Steamboat Springs City Council agenda

8/9/2019 Steamboat Springs City Council agenda

1/265

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

AGENDA

Regular Meeting NO. 2015-02Tue!a"# $anuar" 20# 2015

5%00 PM

MEETING LOCATION: Citi&en' Meeting R(()# Centennial *all+12, 10tStreet# Stea)(at S/ring# CO

MEETING PROCEDURE: C())ent r() te Puli are el()e at t( !ierentti)e !uring te (ure ( te )eeting% 13 C())ent n( l(nger tan tree 43 )inute(n ite) n(t e!ule! (n te Agen!a ill e ear! un!er Puli C())ent+ an! 23C())ent n( l(nger tan tree 43 )inute (n all e!ule! /uli earing ite) ille ear! (ll(ing te /reentati(n " Sta (r te Petiti(ner. Pleae ait until "(u arere(gni&e! " te C(unil Prei!ent.

6it te e7e/ti(n ( u8et r(ugt u/ !uring Puli C())ent# (n i n( ati(nill e ta9en (r a !eii(n )a!e# te Cit" C(unil )a" ta9e ati(n (n# an! )a" )a9e a!eii(n regar!ing# ANY ite) reerre! t( in ti agen!a# inlu!ing# it(ut li)itati(n# an"ite) reerene! (r :re;ieiu(r >iening Aut(rit" an! (ll( te attae! >iu(r>iening Aut(rit" agen!a.

At te (nlui(n ( te Stea)(at S/ring >iu(r >iene Aut(rit" Meeting# te Cit" C(unilill re(n;ene a te Stea)(at S/ring Cit" C(unil an! /r(ee! it te (ll(ing agen!a%


2/265

COMMUNIT- REPORT,4CIT- COUNCIL DI,CU,,ION TOPIC:

5# URA Di)cu))ion# (E!rp4Gibb)*

6# Up!te !n Direction on A&&or!ble +ou)in'# (Gibb)4Pe!)le7*

8# Communit7 ,upport Alloc!tion Up!te# (9eber*

CON,ENT CALENDAR: MOTION,$ RE,OLUTION, AND ORDINANCE, /IR,TREADING,

ITEMS ON T*E CONSENT CA>EN@AR GENERA>>Y RED=IRE >ITT>E CO=NCI>@E>IBERATION AN@ MAY BE APPROE@ 6IT* A SING>E MOTION. ANY MEMBER OF T*ECO=NCI> OR T*E P=B>IC MAY 6IT*@RA6 ANY ITEM FROM T*E CONSENT CA>EN@ARFOR F=RT*ER @ISC=SSION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO APPROA>.

# /IR,T READING O/ ORDINANCE: An orin!nce !pprovin' !Decl!r!tion o& Re)trictive Coven!nt !n Di)cl!imer t%!t moi&ie) Cit7ri'%t) in cert!in propert7 owne b7 t%e ,te!mbo!t +e!lt% !nRecre!tion A))oci!tion !n proviin' !n e&&ective !te# (Delli.u!ri*

2# /IR,T READING O/ ORDINANCE: An orin!nce !menin' Article III o&C%!pter 5; o& t%e ,te!mbo!t ,prin') Revi)e Municip!l Coe rel!tin'to willi&e re)i)t!nt cont!iner)< proviin' !n e&&ective !te< !n)ettin' ! %e!rin' !te# (E!rp4,t!bile*

=# /IR,T READING O/ ORDINANCE: An orin!nce v!c!tin' ! portion o&t%e ,pruce ,treet ri'%t o& w!7 in t%e Ilewil !ition to t%e Cit7 o&,te!mbo!t ,prin')< proviin' !n e&&ective !te< !n )ettin' ! %e!rin'!te# (Aner)on*

PUBLIC +EARING: ORDINANCE ,ECOND READING,

T*E CITY CO=NCI> PRESI@ENT OR PRESI@ENT PRO-TEM 6I>> REA@ EAC* OR@INANCETIT>E INTO T*E RECOR@. P=B>IC COMMENT 6I>> BE PROI@E@ FOR EERYOR@INANCE.

Tere are n( ite) e!ule! (r ti /(rti(n ( te agen!a.

PUBLIC COMMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT 9ILL BE PRO0IDED AT " P#M#$ OR ATT+E END O/ T+E MEETING$ (9+IC+E0ER COME, /IR,T*#

CITY CO=NCI> 6I>> MA?E NO @ECISION NOR TA?E ACTION# ECEPT TO @IRECT T*ECITY MANAGER. T*OSE A@@RESSING CITY CO=NCI> ARE RED=ESTE@ TO I@ENTIFY


3/265

T*EMSE>ES BY NAME AN@ A@@RESS. A>> COMMENTS S*A>> NOT ECEE@ T*REEMIN=TES.

PAR>, AND RECREATION COMMI,,ION REPORT

PLANNING COMMI,,ION REPORT

CON,ENT CALENDAR ? PLANNING COMMI,,ION RE/ERRAL,:

ITEMS ON T*E CONSENT CA>EN@AR GENERA>>Y RED=IRE >ITT>E OR NO CO=NCI>@E>IBERATION AN@ MAY BE APPROE@ 6IT* A SING>E MOTION. A CITY CO=NCI>MEMBER MAY RED=EST AN ITEM4S3 BE REMOE@ FROM T*E CONSENT CA>EN@AR FORF=RT*ER @ISC=SSION. A>> OR@INANCES APPROE@ BY CONSENT S*A>> BE REA@INTO T*E RECOR@ BY TIT>E.

"# /IR,T READING O/ ORDINANCE: An orin!nce !nne@in' Bloc 6$Ilewil !ition to t%e Town o& ,te!mbo!t ,prin') !) !n encl!ve !nproviin' !n e&&ective !te# Pl!nnin' Commi))ion vote to !pprove on!nu!r7 $ 6352< 0ote: =?3# (>een!n*

# RE,OLUTION: A re)olution &inin' t%e c%!n'e o& t%e &uture l!n u)ee)i'n!tion o& t%e Ilewil ,ubivi)ion$ Lot) 5?58$ Bloc 6 !n entre)))ubivi)ion$ Lot) 5 !n 6 &rom Ol Town Re)ienti!l to E)t!teRe)ienti!l to be in compli!nce wit% t%e criteri! &or !pprov!l o& !minor !menment to t%e ,te!mbo!t ,prin') Are! Communit7 Pl!n#Pl!nnin' Commi))ion vote to !pprove on !nu!r7 $ 6352< 0ote: =?3#(>een!n*

;# /IR,T READING O/ ORDINANCE: An orin!nce proviin' onin' to#"6 !cre) o& t%e propert7 e)cribe !) Ilewil Aition Bloc 6 !nt%e l!n e)cribe in t%e !tt!c%e E@%bit A$ to RE?6 (re)ienti!l e)t!tetwo meium en)it7< repe!lin' !ll con&lictin' orin!nce)< proviin'&or )ever!bilit7< !n proviin' !n e&&ective !te# Pl!nnin' Commi))ionvote to !pprove on !nu!r7 $ 6352< 0ote: =?3# (>een!n*

53# PROECT: Ilewil ,ubivi)ion$ Bloc 6$ Lot) 5?58$ PP?5?38#PETITION: Prelimin!r7 pl!t &or ! two lot )ubivi)ion#LOCATION: 55 !n 52 ,pruce ,treet#

APPLICANT: ,teven ># +erron Revoc!ble Tru)t< P%7lli) G!non'$ POBo@ ""2"8$ ,te!mbo!t ,prin')$ CO 3""PLANNING COMMI,,ION 0OTE: Pl!nnin' Commi))ion vote to!pprove on !nu!r7 $ 6352< 0ote: =?3 (>een!n*

PUBLIC +EARING PLANNING COMMI,,ION RE/ERRAL,


4/265

P=B>IC *EARING FORMAT%

Preentati(n " te Petiti(ner 4eti)ate! at 15 )inute3. Petiti(ner t( tate na)e an!rei!ene a!!rel(ati(n.

Preentati(n " te O//(iti(n. Sa)e gui!eline a a(;e.

Puli C())ent " in!i;i!ual 4n(t t( e7ee! )inute3. In!i;i!ual t( tate na)e an!

rei!ene a!!rel(ati(n. Cit" ta t( /r(;i!e a re/(ne.

55# ,ECOND READING O/ ORDINANCE: An orin!nce to !men ,ection)6=?;6: U)e Cl!))i&ic!tion)$ 6=?52: ,peci!l ,etb!c ,t!n!r)$ 6=?36:De&inition) !n U)e Criteri!< !n ! ,ection 6=?53: Outoor Di)pl!7!n ,tor!'e# Pl!nnin' Commi))ion vote =?3 to !pprove wit% c%!n'e)on December 55$ 635# (,t!u&&er*

REPORT,

56# Cit7 Council

58# Report)

a. Agen!a Re;ie% 4Fran9lin3

1. Regular )eeting Feruar" # 2015.

2. Regular )eeting Feruar" 2,# 2015.

5# ,t!&& Report)

a. Cit" Att(rne"' =/!ateRe/(rt. 4>ettuni3

. Cit" Manager' Re/(rt% Ong(ing Pr(8et. 4*in;ar93

ADOURNMENT

BY% $=>IE FRAN?>IN# CMC

CITY C>ER?


