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 Councils 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 60.
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 Attorneys Update/Report. (Lettunich)
b. City Managers 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.
___
_x_
___
___
___
DIRECTION
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.
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 Countys 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 Citys 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 users
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.
Another unresolved issue with Viewpoint is the Countys 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 Countys 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 developers project. Only approved consultants would be recognized,
the developer would have to pay the building departments 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.
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
Attachment 1
View Point
Selected to replace, end of life, Permits Plus Software
Permits Plus was developed in the 90s
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
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
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
Other Building Department Updates

Fee Reduction
Increased Fees for Remote Inspections
Use of Third Parties
For large projects
To expedite project
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
___
___
___
_X_
___
I.
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
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
IV.
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 Citys 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.

There are no known conflicts or environmental concerns.
VII.

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
Attachment 1
#*!&;=/;9:=
#((-#(!#($&"'0

!+&("(#&%)'("'!"((&#)(- $"$#&$&&&&*+-
''(# #((($&"&(& 1)&&"(''(#($&#$&(- '"&
("(&'(#"+(!(-'((/"+#) &') ("")"'( -/"#"*""("
$#("( -"&#)'&*+-1#!$&(#(' (&"(*/"''$#"()&(&
)$($&"&&#"+-&#!($&"&""(&'(#"+#) &') (
"((&$) '(-/&)$&""(&!$('/" ''!$(#"(
&&(#" "*') %) (-#(&1

!

)&&"( -# "#$(#"(#$)&'&#)$# #('#"( (#(#&(#(
$&"&& 1#$(#"$$ '(#(# '("/#&"-"#&"&
#('
$()& #+")&:1 "(#"/ &"( -$)&' #(>&#!#)((#)"(-1
!&$ !

-$ "'(#*(?#(A #('"''! ("(&$&#$&(-"(#'" 3
#+"&/:1>3&)"$&#$&(-1$ "+#) " )) "'! C;999'%1(
#)'+('! &''#&-+ ")"(((&'(&"#( #(1'
#(#"#&(#)''(+#) $ (#"'(&)(#"&+-&#!((& /"
$#'(#"+&'&)$(#"(#&&(#" )'&'+#) !"!.1

#(&#)$'#&&(#(#)(-"&&#+$& #(- $"$''#(
+(( (((')*'#"1(- $"$' )'(&("&" #+"
)&;1&%)'('!"(+#) &#''$$&#,!( -;>23<92# $"$
"' )'(&( #+" )14,('!"( "!"(#) "#((15
!'$ #
!

#(&#)$''3#3&(''#&&*+-(&#)(+'(&"#)"&-#(
+'(&"!#'( #(4 )'(&("- #+")&< #+51(#)("'!"(#&
$&&&''/++ *(#)'(+'(&"''1' )'(&(")&<
#+/('3#3&(''$&'"('$&# !'" )"( #''#$&"/"
"#(&$$&#(#" &-3#*&3)'-""&#)'"(&'(#"/"&("
&(&*') !$(#&&&(#" )'&'1

Proposed Tree
Plantings
Dangerous
Driveway Access
Approximate Proposed
Building Envelope
Lost Parking
Spaces
!($%%

"#&(#(#&(#($&#$&(-# '"'!"(((&"('''&#''
($&#$&(-)'"('!'3#3&(+'(&"''(#($&"&&#1#!
#"&"'",$&''((((-&"(!"'!"(+ ('#(&
'!"('( ,'(/(&+#) #"(")(#&'(((+'(&"''#)
)'1
"#&'(#(#&(#($&#$&(-&&&-)"(#"" $((!"1

*$&'"($&#$#' (#&"("+'!"((#&&-#"'*& #'#"'/)(
''"(##)'-(#*('&#)'#"'&(#"(#(1#+*&/'#"(#"
#&*""'!"(&#!((-/ $&#$#'&(""+'!"(&#''(
$&#$&(-# #+"( "!"(#(&*+-)"( ($$&#'("#&(&"
$&#$&(-#)"&-/"#&"((#&&-" $1 (#('$#"((-*"#(
'(((-+#) $((/('!'&'#" (#,$((((-+#) + "
(#(&")"!$&#*"$&# !('!"(#&* #$"$&&
(&"(*1(&#&"#((-$(('#&&(+-/(#"(#"#&(
'!"(&#''(-$&#$&(-#) '($) ((((# #&#("+
'!"(#&("#&(&""#&'+#) *"""( '$"1
!)$"

! ! $

(-0
'!"(&%)'(+#) "&'('(-#("(&'(#"(!(-'(-
!#*"(&*+-"(&"+-&#!("(&'(#""&("B93&
&*+-"(&"" 1'3#3&("(&"+#) (* -&(>3+-
"(&'(#"($ "!(-'(/")'#('"(&-" +#)
"#)&3'$"(&"'",('""&+&&&(#" )'&'&
$&"/&"3)$/+&" "#'(1 "#"(&'(/(&%)'(''+#) !#*
(&*+-"(&"+-&#!()'-$&"&/' #+('$'#&*&'
"(&"",("/""#&$#&((&&#!(#)'"(#("#&! #+#
&*&'"(&"",("($&"&$&"&"+-((+#) *#
"&'"("&#&$'(&"'/&'"#(&'(($ 3!(-'(
"(&'(#"1

&""& !$('0
$&"&'#"#(!#'($#$) &(& '"(!#($&"'1$&" #('
#(" (#$(-/+()'&'$)' -"(##*& #+$&" #"$
(&((#('(#!(-'(1'3#3&(&*+-"(&"(#($&#$&(-
+#) !"(( '((+#"$&$'(&$&"'$'/#&"&&(#"

)'&'(#)( .(#*& #+$&")&"&(&$&"(#(+/"
#&"!#&$'(&"'(#&#''!(-'((#''((& 1&%)'(
&*+-''+#) $&'&*)$(#(&(& $&"'$'((+#)
#(&+' #'(1

"(#"/("+&*+-#) )''$ (#()&"&#)"-&&(#"
)'&'/)'"(#((#!$#&(#"#(&*+-(#!(&3$#"(()&"+-&#!
(#(&$&&'1

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

'3#3&(&*+- "!"(/-#"(&'(/+#) &(!) &&*')
!$(1&*+-+#) !!( -*' ')'&'"(&($&"&
&#!($ 3!(-'("(&'(#"/"('( "'+#) &&)$(
&*+-)'#("''& -"(&"" 1

!
&'$() -&%)'("'!"(&#''(!#($&"'(- $"$)'(
!'($&#$#'* #$!"($&#(+#&!)((&"(&!'#'(-/(&
"$&"#"&"'/"-$&'&*"*') "&&(#" %) (-1

'#"#('(((##"((!+(%)'(#"'#&#"&"'&&"(' ((&1
- $#"")!&'4B@95A=?3=A<=/"!-! &'''
('##"6! 1#!1

"-#)*&-!)#&-#)&(!"#"'&(#"1

"& -/

('##"

Attachment 2
Attachment 3
N04 05' 51"E
NORTH
98.96'
+ORTQXGOGPV5WTXG[2NCV
2CTEGNUQH.CPF
N88 10' 29"W
662.70'
NO. DATE
REVISIONS
INT
Improvement Survey Plat

SE1/4SW1/4 SECTION 9
T6N, R84W, 6TH P.M.
DATE:
08-20-13
DWN. BY:
JAG
JOB NO.
2257-001
CHK. BY:
MK
DWG. NO.
2257-001-lsp
SURV. BY:
LCI
Contour Interval = N/A

Horizontal Scale
30'
15'
60'
30'
1" = 30'
141 9th Street, P.O. Box 774943

Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477
Phone (970) 871-9494 Fax (970) 871-9299
www.LANDMARK-CO.com
SHEET NO.
OF
Attachment 4
Parks and Rec Commission Minutes
December 10, 2014
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 its 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 were 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
1

December 10, 2014
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 Im 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 youll 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 weve worked on that, we will be selecting a survey
company and working with them; theyll 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.

December 10, 2014
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 youre starting up the road, its on the left side on the hill. Its actually
eight lots that were platted in the 1890s, and theyve never been built on. My
plan is to purchase all eight. I have an option thats 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.
Ive been using this trail for 30 years, and Im 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 Steamboats being wrecked and the
views are being degraded. Im very aware this is a high visibility/high use area.
Gooding showed the current access.
Gooding: Its 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 youre 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 wed 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 theres a very thin strip of city open space that borders the south
side of this lot. Its 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 werent 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 Im 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 Im 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 wouldnt be assured that no one
would use this bad access in the future. So part of the plan also is to create a
3

December 10, 2014
new easement for Huffingtons 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
wed 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: Ive looked at multiple scenarios. The outlines of the property Im going
to purchase dont touch the road. If the city wanted to expand that road and
bulldoze some of the hillside out, thats fine with me. If they wanted us to include
that with our work plan, I think thatd 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. Id do it if I could, but its not really up to me.
Commissioner Lynch asked if Gooding had encountered any opposition.
Gooding: No. Ive been very sensitive to the fact that some people may be
against anything happening on this hillside. But so far when Ive been talking to
people, I havent really gotten any negativity.
Commissioner Tumminello said he thought something like this was more in the
purview of the Planning Commission and the city attorneys office and suggested
that the commissions 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. Goodings 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.
4

December 10, 2014
Tennis Center Recap

Jim Swiggart, Steamboat Tennis Center:
Showed a promotional video created with corporate partners that is one of
several. Its 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 Jims 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.
Jims 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.
5

December 10, 2014
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 citys 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. Weve 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 thats 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.
Weve 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.
Its hard to imagine how far and above our facility is to every other facility Ive ever been in
that is non-private. Most people who walk into our facility from out of town make the
automatic assumption that its private because its so nice.
Weve 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. Theyre there to play tennis, but we
6

December 10, 2014
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 thats 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 concessionaires goals is to develop a youth program that is as
respected and as sought after as the Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club. Were well on
our way to getting there. Our programs 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:
Weve 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:
Ive taught all over the country. Jim sought me out, and its been amazing. Hes 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 Ive taught is Stanford, Cal Berkley.
QUESTIONS:
Tumminello asked what the councils 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, Id like to know that sooner than later.
Tumminello asked about 2014 revenue numbers versus 2013.

December 10, 2014
Swiggart: Theyre 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 centers 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 didnt 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 hell 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 concessionaires 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
concessionaires contract.
DISCUSSION
Overstreet will draft a letter of endorsement and present it to the commission.
Directors Report:
John Overstreet:
8

December 10, 2014
Thanked the commissioners for their guidance and leadership in setting a vision for parks
and recreation in the city. Expressed his and staffs appreciation.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Dolman moved to adjourn the meeting at approximately
Commissioner Stoller seconded the motion.
6:44 p.m.
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.
___
___
___
___
_X_
I.
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
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.
Although the places to post notice of regular and special meetings are designated in the
Citys 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.
NA
VII.
Direct staff otherwise.
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 Citys advisory boards and commissions of
the City shall be posted for purposes of the Colorado Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. 24-6402(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 Citys advisory boards and commissions set forth
above, the City Clerk shall also post such notices on the Citys 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
AGENDA ITEM #4.

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.
___
___
_X_
___
___
I.
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
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.
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
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.
In summary, it is in the Citys 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
Attachment 1
x
Sec.762.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.765.Maximumnoiselevels.
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:
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.
(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.

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 Citys 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 Citys 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.
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.

ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

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

ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk
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.
___
_
_X
_X_
___
I.
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
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 SSHRAs conversion of the property to parking uses in exchange
for SSHRAs agreement that the property be open to use by the public.
II.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
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.
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
which is critical to the successful ongoing operation of the Old Town Hot Springs. It is
staffs 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.
No additional conflicts or environmental issues.
VII.
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
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
Attachment 1
Attachment 2

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 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.
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.
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.

Council of the City of Steamboat Springs, at its regular meeting held on the 20th day of
January, 2015.

ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk
FINALLY READ, PASSED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of February, 2015.

ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk
Exhibit A
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 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.
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.
_________________________________
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF ROUTT
)
)
)
ss.
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
COUNTY OF ROUTT
)
)
)
ss.
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:
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.
___
___
_x_
___
___
I.
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
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
supplemental budget to Council for this expense.
IV.
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 noncompliant 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.
VII.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

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.
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).
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 -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.
(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
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.
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.
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.

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
MEMORANDUM
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.
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.
AGENDA ITEM #7.

____________________________________________________________
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
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
2
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
Attachment 1
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, AICP

Principal 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.
Project
Location
955
Pahwintah
Staff Report - Table of Contents

Section
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
CDC Staff Analysis Summary

Project Location
Background
Project Description
Project Analysis
Staff Findings
Attachments
Pg
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
PC Hearing: 1/22/2015
Staff Planner: Rebecca Bessey
I.
CC Hearing: 2/3/2015
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Strategy GM-1.1(b): Use criteria to consider minor UGB changes.

Criteria
Consistent
Yes
No
NA
Notes
1)
Compatibility with community plan

5
vision, goals, & policies
2) Significant functional impacts &
5
inordinate long-term cost liability
3) Conformance with planned provision
5
of urban services
5
4) Feasibility of infrastructure
5
5) Contiguity with city boundary
5
6) Appropriate for urban development
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the Minor UGB Change proposed at 955 Pahwintah (#CP-14-01)
with a Future Land Use designation of Residential NeighborhoodLow is CONSISTENT with
the criteria for minor UGB changes.
. (Detailed policy analysis is located in Section V; Staff Findings are in Section VI)
II. PROJECT LOCATION
City Limit
Urban Growth Boundary
Department of Planning and Community Development Staff Report
Page 1-2

III. BACKGROUND
The subject site is located in unincorporated Routt County; 63% of the propertys 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 propertys 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
NeighborhoodLow on the Future Land Use Plan. The Plan identifies appropriate zone districts for
the Residential NeighborhoodLow land use category as the Residential Neighborhood districts
(RN-1, RN-2, RN-3, RN-4).
Page 1-3

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 Changes
SSACP 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 Citys 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 upon
annexation and subdivision/development of the property. Based on staffs review of the
information provided, it appears feasible for the site to be developed in conformance with
City policies and standards.
Page 1-4

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 staffs
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/development
application 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 propertys 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 staffs review of the information provided, it appears
that the property could accommodate additional development. Due to the sites
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 ResidentialLow land use designation (RN-1
or 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
NeighborhoodLow.
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;
Page 1-5

4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Citys ability to annex the property; and
5. 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 materials
2. Public comment
Page 1-6
NORTH
Horizontal Scale
30'
15'
30'
60'
1" = 30'
NORTH
Horizontal Scale
30'
15'
30'
60'
1" = 30'
NORTH
NORTH
Horizontal Scale
30'
15'
30'
60'
1" = 30'
Profile Scale
Horizontal Scale
1" = 60'
Yahmonite Street
Access Street
Douglas Street
Vertical Scale
1" = 6'
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Wes Fountain
[email protected]; Rebecca Bessey
Minor Adjustment to Urban Growth Boundary- 955 Pahwinta
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 at
1051 Thornburg St in very close proximity to 955 Pahwinta. The owners of this property
have submitted a petition to the county asking that the property be moved within the urban
growth boundary (UGB).
I am deeply concerned about the impact that minor UGB adjustments will have to our
immediate neighborhood as well as the precedent it will set for our community overall. In
respect 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 and
developed.
2. The financial impact to the city in supporting new residential development. Our town
derives much of its income from tax revenue (i.e. commercial real estate) not residential. I
understand that residential property not only does not "break even" but in most cases is a
burden financially on the city. Consequently there is no monetary benefit for this
development.
3. This particular property (955 Pahwinta) sits at the outskirts of small, funky neighborhoods
and is surrounded on three sides by very large ranch property. It would be easy to argue that
the property should remain in the county. The infrastructure in these surrounding
neighborhoods is already stressed. The narrow and winding roads are already used by dozens
of families with more than 30 school age children- most walking to surrounding schools. Our
neighborhood has no sidewalks and snow storage and removal is challenging. Spring and fall
water drainage and run-off is inadequate. Although initial development costs for the
immediate property can be pushed onto developers I would ask you to consider the
surrounding community at large. It would be irresponsible to support property development
at 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 Crawford
triangle, the open space at the bottom of Tree House, and Ritta Valentine park for your
consideration.
I beg that you consider all implications of these decisions heavily. How will this impact our
community in years to come. Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
Wes Fountain
970-846-7457
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
Rebecca Bessey
Minor UGB Amendment: Applicant - 955 Pahwintah LLC; Project Location - 955 Pahwintah
Saturday, January 10, 2015 3:49:11 PM
Rebecca, please ensure my comments regarding this application are forwarded to the City Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in their decision.
I reside at 875 Pahwintah Street, immediately adjacent to the subject property. I support the
application, believing it meets all applicable criteria and is compatible with the goals, policies, and
overall vision of the SSACP.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
/s/ John W. Ayer
January 12, 2015

Re:
CP-14-01 955 Pahwintah, LLC

Minor 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 well 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 applicants parcel would greatly exacerbate the issues we have in
managing our cattle operation.
We think that approval of the applicants request sets a dangerous precedent.
County zoning allows one residence per 35 acre parcel. Although we are staunch
supporters 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 Steamboat
Springs and Routt County is deeply rooted in agriculture and allowing any change from
this parcels historical use would negatively impact our ranching operation and the
character of the area.
Sincerely,
Matt and Christy Belton
Belton Livestock, LLC
970-879-7885
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
Rebecca Bessey
[email protected]
955 Pahwintah
Monday, January 12, 2015 4:18:29 PM
Rebecca,
As the property owner of 868 Yahmonite, I wanted to convey my support to include the
Rosenthal/Brinkman property at 955 Pahwintah with in the Urban Growth Boundary. I know there is a
group petitioning against smaller lots sighting that this would create more traffic and more strain on the
roads, particularly at the intersection of Thornburg and Yahmonite. To me this fits within the classic
scope of how Steamboat has grown by adding in subdivisions which touch the boundary, which makes
for responsible growth. I really can't imagine that traffic would be of considerable concern, traditionally
people moving into downtown have families, and are respectful of their neighbors. Also, I believe that
downtown needs quality building lots with well thought out design, as there is a lack of inventory of
good lots and good homes in downtown. The scale of what can happen in this property is relatively
small 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 the
neighborhood 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. Picking
Picking Construction LLC, www.pickingconstruction.com
Manic Training, www.manictraining.com
[email protected]
970-846-5883
Jan 13, 2015

Dear Planning Commission,
On Petition PI2014-008Staff comments states belowOS-2.2 New development within and adjacent to the designated Steamboat Springs
Area Community Plan area should protect adjacent agricultural operators and
preserve 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 cant
believe that this petition would even be considered for a boundary change.
This red line separates urban from rural land for many reasons. Lets actually use our
growth management tool we worked so hard on developing. Its working.
Submitted with respect,

Diane Holly
Routt County Resident
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
Jan. 14, 2015

Dear City Planning Commission and City Council,
Im 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 applicants 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 applicants petition, in which they state they have not yet determined detailed
plans for their property, were it to be annexed into the city. Whats more, its 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. Im 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 doesnt abut a ranchers 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 propertys 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 wasnt feasible to do so, given problems with cattle and city residents (and
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.
SSACPs 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 youd 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 Countys 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.
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 cant 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 dont see how the proposed amendment is compatible with the
surrounding area and the goals and policies of the Plan. Additionally, Ive 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
applicants 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 aint broke, dont 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 doesnt 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
Jan. 14, 2015

Dear City Planning Commission and City Council,
This is a little addendum to my letter, with a county map and County Assessors
Property Record Card attached.
Ive 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
Assessors card also shows well the ranchs (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
Property Record Card

Routt County Assessor
CHARLES ATWOOD
COMPANY
136 EAST MICHIGAN AVE, STE
1201
KALAMAZOO, MI 49007-3936
Account: R0677851
Parcel: 936081002
Tax Area: 20SS - *RE2* SS City

Limits_Old Town+Lower
Fish/Tamarack Areas & near Airport
Acres: 4.480
Situs Address:
Legal Description
Value Summary
Value By:
Market
Override
$100
$100
N/A
$100
Ag Land (1)
Total
TR OF LAND IN W2SW4NE4 SEC 8-6-84

TOTAL 4.48A
Public Remarks
Entry Date
08/19/2011
Model
Remark
8/19/11: MAILING ADD CHANGED PER 8/18/11 EMAIL FROM BECKY L. CORNWALL (AT
CHARLES ATWOOD COMPANY). SH
Ag Land Occurrence 1
Property Code
Super Neighborhood
Land Code
Zoning
Road
Topography
Utilities
4147 - GRAZING LAND-AGRIC

130 - STRAWBERRY PARK AREA
1050 - 1000 - LANDCODE
RE1
0 - UNKNOWN
0 - UNKNOWN
0 - UNKNOWN
SubArea
Acres
Total
Value
Economic Area
Neighborhood
Land Use
Site Access
Site View
Water
Sewer
2 - 10 MILE
1010 - 10 MILE
10 - GRAZING B
2 - YEAR-ROUND
0 - UNKNOWN
0 - UNKNOWN
0 - UNKNOWN
ABOVE GRADE ACTUAL TOTAL

Effective SqFt LIVING
SQ FT Assessor Use Only
4.48
4.48
Rate
Rate
Rate
A#: R0677851 P#: 936081002 As of: 01/07/2015
RENTAL AREA
UNIT VALUE
Rate
Rate
Page 1 of 2
Property Record Card

Routt County Assessor
Ag Land Occurrence 1
$100
22.32
Abstract Summary
Code
Classification
4147
Total
GRAZING LAND-AGRIC
Actual Value Value
A#: R0677851 P#: 936081002 As of: 01/07/2015
$100
$100
Taxable Actual Value

Value
Override
$30
$30
Taxable
Override
NA
NA
Page 2 of 2
NA
NA
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
mosmilkstein
Rebecca Bessey
UGB a endment
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 current
UGB 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 of
this ranch and the close proximity of the grazing cattle to our neighborhood creates problems
for both the ranchers and the neighbours. I believe we need to protect our ranching
community 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 if
this can be accomplished in any other way I would like to see the county and city work
together to accomplish this goal. I believe the best use of this property' is the division of
same, into two and one and one half acre plots, as is the desire of the owners, in order to
build their respective homes.
#2 This neighbourhood has at least two available lots for sale as well as two vacant ones, not
presently 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 sprawl
seen in other valley towns.
#4 we need to preserve our rich and unique western feel which is what attracts our tourists
and prevent further building in this area which cannot handle the exiting traffic, with the ever
growing young families .
Sincerely
Maureen Smilkstein
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab4
Attachment 2
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Michael Shaler
Rebecca Bessey
Michael Shaler
Re: Letter of Objection to Adjustment in Urban Growth Boundary (955 Pahwintah)
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 in
relation to the Urban Growth Boundary Adjustment for the 955 Pahwintah case.
I am satisfied with the outcome of the Planning Commissions deliberations; their decision satisfies my original
objection 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 removed
from the packet you have prepared for the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission deliberations. I no longer have
the 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 3
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 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 AGENDA
None.
955 Pahwintah, Metes and Bounds #CP14-01
DRAFT
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 weve 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 planning
directors that this did indeed fit the definition and intent of a minor amendment to the
urban growth boundary, so were 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. Its 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.
1
Planning Commission Minutes

