Town Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to our Tuesday, July 28, 2016 council meeting.

Before we get started, I just wanted to remind everybody how you can participate remotely. If you are so inclined, you can go to basalt.net, click on the agenda in the next tab.

And then from there, you just need to find this July 21 meeting and go ahead and follow the instructions in Zoom. The video will join. That'll give you comments and participate in the meeting. So with that, I will call the meeting to order. And when you're ready, when you're ready, let's call the meeting. You don't have your phone here.

My audio is not... Next up we have item 2 which is our consent agenda. Item 2A are the minutes from May 12, 2026 corrected. Item 2B are the minutes from June 23, 2026 corrected.

It was talking about the assault connect and it talks about how

Dupre Bouchard proposed the employer sponsored accounts. That was something that I believe I was speaking up for. It was a big advocate for her. I thought there were a lot of reasons to have the third party pay for it. I'm happy if she'd like to also say that that's an important thing to her, but I just felt like the record should say that I was the one who's getting that.

I do not recall proposing that, so. Okay, we may have that, Councilor Shetland.

So if we make that correction to the minutes, can you make a motion to approve the minutes with that correction?

Mayor, I move that the Town Council approve the consent agenda items with the correction presented. Thank you. Second.

Do you want me to clarify what that is in the motion? Does that make it clear?

Attributing that comment to Greg.

To Greg, as opposed to the agenda. Under fair and revenue strategies, let's all connect part. Great.

Thank you.

Are you good with that?

Yep. Who was the second?

Me.

Great. Are you good with that, too?

Yes.

All right.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye. Great. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have our call to the public. So just a few ground rules. Limit your comments to three minutes. Address your comments directly to me. Identify yourself by name and address and also fill out the sheet in the back of the room. Comments should be courteous, civil and constructive. And we'll make no decision or take action except to direct the town manager I do have a couple public hearings on the agenda this evening. Item 7B, Item 7C, and Item 7D. I would just recommend that if you want to make comments related to those agenda items, you wait for those specific public hearings so that your comments can be considered as part of the record for those public hearings. So if anyone would like to come up, I will open the floor for public comment.

Hello. My name is Chris Lentz. I was here two weeks ago and concerns about the environmental area along the river. And where I live, River Oaks, 75 River Oaks Lane, down by Valley Lumber. And I notice all of the improvements or changes to Willits Lane, particularly from Hooks Bridge up towards City Market in the last, I don't know, six months or so. There's three things I've noticed in our valley in the last couple months that I've never seen anywhere else. I was in Glenwood about a month ago at City Market, and there was a security guard standing out in front of the store. So I asked him what are you doing? He's looking at the parking lot. I said of people messing with the cars He says no, he says we have transient people and students during the school year and we have high Shoplifting rates and I'm thinking really it's that bad. You got a higher in official security guard the other two things are on that stretch of Will it sling There's stop signs along there that now have a full length reflector down the middle of the thing. I've never seen that anywhere before. And I don't know. And the third thing is there's two rainbow painted crosswalks out there. I've never been anywhere and seen that before. And I question the need for all three of those things. It's not a big deal. It's just really is what pops in my mind. I KNOW EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE DOWN THERE WAS PROBABLY INFLUENCED BY SAFETY. AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 36 YEARS AND THAT ROAD ISN'T SAFE. BUT ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE THINGS THAT'S WRONG WITH IT IS THE BICYCLES THAT DON'T USE THE EXISTING REALLY EXPENSIVE WHEN IT WAS BUILT BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN PATH ALONG THE SIDE OF IT. THEY TRY TO MINGLE WITH THE TRAFFIC. The problems are that there's no shoulders on that road. I mean 16 inches about on both sides They don't stop at stop signs, even though they're allowed to ride in on the road they don't follow the rules of the road like they're supposed to and They cut right out in front of you. And now in the improvements, they've added a double yellow line down the center of the road, which is helpful. But that double yellow line means no passing in either direction. So by law, you have to give a bicycler three foot separation from your vehicle when you pass them. It's impossible to do and stay in your lane there. So to not break the law as a driver, You have to follow that bicycler all the way from Hooks Bridge to the roundabout by City Market. It's not working. The simple solution is to require the bicycle people to use the bike path. That's all it would take, especially in the mornings when there's semis making deliveries to Valley Lumber and the other things in the industrial park. So even if you're behaving...

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Anyone else?