5/265


6/265

-8. 9"GRO%D -FORM"T-O:

Cou&'il has s""& !wo "s"&!a!io&s o& !h" oos"* URA la& A"a i& Dow&!ow&S!"a+%oa! Si&(s. This "s"&!a!io& is !o follow u wi!h i&fo+a!io& ",u"s!"*fo+ Cou&'il o& al!"&a!i$" fi&a&'i&( !ools/ "s!i+a!"* 'os!s of o)"'!s/ "xa+l"s ofo!h" la& a"as/ a&* i+a'!s !o o!h" !axi&( "&!i!i"s.

8. 7EG"7 -%E:To %" *"!"+i&"*

8-. OF7-T OR E8-ROMET"7 -%E:To %" *"!"+i&"*

8--. %MM"R; "D "7TER"T-8E:S"" a!!a'h"* "s"&!a!io&

7-T OF "TT"$MET"s"&!a!io& Sli*"sURA S'hool Fi&a&'" M"+oURA L"!!"s


7/265

Steamboat Springs Downt

Investment Plan

Attachment 1


8/265

Vision Statement

The Downtown Investment Plan is abouthing:

Making a Great Place Better Making Downtown More Attractive

Making Downtown Safer

Making Downtown a Great Place to Invest

Making Downtown a Better Place to do Bu

Making Downtown an Even Better Place t Making Downtown a Great Place to Live


9/265

Vision Statement

How this is accomplished in the most feffective manner:

Acting while interest rates and constrcosts are low

Acting while property values are low

Completing efficiently as one coordinproject

Completing with consistent design quappearance throughout Downtown


10/265

Downtown ProjectsOakPedestrianLighting 375,000

OakStreet

Sidewalks

(3rd

12th) 400,155

OakStreetCurb&Gutter 90,125

IntersectionsonYampa(Bulbouts) 1,210,420

IntersectionsonYampa(SpeedTables) 689,025

SideStreetSidewalks 718,725

SideStreetCurb&Gutter 161,875

Promenade 271,560

PromenadeCurb&Gutter 91,980

PromenadeCrusherFines 24,850

YampaPedestrianLighting 370,000

YampaStreet

Sidewalks

(DT

Side) 238,227

YampaStreetCurb&Gutter(DTSide) 53,655

Trash&Recycling(allareas) 316,000

9thStreetPark&RetrofitS&RBldg 620,000

EaglescoutParkRestroom

WestLincoln

Park

Restrooms

ProfessionalServices

UtiltyUndergrounding

Contingency

FloodwayandYampaBankImprovements

Asphalt/Concrete CapitalRepairs

AmphitheaterAlongYampa(StoneTerraci

RiverBank&FenceEnhancements(10th1

Benches/Seating(areawide)

BikeRacks(areawide)

FinancingCostsInterest(4%on9.36M15yr

FinancingCostsLoanFees


11/265

Downtown Projects by locatYampaStreet

IntersectionsonYampa(Bulbouts) 1,210,420.00$

IntersectionsonYampa(SpeedTables) 689,025.00$

Promenade 271,560.00$

PromenadeCurb&Gutter 91,980.00$

PromenadeCrusherFines 24,850.00$

YampaPedestrianLighting 370,000.00$

YampaStreetSidewalks(DTSide) 238,227.00$

YampaStreetCurb&Gutter(DTSide) 53,655.00$

9thStreetPark&RetrofitS&RBldg 620,000.00$

Eaglescout

Park

Restroom 480,000.00$

UtiltyUndergrounding 600,000.00$

RiverBank&FenceEnhancements(10th12th) 40,000.00$

FloodwayandYampaBankImprovements 590,000.00$

Total 5,279,717.00$

OakStreet

OakPedestrianLighting 375,000.00$

OakStreetSidewalks(3rd 12th) 400,155.00$

OakStreetCurb&Gutter 90,125.00$

Total 865,280.00$

SideStreets

SideStreetSidewalks

SideStreetCurb&Gutter

Total

WestLincolnPark

AmphitheaterAlongYampa(StoneTe

WestLincolnParkRestrooms

Total

AreaWideProjects

Benches/Seating(areawide)

Trash&Recycling(allareas)

BikeRacks(areawide)

Asphalt/Concrete CapitalRepairs

Total


12/265

Goal #1

Make a Great Place Better EconVitality Depends on a Quality Exp

Make Downtown the best possible placlive, work and invest

Build upon recent public and private in


13/265

Goal #1- Required Investme

Prioritize support for quality public amconsistent design throughout downtow

Including gathering places, river accesrestrooms, way-finding and public art

Be open to public/private partnershipincluding parking solutions


14/265

Goal #1- Measures of Succes

More feet on the street pedestrian co

Improved business retention, attractio

private investment; i.e. sales growth


15/265

Goal #2

Accelerate private investment:

Bolster private sector confidence in pub

support for downtown Remove basic infrastructure costs as a

disincentive to invest


16/265

Goal #2 Required Investme

Complete basic public infrastructure


17/265

Goal #2 Measures of Success

Increased depth and breadth of privatinvestment during current real estate

Improved retention, profitability and gexisting downtown businesses

Increased use and excise taxes from nconstruction


18/265

Goal #3

Be fiscally prudent:

Complete capital projects while cost of

construction is low - realize economies Set tax baseline before property values

non-taxed properties move to tax rolls.


19/265


20/265

Goal #3 Measures of Success

Reduced capital project costs

Earlier sales and property tax growth t

all entities See increased value of City asset


21/265

Goal #4

Reduce public safety hazards due tincomplete sidewalks and poor lighon Oak, Yampa and some areas of

cross streets. Reduce pedestrian, vehicle and bike confl

especially in winter.


22/265


Complete system of sidewalks and pedlighting throughout downtown interco

Oak, Lincoln, Yampa and all cross-stre


23/265

Goal #4 Measures of Succe

Improved access to and safe use of on-parking throughout business district.

Extend more pedestrian activity to unblocks ped counts


24/265

Goal #5

Reduce risks and liabilities

Remove core business locations from fl


25/265


Upgrade Butcherknife Creek culvert bOak Street and the Yampa River


26/265

Goal #5 Measure of Succes

Reduced flood insurance premiums foproperty

Improve community flood rating


27/265

Tools - Pros & Cons

Capital Infrastructure Fund (CIP)

Certificates of Participation (COP)

Local Improvement District (LID) General Obligation Bond (GO)

General Improvement District or SpecImprovement District (GID,SID)

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Continue Temporary Improvements


28/265

Use CIP

Pros Cons

No Financing Costs Large dollar amount

Broad scope Compete with other C

prioritization

Can complete 100% of projects Delays other CIP proj

Unlikely to have a proat one time - loss of dand single project cos


29/265

COP

Pros Cons

Broad Scope Need to locate $9M ocollateral

No extra cost associated with going toan election

No new revenue


30/265

LID

Pros Cons

Can complete capital improvements Assessment of every aowner

LocalImprovementDistrict

OakStreetSidewalks(3rd 12th) 400,155.00$

SideStreetSidewalks 718,725.00$

YampaStreetSidewalks(DTSide) 238,227.00$

Total 1,357,107.00$


31/265

BondPros Cons

Can finance all or a portion ofredevelopment projects

Property tax would bservice the debt ( proexpire upon full bond

Debt is currently relatively cheap

Grow economic activity through publicinvestment

Grow economic activity through publicinvestment/property value enhanced

Single project cost savings

Requires election Requires election


32/265

GID/SID

Pros Cons


Property tax or assesslimited group down

Scope of project can be flexible Would require establidistrict downtown

GID can finance maintenance

Requires vote of downtown electorate Requires vote of down


33/265

Seasonal Improvements

Pros Cons

Affordable Does not enhance exp

Creates safer pedestrian environment Sends poor message t

No improvement in in

One off expenses, not


34/265

TIFPros ConsCommunity Investment (81% ofproject cost is City sales tax)

Perception of tax diver

No new taxes Estimated growth canmultiple factors

Debt is currently relatively cheap

Grow economic activity through publicinvestment/property value enhanced

Single project cost savings



35/265

This TIF URA would enter into an agreement withtaxing district limiting the property tax in$2.4 million Once $2.4 million is reached, property tax

back to the districts

$10.2M of incremental sales tax would flo County and Education Fund Board sales t

not flow into TIF Council has the ability to set parameters o

projects and dollar amount spent using th

URA would enter into an agreement withSchool District to allow all property tax toState financing should change


36/265

Questions


37/265

Examples Pueblo PURA reports a 4% increase

property tax base in plan areas

Brighton 2002-2012 $1.8 Million reincrease to taxing districts


38/265

Examples GURA Golden


39/265

Estimated Impacts


40/265

Room 029 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1784

(303) 866-3521 FAX: 866-3855 TDD: 866-3472

Colorado

Legislative

Council

Staff

MEMORANDUM

Pursuant to section 24-72-202(6.5)(b), research memoranda and other final products of Legislative Council

Staff research are considered public records and subject to public inspection unless: a) the research is

related to proposed or pending legislation; and b) the Legislator requesting the research specifically asks

that the research be permanently considered "work product" and not subject to public inspection. While you

have identified this memorandum as pertaining to pending or proposed legislation, we have no record that

you have requested that it permanently remain "work product" and not subject to public inspection. If you

would like to designate this memorandum to be permanently considered "work product" not subject to public

inspection, or if you think additional research is required and this is not a final product, please contact the

Legislative Council Librarian at (303) 866-4011 by January 15, 2008.