January 22, 2015
All of the neighborhood directly abutting this property as well as the whole Old Town
area are designated on our future land use plan map as Old Town Residential, so thats 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 its 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.
Theyre 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 didnt 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.
DRAFT
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 citymaintained 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.
2
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 citys 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
were 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.
DRAFT
Lastly, the property is appropriate for urban development. Based on our staffs 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 staffs 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 thats really the key, and thats 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 thats really important to us from the citys perspective. I were considering
incorporating new properties into the urban growth boundary for consideration for future
annexation, we really should be looking at making sure that were using that land
efficiently since well be extending services to that property and taking it out of rural land
use.
3

January 22, 2015
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, were not just looking at that
saying we agree or we dont; were 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 multifamily 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.
Thats whats planned for the entire neighborhood, so its probably the most logical and
easy designation to place on that property because its consistent with the rest of the map
for that area. However, looking at the neighborhoods and how theyre actually zoned and
then looking at the natural constraints of the property, the topography of the property,
whether or not its 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 smallscale 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 neighborhood
development within walking distance to the community facilities, so its 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 citys RE zoning as well as the countys 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 its
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.
DRAFT
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
4
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 thats how were 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 commissions action
with the estate residential designation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
DRAFT
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 weve 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
5

January 22, 2015
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 hadnt spent a lot of time developing a site plan. We had our desires, and really
the process through the minor amendment doesnt require a lot of detail on the
development plan. So we didnt 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 wasnt 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 were 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; weve 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.
Weve 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 its 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 its been so since the
early 70s.
DRAFT
Brinkman showed the locations where water and sewer come onto the property as well as
two locations for electric and gas.
Brinkman: Theres 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.
6
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; its more possible on the western boundary. The
existing house from our standpoint is somewhat urban and hasnt 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. A
third 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-mans-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.
DRAFT
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 its fairly repetitive.
As we go through this, theres three things Id like you to keep in mind that are going to
keep coming back as we get into the criteria and that is: There hasnt 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, were not talking about a large parcel; were talking
about three acres. It isnt served by well and septic. It says: not served by urban
utilities. This property has been for decades. So it doesnt 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. Thats really what were 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

January 22, 2015
different policies and actions. The proposal really complies with a number of different
things in this section. They all revolve around those three things Ive already mentioned.
Lets go to the required specific findings for community plan amendment. The first one I
think weve covered that ground also. Weve 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
weve already discussed.
The proposed amendment will have no major negative impacts on service provision,
urban facilities and services. Rebecca really covered that as well. Weve already been
through TAC and had a meeting or two with Ben Beall, so as you can see there arent any
issues at this point. Well get into that during annexation and zoning.
Its consistent with the citys 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.
DRAFT
Brinkman: We agree with staffs 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:
Id 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 Ive 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 commission
having 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?
8
Winser: If Im understanding it correctly, whether or not they would still approve the
minor amendment
Meyer: They didnt have a separate discussion on two questions like were 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?
DRAFT
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 were being asked to approve. If the countys 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 its
been submitted to us. Thats 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. Its a little different than other development proposals and rezoning
applications and things like that where were really looking to the Community
Development Code to guide our decision making. In this case, were looking at the
community area plan, which is not a regulatory document. It is developed through a
9

January 22, 2015
public process; it makes recommendations for future land uses; its more broad in nature;
and its truly our community plan for how we want to grow in the future. That being said,
I dont know that its really necessary that the applicant -- what the applicant is
requesting 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 land
use map designation, but you would accept Estate Residential.
Brinkman: Yes. We havent done a lot of work on the implications the different zoning
designations would have on density or roadways and things. We havent 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 didnt
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.
DRAFT
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 havent done a detailed analysis. Through the feasibility analysis that we
looked at, I think that from staffs 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, youre 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 its the alley between Douglas and
Yahmonite has already been vacated in the portion that abuts this property, so theres not
the opportunity to extend that existing alley. While were 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 RN2?
Bessey: We have not.
10
Levy: I just did the math. It doesnt 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 havent done any analysis. So what do you think
is the maximum number of lots?
Bessey: I dont know that I can speak to a specific number. I think that the maximum that
you just quoted would not be achievable given that youd have a significant amount of
land taken out for right-of-way to serve any higher number of lots. Theres an open space
requirement that this site would be subject to through the subdivision process. I think
thats 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 thats going to impact
the layout of those lots and any potential street and access to those lots. So I dont think
theres 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.
DRAFT
Levy: What might be the trigger where this would no longer be a minor amendment? Ill
round up and say 8-10 units. Would you think that might change our consideration for a
minor versus major UGB amendment?
Gibbs: I dont 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, whos responsible for protecting those activities?
Gibbs: I think were 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
11

January 22, 2015
physically walking on the property, which is a different legal issue. Its not the
responsibility of this type of process to talk about whether or not somebody can trespass
on somebody elses property.
Lacy: Ben, Id like to talk a little bit about Criteria 2 on Page 1.4. On this criteria,
assuming we approve this application were 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
DRAFT
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 staffs 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 ranchs 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 countys
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. Theres 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
12
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 Brinkmans and Rosenthals original intent for the property. He called for caution
in the planning commissions decision. Land owners could be asked to spend a
significant amount of money on infrastructure requiring additional development that they
and surrounding neighborhoods dont 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.
DRAFT
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 decisionmaking process for future zoning of the property, the city doesnt require the applicant to
subdivide the property beyond what they may want to request in the future. So theres no
requirement for additional development if thats 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?
13

January 22, 2015
Bessey: Sure. I apologize because I know theres 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. Its a jointly adopted plan; its 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 that
he believes that the county planning commissions 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.
DRAFT
Buckley: So were both recommending bodies; thats 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 havent 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 youre 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 dont 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
14
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 whos sitting here if they think only three houses, that would
be if the applicant came in with RE-1 zoning. Thats a minimum one acre. RE-2 is the
13,500. So there could be more than three houses. Am I correct?
Bessey: I believe youre 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 theyre not bound to only be requesting
RE zoning at that time.
Meyer: So youre 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?
DRAFT
Bessey: Primarily talking about water and wastewater policies and provisions.
Lacy: Maybe this is poorly written because Im not sure how we can say that the future
development of this site will conform to those policies when were not looking at what
development is going to occur. So Im wondering as a note for the future if we need to
think about rewording that.
Bessey: Ill 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: Wouldnt Criteria 4 cover that? Im 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: Thats probably for a motion, dont you think?
Meyer: Absolutely.
15

January 22, 2015
COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION/MOTION
MacArthur: What weve 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 theres also one good reason not to, and thats the conversation
weve had tonight. The UGB amendment process is the first in a long series of processes.
Theres a lot of public process to go from this point forward in order for the applicant to
get from where theyre at today to eight, ten, two or one houses. Youll have a lot of
input. So regardless of where this commission lands tonight, Id 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 doesnt. But our
role here tonight is kind of two-fold, and I happen to agree with Kathis recommendation
that we split this into two. Its 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. Its to look at whats there and determine what fits best. Thats the role that
city staff took in preparing their recommendation. It really doesnt matter what makes
everybody feel good. Its looking at this 30-50 years down the road and what fits. So with
that being said, Ill make a recommendation to approve #CP-14-01 approval of the UGB
amendment, and then Ill make a second recommendation to approve #CP-14-01 with the
future land use designation of Neighborhood Residential Low.
DRAFT
MOTION
Commissioner MacArthur moved to approve #CP-14-01, the urban growth boundary
amendment.
Commissioner Meyer seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION ON MOTION
Meyer: 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 dont 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 Ill be supporting this
motion.
Commissioner Burns:
Ill be supporting the motion for the change in boundary; it certainly meets all the
requirements that weve 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: Ill 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
16
going to be a little more interesting, but I think at this point its pretty clear to me that
these six items have been met. So Ill be supporting the motion.
VOTE
Vote: 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 cant have both. They cant sit here and say well take the highest density. In
my mind, they made a commitment to Estate Residential.
DRAFT
Levy: Ill be supporting the motion mainly because I dont 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 even
after that. Personally, I would rather see higher density than RE-1. Im 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 were doing. Id like to see this actually happen for the
applicant. I know its a long process and they still have a long way to go to make this
happen for them, so Ill be supporting this motion.
Buckley: Ill be supporting it, too. I believe these guys made a commitment to Estate
Residential, so Ill support the motion.
MacArthur: I wont 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 cant imagine thats what anybody in this room wants either to
have 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
17