Anyone else? Yes. The addresses 405 Park Avenue and the interested buyer is an employee with the roaring fork Transportation Authority and

is currently renting the unit the owner has offered to sell it to him directly so they are requesting a hundred and three thousand five hundred from the town which would match the 15% contribution from Eagle and if you are interested and would like me to move forward with this I can work with Doug to present the financing options for this at the next meeting yes And then in your packet, you will, so I will bring that to you all with the next meeting. And in your packet, you'll find a draft of the council charter that John, the facilitator, and I put together after the council retreat. Thank you all for your time last week on that. And hoping to gut check this with you all, mostly the charter part, I think we still need to dive into some of the priorities. And I want to specify that the priorities aren't listed in like need it was just labeled so that you guys could say priority one priority two priority three um but i think that's something that we still need to uh nail down and so hoping to do that in a work session but if you guys are okay with the the general charter on top um that's something that we could adopt formally at the next meeting should we be adopting this part at the next meeting not the priorities correct correct and then you would be able to have that discussion in a work session on those priorities.

I'm supportive of that.

All right. Great. And then the other thing I had for you is to remind you all about National Night Out next Tuesday at Triangle Park from 5 to 8. And we hope to see you there.

All right. Well, we're ahead. That's great. Thank you for all the reports, though. Did anybody have any questions on the staff reports? OK. Thanks, Gloria. Next up, we'll move to presentations. So the first up, we have item 6A, which is our final housing needs assessment. We have Liz Axberg.

I was on the Zoom, and it just ended. I need to share my screen. I'm not sure anymore. Switch to her. There we go.

Make sure I get that. Is that it?

A line that says post doesn't know.

We're mitigating it tonight

Yes, that's exactly what that's exactly what the recording in progress. I like them.

It looks like it's starting to jump on my end. I don't like this stuff.

I have the agenda on here, and then I take my notes.

Okay, so you use that same one.

Okay, so you should be able to go as a panelist. Excellent.

We're running a little ahead but we have about 20 minutes.

Yeah, that's fine. Great. So I'm Liz Axberg, housing policy analyst for the city of Aspen. I know a few of you, but I'm here today just to show the the final report from our housing needs assessment. And while I know there's only 20 minutes, I probably put way too many slides for that. So I'm going to try my best to get through it and still have time for questions. That being said, if we don't have time for any questions that come up at the end, totally happy to field conversations, emails after this. And because today is just really high level overview of the big components of the housing needs assessment. I was here in February and brought a check in on this, but today I'm going to do a little bit of a review of some of the data I brought last time, just because I think it's hard to talk about everything when you don't talk about the core pieces of it. And also I'm going to talk about phase two of our housing needs assessment. So I'll get into it in just a couple of slides in terms of what's in phase one versus two as well. And so why did we do this housing needs assessment? It's because the state required it, actually. So Senate Bill 24 174 required that all local governments complete housing needs assessments. To bring it into compliance, this is the final piece, bringing it to local governments. Basalt wasn't required to do it because you all actually completed your own housing needs assessment with the same consultant that we used actually, and they also did Eagle County's housing needs assessment as well. They're the best in the game, that's my opinion. That's why we completed it for the Senate bill compliance. The main reason why Picken County, Snowmass, and Aspen really took the lead on it was because we wanted to use this data to support our Proposition 123 funding in rural resort petition applications. So you just need the data to support why we need funding that supports higher AMIs than what the legislation currently restricts it at. Then I mean besides checking a box. It's it's a really interesting data looking at these trends It was great regional collaboration And I'm really hoping that this can be a useful document for all of us to use as well Just had a talk with April from West Mountain about how she's hoping to use it So and I will just emphasize this is not a legally binding commitment for any government involved and here's everyone that was participating and It's not a requirement for what to build what you should build where you should build. It's simply informational It's data. We use a lot of census data publicly available data some survey data from 2019 housing needs assessment And so I've brought the housing needs assessment to pretty much every government on this slide so far Except for rifle and silt because they also did their own housing needs assessments So I've been on kind of a roadshow with this which has been fun Here's everything that's in the housing needs assessment. Left side is phase one, right side's phase two. It's all gonna get combined into one report for our submission to DOLA, which we'll do after we make our final edits and hopefully submit it in a couple weeks.

That's a really quick question.

Yeah.

I noticed. So in the partnerships and everything, it's a lot of picking in Garfield. So in those basalt numbers, does that include Eagle County?