January 8, 2008

TO: Interested Persons

FROM: Ron Kirk, Research Associate, 303-866-4785

SUBJECT: Property Tax Accruing to Tax Increment Financing Districts

This memorandum provides information on property tax revenue accruing to tax increment

financing (TIF) districts. This research begins by providing background information on Coloradolaw that authorizes urban renewal authorities (URAs) and downtown development authorities

(DDAs) to use TIF for urban renewal projects and concludes with information on TIF in other states.

Summary

Tax increment financing (TIF) is a mechanism for funding redevelopment projects in

Colorado exclusively targeted at improving blighted areas. Property taxes accruing for TIF were

$74.5 million in tax year 2006, of which the Denver Urban Renewal Authority's redevelopmentprojects totaled $31.7 million or about 42.5 percent of total TIF revenue. Under the Public School

Finance Act of 1994, state aid to school districts is based on the assessed value of a district excluding

the increase in the value of property in an urban renewal area or downtown development authority.

State aid is estimated by calculating what the increase in the value of property in an urban renewal

area would generate in school operating property taxes and for FY 2007-08, the increase is estimated

at $29.9 million. State aid offsets this increase on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

With the exception of Arizona, all states and the District of Columbia use some form of TIF.

TIF as a funding mechanism was initially used to offset reductions in federal funding to states for

Attachment 2


41/265

Summary (continued)

urban redevelopment and as a tool that facilitated economic growth through public-private

partnerships. Some states authorize towns, cities, counties, and other local government entities touse TIF for development purposes. A few states require their revenue departments to have oversight

over TIF districts and mandate that these departments issue periodic reports to state legislators and

the executive branch of government. Similar to Colorado, in other states, the school district portion

of property taxes accruing for TIF in relation to other government entities makes up a large part of

statewide TIF revenue. Many school districts in other states are often compensated for the loss in

local tax revenue through increases in state appropriations for school aid, like Colorado. In lieu of

state aid increases, some states shift the property tax burden to other property tax owners.

Tax Increment Financing

Tax increment financing (TIF) is a mechanism for funding development and redevelopment

projects. With the exception of Arizona, all states and the District of Columbia use some form of

TIF. The concept of TIF has been around since the early 1940s, but California was the first state to

adopt a TIF law in 1952. The widespread use of TIF did not occur in most states until the 1970s.

The drive for some states to use TIF in the 1970s was primarily related to economic factors.

For example, in 1975 when Wisconsin enacted its TIF law, the state was seeing less federal funding

for redevelopment projects that likely resulted from the national recession in 1974 and 1975. TIF

was used as a financing mechanism to offset the reduced level of federal funding and allow citiesand other jurisdictions to work with the private sector to stimulate economic growth and employment

through urban redevelopment projects. Colorado enacted its urban renewal law in 1975. TIF was

first used in Colorado by the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority for the initial development of the

Crossroads Urban Renewal Project in 1979.

Background. State law in Colorado authorizes urban renewal authorities (URAs) and

downtown development authorities (DDAs) to use TIF for projects that improve blighted areas. TIF

allows an authority to issue and repay redevelopment bonds by using the "increment" of increased

taxes collected within the TIF district after improvements are made (Section 31-25-101 et seq.,

C.R.S.). Tax increment revenue may be generated from property or sales taxes.

For TIF purposes, to determine the increment amount of property tax revenue, the base

valuation must first be determined. The base valuation is certified by the county and is equal to the

total assessed valuation within the TIF district prior to the approval of the redevelopment plan. As

phases of redevelopment are completed, the county reassesses the properties in the TIF district. Over

time, improvements add to the property tax base. The revenue that is attributed to the growing tax

base becomes the incremental revenue that is used by the authority for debt service on the bonds that

are used to finance the redevelopment project.

2


42/265

All property taxes attributable to the base valuation are paid to each taxing entity in the TIF

district. For these taxing jurisdictions, tax revenue remains the same until the incremental revenue

pays off the redevelopment bonds. Thus, local taxing jurisdictions are unable to receive any of the

additional revenue from improvements until the TIF bonds are paid off. In 1980, state law extended

TIF to municipal sales taxes (Section 31-25-807 (3) (a), C.R.S.).

Property tax impacts. The following tables summarize the property tax impacts that resultfrom the use of TIF by counties, municipalities, schools, and special districts. The data summarized

in the tables were taken from the Division of Property Taxation's 2006 Annual Report. Statewide,

property taxes accruing for TIF were $74.5 million for tax year 2006, of which, the Denver Urban

Renewal Authority's redevelopment projects totaled $31.7 million or about 42.5 percent of total TIF

revenue. Table 1 shows property taxes accruing for TIF by project in the City and County of Denver.

For additional information, Appendix A provides information on property taxes accruing for TIF by

project on a county-by-county basis.

Table 1: Property Taxes Accruing for TIF in the City and County of Denver(2006 property tax year)

DURA Project Property Taxes Accruing For TIF

Alameda Square $75,257

American National 124,742

California Street Parking Garage 41,158

Cherokee 12,643

City Park South 126,879

Downtown 4,170,389

Elitch's 1,146,133

Guaranty Bank 89,599

Highlands Gardens 276,990

Lowenstein Theater 40,605

Lowry 6,918,040

Mercantile Square 122,084

Northeast Park Hill 343,049

Pepsi Center 2,207,478

Point Urban 61,094

South Broadway 896,979

St. Luke's #1 590,043

St. Luke's #2 469,902

Stapleton 13,341,439

Westwood 315,671

York Street 304,592

Total Property Taxes Accruing for TIF $31,674,766

Source: Thirty-Sixth Annual Report Division of Property Taxation 2006

3


43/265

Table 2 shows the property tax impacts by government entity type counties, municipalities,

school districts, and special districts. The TIF impact for school districts at $40.1 million makes up

the largest share of TIF revenue at nearly 54 percent of total revenue.

Table 2: Property Taxes Accruing for TIF by Government Entity

(2006 property tax year)

Government Entity Property Taxes Accruing for TIF Percent of Total

County $21,931,912 29.43%

Municipality 4,955,409 6.65%

School Districts* 40,132,727 53.85%

Special Districts 7,511,040 10.08%

Grand Total $74,531,088 100.00%

Source: Thirty-Sixth Annual Report Division of Property Taxation 2006

*Includes all possible property tax losses to school districts in addition to school operating property taxes.

Interpreting the Impacts of Property Taxes Accruing for TIF

An important point should be made in order to correctly interpret the data presented in the

above and attached tables. The property taxes accruing for TIF are not always losses to local

governments; they represent a maximum potential impact. In instances where a local government

is not at its property tax revenue limit, all taxpayers in the jurisdiction will pay higher taxes than they

would have if the TIF was not in place, assuming the development would have otherwise occurred.

For those districts at their property tax revenue limit, the additional assessed value from the new

development would only serve to lower the mill levy, notincrease property tax collections. This

happens due to the interaction between TIFs and mill levies. If a TIF was not in place and similardevelopment occurred, then mill levies would fall in these districts and taxpayers would pay less.

Presence of the TIF causes the mill levies to remain the same or not fall as far as they would have

without the TIF to finance the projects. In situations where governments have been exempted from

the limit or are collecting revenue below the limit, the government forgoes the revenue from the TIF.

State Aid To School Districts

Under the Public School Finance Act of 1994, state aid to school districts is based on the

assessed value of a district excluding the increase in the value of property in an urban renewal area

or downtown development authority. Because those increased values are excluded, the state paysmore to school districts than would otherwise be the case. As a result, the question arises as to how

much the state spends to "backfill" the loss in property tax revenue from TIF. However, identifying

today's actual state cost would require a database of information that both spans the period of time

that the backfill has been in effect and is capable of calculating school district property taxes

annually under various school finance laws. Since compiling such a database is not feasible, the

amount the state spends is estimated by calculating what the increase in the value of property in an

urban renewal area would generate in property taxes. State aid to school districts offsets the increase

in school operating property taxes on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Table 3 includes the school districts

4


44/265

that are impacted by TIF showing TIF assessed valuations for FY 2007-08, respective school finance

levies, and the school finance impact for each district which is estimated at $29.9 million for FY

2007-08.

Table 3: Property Taxes Accruing for TIF in School Districts

(FY 2007-08)

School District2007 TIF Assessed

ValueFY 2007-08 SchoolFinance Mill Levy

Property TaxesAccruing For School

Districts

Northglenn $68,956,290 0.027 $1,861,820

Brighton 18,309,090 0.02626 480,797

Westminster 5,374,580 0.027 145,114

Littleton 5,931,070 0.02535 150,353

Aurora 6,202,670 0.02601 161,331

St. Vrain 11,940,730 0.025 298,518

Steamboat Springs 13,105,320 0.01397 183,081

Boulder 62,277,530 0.02502 1,558,184

Denver 635,601,651 0.02554 16,233,266

Colorado Springs 5,735,520 0.02383 136,677

Roaring Fork 3,334,390 0.02176 72,556

Greeley 3,230,580 0.027 87,226

Gunnison 12,202,630 0.01477 180,233

Jefferson 123,977,690 0.02625 3,254,414

Poudre 65,399,425 0.027 1,765,784

Thompson 71,959,900 0.02236 1,609,023

Estes Park 13,884,853 0.02055 285,334

Valley 12,838,560 0.02665 342,148

Mesa Valley 22,828,540 0.02421 552,679

Eagle 31,169,620 0.01162 362,191

East Otero** 0 0.02442 0

Pueblo City 4,670,822 0.027 126,112

Woodland Park 2,371,459 0.02255 53,476

Cherry Creek 5 School District* 507,500 0.02771 14,063

Pueblo SD 70* 1,078,226 0

Sheridan School District* 1,245,540 0

Totals $1,204,134,186 N/A $29,914,381

* New districts for 2007.** The old TIF district was dissolved, a new TIF district has been formed in its place but the increment for 2006 is zero.