January 22, 2015
the proper land use designation for this parcel. Thats what Im doing, and thats why I
will not be supporting this motion.
Lacy: Im not going to be supporting the motion, either. I certainly hear everyones
concerns, and I can certainly recognize that, but at the same time, as weve 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
isnt saying that any kind of proposal fits or doesnt 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 its 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. Im having a hard time philosophically saying thats
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 dont think thats the case at all. Im
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 dont think Estate Residential is it; I think its a Neighborhood Residential
Low. So I wont be supporting the motion.
DRAFT
Levy: Ill 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
18
Attachment 4
01/28/2015
955Pahwintah
MinorUrbanGrowthBoundaryAmendment
City Limit
Urban Growth Boundary
FutureLandUseMap
SteamboatSpringsAreaCommunityPlan
01/28/2015
ZoningMap
CityofSteamboatSprings
DiscussionItems
Shouldthesubjectpropertybeincluded
intheUBG?
Ifyes,howshoulditbedesignatedonthe
FutureLandUseMap?
01/28/2015
CriteriaforConsideration
1. Theproposedchangeiscompatiblewiththe
goals,policies,andoverallvisionofthePlan.
Staffanalysis:
Wouldnothaveasignificantimpactbeyondthe
immediateareaofchange.
Doesnotconflictwithoverallvision,goals,and
policiesofthePlan.
WouldnotnecessitateanyotherrevisionstothePlan.
Appearstobealogicalextensionoftheexistingurban
fabric.
2. Urbandevelopmentisnotlikelytohavesignificant
functionalimpactsonexistinginfrastructureoran
unreasonablelongtermcostliabilityrelatedto
acceptanceandmaintenanceofpublic
infrastructure.
Staffanalysis:
Hasdirectaccesstopublicstreets,andexistinghomeis
alreadyservedbypublicwater&wastewater.
Wouldnotrequiremajorupgradesofexistinginfrastructure.
Wouldnotbeanunreasonablecostliability.
Mayprovideopportunityforimprovedstreetconnectivity
andproperturnarounds.
01/28/2015
3. Urbandevelopmentconformstotheadopted
policiesorplannedprovisionofurban
services.
Staffanalysis:
Wouldberequiredtoconformtoplansandpolicies
uponannexationandsubdivisionoftheproperty.
AppearsfeasibletodevelopinconformancewithCity
policiesandstandards.
4. Currentlyhasnecessaryinfrastructureorcan
befeasiblyservedbynecessaryinfrastructure.
Staffanalysis:
DirectlyabuttingexistingCitystreets.
Alreadyhassomewaterandwastewaterserviceto
theproperty.
Accessandutilityextensionsappearfeasibleandable
tomeetCitystandards.
Detailedevaluationofdesignwouldoccurattimeof
subdivision.
01/28/2015
5. Notlessthan1/6oftheperimeterofthe
propertyiscontiguouswiththeCityboundary.
Staffanalysis:
Over60%orapproximately3/5ofthepropertys
perimeteriscontiguouswiththeCityboundary.
6. Thepropertyisappropriateforurban
development.
Staffanalysis:
Appearsfeasibletoaccommodateurban
development.
01/28/2015
DiscussionItems
Shouldthesubjectpropertybeincluded
intheUBG?
Staffrecommendation:Yes
Ifyes,howshoulditbedesignatedonthe
FutureLandUseMap?
FutureLandUseDesignation
LandUsePlanBackgroundandIntent
Theintentofthisplanistoshapegrowthina
mannerthatpreservesourregionsnatural
environment,livability,andsenseofcommunity.
Bydirectinggrowthtowelldefinedcontiguous
areas,growthcanbebetteraccommodated
withoutencouraginginefficientlandusepatterns,
openlandsandnaturalresourcescanbebetter
protected;andpublicfacilitiesandservicescan
bedeliveredmoreeffectively.
01/28/2015
GoalGM1:SteamboatSpringswillhavea
compactlandusepatternwithinawelldefined
boundary.
AreaswithintheUGB willberequiredtodevelop
inanurbanfashionandtoannextotheCityprior
tooratthetimeofdevelopment,assumingthat
annexationcriteriacanbemet.
FutureLandUse
Related Uses
Zoning
Character
OldTown
Residential
RO
Smalllotswithgridstreetsand
alleys
Compatiblewithhistoricnature
ofOldTownarea
Singlefamilyand
limitedmultiple
familyresidential
FLUP designationofsurroundingneighborhood
Singlefamilyand
Neighborhooddevelopment
RN1
RN2
smallscaleattached withinwalkingdistanceto
RN3
residential
communityfacilities
RN4
Consistentwithzoningofsurroundingneighborhood
Neighborhood
Residential Low
EstateResidential
RE1
RE2
MRE
Largelotresidential 15 acrelots
Primarilyintendedfortransition
areasinWestSteamboat
(productofthe1999WSSAP)
01/28/2015
Staffrecommendation:
NeighborhoodResidential Low
Basedontopographyofthesite,complete
extensionofthegridstreetandalleynetwork
wouldlikelybedifficult.
Moreconsistentwiththesurrounding
neighborhood.
Appropriatepointtotransitiontoalower
residentialFLUP designation.
DiscussionItems
Howshoulditbedesignatedonthe
FutureLandUseMap?
Staffrecommendation:
NeighborhoodResidential Low
PlanningCommissionrecommendation:
EstateResidential
BoardofCountyCommissionersapproval:
EstateResidential
Attachment 5
01/28/2015
City of Steamboat Springs

City Council Presentation
February 3, 2015
1
Property History and Applicant Vision

Current Process and City and County
Collaboration over the last 16 months
Neighborhood
01/28/2015
LOOKING NORTHWEST
LOOKING
SOUTHWEST
4
01/28/2015
LOOKING SOUTH
TO DOUGLAS
STREET
LOOKING
SOUTHEAST
EXISTING HOUSE
BUILT IN EARLY
1970S
6
01/28/2015
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 east
Applicant also agrees to a FLUP Designation of Estate Residential
Specific number of lots and the land plan will be provided at the annexation and
zoning level of review.
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.
01/28/2015
Chapter 3: Land Use

Table LU-4: Land Use Summary Table
Agricultural Classification
Agricultural/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.
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 Plan
The 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
01/28/2015
Chapter 4: Growth Management

In 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 Citys 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
01/28/2015
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
01/28/2015
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Citys

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
plans 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 plan

vision, goals, & policies
9 yes
2. Significant functional impacts &

inordinate long-term cost liability
9 yes
3. Conformance with planned provision

of urban services
9 yes
4. Feasibility of infrastructure
9 yes
5. Contiguity with city boundary
9 yes
6. Appropriate for urban development
9 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
NeighborhoodLow is CONSISTENT with the criteria for minor UGB changes.
16
01/28/2015
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
AGENDA ITEM #8.

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

Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of Planning and Community
Development (Ext. 244)
THROUGH:
Debra Hinsvark, City Manager, (Ext. 228)
DATE:
February 3, 2015
ITEM:
RECOMMENDED
TABLING:
Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13
ZMA-14-02,
Idlewild
___
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.
AGENDA ITEM #9.

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

Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of Planning and Community
Development (Ext. 244)
THROUGH:
Debra Hinsvark, City Manager, (Ext. 228)
DATE:
February 3, 2015
ITEM:
RECOMMENDED
TABLING:
Subdivision, Blk. 2, Lots 1-13
#ANX-14-01:
Idlewild
___
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.
AGENDA ITEM #10

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.
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" antiidling 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!
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/FA216226F45192FE87256F4
1007B483C/$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.
The motion carried 4/3 with the friendly amendment. Council Members Macys, Magill
and Ford opposed ____________________________
Sonja Macys
District 3
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?
x 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.
x 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?
x It must have robust and defendable credibility that it is an accurate assessment of the
intended purpose of the survey in the purposes.
x 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.
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.
Attachment 1
Young Professionals Network

Housing Options for YPs
How old
are you?
25-34
76
70%
35-44
19
18%
45-54
6%
18-24
3%
55-64
2%
Your
Relationship
Status
Married
34
31%
Single
40
37%
Cohabitating
23
21%
Partnership
4%
Divorced
3%
Widowed
2%
What is your
income?
$25K-49K
32
30%
$50K-74K
29
27%
$75K-99K
20
19%
To $149K
15
14%
$0-24K
7%
$150k+
5%
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
Do you Rent or
Own?
Rent
62
57%
Own
37
34%
Other
7%
Where do
you Live?
Stbt Spgs 94
87%
Oak Creek /
Stagecoach
/ S. Routt
6%
Hayden
1%
Clark
2%
Other
2%
How much do
you pay for
rent or
mortgage?
How do our
rental prices
compare?
Higher
69
64%
Similar
19
18%
Lower
6%
N/A
6%
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%)
Obstacles in Getting a Mortgage

Cant get ahead
Cant 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
Dont understand the
process
Obstacles in Getting a Rental

Animals
Affordability
Month-to-month
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 isnt bad
AGENDA ITEM #11a1.

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

AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NO. 2015-04
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
5:00 P.M.
MEETING LOCATION:

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 Councils 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.
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.

1.
2.
3.
D.
Iron Horse RFP. (Small)

Police Station Site Selection Committee Criteria. (Small)
Sustainability Update. (Earp)
CONSENT
CALENDAR:
MOTIONS,
ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS
RESOLUTIONS
AND
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.
There are no items scheduled for this portion of the agenda.

E.

THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT PRO-TEM WILL READ EACH ORDINANCE TITLE
INTO THE RECORD. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY ORDINANCE.
F.
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)
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.
G.
________________________________________________________________________
H.
I.

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.

Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner
to state name and residence address/location.
x Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.
x Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes).
Individuals to state name and residence address/location.
x City staff to provide a response.
x
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.
K.
L.
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 Attorneys Update/Report. (Lettunich)
b.
City Managers Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)
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
AGENDA ITEM #11a2.

*****TENATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 3, 2015*****

AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NO. 2015-05
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015
5:00 P.M.
MEETING LOCATION:

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 Councils 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
_________________________________________________________________
C.

1.
D.
Downtown Investment Plan. (Earp/Gibbs)
CONSENT
CALENDAR:
MOTIONS,
ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS
RESOLUTIONS
AND
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.
E.
2.
RESOLUTION:
3.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE:

THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT PRO-TEM WILL READ EACH ORDINANCE TITLE
INTO THE RECORD. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY ORDINANCE.
4.
F.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE:
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.
G.
________________________________________________________________________
H.
I.

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

x Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner
to state name and residence address/location.
x Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.
x Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes).
Individuals to state name and residence address/location.
x City staff to provide a response.
6.
K.
L.
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 Attorneys Update/Report. (Lettunich)
b.
City Managers Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)
OLD BUSINESS
10.
M.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE:
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.
ADJOURNMENT
BY:
JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC
CITY CLERK
AGENDA ITEM #12
STAFF REPORTS:
a) City Attorneys Update/Report. The above is a discussion item
b) City Managers Report: Ongoing Projects. Report to follow this page
AGENDA ITEM #12b.
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.
Royers 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 AccountingSales 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.
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.
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 Caseys calculations. Hell have those ready for
Council to review at the February 24 meeting.
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
MSECs 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 Citys 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 Bordens 36 inch mortars! I
hope to see everyone there. Last year I joined Meg Bentley to witness the craziest bike event Ive ever seen,
and I cant wait to see it again. I am always impressed by the Citys 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. Were
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 Overstreets 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.
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 isnt 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 Jonathans 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 years count. The on-time performance percentages for
this weeks 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.
Aqua Cinnamon
7thtoCMC CMCtoWest WesttoFair FairtoDtwn
Aq/Cin.
1Dec14
0
0
0
0
2Dec14
0
0
0
0
3Dec14
0
0
0
0
4Dec14
0
0
0
0
5Dec14
0
0
0
0
6Dec14
0
0
0
0
7Dec14
37
49
195
55
8Dec14
56
113
235
58
9Dec14
65
140
272
65
10Dec14
76
115
251
27
11Dec14
73
130
276
27
12Dec14
133
100
245
115
13Dec14
36
63
189
90
14Dec14
24
81
294
108
15Dec14
51
120
243
138
16Dec14
34
169
357
75
17Dec14
28
79
343
80
18Dec14
53
62
252
164
19Dec14
100
141
318
69
20Dec14
67
99
299
76
21Dec14
14
67
380
74
22Dec14
54
91
311
116
23Dec14
16
83
398
98
24Dec14
20
66
297
128
25Dec14
15
83
235
71
26Dec14
72
107
352
86
27Dec14
14
58
319
141
28Dec14
29
43
385
131
29Dec14
52
108
302
158
30Dec14
9
58
385
60
31Dec14
25
67
320
101
1153
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
336
462
542
469
506
593
378
507
552
635
530
531
628
541
535
572
595
511
404
617
532
588
620
512
513
Costperpax
Cost
Cum,Pas
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
336
$2,288.16
798
$2,288.16
1340
$2,288.16
1809
$2,288.16
2315
$2,288.16
2908
$2,288.16
3286
$2,288.16
3793
$2,288.16
4345
$2,288.16
4980
$2,288.16
5510
$2,288.16
6041
$2,288.16
6669
$2,288.16
7210
$2,288.16
7745
$2,288.16
8317
$2,288.16
8912
$2,288.16
9423
$2,288.16
9827
$2,288.16
10444
$2,288.16
10976
$2,288.16
11564
$2,288.16
12184
$2,288.16
12696
$2,288.16
13209
$2,288.16
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$6.81
$4.95
$4.22
$4.88
$4.52
$3.86
$6.05
$4.51
$4.15
$3.60
$4.32
$4.31
$3.64
$4.23
$4.28
$4.00
$3.85
$4.48
$5.66
$3.71
$4.30
$3.89
$3.69
$4.47
$4.46
$49.61 $57,204.00
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$2,288.16
$6.81
$4,576.32
$5.73
$6,864.48
$5.12
$9,152.64
$5.06
$11,440.80
$4.94
$13,728.96
$4.72
$16,017.12
$4.87
$18,305.28
$4.83
$20,593.44
$4.74
$22,881.60
$4.59
$25,169.76
$4.57
$27,457.92
$4.55
$29,746.08
$4.46
$32,034.24
$4.44
$34,322.40
$4.43
$36,610.56
$4.40
$38,898.72
$4.36
$41,186.88
$4.37
$43,475.04
$4.42
$45,763.20
$4.38
$48,051.36
$4.38
$50,339.52
$4.35
$52,627.68
$4.32
$54,915.84
$4.33
$57,204.00
$4.33
9.5
Yellow Line
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8.69
6.29
5.64
5.62
5.76
5.91
6.36
6.82
7.14
7.09
7.00
7.24
7.44
7.75
7.92
8.05
8.26
8.46
8.60
8.56
8.59
8.71
8.57
8.55
7thtoCMC CMCtoWest WesttoFair FairtoDtwn