Eagle County is in there, but just what's in basalt. So that is sort of a missing piece, I would say, because We're such a funny layout in that we have three counties that go on a major transportation corridor. But so there is Eagle County, but nothing that's unincorporated Eagle County that falls within the valley. Yeah. So we did have they did have to pull some Eagle County data. Yeah, and so this is all normal stuff that's usually in a housing needs assessment, but we definitely followed state guidance closely to make sure that we are in compliance at the end of this as well. So now I'm just going to get into some data, general trends. Some of this is over, uh, some overlap from last time, uh, demographic trends. So first we're seeing a shift right now in that picking County has a very projected stable population and Garfield County is projected to have a lot of growth right now and continue to grow. And we'll see that in the housing needs numbers later. Uh, in addition, we were seeing the population in both counties age. This is accurate. This is true across the state as well, but definitely more so in Picking County than Garfield County. And especially as you move through the Colorado River Valley, you see family sizes and household sizes get bigger and ages get lower as well. It's like there's a chart in the report that shows that each town, as you go through the Colorado River Valley, the homes getting bigger households. Some economic trends. So Garfield County has 1.5 times more jobs than Picken County, projected to grow at a slightly higher rate as well. This isn't unexpected. It's a lot bigger of a region. Garfield County is really large. But Picken County has been and is continuing to be the strong economic center of the region, which is why people make that long commute. up to Picken County, and that's historically been because of higher wages. But one thing we're seeing actually is the median wage between Picking County and Garfield County is starting to get closer actually, and especially for lower paying jobs. In addition to that, the occupations that have the highest level of employment, so the most number of workers, tend to be ones with the lowest wages. So those in construction, cleaning, food prep, they all tend to have wages that fall below the median wage for the area as well. And that's just helpful for us to understand how much people who actually work in Picken County make on average. And same with commuting, not something new to all of us. A lot of people commute into Picken County. And so that's 62% of Picken County's workforce commutes from outside the county. Keep in mind that also probably captures people who commute across basalt. They live in Eagle County and go across town, but that's just another way that the data shows up. But we did find that even in Garfield County, at least a quarter of workers commute over 50 miles within the county as well. There's a lot of people going a far ways and that's one way 50 miles for their jobs. Housing trends, so there's two times more housing units in Garfield County than Picken County. Again, a lot bigger of a region, but with 1.5 times more jobs, two times more housing units, shows us how much of the Picken County workforce is being housed by Garfield County, something we know, but it's nice to have numbers that support that. Vacancy rates support that as well, with 40% of Picken County units are vacant, only 8% of Garfield County. We also looked at affordable housing units across the region. So that's affordable with a capital A means that they have a deed restriction or some type of mechanism on them. 4,500 units that are capital A affordable housing and over 90% are in Picking County across the region as well. And we're gonna get more into affordability, but we're seeing in the Roaring Fork Valley in our region that there's nowhere where the median price of a single family home is less than $1.5 million and a town home, 1.25. So, and this is again, something we know home prices are high and we're seeing since 2020, a really large increase, especially in condominium and town home prices with condominiums being the only type of housing with a median sales price that falls underneath a million dollars. And I know I'm going fast through the data, so feel free to stop me. I just want to make sure I get through it because I just couldn't decide what to cut. So here's some more data just on affordability. So looking at what a household can afford, actually. And then here's the sales prices within the valley. This chart has... I know it's probably small on your screen, but I'll try my best to describe it. So each line shows the median sales price by region. So Upper Valley, the line way up there, that's Aspen and Snowmass. Basalt and Carbondale is the Mid-Valley median sales price at $1.4 million. And then on the bottom, you can see what an affordable home price would be by Picken County's AMI and Garfield County's AMI. So as you can see here, up to 300% AMI, the mid valley is still out of reach. It doesn't become in reach until we get into lower valley and some unincorporated. Picken County still for just 300% AMI. So 100% AMI household, two person household can afford about $2,500 in monthly housing expenses based on that 30% metric. And so, Looking at that, if you even make three times that, that 300% AMI, again, you can't afford anything in Basalt or Carbondale. At two times this, you start to become affordable to Glenwood and Newcastle. So this just reinforces the trend of people and why they've been moving farther down valley, why we're seeing larger household sizes and younger folks as well, because that's where the affordability is. some more charts for you, just two of them. And this is looking at home sales from 2015 through 2024 and what AMI level that home sale was affordable to. And this is for the upper valley. So we're looking at Aspen Snowmass Village through Woody Creek. And here you can see that in 2024, 80% of sales were only affordable to households earning over 400% AMI in those communities. And not a single sale in 2024 was affordable to someone making 120% AMI.