5


45/265

Passage of the mill levy stabilization. Given the passage of the mill levy stabilization in the

school finance act during the 2007 session (Senate Bill 07-199), local school mill levies are no

longer required to decrease when assessed values increase faster than enrollment growth plus

population. This will have an effect on the impact that tax increment financing has on the local share

of public school finance.

Prior to the passage of the mill levy stabilization, the impact of TIF was muted by the fact that

most school districts, particularly in reassessment years, were already reducing their operating mill

levies. By adding the TIF assessed value to a district's tax base, the mill levy simply would have

been lowered further, but no additional revenue would be generated. As a result, in reassessment

years the school finance impact of removing the assessed value attributable to TIF was as low as

$112,248 (FY 2001-02). Meanwhile, in non-reassessment years, the impact could reach as high as

$18.5 million (FY 2004-05). With the passage of the mill levy stabilization, all of the value

attributable to TIF would generate additional local property tax revenue for schools, thus reducing

the state share. This assumes that the project would have been built without TIF.

Tax Increment Financing In Other States

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia allow some form of TIF. For additional

information, Appendix B provides a state-by-state summary showing the duration for each states' TIF

district and enabling legislation.

TIF in other states is a mechanism for funding development and redevelopment projects. In

Colorado, the use of TIF is restricted to urban renewal projects but in other states, TIF is used by

various government entities for urban renewal and other mixed-use development such as low- to

moderate- income housing (Iowa). The TIF concept is similar in other states TIF allows local

government entities to work with the private sector to stimulate economic growth and urbanredevelopment projects with the theme that all local governments should share in the costs of

redevelopment. Unlike Colorado, some states authorize towns, cities, counties, and other local

government entities to use TIF for development purposes. Some states have even extended TIF laws

to allow the respective state to have oversight of TIF districts by a state's taxing agency, such as an

agency similar to the Colorado Department of Revenue. In some states, these agencies are required

to issue periodic reports on TIF districts to state legislators and the executive branch of government.

Generally, the concept of the incremental base value is first determined in other states like

Colorado prior to development, the base value for all of the taxable property is determined within

the TIF district and assessed until the project/bonds are terminated. The "tax increment" equals the

general property taxes levied on the value of the TIF district in excessof its base value and can only

be generated by an increase in the value of taxable property within the TIF district.

Similar to Colorado, the school district portion (mill levy) of property taxes accruing for TIF

in relation to other government entities makes up a large part of statewide TIF revenue. Many school

districts in other states are often compensated for the loss in local tax revenue through increases in

state aid, like Colorado. Table 4 provides general information for a small sample of the 49 states that

have TIF legislation. Some statistics on TIF districts are older data but used for illustrative purposes.

6


46/265

Table 4: Tax Increment Financing In Colorado and Other States

State/TIF

Law Enacted

Government

Entities Using TIF TIF Districts District Statistics

Colorado

1979 31-25-101 etseq.

Urban renewal

authorities (URAs);and downtowndevelopmentauthorities (DDAs).

TIF districts are exclusively authorized for

projects that improve blighted areas.

In property tax year 2006, total TIF

revenue was a maximum of $74.5million.

Wisconsin197566.1105 et seq.

Cities; villagegovernments; towns;and counties.

TIF districts may be created if 50 percent ofmore of the proposed district is "blighted" inneed of rehabilitation or conservation work,or suitable for industrial sites or mixed-usedevelopment (combination of industrial,commercial, and residential use). Fees areassessed by the state for TIF districtcreation and the Wisconsin Department ofCommerce must issue a biennial report tothe Governor and the legislature as to the

social, economic, and financial impacts ofTIF projects.

Between 1976 and 2005: of the 1,428TIF districts created, 516 (36.1percent) have been terminated and912 (63.9 percent) remain inexistence. Total TIF revenue forvillages and cities was $243.6 millionin 2005 or about 4.3 percent of thetotal mill levy revenue.

Nebraska1978NRS 18-2100et seq.

Local governments. TIF districts may be created only inredeveloping substandard and blightedareas within a community. TIF projectsmay be commercial, residential, industrial,or mixed use. On or before December 1stof each year, cities having TIF projectsmust file with the State Property TaxAdministrator a report on the property taxlevy and taxes in the redevelopmentproject.

In 2006 there were 443 TIF projectsstatewide that generated $30.4 millionin property tax revenue.

Iowa

1958 403.1 et seq.

Cities; counties; and

community collegesfor job trainingprojects.

TIF districts in the 1980 were created for

redevelopment purposes of blighted areasbut evolved in the 1990s to other allowableuses such as the development of low- andmoderate-income housing.

In FY 1997, there were 1,453 TIF

areas statewide that generated about$72.1 million for TIF projects.

7


47/265

Appendix

Property Taxes Accruing for TIF by County(2006 property tax year)

County TIF Area/ProjectProperty TaxesAccruing for TIF County TIF Area/Project

Property TaxesAccruing for TIF

ADAMS Aurora $68,279 EAGLE Vail ReinvestmentAuthority

$707,70

Brighton URA $1,122,424 EAGLE Total $707,70

Federal Heights URA $1,242,414 EL PASO North Arvada URA $17,49

North Huron $406,663 South CentralDowntown URA

$226,13

Northglenn URA $1,787,790 Southwest DowntownURA

$2,31

Thornton EconomicDevelopment Authority

$9,470,467 EL PASO Total $245,94

Thornton NorthWashington

$2,067,506 GARFIELD Glenwood SpringsDDA

$178,52

Westminster Center $13,006 GARFIELD Total $178,52

WestminsterEconomicDevelopment Authority

$342,370 GUNNISON Mt. Crested ButteDDA

$406,36

ADAMS Total $16,520,919 GUNNISON Total $406,36

ARAPAHOE Aurora URA $340,343 JEFFERSON Arvada URA $2,432,82

Englewood URA $1,800,394 JEFFERSON Total $2,432,82

Littleton RiverfrontAuthority

$496,052 LARIMER Block 41-Finleys AddURA

$7,91

ARAPAHOE Total $2,636,789 Estes Park URA $858,83

BOULDER BURA 9th & Canyon $512,469 Fort Collins DDA $3,962,25

Lafayette URA $84,827 North College Ave.URA

$1,360,86

Longmont DDA $871,871 Timath URA $254,08

BOULDER Total $1,469,167 US34 URA $4,361,29

BROOMFIELD Hunter Douglas URA $1,611,613 LARIMER Total $10,805,25

Interlocken URA $989,718 LOGAN Sterling URA $924,73

WadsworthInterchange URA

$35,065 LOGAN Total $924,73

West 120th AvenueURA

$1,700,420 MESA DowntownDevelopmentAssociation

$1,114,76

BROOMFIELD Total $4,336,816 MESA Total $1,114,76

8


48/265

Appendix A

Property Taxes Accruing for TIF by County (continued)(2006 property tax year)

County TIF Area/Project

Property Taxes

Accruing for TIF County TIF Area/Project

Property Taxes

Accruing for TIF

DENVER DURA AlamedaSquare

$75,257 OTERO Central BusinessProject - Urban

$79,23

DURA AmericanNational

$124,742 OTERO Total $79,23

DURA CaliforniaStreet Parking Garage

$41,158 PUEBLO Pueblo URA $201,75

DURA Cherokee $12,643 PUEBLO Total $201,75

DURA City Park South $126,879 ROUTT Steamboat URA $274,10

DURA Downtown $4,170,389 ROUTT Total $274,10

DURA Elitch's $1,146,133 TELLER Woodland Park DDA $199,61

DURA Guaranty Bank $89,599 TELLER Total $199,61

DURA HighlandsGardens

$276,990 WELD 10th St. GURA $22,77

DURA LowensteinTheater

$40,605 Greeley DDA $45,44

DURA Lowry $6,918,040 GURA $253,56

DURA MercantileSquare

$122,084 WELD Total $321,78

DURA Northeast ParkHill

$343,049

DURA Pepsi Center $2,207,478 Grand Total $74,531,08

DURA Point Urban $61,094

DURA SouthBroadway

$896,979

DURA St. Luke's #1 $590,043

DURA St. Luke's #2 $469,902

DURA Stapleton $13,341,439

DURA Westwood $315,671

DURA York Street $304,592

DENVER Total $31,674,766

9


49/265

Appendix

State TIF Enabling Legislation

State Duration Legislation

Alabam a 30 years per T IF dis tr ict ARS 11-99.1 et seq

Alaska None spec ified Im provem ent A rea Projects AS 29 .47.460

Ar izona None

Arkansas 25 yea rs per d istric t C om munity

Redevelopment

AR Code 14-168-301 et seq

California 30 years(plus up to 15 year

extension)Comm unity Redevelopment Law

California Code 33000 et seq

Colorado 25 years per project to fund bonds Urban

Renewal Law

CRS 31-25-101 et seq

Connecticut As determined by CT Development

Au tho rity Tax Incremental Financing

Program

Title 8 Chapter 130 Sec 8-124 et seq

Delaware 30-year bond issuance Municipal Tax

Increment Financing Act

22-1701 et seq

Dis tr ic t o f Columbia Per p ro ject a rea Tax Increment F inancing 2-1217.01 e t seq .