Aq/Cin.
1Jan15
27
51
279
120
2Jan15
28
93
439
147
3Jan15
23
65
322
137
4Jan15
37
106
264
98
5Jan15
34
139
323
173
6Jan15
18
76
467
121
7Jan15
17
136
486
134
8Jan15
17
82
412
116
9Jan15
33
119
394
199
10Jan15
32
111
346
108
11Jan15
59
111
326
68
12Jan15
53
168
346
73
13Jan15
52
107
308
73
14Jan15
62
129
345
81
15Jan15
70
141
264
107
16Jan15
50
126
399
167
17Jan15
39
89
352
122
18Jan15
61
83
303
106
19Jan15
52
92
257
72
20Jan15
52
83
348
86
21Jan15
38
92
330
76
22Jan15
73
106
308
65
23Jan15
74
102
336
129
24Jan15
34
62
237
84
25Jan15
26
58
224
71
26Jan15
59
119
285
74
27Jan15
0
0
0
0
28Jan15
0
0
0
0
29Jan15
0
0
0
0
30Jan15
0
0
0
0
31Jan15
0
0
0
0
1120
Total
477
707
547
505
669
682
773
627
745
597
564
640
540
617
582
742
602
553
473
569
536
552
641
417
379
537
0
0
0
0
0
Costperpax
Cost
Cum,Pas
477
$2,288.16
1184
$2,288.16
1731
$2,288.16
2236
$2,288.16
2905
$2,288.16
3587
$2,288.16
4360
$2,288.16
4987
$2,288.16
5732
$2,288.16
6329
$2,288.16
6893
$2,288.16
7533
$2,288.16
8073
$2,288.16
8690
$2,288.16
9272
$2,288.16
10014
$2,288.16
10616
$2,288.16
11169
$2,288.16
11642
$2,288.16
12211
$2,288.16
12747
$2,288.16
13299
$2,288.16
13940
$2,288.16
14357
$2,288.16
14736
$2,288.16
15273
$2,288.16
15273
$2,288.16
15273
$2,288.16
15273
$2,288.16
15273
$2,288.16
15273
$2,288.16
$4.80
$3.24
$4.18
$4.53
$3.42
$3.36
$2.96
$3.65
$3.07
$3.83
$4.06
$3.58
$4.24
$3.71
$3.93
$3.08
$3.80
$4.14
$4.84
$4.02
$4.27
$4.15
$3.57
$5.49
$6.04
$4.26
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$63.33 $70,932.96
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$2,288.16
$4.80
$4,576.32
$3.87
$6,864.48
$3.97
$9,152.64
$4.09
$11,440.80
$3.94
$13,728.96
$3.83
$16,017.12
$3.67
$18,305.28
$3.67
$20,593.44
$3.59
$22,881.60
$3.62
$25,169.76
$3.65
$27,457.92
$3.65
$29,746.08
$3.68
$32,034.24
$3.69
$34,322.40
$3.70
$36,610.56
$3.66
$38,898.72
$3.66
$41,186.88
$3.69
$43,475.04
$3.73
$45,763.20
$3.75
$48,051.36
$3.77
$50,339.52
$3.79
$52,627.68
$3.78
$54,915.84
$3.83
$57,204.00
$3.88
$59,492.16
$3.90
$61,780.32
$4.05
$64,068.48
$4.19
$66,356.64
$4.34
$68,644.80
$4.49
$70,932.96
$4.64
0
Yellow Line
$ 10.48
$ 10.75
$ 9.39
$ 9.79
$ 10.42
$ 10.22
$ 10.05
$ 9.79
$ 9.75
$ 9.31
$ 9.04
$ 9.04
$ 8.72
$ 8.05
$ 7.41
$ 6.91
$ 6.93
$ 6.87
$ 6.87
$ 6.69
$ 6.51
$ 6.41
$ 6.33
$ 6.28
$ 6.21
$ 6.21
$ 6.12
$ 6.04
$ 5.97
$ 5.94
$ 5.92
Blue Extra
BlueX
1Dec14
2Dec14
3Dec14
4Dec14
5Dec14
6Dec14
7Dec14
8Dec14
9Dec14
10Dec14
11Dec14
12Dec14
13Dec14
14Dec14
15Dec14
16Dec14
17Dec14
18Dec14
19Dec14
20Dec14
21Dec14
22Dec14
23Dec14
24Dec14
25Dec14
26Dec14
27Dec14
28Dec14
29Dec14
30Dec14
31Dec14
MountainBnd
0
0
0
0
0
0
115
149
194
190
133
187
159
191
273
177
125
48
300
287
343
351
498
325
219
381
446
389
461
450
373
Condos TownBound
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
125
73
174
77
171
72
148
71
142
78
198
123
141
207
187
166
329
169
211
117
68
157
83
247
347
246
230
380
398
245
265
408
374
431
433
327
341
396
457
546
359
568
418
419
392
534
475
1136
325
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
345
396
442
410
346
463
423
585
768
557
310
288
894
763
1121
861
1280
1189
887
1234
1351
1375
1272
1459
1834
20853
CostPerPax
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$5.79
$5.04
$4.52
$4.87
$5.77
$4.31
$4.72
$3.41
$2.60
$3.59
$6.44
$6.94
$2.23
$2.62
$1.78
$2.32
$1.56
$1.68
$2.25
$1.62
$1.48
$1.45
$1.57
$1.37
$1.09
$2.39
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$49,940.00
Cum.Pax
0
0
0
0
0
0
345
741
1183
1593
1939
2402
2825
3410
4178
4735
5045
5333
6227
6990
8111
8972
10252
11441
12328
13562
14913
16288
17560
19019
20853
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$1,997.60
$5.79
$3,995.20
$5.39
$5,992.80
$5.07
$7,990.40
$5.02
$9,988.00
$5.15
$11,985.60
$4.99
$13,983.20
$4.95
$15,980.80
$4.69
$17,978.40
$4.30
$19,976.00
$4.22
$21,973.60
$4.36
$23,971.20
$4.49
$25,968.80
$4.17
$27,966.40
$4.00
$29,964.00
$3.69
$31,961.60
$3.56
$33,959.20
$3.31
$35,956.80
$3.14
$37,954.40
$3.08
$39,952.00
$2.95
$41,949.60
$2.81
$43,947.20
$2.70
$45,944.80
$2.62
$47,942.40
$2.52
$49,940.00
$2.39
Red 13-14
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.15
$ 3.10
$ 3.17
$ 3.14
$ 3.15
$ 3.01
$ 2.90
$ 2.83
$ 2.74
$ 2.72
$ 2.67
$ 2.64
$ 2.58
$ 2.52
$ 2.44
$ 2.32
$ 2.29
$ 2.26
$ 2.20
$ 2.13
$ 2.09
$ 2.05
$ 2.00
$ 1.92
BlueX
1Jan15
2Jan15
3Jan15
4Jan15
5Jan15
6Jan15
7Jan15
8Jan15
9Jan15
10Jan15
11Jan15
12Jan15
13Jan15
14Jan15
15Jan15
16Jan15
17Jan15
18Jan15
19Jan15
20Jan15
21Jan15
22Jan15
23Jan15
24Jan15
25Jan15
26Jan15
27Jan15
28Jan15
29Jan15
30Jan15
31Jan15
MountainBnd
313
447
315
192
342
367
548
331
297
250
207
218
254
217
312
352
328
269
253
352
246
228
264
275
203
236
0
0
0
0
0
Condos TownBound
510
367
608
671
321
318
307
320
332
368
348
409
350
324
316
333
260
314
242
221
209
259
260
243
227
230
166
256
205
251
334
359
546
381
317
214
273
265
175
262
170
186
234
243
170
216
295
330
187
263
217
288
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1190
1726
954
819
1042
1124
1222
980
871
713
675
721
711
639
768
1045
1255
800
791
789
602
705
650
900
653
741
0
0
0
0
0
23086
CostPerPax
$1.68
$1.16
$2.09
$2.44
$1.92
$1.78
$1.63
$2.04
$2.29
$2.80
$2.96
$2.77
$2.81
$3.13
$2.60
$1.91
$1.59
$2.50
$2.53
$2.53
$3.32
$2.83
$3.07
$2.22
$3.06
$2.70
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$2.68
Cost
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$1,997.60
$61,925.60
Cum.Pax
1190
2916
3870
4689
5731
6855
8077
9057
9928
10641
11316
12037
12748
13387
14155
15200
16455
17255
18046
18835
19437
20142
20792
21692
22345
23086
23086
23086
23086
23086
23086
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$1,997.60
$1.68
$3,995.20
$1.37
$5,992.80
$1.55
$7,990.40
$1.70
$9,988.00
$1.74
$11,985.60
$1.75
$13,983.20
$1.73
$15,980.80
$1.76
$17,978.40
$1.81
$19,976.00
$1.88
$21,973.60
$1.94
$23,971.20
$1.99
$25,968.80
$2.04
$27,966.40
$2.09
$29,964.00
$2.12
$31,961.60
$2.10
$33,959.20
$2.06
$35,956.80
$2.08
$37,954.40
$2.10
$39,952.00
$2.12
$41,949.60
$2.16
$43,947.20
$2.18
$45,944.80
$2.21
$47,942.40
$2.21
$49,940.00
$2.23
$51,937.60
$2.25
$53,935.20
$2.34
$55,932.80
$2.42
$57,930.40
$2.51
$59,928.00
$2.60
$61,925.60
$2.68
Red 13-14
$ 1.46
$ 1.39
$ 1.44
$ 1.41
$ 1.43
$ 1.45
$ 1.49
$ 1.50
$ 1.52
$ 1.51
$ 1.51
$ 1.53
$ 1.54
$ 1.57
$ 1.59
$ 1.61
$ 1.62
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.62
$ 1.64
$ 1.66
$ 1.66
$ 1.65
$ 1.65
$ 1.67
$ 1.68
$ 1.70
$ 1.70
$ 1.69
Blue Line
BlueLine
1Dec14
2Dec14
3Dec14
4Dec14
5Dec14
6Dec14
7Dec14
8Dec14
9Dec14
10Dec14
11Dec14
12Dec14
13Dec14
14Dec14
15Dec14
16Dec14
17Dec14
18Dec14
19Dec14
20Dec14
21Dec14
22Dec14
23Dec14
24Dec14
25Dec14
26Dec14
27Dec14
28Dec14
29Dec14
30Dec14
31Dec14
MountainBnd
0
0
0
0
0
0
485
521
557
507
539
560
666
634
597
773
784
841
840
734
781
883
751
814
632
742
958
802
898
805
667
Condos TownBound
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
528
367
386
374
418
408
371
395
403
352
465
430
604
496
794
629
587
497
537
564
487
586
537
696
534
671
667
679
888
605
681
810
683
706
792
581
814
610
847
784
897
833
967
663
1030
896
830
744
697
654
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
1380
1281
1383
1273
1294
1455
1766
2057
1681
1874
1857
2074
2045
2080
2274
2374
2140
2187
2056
2373
2688
2432
2824
2379
2018
49245
CostPerPax
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$2.32
$2.50
$2.31
$2.51
$2.47
$2.20
$1.81
$1.55
$1.90
$1.71
$1.72
$1.54
$1.56
$1.54
$1.41
$1.35
$1.49
$1.46
$1.55
$1.35
$1.19
$1.31
$1.13
$1.34
$1.58
$1.62
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$79,904.00
Cum.Pax
0
0
0
0
0
0
1380
2661
4044
5317
6611
8066
9832
11889
13570
15444
17301
19375
21420
23500
25774
28148
30288
32475
34531
36904
39592
42024
44848
47227
49245
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$3,196.16
$2.32
$6,392.32
$2.40
$9,588.48
$2.37
$12,784.64
$2.40
$15,980.80
$2.42
$19,176.96
$2.38
$22,373.12
$2.28
$25,569.28
$2.15
$28,765.44
$2.12
$31,961.60
$2.07
$35,157.76
$2.03
$38,353.92
$1.98
$41,550.08
$1.94
$44,746.24
$1.90
$47,942.40
$1.86
$51,138.56
$1.82
$54,334.72
$1.79
$57,530.88
$1.77
$60,727.04
$1.76
$63,923.20
$1.73
$67,119.36
$1.70
$70,315.52
$1.67
$73,511.68
$1.64
$76,707.84
$1.62
$79,904.00
$1.62
2013-2014
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$2.90
$2.88
$2.86
$2.81
$2.82
$2.80
$2.72
$2.68
$2.68
$2.64
$2.61
$2.61
$2.58
$2.54
$2.48
$2.41
$2.38
$2.38
$2.36
$2.32
$2.26
$2.18
$2.15
$2.09
BlueLine
1Jan15
2Jan15
3Jan15
4Jan15
5Jan15
6Jan15
7Jan15
8Jan15
9Jan15
10Jan15
11Jan15
12Jan15
13Jan15
14Jan15
15Jan15
16Jan15
17Jan15
18Jan15
19Jan15
20Jan15
21Jan15
22Jan15
23Jan15
24Jan15
25Jan15
26Jan15
27Jan15
28Jan15
29Jan15
30Jan15
31Jan15
MountainBnd
775
913
800
754
766
921
832
937
1023
835
648
663
715
697
647
744
940
808
703
688
798
704
702
839
755
689
0
0
0
0
0
Condos TownBound
998
712
950
742
830
605
906
696
641
635
811
652
685
661
859
740
781
722
709
738
647
478
457
562
559
602
505
563
482
568
724
680
1113
712
999
773
651
632
553
555
473
677
537
407
574
659
777
694
671
524
573
563
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2485
2605
2235
2356
2042
2384
2178
2536
2526
2282
1773
1682
1876
1765
1697
2148
2765
2580
1986
1796
1948
1648
1935
2310
1950
1825
0
0
0
0
0
55313
CostPerPax
$1.29
$1.23
$1.43
$1.36
$1.57
$1.34
$1.47
$1.26
$1.27
$1.40
$1.80
$1.90
$1.70
$1.81
$1.88
$1.49
$1.16
$1.24
$1.61
$1.78
$1.64
$1.94
$1.65
$1.38
$1.64
$1.75
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$1.79
Cost
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$3,196.16
$99,080.96
Cum.Pax
2485
5090
7325
9681
11723
14107
16285
18821
21347
23629
25402
27084
28960
30725
32422
34570
37335
39915
41901
43697
45645
47293
49228
51538
53488
55313
55313
55313
55313
55313
55313
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$3,196.16
$1.29
$6,392.32
$1.26
$9,588.48
$1.31
$12,784.64
$1.32
$15,980.80
$1.36
$19,176.96
$1.36
$22,373.12
$1.37
$25,569.28
$1.36
$28,765.44
$1.35
$31,961.60
$1.35
$35,157.76
$1.38
$38,353.92
$1.42
$41,550.08
$1.43
$44,746.24
$1.46
$47,942.40
$1.48
$51,138.56
$1.48
$54,334.72
$1.46
$57,530.88
$1.44
$60,727.04
$1.45
$63,923.20
$1.46
$67,119.36
$1.47
$70,315.52
$1.49
$73,511.68
$1.49
$76,707.84
$1.49
$79,904.00
$1.49
$83,100.16
$1.50
$86,296.32
$1.56
$89,492.48
$1.62
$92,688.64
$1.68
$95,884.80
$1.73
$99,080.96
$1.79
2013-2014
$ 1.69
$ 1.71
$ 1.66
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.62
$ 1.63
$ 1.65
$ 1.67
$ 1.69
$ 1.72
$ 1.74
$ 1.76
$ 1.77
$ 1.76
$ 1.75
$ 1.76
$ 1.77
$ 1.80
$ 1.81
$ 1.82
$ 1.82
$ 1.83
$ 1.85
$ 1.86
$ 1.87
$ 1.87
$ 1.87
Cost per Passenger