Does this exclude APHA?

This includes deed-restricted units, except we took the bottom and top 5% of sales out of the data just to help with outliers. So a lot of APHA probably did get cut out of that as well, but there are deed-restricted units in this data. So some of these that are serving 120% AMI could have been an APHA or deed-restricted sale.

You say top and bottom 5%. Is that by volume or just like... 20 units off the bottom, 20 units.

Like the 5% most expensive sales that happened in 2024 and the 5% least expensive sales that happened in 2024. Yeah.

Yeah. A number of sales, not like the volume of the sales. It's not like one.

The price. The price. Yes.

It's not like $180 million home equals 200 APHA sales.

Oh, I see. Yeah. So it's, yeah, by price. Yeah. All right. Then we'll do the same for the Mid-Valley. And so this is looking at basalt and carbondales. There's a little bit more of an array in the color compared to the last one, but still in 2024, half the sales in the mid valley were only affordable to those earning over 400% AMI. And you can see the trend since 2015 as well with the blue slowly diminishing over time. And that blue still isn't like the 120 to 200% AMI range. And so yeah, only 2% of sales in 2024 were affordable to those and making 80 to 150% AMI in Basalt or Carbondale in 2024. So this just reinforces something we know that people earning local wages cannot afford to buy homes in the Roaring Fork Valley. It's a big stretch. And we did the same thing with this data with 5% on the top and the bottom too. So next, this is something I also already showed you. Sorry, I'm probably already going over time. Housing needs. So this is the final piece of the phase one report. We again followed state guidance on how to calculate housing needs pretty closely and it's captured via two different buckets. So we have our catch-up need, what already exists, and then we have the keep-up need, what's projected to grow over the next 10 years. And so included in catch-up we have eliminating overcrowding or temporary housing situations, reducing long-distance commuting, so looking at How many people commute? Let's take a chunk of that number. And we also look at unfilled jobs. For projected housing need, we look at 10-year employment growth, and we also look at units to accommodate employees filling jobs vacated by retirees. Someone leaves their job because they retire, which is great. That job's now open, and that new employee probably needs somewhere to live is the idea. And then what we'll do with the sum of all of those five components is we look at job growth by each municipality that's included and we allocate the need based on jobs. So looking at how many jobs are in Basalt and the housing need for the county gets allocated Basalt that way. So you'll get to see that as well. And before I show the numbers, because they're always they're big, they're always big numbers. I just want to reemphasize it's not a construction goal. It's not a need to build goal. And in fact, most communities get these numbers and it's not their goal to address 100% of the housing need. What I think is really important more is understanding the components of the need. Where is it being generated from the different inputs? Where is it coming from as well? Is it in employment growth, retirees, commuting? And because at the end of the day, I just hope this data can help us all just set more informed goals around housing. And because the amount of housing we can build depends on a lot of different things. So here's the summary of the gross need for the region. Based on those five factors, I just talked about the regional need. So this is Picken County and Garfield County combined over the next 10 years is 7,686 units. Not necessarily new construction, but meeting the housing needs of this many households. In Picken County, this number is 2,853 units needed. About 60% of this is catch up for Picken County and 40% is keep up, which is actually the complete opposite from Garfield County, where you can see here that more of their housing need is the projected need over the 10 years and because of the amount of growth that's actually projected in Garfield County over the next 10 years. Now, we allocate it by jobs, as I said before. So of the 2,800 units needed in Pekin County, 13% of these are allocated to basalt. And that puts basalt's need at 360 units total. As you can see there, because of the way that it's allocated like that, it varies a lot. Aspen's is 1,400, almost 1,500. Snowmass, 500. Basalt, 360. And so we allocate it based on jobs within each community.

Can you just go back to one slide where you mentioned the biggest impact of Peking County is commuting? Yeah. In Peking County, the largest impact is from commuting. Yeah, about- You could go forward from there is fine. I just wanted to double check what that actually said.

Yeah, so we have, yeah, we can, we're kind of comparing like where is the need being generated from in both. Yeah, and so you can see about of our housing need, almost a third of it is from the commuting need. It is. Yeah.

And back to your point of who generates that need that creates the commuting problem is very debatable.