Georgia Dissolve by resolution of council and no

debt

Redevelopment Powers Law

36-44-1 et seq

Hawaii Dissolve as established by ordinance Tax Increment Financing Act

46-101 et seq

Florida 40 years from adoption of redevelopment

plan

Comm unity Redevelopment Act

163.330 et seq

Idaho 24 years Local Economic Development Act

50-2901 et seq.

Illinois 23 yearsper district Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act

65ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et seq

Indiana 30 Years IC 36-7-14 et seq;

IAC50-8-1

Iowa 20 years per district Urban Renewal Law

403.1 et seq.

Kansas 20 years KRS 12-1770 et seq

Kentucky 20 years Increment Financing Act

KRS65-680 - 699

Louisiana 30 years Tax Increment Development Act

Title 47, Subtitle 9, Chapter 1

Massachusetts 30 years District Improvement Financing

Ch 40Q, Sec 1-4

10


50/265

Appendix B

State TIF Enabling Legislation(continued)


Maine 30 yearsper district Title 30-A, 5227

Maryland Per development district agreement Tax Increment Financing Act

14-201 et seq. (2001)

Michigan Active until purpose has been

accomplished

Tax Increment Finance Authority Act

125.1801 et seq.

Minnesota 25-years per district(30 for pre-1979) Tax Increment F inancing Act

Minn Statutes 469.174-469.179

Mississippi Per individual financing plans Tax Increm ent Financing Act

21-45-1 et seq. (2001)

Missouri 23 years per district Real Property Tax Increment Allocation

Redevelopment Act

99.800 RSMo et seq

Montana 15 years Urban Renewal Law

7-15-4201 et seq.

Nebraska 15 Year per districts; no limit of number

per city

Comm unity Development Law

NRS 18-2100 et seq

Nevada Up to 45 years Community Redevelopment Law

279.382 et seq.

New Hampshire 30 years Municipal Economic Development

and R evitalization Districts

162-K et seq

New Jersey Until obligations for any project in the

district cease to be outstanding

Revenue Allocation District Financing Act

C.52:27D-459 et seq

New Mexico 5 years Urban Development Law

3-46-1 et seq.

New York Per redevelopment plan Municipal Redevelopment Law

970-a et seq.

North Carolina 30 yea rs P ro jec t Deve lopment F inanc ing Act

Chapter 159, Article 6

North Dakota By local ordinance Urban Renewal Law 40-58-01 et seq.

Ohio 30 years Municipal Tax Increment Financing Act

5709.40 et seq.

Oklahoma 25 years Local Development Act

850 et seq.

Oregon 30 years Urban Renewal Law

457.010 et seq.

Pennsylvania 20 years Tax Increm ent Financing Act

tit. 53. 6930.1 et seq.

11


51/265

Appendix B

State TIF Enabling Legislation(continued)


Rhode Island By project plan Tax Increment Financing Act

45-33.2-1 et seq.

South Carolina Per redevelopment plan Tax Increment Financing Law

31-6-10 et seq.

South Dakota 15 years Tax Increm ental Districts

11-9-1 et seq.

Tennessee Per redevelopment plan Redevelopment 13-20-201 et seq.

Texas By local ordinance or when all project

costs, tax increment bonds, and

interest are paid.

Tax Increment Financing Act

311.001 et seq.

Utah 25 years Redevelopment Agencies Act

17 B-4-101 et seq.

Vermont On project basis Tax Increment Financing

title 24 ,

1891 et seq.

Virginia For so long as any obligations or

development project costs are unpaid

Tax Increment Financing

58.1-3245 et seq.

W ashington 30 years Community Revitalization Financing

39.89.010 et seq.

W est Virginia 30 Year district; no lim it of num ber per

municipality

W est Virginia Tax Increment Financing Act

W V code 7-11B-1 et seq

W isconsin 27 years (raised from 23 in 2003) Tax Increment Law

66.1105 et seq.

W yoming 25 years W yoming Urban Renewal Code

15-9-101 et seq.

Source: Council of Development Finance Agencies (CDFA); http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/pages/tifstatestatutes.html

12 S:\LCS\MEMOS\2007\Tax Increment Financing1029078926.w


52/265

Attachment 3


53/265


54/265

n.f

Upper Yampa Water

Cpnservancy District

[ 1

( ooa

c >eju\

December 18, 2014

Bart Kounovsky, City Council President

Members of the City Council

137 1 th Street

Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

F tV b

Re: Downtown Urban Renewal Authority

Dear President Kounovsky and Council Members:

I am writing on behalf of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District ( District ) Board of

Directors ( Board ) in reference to the proposed Downtown Steamboat Springs Urban Renewal

Authority. This new Authority would uti lize tax increment financing to make sidewalk, lighting

and other infrastructure improvements in the Downtown commercial area. The Board opposes

the creation of the Authority as presently proposed.

The District is a statutory Colorado water conservancy district located in Routt County and a

portion ofMoffat County. The District is governed by a volunteer Board whose members are

J ohn Redmond, Doug Monger, Ken Brenner, Steve Colby, Samuel Haslem, Greg HeiTnann,

Webster J ones, Ron Murphy, and Tom Sharp. The District owns and operates Stagecoach and

Yamcolo Reservoir in the Upper Yampa Basin. These facilities make the District the leading

supplier of raw water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses in Northwest Colorado. The

City of Steamboat Springs holds contracts with the District for 550 acre-feet of stored water in

Stagecoach Reservoir. I n recent years, Stagecoach water was critical in maintaining Yampa

River recreational and environmental flows during drought conditions on the Yampa River

through Steamboat Springs, although the water contracted to the City was kept in storage.

The District is currently engaged in a comprehensive master planning process to address future

water needs in the Upper Yampa Basin, including the evaluation of new projects to firm up water

supplies in the Upper Yampa basin to protect Routt County and its citizens from drought and to

address the need for new water sources well into the future. During extreme drought, these

projects could make water available for municipal and industrial uses which are essential for the

economc health of this area and to protect the Yampa River from very low flow conditions

which could severely impact Yampa River environment and recreational uses and Downtown

tourism.

Mailing Address

P.O. Box 775529

Steamboat Springs, CO 80477-5529

Location

Fish Creek Fi ltration Plant

3310 Clear Water Trail

Telephone

(970) 871-1035

Fax (970) 879-8169


55/265

Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District

District revenues come from the sale of water and power and a fixed property tax mll levy of

1.82 mlls. Any property tax increment paid to the new Urban Renewal Authority would be a

direct dollar per dollar loss of property tax which the District would otherwise have received.

Water projects have been becomng increasingly harder to permt and finance. I f this community

expects the District to continue to develop stored water for consumptive and non-consumptive

uses in the Upper Yampa Basin and to protect the local economy against drought, it is imperative

that the City Council carefully scrutinize and reect any proposal which threatens to erode the

District's property tax base and its ability to finance water projects.

Sincerely,

' ^

J ohn Redmond

-President

Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District

P.O. Box 775529

Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

Cc: Deb Hinsvark, City Manger

J ulie Franklin, City Clerk

Mang ddessLocaonTeephone

PO Box775529FshCreekFtrattonPant (970 8711035

Steamboat Sprngs, CO8047755293310Cear Water Tral Fax(970t 8798169


56/265

1

Jessica Koenig

From: Jessica Koenig

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:37 AM

To: Tracy Barnett; City Council; Jon Sanders; Jim Cook; Joan Ihrig; Kathy Stokes; Sally

TeStrake; Sue Krall; Tracy Barnett

Cc: Tyler Gibbs; Casey Earp

Subject: RE: Support for creation of a URA plan area downtown

ThankyouforyourcommentTracy.Councilandtheappropriatestaffmembershavereceivedit.

JessicaKoenig

StaffAssistant

CityClerksOffice

CityofSteamboatSprings

[email protected]

(970)8718225

From:Tracy BarnettSent:Friday, January 16, 2015 11:35 AM

To:City Council; Jon Sanders; Jim Cook; Joan Ihrig; Kathy Stokes; Sally TeStrake; Sue Krall; Tracy BarnettSubject:Support for creation of a URA plan area downtown

Dear City Council members,

At the annual meeting of MainStreet Steamboat Springs on Thursday, members of the board present (10pressent of 13 on the board) voted to unanimously support the creation of a URA plan area for the downtown

area. Attendees at the same meeting also supported the vote.

The need for complete sidewalks, lighting and other safety measures, including Butcherknife Creek floodmitigation, is more than apparent, and a necessity to making our downtown more attractive and safe, both for

locals and visitors. With construction and lending costs low, now is the time to get these projects done. These

safety measures will also enhance the visitor experience.

With the promise of a specific list of projects to be completed and capping the expenditures to those projects,

the URA could be closed out sooner than 25 years once the projects are paid off. This should be moreappealing to the other taxing entities affected.

Please move the URA forward now. There is no better time than the present for projects that should have beendone long ago.