Overall
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
December
20132014 Cost
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
3064
3240
3154
3359
3341
4052
4412
4025
4011
4122
4270
4093
4990
5002
5343
6163
5149
4446
5703
6669
7147
6965
6829
9501
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
$11,404.48
CostPP
$3.72
$3.52
$3.62
$3.40
$3.41
$2.81
$2.58
$2.83
$2.84
$2.77
$2.67
$2.79
$2.29
$2.28
$2.13
$1.85
$2.21
$2.57
$2.00
$1.71
$1.60
$1.64
$1.67
$1.20
Cum.Pax
6304
9458
12817
16158
20210
24622
28647
32658
36780
41050
45143
50133
55135
60478
66641
71790
76236
81939
88608
95755
102720
109549
119050
Cum.TTLCost
$22,808.96
$34,213.44
$45,617.92
$57,022.40
$68,426.88
$79,831.36
$91,235.84
$102,640.32
$114,044.80
$125,449.28
$136,853.76
$148,258.24
$159,662.72
$171,067.20
$182,471.68
$193,876.16
$205,280.64
$216,685.12
$228,089.60
$239,494.08
$250,898.56
$262,303.04
$273,707.52
CumTTLCPP
$3.62
$3.62
$3.56
$3.53
$3.39
$3.24
$3.18
$3.14
$3.10
$3.06
$3.03
$2.96
$2.90
$2.83
$2.74
$2.70
$2.69
$2.64
$2.57
$2.50
$2.44
$2.39
$2.30
201415
2,588
2,701
2,952
2,713
2,896
3,504
3,633
3,796
3,891
4,038
3,667
3,912
4,709
4,760
4,945
5,284
5,415
5,189
4,427
5,857
6,255
5,896
6,835
6,081
8,829
Cost
CostPP
$10,496.48
$4.06
$10,496.48
$3.89
$10,496.48
$3.56
$10,496.48
$3.87
$10,496.48
$3.62
$10,496.48
$3.00
$10,496.48
$2.89
$10,496.48
$2.77
$10,496.48
$2.70
$10,496.48
$2.60
$10,496.48
$2.86
$10,496.48
$2.68
$10,496.48
$2.23
$10,496.48
$2.21
$10,496.48
$2.12
$10,496.48
$1.99
$10,496.48
$1.94
$10,496.48
$2.02
$10,496.48
$2.37
$10,496.48
$1.79
$10,496.48
$1.68
$10,496.48
$1.78
$10,496.48
$1.54
$10,496.48
$1.73
$10,496.48
$1.19
Cum.Pax
5,289
8,241
10,954
13,850
17,354
20,987
24,783
28,674
32,712
36,379
40,291
45,000
49,760
54,705
59,989
65,404
70,593
75,020
80,877
87,132
93,028
99,863
105,944
114,773
Cum.TTLCost
$20,992.96
$31,489.44
$41,985.92
$52,482.40
$62,978.88
$73,475.36
$83,971.84
$94,468.32
$104,964.80
$115,461.28
$125,957.76
$136,454.24
$146,950.72
$157,447.20
$167,943.68
$178,440.16
$188,936.64
$199,433.12
$209,929.60
$220,426.08
$230,922.56
$241,419.04
$251,915.52
$262,412.00
CumTTLCPP
$3.97
$3.82
$3.83
$3.79
$3.63
$3.50
$3.39
$3.29
$3.21
$3.17
$3.13
$3.03
$2.95
$2.88
$2.80
$2.73
$2.68
$2.66
$2.60
$2.53
$2.48
$2.42
$2.38
$2.29
1314vs1415
($3.97)
($0.20)
($0.22)
($0.23)
($0.10)
($0.12)
($0.15)
($0.11)
($0.07)
($0.07)
($0.07)
($0.00)
$0.00
$0.02
$0.03
$0.01
$0.02
$0.03
$0.05
$0.04
$0.02
$0.03
$0.02
$0.01
Overall
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
January
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
20132014 Cost
CostPP
6219 $11,404.48
$1.83
6491 $11,404.48
$1.76
6677 $11,404.48
$1.71
7942 $11,404.48
$1.44
6598 $11,404.48
$1.73
6548 $11,404.48
$1.74
6406 $11,404.48
$1.78
6499 $11,404.48
$1.75
5405 $11,404.48
$2.11
6410 $11,404.48
$1.78
6383 $11,404.48
$1.79
5567 $11,404.48
$2.05
5241 $11,404.48
$2.18
4812 $11,404.48
$2.37
4930 $11,404.48
$2.31
5007 $11,404.48
$2.28
5826 $11,404.48
$1.96
7026 $11,404.48
$1.62
6503 $11,404.48
$1.75
5577 $11,404.48
$2.04
4643 $11,404.48
$2.46
4438 $11,404.48
$2.57
4621 $11,404.48
$2.47
5272 $11,404.48
$2.16
6776 $11,404.48
$1.68
4859 $11,404.48
$2.35
4318 $11,404.48
$2.64
4658 $11,404.48
$2.45
4561 $11,404.48
$2.50
5220 $11,404.48
$2.18
6586 $11,404.48
$1.73
Cum.Pax
125,269
131,760
138,437
146,379
152,977
159,525
165,931
172,430
177,835
184,245
190,628
196,195
201,436
206,248
211,178
216,185
222,011
229,037
235,540
241,117
245,760
250,198
254,819
260,091
266,867
271,726
276,044
280,702
285,263
290,483
297,069
Cum.TTLCost
$285,112.00
$296,516.48
$307,920.96
$319,325.44
$330,729.92
$342,134.40
$353,538.88
$364,943.36
$376,347.84
$387,752.32
$399,156.80
$410,561.28
$421,965.76
$433,370.24
$444,774.72
$456,179.20
$467,583.68
$478,988.16
$490,392.64
$501,797.12
$513,201.60
$524,606.08
$536,010.56
$547,415.04
$558,819.52
$570,224.00
$581,628.48
$593,032.96
$604,437.44
$615,841.92
$627,246.40
CumTTLCPP
$2.28
$2.25
$2.22
$2.18
$2.16
$2.14
$2.13
$2.12
$2.12
$2.10
$2.09
$2.09
$2.09
$2.10
$2.11
$2.11
$2.11
$2.09
$2.08
$2.08
$2.09
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.09
$2.10
$2.11
$2.11
$2.12
$2.12
$2.11
201415
5549
6616
5322
5238
5780
6031
5910
5955
6141
5224
3967
3960
4045
3993
4119
5545
6695
5371
4307
4110
4034
3833
4721
5013
3834
4105
0
0
0
0
0
Cost
CostPP
Cum.Pax
Cum.TTLCost
$10,496.48 1.891598 120,322 $272,908.48
$10,496.48
1.58653 126,938 $283,404.96
$10,496.48 1.972281 132,260 $293,901.44
$10,496.48
2.00391 137,498 $304,397.92
$10,496.48
1.816 143,278 $314,894.40
$10,496.48 1.740421 149,309 $325,390.88
$10,496.48 1.776054 155,219 $335,887.36
$10,496.48 1.762633 161,174 $346,383.84
$10,496.48 1.709246 167,315 $356,880.32
$10,496.48
2.00928 172,539 $367,376.80
$10,496.48 2.645949 176,506 $377,873.28
$10,496.48 2.650626 180,466 $388,369.76
$10,496.48 2.594927 184,511 $398,866.24
$10,496.48
2.62872 188,504 $409,362.72
$10,496.48 2.548308 192,623 $419,859.20
$10,496.48 1.892963 198,168 $430,355.68
$10,496.48 1.567809 204,863 $440,852.16
$10,496.48 1.954288 210,234 $451,348.64
$10,859.68 2.521402 214,541 $462,208.32
$11,077.60
2.69528 218,651 $473,285.92
$11,077.60 2.746059 222,685 $484,363.52
$11,077.60
2.89006 226,518 $495,441.12
$11,077.60 2.346452 231,239 $506,518.72
$11,077.60 2.209775 236,252 $517,596.32
$11,077.60 2.889306 240,086 $528,673.92
$11,077.60 2.698563 244,191 $539,751.52
$11,077.60 #DIV/0!
244,191 $550,829.12
$11,077.60 #DIV/0!
244,191 $561,906.72
$11,077.60 #DIV/0!
244,191 $572,984.32
$11,077.60 #DIV/0!
244,191 $584,061.92
$11,077.60 #DIV/0!
244,191 $595,139.52
CumTTLCPP
$2.27
$2.23
$2.22
$2.21
$2.20
$2.18
$2.16
$2.15
$2.13
$2.13
$2.14
$2.15
$2.16
$2.17
$2.18
$2.17
$2.15
$2.15
$2.15
$2.16
$2.18
$2.19
$2.19
$2.19
$2.20
$2.21
$2.26
$2.30
$2.35
$2.39
$2.44
1314vs1415
$0.01
$0.02
$0.00
($0.03)
($0.04)
($0.03)
($0.03)
($0.03)
($0.02)
($0.02)
($0.05)
($0.06)
($0.07)
($0.07)
($0.07)
($0.06)
($0.05)
($0.06)
($0.07)
($0.08)
($0.09)
($0.09)
($0.09)
($0.09)
($0.11)
($0.11)
($0.15)
($0.19)
($0.23)
($0.27)
($0.33)
Night Route
NightLine
1Dec14
2Dec14
3Dec14
4Dec14
5Dec14
6Dec14
7Dec14
8Dec14
9Dec14
10Dec14
11Dec14
12Dec14
13Dec14
14Dec14
15Dec14
16Dec14
17Dec14
18Dec14
19Dec14
20Dec14
21Dec14
22Dec14
23Dec14
24Dec14
25Dec14
26Dec14
27Dec14
28Dec14
29Dec14
30Dec14
31Dec14
MountainBnd
0
0
0
0
0
0
173
168
167
164
216
385
382
152
279
245
274
316
402
410
154
331
326
306
206
368
399
318
430
354
1238
Condos TownBound
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
54
51
69
71
99
40
75
81
119
158
151
178
197
63
87
107
80
123
173
71
100
120
112
159
163
189
237
92
162
99
189
121
141
143
153
94
116
134
242
158
217
115
138
195
206
161
211
1451
420
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
294
288
337
279
416
694
757
302
466
541
445
548
724
836
408
619
588
602
416
744
774
571
831
726
3109
16315
CostPerPax
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$5.81
$5.93
$5.07
$6.12
$4.10
$2.46
$2.26
$5.65
$3.66
$3.16
$3.84
$3.12
$2.36
$2.04
$4.18
$2.76
$2.90
$2.84
$4.10
$2.29
$2.21
$2.99
$2.05
$2.35
$0.55
$2.62
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$42,676.00
Cum.Pax
0
0
0
0
0
0
294
582
919
1198
1614
2308
3065
3367
3833
4374
4819
5367
6091
6927
7335
7954
8542
9144
9560
10304
11078
11649
12480
13206
16315
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$0.00 #DIV/0!
$1,707.04
$5.81
$3,414.08
$5.87
$5,121.12
$5.57
$6,828.16
$5.70
$8,535.20
$5.29
$10,242.24
$4.44
$11,949.28
$3.90
$13,656.32
$4.06
$15,363.36
$4.01
$17,070.40
$3.90
$18,777.44
$3.90
$20,484.48
$3.82
$22,191.52
$3.64
$23,898.56
$3.45
$25,605.60
$3.49
$27,312.64
$3.43
$29,019.68
$3.40
$30,726.72
$3.36
$32,433.76
$3.39
$34,140.80
$3.31
$35,847.84
$3.24
$37,554.88
$3.22
$39,261.92
$3.15
$40,968.96
$3.10
$42,676.00
$2.62
2013-2014
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5.98
$
5.83
$
5.68
$
5.56
$
5.04
$
4.30
$
3.79
$
3.72
$
3.70
$
3.59
$
3.55
$
3.46
$
3.22
$
3.11
$
3.11
$
3.11
$
3.10
$
3.14
$
3.10
$
3.02
$
2.88
$
2.85
$
2.79
$
2.60
NightLine
1Jan15
2Jan15
3Jan15
4Jan15
5Jan15
6Jan15
7Jan15
8Jan15
9Jan15
10Jan15
11Jan15
12Jan15
13Jan15
14Jan15
15Jan15
16Jan15
17Jan15
18Jan15
19Jan15
20Jan15
21Jan15
22Jan15
23Jan15
24Jan15
25Jan15
26Jan15
27Jan15
28Jan15
29Jan15
30Jan15
31Jan15
MountainBnd
270
363
389
569
862
370
320
472
505
519
293
255
268
331
344
599
592
332
232
268
332
270
474
405
242
311
0
0
0
0
0
Condos TownBound
106
139
163
187
198
217
211
192
243
254
372
273
303
200
345
241
413
355
229
287
90
157
88
171
86
137
93
127
125
160
182
253
170
217
146
172
108
167
78
110
68
99
107
84
233
224
210
210
97
116
83
114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
515
713
804
972
1359
1015
823
1058
1273
1035
540
514
491
551
629
1034
979
650
507
456
499
461
931
825
455
508
0
0
0
0
0
19597
CostPerPax
$3.31
$2.39
$2.12
$1.76
$1.26
$1.68
$2.07
$1.61
$1.34
$1.65
$3.16
$3.32
$3.48
$3.10
$2.71
$1.65
$1.74
$2.63
$3.37
$3.74
$3.42
$3.70
$1.83
$2.07
$3.75
$3.36
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$2.70
Cost
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$1,707.04
$52,918.24
Cum.Pax
515
1228
2032
3004
4363
5378
6201
7259
8532
9567
10107
10621
11112
11663
12292
13326
14305
14955
15462
15918
16417
16878
17809
18634
19089
19597
19597
19597
19597
19597
19597
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$1,707.04
$3.31
$3,414.08
$2.78
$5,121.12
$2.52
$6,828.16
$2.27
$8,535.20
$1.96
$10,242.24
$1.90
$11,949.28
$1.93
$13,656.32
$1.88
$15,363.36
$1.80
$17,070.40
$1.78
$18,777.44
$1.86
$20,484.48
$1.93
$22,191.52
$2.00
$23,898.56
$2.05
$25,605.60
$2.08
$27,312.64
$2.05
$29,019.68
$2.03
$30,726.72
$2.05
$32,433.76
$2.10
$34,140.80
$2.14
$35,847.84
$2.18
$37,554.88
$2.23
$39,261.92
$2.20
$40,968.96
$2.20
$42,676.00
$2.24
$44,383.04
$2.26
$46,090.08
$2.35
$47,797.12
$2.44
$49,504.16
$2.53
$51,211.20
$2.61
$52,918.24
$2.70
2013-2014
$
2.46
$
2.37
$
2.04
$
1.65
$
1.65
$
1.61
$
1.58
$
1.57
$
1.62
$
1.65
$
1.64
$
1.66
$
1.71
$
1.75
$
1.79
$
1.83
$
1.82
$
1.81
$
1.83
$
1.87
$
1.90
$
1.93
$
1.96
$
1.96
$
1.95
$
1.97
$
2.00
$
2.02
$
2.05
$
2.06
$
2.03
Orange Route
Orange Passengers Costperpax
1Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
2Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
3Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
4Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
5Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
6Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
7Dec14
216
$3.19
8Dec14
262
$2.63
9Dec14
226
$3.05
10Dec14
259
$2.66
11Dec14
306
$2.26
12Dec14
264
$2.61
13Dec14
291
$2.37
14Dec14
$2.53
273
15Dec14
355
$1.94
16Dec14
367
$1.88
17Dec14
460
$1.50
18Dec14
419
$1.65
19Dec14
326
$2.12
20Dec14
439
$1.57
21Dec14
472
$1.46
22Dec14
621
$1.11
23Dec14
554
$1.25
24Dec14
554
$1.25
25Dec14
498
$1.39
26Dec14
594
$1.16
27Dec14
661
$1.04
28Dec14
652
$1.06
29Dec14
967
$0.71
30Dec14
674
$1.02
31Dec14
1093
$0.63
11803
$1.46
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$17,252.00
Cum.Pax
0
0
0
0
0
0
216
478
704
963
1269
1533
1824
2097
2452
2819
3279
3698
4024
4463
4935
5556
6110
6664
7162
7756
8417
9069
10036
10710
11803
Cum.Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$690.08
$1,380.16
$2,070.24
$2,760.32
$3,450.40
$4,140.48
$4,830.56
$5,520.64
$6,210.72
$6,900.80
$7,590.88
$8,280.96
$8,971.04
$9,661.12
$10,351.20
$11,041.28
$11,731.36
$12,421.44
$13,111.52
$13,801.60
$14,491.68
$15,181.76
$15,871.84
$16,561.92
$17,252.00
10
Cum.CPP
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$3.19
$2.89
$2.94
$2.87
$2.72
$2.70
$2.65
$2.63
$2.53
$2.45
$2.31
$2.24
$2.23
$2.16
$2.10
$1.99
$1.92
$1.86
$1.83
$1.78
$1.72
$1.67
$1.58
$1.55
$1.46
Orange Passengers Costperpax