Yeah, it is. And I mean, I'll be honest, like we had to just pick, like here's how many commuters there are. What percent are we going to, Capture and so we didn't even say a hundred percent This is like 25 percent of commuters that we're trying to capture actually because we know not everyone wants to live in Picken County No, everyone wants to live in Aspen, but it does help show How how just how much need is driven by commuting how many people can't live in Picken County, but work here? Yeah. Yeah. Happy to answer any questions. Yeah. And then we net out anything that's in the pipeline, which basalt does have units. So with netting out future pipeline that puts basalts housing need at two hundred and ninety nine units out of the twenty five hundred for the county. The next piece here is we break it down by AMI needed. So looking at the jobs being generated and that exist, what AMI levels are those jobs at? And then we also break it down by ownership and rental for the housing need as well. And that's just based on a simple 120% and up is ownership and below that is mostly rental, well, mostly for both. Mostly rental for below 120%, mostly ownership for above. So some other assumptions in there. But via the DOLA guidance, they want us to break it down by what AMI housing need is being generated and how that relates to ownership versus rental need as well. All right, so now I'm gonna get into phase two stuff, which is looking at housing problems and challenges, outlining some of the issues that are outside of the numbers. I see phase two as more of the qualitative, phase one is more of the quantitative pieces. So two major components of housing problems. This includes overcrowding, temporary housing, homelessness, and also households who are cost burdened as well. So they have housing, but are paying more than 30% of their income on housing. So looking at overcrowding, temporary housing, homelessness in Picking County, we estimated 247 households. Our data for this isn't the best. It's just a tough data region. We hope next time to do a proper survey to get better data as well. Cost burden, we estimate around 38% of households in Picken County are cost burdened. We look at displacement risk as well. This was 11 factors the state required us to look into. And this idea here is being in one of these categories increases your risk of housing instability or your risk of being displaced from the community. So for example, for the single parent household, you only have one income to spread across for housing and support. And so you have a higher likelihood of maybe being displaced from your housing compared to a two income household. And so we do break into all these, but I'll share a couple with you all. So we look at cost burden low income renters. So of those who are low income, how many are cost burden? And we found that in Picken County, this number is 83%. In Basalt, it's 100%. Older housing stock we look at. So the risk there is if your house is built before 1970, it might create more issues for maintenance, which can make an unaffordable housing situation. This was around 11% of units for basalt. single-parent households. This was an interesting one, I thought, because you can see a decrease for Basalt and Picken County, 7.7 to 3.2 for Picken, 2.8 to 0.8 for Basalt. And so it makes you wonder how many people are already being displaced with the numbers that we're looking at as well. And we saw single-parent households actually increase for Colorado River Valley communities. aging residents so in basalt 24% are aged 65 and over and then disability as well so 15% and what I think is helpful here is when our communities start thinking about solutions going forward keeping these types of things in mind do we need programs for low-income renters do we need how many ADA units do we need and so it's helpful information to understand

We are a little ahead of schedule, but we're about 20 minutes now, just so you know. OK, sorry.

I have like a couple more slides, I think, is all and I can go quick to so development challenges. We all know I won't go in too much. It's just here's why building is hard in our valley. So land scarcity, development costs, non-local demand and then water access. Are we going to have enough water for this number of units or infrastructure? Now this is the last piece. So last component is just initial set of policy programs, recommendations, not binding or prescriptive. Their goal is to give a start for the housing action plans that the state is also requiring communities to adopt. First, we just took inventory. Here's everything we have. Our community, our region, has been doing affordable housing for a very long time. So we're not starting from scratch. And we are doing a lot already. Because of time, I'll just get through these. Then we also look at strategies. So we have both the regional. So this includes the entire region in the housing needs assessment. And then we have more of a county and we really develop these across staff was altogether brainstorming solutions for these. So the common theme here is partnerships, collaboration, education. How can we work together? How can we work together better? And there's a lot of great models already being started in our valley as well. That's reinforcing these recommendations. Here's my last one. So this is for picking County strategies again developed in partnership with staff. Six major areas here. We have programs, partnerships, planning like land use or having housing near transit funding. How can we continue to develop funding sources to develop housing programs and units regulation, reducing administrative barriers and development? And that includes things like land baking, maybe there's other models out there as well, like a community land trust. So we do break it all down in our final report as well. But again, none of the housing solutions in there are there's what everyone should do. It's really like here's some starting points. And especially as we get into our housing action plans that all the jurisdictions are required to complete as well. That's where you actually start to outline strategies and housing goals and using your housing needs assessment to create those pieces but I know I went over time but happy to field any questions as well and again happy after too if anyone has wants to send me any notes and or if you found anything in the report that doesn't feel quite right definitely happy to feel that as well because it's not final yet before we submit to the state

Well, thank you, Liz. I really appreciate the presentation and the report. Do you all have questions or comments?