Tracy Barnett

Program Manager

MainStreet Steamboat Springs

"A designated Colorado Main Street graduate community"

970-846-1800

[email protected]


57/265

AGENDA ITEM #2.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM

FROM: Tyler Gibbs, Director of Planning and CommunityDevelopment !"t# $%%&'ason Peasley, !"ecutive Director, (ampa )alley *ousing

+utority

T*RO-G*: Deb *insvar., City Manager !"t# $%/&

D+T!: 'anuary $/, $/01

2T!M: *ousing -pdate and Re3uest for Direction

4!5T 6T!P: Draft *ousing Policy Options for Council Consideration

_X7 DIRECTION_X_ INFORMATION___ ORDINANCE___ MOTION___ RESOLUTION___ PROCLAMATION

2# R!8-!6T OR 266-!:City Council !" $%u$"t$& "t!'' to ($"$nt o(tion" 'o (olicy &i$ction !n& tool"to !&&$"" ou"in) !''o&!*ility i""u$" in St$!+*o!t S(in)" *y "u++$ 2,-./ou"in) !''o&!*ility i""u$" t!0$ +!ny 'o+"1 it 3!yin) i+(!ct" on ouciti4$n" !n& it +!ny o(tion" 'o (ot$nti!lly i+(o3in) t$ !*ility o' in&i3i&u!l"!n& '!+ili$" to !cc$"" !((o(i!t$ ou"in). St!'' i" $%u$"tin) Council )ui&!nc$on t$ i""u$" !n& tool" t$y oul& &i$ct "t!'' to con"i&$ in 'o+ul!tin) to"$

o(tion".

22#

R!COMM!4D!D +CT2O4:Po3i&$ &i$ction 'o 'ut$ "t!'' $"$!c1 (olicy $co++$n&!tion" !n&(o""i*l$ l$)i"l!ti3$ !ction".


58/265

222# F26C+9 2MP+CT6:To *$ D$t$+in$&

2)# +C;GRO-4D 24FORM+T2O4:In 5uly 2,-6 City Council "u"($n&$& t$ Co++unity /ou"in) 7Inclu"ion!y/ou"in)8 O&in!nc$ 'o ! ($io& o' to y$!". T!t o&in!nc$ $%ui$& !ll n$$"i&$nti!l &$3$lo(+$nt to inclu&$ ! co+(on$nt o' !''o&!*l$ ou"in) o (!y !'$$9in9li$u. R$"i&$nti!l unit" c$!t$& tou) ti" (o)!+ $$ &$$& $"tict$&'o (uc!"$ *y %u!li'i$& *uy$" +$$tin) $"i&$ncy !n& inco+$ li+it".Su"($n"ion o' t$ Co++unity /ou"in) O&in!nc$ inclu&$& $l$!"$ o' !''o&!*l$ou"in) $%ui$+$nt" 'o !ny ($3iou"ly &$"i)n!t$& unit" t!t $+!in$& un"ol&*y t$ oi)in!l &$3$lo($. Council !" !l"o $l$!"$& in&i3i&u!l &$$& $"tiction"on "o+$ unit" t!t $$ (uc!"$& un&$ t$ (o)!+. /o$3$1 in&i3i&u!l

$%u$"t" 'o $l$!"$ o' &$$& $"tiction" !$ not cu$ntly *$in) con"i&$$& !tt$ $%u$"t o' council.

)# 9!G+9 266-!6:To :$ D$t$+in$&

)2# CO4F92CT6 OR !4)2RO4M!4T+9 266-!6:To :$ D$t$+in$&

)22#

6-MM+R( +4D +9T!R4+T2)!6:O(tion" to *$ con"i&$$& ill 3!y &$($n&in) on t$ (o(ul!tion to *$ "$3$&!n& !cc$(t!*l$ tool" to *$ con"i&$$&.

926T OF +TT+C*M!4T6

Po$Point Sli&$"


59/265

Housing

Background

Current Conditions

Options

Direction?

Attachment 1


60/265

Background

Recent

programs and

RegulatoryRequirements


61/265

Current

Conditions

Supply and Demand


62/265

Tools

Low Income Housing Tax Credits

Direct Subsidies Land, Infrastructure

Regulatory Incentives Density Bonus,Phasing, Fee Waivers

Regulatory Requirements Inclusionar

Expand Outlying Transportation Optio


63/265

What issues should be addWhat tools should be cons

Requested

Direction


64/265

AGENDA ITEM #3.


FROM: Kim Weber, Finance Director (Ext. 250)

THROUH: Deb Hin!"ar#, $it% Mana&er (Ext. 2'0)

DTE: an*ar% 20, 20+5

RE: $omm*nit% *--ort teerin& $ommitteeRecommenation!

/// DIRECTION_X_ INFORMATION___ ORDINANCE_X_ MOTION___ RESOLUTION

I.REUET OR 1UE:Attached are the Comm!"t S$$ort Steer"!% Comm"ttee&' recomme!dat"o!' (ora))ocat"o! o( the *+,- d%eted (!d'.

II. RE$OMMEDED $T1O:No!e.

III. F1$3 1M4$T:No!e !oted.

I/. $KROUD 1FORMT1O:

The C"t Co!c") d%eted 031123*+ (or comm!"t '$$ort (!d"!% (or the Art'a!d C)tre Coa)"t"o!2 the E!"ro!me!ta) Coa)"t"o!2 a!d the 4ma! Re'orce'Coa)"t"o!.

I! accorda!ce 5"th the Comm!"t S$$ort Strctre a!d Gra!t"!% 6rocedre' $t"! $)ace the F"!a!ce D"rector a!d C"t Ma!a%er 5"th a$$roa) (rom C"t Co!c")2the Comm!"t S$$ort Steer"!% Comm"ttee2 "!c)d"!% a memer (rom each


65/265


66/265

CommunitySupport

2015

Funding

Recommendations

Organization 2012 Funding 2013 Funding 2014 Funding 2

Human Resources Coalition

Advocates 12,500 12,500 14,500

Boys & Girls Club of Steamboat Springs 6,500 6,000 4,000

Court Appointed Special Advocates Routt County 0 500 0

Comunidad Integrada/Integrated Community 6,500 6,500 10,000

Family Development Center 7,250 7,250 7,500

First Impressions 54,500 54,500 58,000

Grand Futures 2,500 2,500 2,750

STARS- Humble Ranch Education & Therapy Center 1,500 2,000 1,000

NW CO Center for Independence (Independent Life Center) 1,250 0 1,250

NW CO Dental Center 2,500 1,250 3,000

NW CO Legal Services 2,000 1,250 750NW CO VNA 37,500 35,000 40,000

Partners in Routt County 3,000 3,000 4,000

Planned Parenthood 1,500 1,500 1,000

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps 5,250 6,500 8,250

Routt County Council on Aging 21,000 21,000 21,000

Routt County Habitat for Humanity 1,000 0 0

Routt County United Way 4,250 4,250 4,250

South Routt Community Center 0 0 0

Mindpring Health (Steamboat Mental Health) 25,000 25,000 26,500

Lift Up of Routt County 0 0 0

Yampa Valley Autism Program 2,000 2,500 2,750

REPS - Reaching Everyone Preventing Suicide 0 0 0

Routt County Youth Services Coalition 0 0 0

TOTAL HRC 197,500 193,000 210,500

Attachment 1


67/265

CommunitySupport

2015

Funding

Recommendations

Organization 2012 Fund ing 2013 Fund ing 2014 Fund ing 2

Arts and Cul ture Coali tion

Friends of the Chief 0 2,000 5,700

Steamboat Dance Theater 4,000 4,000 4,575

Great American Laughing Stock Company 3,500 5,000 5,000

Center for Visual Arts 7,000 9,000 9,000

Emerald City Opera 9,000 7,500 12,200

Steamboat Art Museum 16,000 18,000 20,000

Seminars at Steamboat 1,000 2,000 2,500

Steamboat Springs Arts Council 5,000 0 0

Steamboat Springs Free Summer Concert Series 30,000 26,000 23,000

Steamboat Symphony Orchestra 5,000 7,000 0

Strings Music Festival 16,500 16,500 16,500

Perry Mansfield School and Camp 3,000 5,000 10,000

Yampa Valley Choral Society 0 0 4,000

TOTAL ARTS AND CULTURE 100,000 102,000 112,475

Organization 2012 Fund ing 2013 Fund ing 2014 Fund ing 2

Environmental Coalition

Yampatika 6,750 6,000 8,750

Yampa Valley Recycles 3,750 (with YVSC) -Community Agriculture Alliance 8,500 9,500 8,000

Yampa Valley Land Trust 4,000 5,000 9,000

Yampa Valley Sustainability Council 9,500 10,000 10,250

Routt County Conservation District 0 4,000 4,000

TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 32,500 34,500 40,000


68/265

AGENDA ITEM #4.


FROM: Winnie DelliQuadri, Asst. to the City Mgr. (Ext. 2!"

#$RO%&$: De'ra $insar), City Manager (Ext. 2*+"

DA#E: anuary 2+, 2+-

#EM: An ordinan/e a00roing a De/laration o1 Restri/tieCoenant and Dis/laier that odi1ies City rights in /ertain

0ro0erty o3ned 'y the 4tea'oat $ealth and Re/reationAsso/iation and 0roiding an e11e/tie date.

5E6# 4#E7: Motion to a00roe an ordinan/e a00roing a De/laration o1Restri/tie Coenant and Dis/laier that odi1ies City rightsin Certain 7ro0erty O3ned 'y the 4tea'oat $ealth andRe/reation Asso/iation and 7roiding an E11e/tie Date.