1Jan15
669
$1.03
2Jan15
655
$1.05
3Jan15
586
$1.18
4Jan15
471
$1.47
5Jan15
528
$1.31
6Jan15
638
$1.08
7Jan15
778
$0.89
8Jan15
575
$1.20
9Jan15
522
$1.32
10Jan15
447
$1.54
11Jan15
360
$1.92
12Jan15
350
$1.97
13Jan15
353
$1.95
14Jan15
364
$1.90
15Jan15
366
$1.89
16Jan15
401
$1.72
17Jan15
690
$1.00
18Jan15
519
$1.33
19Jan15
385
$1.79
20Jan15
326
$2.12
21Jan15
313
$2.20
22Jan15
296
$2.33
23Jan15
308
$2.24
24Jan15
358
$1.93
25Jan15
271
$2.55
26Jan15
341
$2.02
27Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
28Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
29Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
30Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
31Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
11870
$1.80
Orange
Passengers Costperpax
Cost
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
$690.08
Cum.Pax
669
1324
1910
2381
2909
3547
4325
4900
5422
5869
6229
6579
6932
7296
7662
8063
8753
9272
9657
9983
10296
10592
10900
11258
11529
11870
11870
11870
11870
11870
11870
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$690.08
$1.03
$1,380.16
$1.04
$2,070.24
$1.08
$2,760.32
$1.16
$3,450.40
$1.19
$4,140.48
$1.17
$4,830.56
$1.12
$5,520.64
$1.13
$6,210.72
$1.15
$6,900.80
$1.18
$7,590.88
$1.22
$8,280.96
$1.26
$8,971.04
$1.29
$9,661.12
$1.32
$10,351.20
$1.35
$11,041.28
$1.37
$11,731.36
$1.34
$12,421.44
$1.34
$13,111.52
$1.36
$13,801.60
$1.38
$14,491.68
$1.41
$15,181.76
$1.43
$15,871.84
$1.46
$16,561.92
$1.47
$17,252.00
$1.50
$17,942.08
$1.51
$18,632.16
$1.57
$19,322.24
$1.63
$20,012.32
$1.69
$20,702.40
$1.74
$21,392.48
$1.80
10
Cum.Pax
Cum.Cost
$21,392.48
Cost
Cum.CPP
Purple Route
Purple
1Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
2Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
3Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
4Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
5Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
6Dec14
0
#DIV/0!
7Dec14
17
$36.32
8Dec14
12
$51.45
9Dec14
22
$28.07
10Dec14
23
$26.85
11Dec14
28
$22.05
12Dec14
35
$17.64
13Dec14
18
$34.30
14Dec14
56
$11.03
15Dec14
69
$8.95
16Dec14
64
$9.65
17Dec14
65
$9.50
18Dec14
52
$11.87
19Dec14
92
$6.71
20Dec14
101
$6.11
21Dec14
135
$4.57
22Dec14
237
$2.61
23Dec14
258
$2.39
24Dec14
146
$4.23
25Dec14
166
$3.72
26Dec14
295
$2.09
27Dec14
249
$2.48
28Dec14
278
$2.22
29Dec14
321
$1.92
30Dec14
331
$1.87
31Dec14
262
$2.36
3332
$4.63
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$15,436.00
Cum.Pax
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
29
51
74
102
137
155
211
280
344
409
461
553
654
789
1026
1284
1430
1596
1891
2140
2418
2739
3070
3332
Cum.Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$617.44
$1,234.88
$1,852.32
$2,469.76
$3,087.20
$3,704.64
$4,322.08
$4,939.52
$5,556.96
$6,174.40
$6,791.84
$7,409.28
$8,026.72
$8,644.16
$9,261.60
$9,879.04
$10,496.48
$11,113.92
$11,731.36
$12,348.80
$12,966.24
$13,583.68
$14,201.12
$14,818.56
$15,436.00
10
Cum.CPP
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$36.32
$42.58
$36.32
$33.38
$30.27
$27.04
$27.88
$23.41
$19.85
$17.95
$16.61
$16.07
$14.51
$13.22
$11.74
$9.63
$8.17
$7.77
$7.35
$6.53
$6.06
$5.62
$5.18
$4.83
$4.63
2013-2014
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
32.37
23.27
23.51
18.61
17.16
14.94
12.74
11.89
11.13
10.76
10.35
10.14
9.78
9.03
8.74
7.80
7.14
6.72
6.24
5.85
5.07
4.89
4.73
4.55
Purple
1Jan15
213
$2.90
2Jan15
210
$2.94
3Jan15
196
$3.15
4Jan15
115
$5.37
5Jan15
140
$4.41
6Jan15
188
$3.28
7Jan15
136
$4.54
8Jan15
179
$3.45
9Jan15
204
$3.03
10Jan15
150
$4.12
11Jan15
55
$11.23
12Jan15
53
$11.65
13Jan15
74
$8.34
14Jan15
57
$10.83
15Jan15
77
$8.02
16Jan15
175
$3.53
17Jan15
404
$1.53
18Jan15
269
$2.30
19Jan15
127
$4.86
20Jan15
91
$6.79
21Jan15
76
$8.12
22Jan15
108
$5.72
23Jan15
216
$2.86
24Jan15
159
$3.88
25Jan15
90
$6.86
26Jan15
90
$6.86
27Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
28Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
29Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
30Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
31Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
3852
$4.97
Purple
Cost
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
$617.44
Cum.Pax
213
423
619
734
874
1062
1198
1377
1581
1731
1786
1839
1913
1970
2047
2222
2626
2895
3022
3113
3189
3297
3513
3672
3762
3852
3852
3852
3852
3852
3852
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
$617.44
$2.90
$1,234.88
$2.92
$1,852.32
$2.99
$2,469.76
$3.36
$3,087.20
$3.53
$3,704.64
$3.49
$4,322.08
$3.61
$4,939.52
$3.59
$5,556.96
$3.51
$6,174.40
$3.57
$6,791.84
$3.80
$7,409.28
$4.03
$8,026.72
$4.20
$8,644.16
$4.39
$9,261.60
$4.52
$9,879.04
$4.45
$10,496.48
$4.00
$11,113.92
$3.84
$11,731.36
$3.88
$12,348.80
$3.97
$12,966.24
$4.07
$13,583.68
$4.12
$14,201.12
$4.04
$14,818.56
$4.04
$15,436.00
$4.10
$16,053.44
$4.17
$16,670.88
$4.33
$17,288.32
$4.49
$17,905.76
$4.65
$18,523.20
$4.81
$19,140.64
$4.97
10
2013-2014
$
2.55
$
2.50
$
2.58
$
2.58
$
2.75
$
2.99
$
3.15
$
3.36
$
3.57
$
3.60
$
3.49
$
3.48
$
3.61
$
3.75
$
3.83
$
3.91
$
3.87
$
3.57
$
3.36
$
3.39
$
3.49
$
3.55
$
3.59
$
3.61
$
3.56
$
3.61
$
3.68
$
3.73
$
3.78
$
3.78
$
3.77
Cum.Pax
Cum.Cost
2013-2014
$19,140.64
Cost
Cum.CPP
West Route
Westie
1Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
2Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
3Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
4Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
5Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
6Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
7Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
8Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
9Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
10Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
11Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
12Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
13Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
14Jan15
#DIV/0!
0
15Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
16Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
17Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
18Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
19Jan15
38
$9.56
20Jan15
83
$7.00
21Jan15
60
$9.69
22Jan15
63
$9.22
23Jan15
40
$14.53
24Jan15
44
$13.21
25Jan15
36
$16.14
26Jan15
63
$9.22
27Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
28Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
29Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
30Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
31Jan15
0
#DIV/0!
427
$17.18
Westie
Cost
Cum.Pax
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
38
$363.20
121
$581.12
181
$581.12
244
$581.12
284
$581.12
328
$581.12
364
$581.12
427
$581.12
427
$581.12
427
$581.12
427
$581.12
427
$581.12
427
$581.12
$7,336.64
Cost
Cum.Pax
Cum.Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$363.20
$944.32
$1,525.44
$2,106.56
$2,687.68
$3,268.80
$3,849.92
$4,431.04
$5,012.16
$5,593.28
$6,174.40
$6,755.52
$7,336.64
10
Cum.CPP
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
$9.56
$7.80
$8.43
$8.63
$9.46
$9.97
$10.58
$10.38
$11.74
$13.10
$14.46
$15.82
$17.18
Cum.Cost
Cum.CPP
AGENDA ITEM #13a.

