Member Connell would not benefit and she was comfortable with Mr. Welch’s expertise.

Council Member Magill stated that at this point we are back to looking at 29 sites for the Police Station.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: Council Member Macys moved and Council Member Reisman seconded to adjourn Regular Meeting 2015-01 at approximately 10:45pm.


MINUTES PREPARED, REVIEWED AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

Julie Franklin, CMC City Clerk

APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2015.

13.a.27

Documents

Steamboat Springs City Council Agenda Feb. 3