888 DIRECTION

_ INFORMATION_X ORDINANCE_X_ MOTION___ RESOLUTION

. REQ%E4# OR 44%E:

In 1969, the Cit !"nee$ % &%'!e( ") (%n$ t" the Ste%*+"%t S&'in- e%(th %n$Re!'e%ti"n A--"!i%ti"n /SSRA0 -+2e!t t" the !"n$iti"n th%t it +e *%int%ine$ %n$ -e$ %-% tenni- !"'t, 3ith 'ee'-i"n ") the &'"&e't t" the Cit i) the tenni- !"'t- 3e'e'e*"e$. SSRA !"ne'te$ the &'"&e't t" % &%'in ("t in Se&te*+e' 55. The%tt%!he$ !"en%nt '%ti)ie- SSRA7- !"ne'-i"n ") the &'"&e't t" &%'in -e- in e8!h%ne)"' SSRA7- %'ee*ent th%t the &'"&e't +e "&en t" -e + the &+(i!.

. RECOMME5DED AC#O5:


69/265

4ta11 re/oends that Coun/il a)e a otion to a00roe an Ordinan/eA00roing A De/laration o1 Restri/tie Coenant and Dis/laier that Modi1iesCity Rights in Certain 7ro0erty O3ned 'y the 4tea'oat $ealth and Re/reation

Asso/iation and 7roiding An E11e/tie Date.

. F4CA9 M7AC#4:

The !"-t ") i*&(e*entin the %tt%!he$ Re-t'i!tie C"en%nt i- *ini*%( %n$ !"n-i-t- ") the!"-t ") 'e!"'$in the $"!*ent.

St%)) h%- n"t !"n$!te$ %$$iti"n%( )i-!%( %n%(-i- %n$ th- $"e- n"t h%e $et%i(e$in)"'*%ti"n t" &'"i$e t" !"n!i( %t thi- ti*e. Othe' &"tenti%( %ene- ") i*&%!t in!($e

The e!"n"*i! i*&%!t t" SSRA "&e'%ti"n- -h"($ the Cit n"t '%ti) the e8i-tin -e ")

the &'"&e't )"' &%'in %n$ in-te%$ !"n)i'* th%t the &'"&e't h%- 'ee'te$ t" the Cit. The !"-t t" the Cit -h"($ it $e!i$e t" "3n %n$ *%int%in the &'"&e't %- % &+(i!

&%'in ("t. /N"te th%t %!!e-- i- !''ent( th'"h SSRA "3ne$ &'"&e't.0

The !"-t t" the Cit ") !"ne'tin the &'"&e't t" -"*e "the' -e.

The i*&%!t t" &%'in in the $"3nt"3n %'e% -h"($ the &'"&e't n"t !"ntine t" +eti(i:e$ )"' &%'in.

The i*&%!t t" &%'in in the $"3nt"3n %'e% -h"($ &+(i! &%'in n"t +e 'e;i'e$th'"h the C"en%nt.

The *%'et %(e ") the &'"&e't -h"($ !it !"n!i( $e-i'e t" -e(( it t" SSRA "' t" -e((

it )"' % $i))e'ent -e.

. ;AC


70/265


71/265

&'"&"-e$ "&ti"n %(-" *eet- !"**nit %n$ SSRA nee$- )"' &%'in.

Othe' %(te'n%tie- in!($e

S%(e ") the &'"&e't t" SSRA "' % $i))e'ent +e'.

Cit "3ne'-hi& %n$ *%inten%n!e ") the &'"&e't )"' &%'in. A!!e-- th'"hSSRA &'"&e't 3"($ nee$ t" +e -e!'e$ )"' thi- t" +e %n "&ti"n.

M"$i)i!%ti"n "' e(i*in%ti"n ") %(( 'e-t'i!ti"n- )'"* the &'"&e't. Thi- "&ti"n 3%-!"n-i$e'e$ + -t%)) +t i- n"t +ein &'"&"-e$ %- the $e-i'e$ -"(ti"n %- it $i$ n"t)"(("3 the "'iin%( intent ") the !it !"n!i( th%t "'iin%(( t'%n-)e''e$ the &'"&e'tt" SSRA.

94# OF A##AC$ME5#4Property MapOriginal Deed


72/265

Attachment 1


73/265

Attachment 2


74/265

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO

ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE

COVENANT AND DISCLAIMER THAT MODIFIES CITY RIGHTS INCERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE STEAMBOAT HEALTH ANDRECREATION ASSOCIATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

WHEREAS, on July 11, 1969 the City by a deed recorded in the records of theRoutt County Clerk and Recorder at Book 338 Page 86 (hereafter the !eed"# con$eyedto %%&R' a arcel of real roerty sub)ect to the condition that the roerty be*aintained and used as a tennis court and that uon the failure of the condition theroerty +ould re$ert to the City and

WHEREAS, %%&R' *aintained and used roerty described in the !eed(hereafter the Proerty"# as a tennis court until %ete*ber, -..-, at +hich ti*e%%&R' relocated its tennis courts and con$erted the Proerty to a arking lot and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary and aroriate to the ublichealth, safety, and +elfare to enter into an agree*ent +ith %%&R' that ratifies %%&R'/scon$ersion of the Proerty to arking uses in e0change for %%&R'/s agree*ent that%%&R' *aintain and use the Proerty as a arking lot and hold the Proerty oen touse by the ublic

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

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS THAT:

SECTION 1. !eclaration of Restricti$e Co$enant and !isclai*er attached heretoas 20hibit '" is hereby aro$ed and the City Council President or President Pro4e* isauthori5ed sign any docu*ents necessary to e0ecute said 2ase*ent 'gree*ent

SECTION 2. 4he City Council hereby finds, deter*ines and declares that thisordinance is necessary for the i**ediate reser$ation of the ublic eace, health, andsafety

SECTION 3. 4his ordinance shall take effect i**ediately uon the e0iration ofthirty (3.# days fro* and after its ublication follo+ing final assage, as ro$ided in%ection 136 of the %tea*boat %rings &o*e Rule Charter


75/265

INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED ublished, as ro$ided by la+, by the CityCouncil of the City of %tea*boat %rings, at its regular *eeting held on the -.th day of

January, -.1

Bar !"#$"%&'(, Pr)&*+)$S)a-"a Sr*$/& C*( C"#$0*

ATTEST:

#*) Fra$'*$, CMCC*( C)r'

FINALLY READ, PASSED AND APPROVEDthis 777 day of 7777777777777, -.1

Bar !"#$"%&'(, Pr)&*+)$S)a-"a Sr*$/& C*( C"#$0*

ATTEST:

#*) Fra$'*$, CMCC*( C)r'


76/265

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 SSHRAs conversion of the Property to parking uses in

exchange for SSHRAs 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 permitpublic 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


77/265

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 datefirst above written.

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

__________________________________

Bart Kounovsky, City Council President

Attest:

_______________________________Julie Franklin, City Clerk

STEAMBOAT HEALTH AND RECREATION

ASSOCIATION, INC.

_________________________________


78/265

STATE OF COLORADO )

) ss.

COUNTY OF ROUTT )

Subscribed to and sworn to before me this _____ day of _________________, 2014 byBart 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:


79/265

AGENDA ITEM #5.


FROM: Jerry Stabile, Police Captain (Ext. 119)Casey Earp, ssistant to t!e City Mana"er

#$RO%&$: Joel Rae, 'irector o Pblic Saety (Ext. 11*)'eb $ins+ar, City Mana"er

'#E: Janary -, -1/

0#EM: n orinance a2enin" rticle 000 o C!apter 19 o t!eStea2boat Sprin"s Re+ise Mnicipal Coe relatin" to3illie resistant containers4 pro+iin" an eecti+e ate4an settin" a !earin" ate.

5E6# S#EP: 1streain" o co22ercial 3illie resistant containers.

777 DIRECTION___ INFORMATION_x_ ORDINANCE___ MOTION___ RESOLUTION

0. RE8%ES# OR 0SS%E:Per City Couni! Diretion" ti$ or%in&ne &'en%$ te re(uire'ent$ o''eri&! %u')$ter$in Ste&'*o&t S)rin+$. City $t&,, &!$o u)%&te% !&n+u&+e in te re$i%enti&! ter'ino!o+y o,te )re-iou$ or%in&ne *ut &$ not $u*$t&nti-e!y &n+e% &nytin+ it re+&r% tore$i%enti&! re,u$e ont&iner re(uire'ent$. Ti$ or%in&ne &!$o &$ !&n+u&+e out!inin+ &)re$u')tion o, i!%!i,e &ttr&t&nt '&teri&! in &$e$ o, i!%!i,e u'&n enounter$ &roun%

re,u$e o!!etion )oint$.

At $eon% re&%in+ $t&,, i!! *rin+ *&/ & )!&n to e!) 'iti+&te re$i%enti&! i!%!i,eenounter$ &roun% re,u$e o!!etion ont&iner$.

00. RECOMME5'E' C#0O5:


80/265


81/265

1

Jessica Koenig


Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:49 AM

To: [email protected]; City Council; Casey Earp; Jerry Stabile

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form

ThankyouforyourcommentPaul.Councilandtheappropriatestaffmembershavereceivedyourcomment.

JessicaKoenig

StaffAssistant

CityClerksOffice


[email protected]

(970)8718225

From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent:Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:47 AMTo:City Council

Subject:Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

City Council Contact Form

First Name*

Paul

Last Name*

StettnerEmail Address*

[email protected]

Please select the department(s) you want to contact:

[ ]City Council

Please leave your comments or questions below.