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.
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES


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. Its not practical to have that and we dont
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 dont 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.

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 Citys fiscal policy stated that when we budget to use
grant funds and we dont get the grant then we dont 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.

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.

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 doesnt 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:
5

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 wasnt 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.

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.
7

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.
8

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 dont 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 cant 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
dont have the option to drive, locals and tourists. He voiced concern with safety,
tardiness, impacts on business, negative feedback, and increased drinking and driving.

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 drivers 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 Citys 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 organizations criteria.
10

Council Member Connell stated that he appreciates staff executing Councils 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 doesnt 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 staffs 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.
11

CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES FIRST

READINGS
There were no items scheduled for this portion of the agenda.
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 dont 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 Citys 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.
12

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

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.
14

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 cant 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 cant do that if the container is in the driveway because
its on private property and would need a search warrant. The bottom line is the police
officers do not have time to do that.
15

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.
No report was provided.
A written report was provided.
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, 26145: 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.
16

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 Commissions 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.
17

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.
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 werent
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.
18

Ms. Hinsvark stated that staff is working to solve the issue.

9.
Reports
a.
Agenda Review:
1.
2.
Regular Meeting January 20, 2015.

Regular Meeting February 3, 2015.
Council reviewed the above agendas.

10.
Staff Reports
a.
City Attorneys Update/Report.
Mr. Lettunich had no report.

b.
City Managers 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 wasnt 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 workers compensation claims. Ms. Small
stated she will report back with that data as well as how staff plans to address the
issue.
19

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;
20

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 Connells 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.
21

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 havent 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,
thats why the appraisal is so low.
22

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
40s 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 assessors 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.
23

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.
24

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 doesnt know what Councils 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 shouldnt 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 isnt any play is if we were
selling something we cant 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.
25

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 its 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.
26

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. Welchs 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.
27

Steamboat Springs City Council Agenda Feb. 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steamboat Springs City Council Agenda Feb. 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

Citizens Meeting Room, Centennial Hall;

ROLL CALL (5:00 PM)

CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES FIRST

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

5. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance approving a

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT

CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS:

PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS

Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner to state name and

7. PROJECT: Pahwintah CP-14-01

9. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance providing zoning

JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC

AGENDA ITEM #1.

Tyler Gibbs (Ext. 244)

Deb Hinsvark (Ext. 240)

Information related to Building Oversight Issues.

CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES:

participated in the selection process

be input but moving forward without accurate historic data

Other Building Department Updates

AGENDA ITEM #2.

Craig Robinson, Parks, Open Space and Trails Manager

Debra Hinsvark, City Manager

Gooding Request for a Driveway Access Easement

CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES:

!&$  !

!($%%   

"#&'(#( #&(#($&#$&(-&&&-)"(#"" $((!"1

!)$"      

+#)  !"(( '((+#"$&$'(&$&"'$'/#&"&&(#"

N04 05' 51"E

N88 10' 29"W

Improvement Survey Plat

Contour Interval = N/A

141 9th Street, P.O. Box 774943

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Appoint Commissioner To Community Survey Steering Committee

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

Gooding Driveway Access Easement

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

Tennis Center Recap

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

Parks and Rec Commission Minutes

AGENDA ITEM #3.

Julie Franklin, CMC, City Clerk

Deb Hinsvark, City Manager

A resolution designating the public places for posting

To approve the resolution.

CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES:

Direct staff otherwise.

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO

A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACES FOR POSTING

Bart Kounovsky, President

Julie Franklin, CMC

!&$ !

!($%%

"#&'(#(#&(#($&#$&(-&&&-)"(#"" $((!"1

!)$"

+#) !"(( '((+#"$&$'(&$&"'$'/#&"&&(#"

Subscribed to and sworn to before me this _ day of _____________, 2014 by

Subscribed to and sworn to before me this _ day of _____________, 2014 by