To: Steamboat Springs City Council From: Paul Stettner Subject: Bears Date: January

15, 2014 I respectfully offer the following to expand on my comments at the January 6,

2015 City Council meeting. I agree that the bear issue must be addressed and suggest

that a comprehensive plan (the Plan) be developed before amending the existingordinance. An ordinance, by itself, especially without specified penalties and fines, is not

the solution to the bear problem. Some matters to consider in the Plan. As the bear area

extends beyond city boundaries, the City should collaborate with the county in theplanning process. We can minimize but not eliminate the issue of bear/human

interaction. Bears will come to the City to eat the available natural food supply of service

berries, choke cherries and crab apples. Both the existing and proposed city ordinancesprimarily address wildlife proof/resistant containers and garbage. In addition to garbage

the availability of other human-provided food (compost, fruit trees, bird feeders, pet

food, pets, farm animals, etc.) needs to be considered. In-city chicken coops, other farm

Attachment 1


82/265

2

animals and their related feeds are surely bear attractors. While a comprehensive plan is

being developed, immediate remedial actions could be taken using the existing ordinanceto prepare for this bear season; Extensively publicize the program. Give notice to the

public and organizations like property management companies, real estate companies,

HOAs, events organizations, et.al. of the existing ordinance and alert them that byMarch 21, 2015; * the municipal court will have established the penalty schedule and

fines, and that * City authorities will be actively enforcing the existing ordinance

concurrent with Plan development. Enforcement should first focus on what seems to be

the biggest problem - commercial (restaurant and condominium) dumpsters. The Planshould list which agencies (with phone #s) to contact in case of a bear situation. Ref: Se.

19-101.5 Approved Containers: In addition to containers on the Bear Resistant

Container List, locally developed containers that meet the criteria should also beconsidered for approval. The ordinance could be written to allow people to use the

container they want as long as its acceptable to their trash hauler and shown to be bear-

proof. If their container is ever successfully raided, they will receive a citation to eitherpay a fine that is at least as much as the cost of an approved container or to purchase an

approved container.

The following form was submitted via your website: City Council Contact Form

:

First Name: Paul

Last Name: Stettner

Email Address: [email protected]

Please leave your comments or questions below.: To: Steamboat Springs City Council

From: Paul StettnerSubject: Bears

Date: January 15, 2014

I respectfully offer the following to expand on my comments at the January 6, 2015 City Council meeting.

I agree that the bear issue must be addressed and suggest that a comprehensive plan (the Plan) be developedbefore amending the existing ordinance. An ordinance, by itself, especially without specified penalties and

fines, is not the solution to the bear problem.

Some matters to consider in the Plan.

As the bear area extends beyond city boundaries, the City should collaborate with the county in the planning

process.

We can minimize but not eliminate the issue of bear/human interaction. Bears will come to the City to eat the


83/265

3

available natural food supply of service berries, choke cherries and crab apples.

Both the existing and proposed city ordinances primarily address wildlife proof/resistant containers and

garbage. In addition to garbage the availability of other human-provided food (compost, fruit trees, bird feeders,

pet food, pets, farm animals, etc.) needs to be considered. In-city chicken coops, other farm animals and theirrelated feeds are surely bear attractors.

While a comprehensive plan is being developed, immediate remedial actions could be taken using the existing

ordinance to prepare for this bear season;Extensively publicize the program.

Give notice to the public and organizations like property management companies, real estate companies,HOAs, events organizations, et.al. of the existing ordinance and alert them that by March 21, 2015;

* the municipal court will have established the penalty schedule and fines, and that

* City authorities will be actively enforcing the existing ordinance concurrent with Plan development.

Enforcement should first focus on what seems to be the biggest problem - commercial (restaurant andcondominium) dumpsters.

The Plan should list which agencies (with phone #s) to contact in case of a bear situation.

Ref: Se. 19-101.5 Approved Containers: In addition to containers on the Bear Resistant Container List,locally developed containers that meet the criteria should also be considered for approval. The ordinance couldbe written to allow people to use the container they want as long as its acceptable to their trash hauler and

shown to be bear-proof. If their container is ever successfully raided, they will receive a citation to either pay a

fine that is at least as much as the cost of an approved container or to purchase an approved container.

Additional Information:Form Submitted on: 1/15/2015 10:46:56 AM

Submitted from IP Address: 63.151.71.148Referrer Page: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form-103

Form Address: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form-103


84/265

1

Jessica Koenig


Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:05 AM

To: City Council; [email protected]; Casey Earp; Jerry Stabile

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form

ThankyouforyourcommentPaul.Councilandtheappropriatestaffmembershavereceivedit.

JessicaKoenig

StaffAssistant

CityClerksOffice


[email protected]

(970)8718225

From:[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]

Sent:Friday, January 16, 2015 11:04 AMTo:City Council

Subject:Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form

If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.

City Council Contact Form

First Name*

Paul

Last Name*

StettnerEmail Address*

[email protected]

Please select the department(s) you want to contact:

[X]City Council

Please leave your comments or questions below.

To: Steamboat Springs City Council From: Paul Stettner Subject: Bears Date: January

16, 2014 Further to my 1/15/15 note to City Council; Much of the success of this

endeavor will depend on cooperation between the City, Trash Companies and CPW staff.

The City Police Department is not adequately staffed to patrol specifically for violationsof the trash ordinance but could easily respond to complaints. Therefore, it would

simplify the enforcement effort if the trash companies would notify the Police

Department when they encountered violations. It would really facilitate this program ifthe City Council pressured all three companies to cooperate in the enforcement effort.


85/265

2

The following form was submitted via your website: City Council Contact Form

:

First Name: Paul

Last Name: Stettner

Email Address: [email protected]

Please select the department(s) you want to contact: City Council

Please leave your comments or questions below.: To: Steamboat Springs City CouncilFrom: Paul Stettner

Subject: Bears

Date: January 16, 2014

Further to my 1/15/15 note to City Council;

Much of the success of this endeavor will depend on cooperation between the City, Trash Companies and CPW

staff. The City Police Department is not adequately staffed to patrol specifically for violations of the trash

ordinance but could easily respond to complaints. Therefore, it would simplify the enforcement effort if thetrash companies would notify the Police Department when they encountered violations. It would really facilitate

this program if the City Council pressured all three companies to cooperate in the enforcement effort.

Additional Information:Form Submitted on: 1/16/2015 11:03:32 AM

Submitted from IP Address: 63.151.71.148

Referrer Page: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form-103?savedProgressID=2

Form Address: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form-103


86/265

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO

ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 19 OF THESTEAMBOAT SPRINGS REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TOWILDLIFE 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 necessaryand 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

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS THAT:

SECTION 1. Chapter 1, !rticle """ of the City of Steamboat Springs #e$ised %unicipal

Code is hereby amended to read as follows&

ARTICLE III. - WILDLIFE PROOF RESISTANTCONTAINERS

S!. 19-1"". - D#$%$&$'%(.

'he following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall ha$e themeanings ascribed to them in this section, e(cept where the conte(t clearly indicates adifferent meaning&

!ppro$ed containeris a container used for the storage of refuse that has beenappro$ed for use in the City of Steamboat Springs by the )irector of the )epartment of*ublic Safety +)irector-.


87/265

)umpster enclosureis any structure constructioned in accordance with the structuralrequirements of the /niform uilding Code, as adopted by the city, irrespecti$e of theactual enclosed square footage of the structure including fully enclosed structures. 'hestructure shall be fully enclosed.

1on residential property is any property used in whole or in part for any use describedin Section 232 of the Community )e$elopment Code as a commercial, industrial,public, institutional, ci$ic, agricultural, par4, or open space use or for uses accessory tosuch uses.

#efuse containeris any container, other than a wildlife proof resistant refuse containeror !ppro$ed container, used for the storage of refuse.

#esidential property is property that is used e(clusi$ely for one or more residential uses

as defined in Section 232 of the Community )e$elopment Code or for uses accessoryto such residential uses. #esidential uses shall include home occupations and $acationhome rental uses.

5ildlife proof resistant refuse containeris a container used for the storage of refusethat has been certified to be wildlife proof resistantby the Colorado )i$ision of *ar4sand ildlife, the /.S. *ar4 Ser$ice, or the /.S. 6orest Ser$iceCity of Steamboat Springs.

! container not so certified, is considered a wildlife proof resistantrefuse container if itis fully enclosed, of sturdy construction, and includes a latching mechanism suitable topre$ent wildlife from opening the container. 7atching mechanisms shall allow a gap

between the container lid of no more than 83inch. 7atching mechanisms shall 4eep thelid closed in the e$ent the container is turned on its side or upside down. ildlife proofresistant refuse containers may include drain holes no larger than one inch in anydimension.

S!. 19-1"1. ) R($*%&$+ #( R#( (&'+/ 0$%&(.

+a "t shall be unlawful for any person to store refuse that is attracti$e to or edible bywildlife on residential property out of doors other than in a wildlife proof resistant refusecontainer appro$ed by theColorado )i$ision of*ar4s and ildlife or the City ofSteamboat Springs. 'his includes commercial dumpsters whether or not they are in a

dumpster enclosure.

+b *ersons with residential property curbside refuse pic4up ser$ice shall not placerefuse containers, other than wildlife proof resistant refuse containers, containing refusethat is attracti$e to or edible by wildlife at the curb for pic4up until after &00 a.m. onthe morning of their scheduled collection day. !fter pic4up, all refuse containers, otherthan wildlife proof resistant refuse containers, must be returned to a building, house,garage, or dumpster enclosure by 9&00 p.m.


88/265

+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 topurchase and use wildlife proof resistant refuse containers for all

Documents

Steamboat Springs City Council agenda