I just have one question. Did the study look at literal structures to need?

Like, existing?

Yeah. I guess what I'm trying to, I'll just be blatant with what I'm trying to get at here, is if the empty homes, second homeowner homes were actually filled with locals, was that, so structures that exist to the need versus actual locals in the need?

We compare number of housing units in the county and we compare it to number of jobs in the reports. and so that's usually where we get it i think also vacancy is where we start to get at that as well like as i have brought back up here is uh picking county's 41 percent vacancy rate so i don't say i wouldn't say we necessarily tie that together and say tears if we could fill all these bedrooms but um it's definitely in there i think and it shows through the number of units number of jobs then you see the vacancy rate and you start to see what's going on. Yeah, so it does show up in that way.

I just want to say, I thought this was great. Really informative, really helpful. I took a ton of notes. Definitely something I hope to be able to use in the future. And I might have some follow-up questions just about some of the charts and methodology and stuff I had questions about. Would maybe your contact, could we get that from Gloria?

Yeah, I'd be happy if you want to share, or yeah, or also if anyone sends you questions, happy to. Yeah, I can share that out.

Okay.

Yeah, and yeah, thank you for the great questions and for reading it too.

That was great, thank you.

I just have a couple things. you know has to do with the 41% vacancy rate which creates about 80% of the labor demand. My opinion. For homes are not occupied. And that's where the community problem starts. and you know the other issues around that are just the basic expansion and you know the core resort and also I keep going back to that and also you know I was fortunate enough to get a unit in 1981 in Lone Pine out of a lottery and the data there was 104 applicants and 28 units so the data hasn't changed it's just gotten into the thousands instead of the hundreds I think that database decision-making processes and ACRA struggles with this is really about managing the risk for government to make policy because we're being told by the state how we should make policy and what it should look like and what it should say and what it should try to implement and the data has become kind of increasingly more important than some of the other issues we have in the valley of mental health and long commutes and wages I think one of the other things that's in conflict is that Pitkin has redefined their housing needs as community housing and has kind of left the workforce out of the equation for what kind of future planning they have for anything that they might construct or utilize as a TDR or a small studio attached to a bigger home or whatever their strategy is. I think that back, another data point, the difference in salary between Old Snowmass and El Jebel, and you talk about community and you talk about regional, years ago, Old Snowmass residents in Lazy Glen were making $80,000 as a combined family income, and El Jebel at the mobile home park there, the combined income was $55,000. So there's a $25,000 gap in a 10-mile reach of Highway 82. So when you think about That gap we haven't really done anything to narrow the gap all the gap is done. It's gotten wider And people are coming from further and further away and you know, there is a trend to want to come up here for a few years while you're a resident of Garfield County because you make that five or ten bucks extra and But the way the economy is growing in Garfield, I think that the tipping point has been reached and people are going to stay home and work. And we're seeing issues starting up. People are starting up child care businesses down there to keep the kids safe for the 7 in the morning to 7 o'clock at night that the parents are gone. I mean, there's so much about this that... is completely different uh from what the housing needs assessment is really targeting you know that there when when a statement is that picking county is cre is just having the biggest impact from commuting the question is why not oh yeah we agree but why yeah and you know how do you go from 10 000 cars on the highway to 25 or 28 000 whatever it is today what what has created that demand there's a creating employer creating employer and there's a group of people that have to provide employees to meet that demand I think Garfield has recognized that and Carbondale's recognized that and you know it's an interesting conversation and you know coming in on it you know not having a long history around it it it's just kind of repeat repeat repeat so thank you for being as committed as you are I appreciate this you know it's it's evident that the solution is we can't grow our way out we can't build our way out of it and all that but we can start to understand a little bit better the impact to what goes on in the lower valley and have adjustments made across the board as to mitigation for what has to be provided to you know the hundred and four private jets yeah that's that's an issue

I really appreciate the comments and I think you're looking at it the right way. We're not just looking at this face value number, but actually seeing what is driving this need. What are these different components and diving into each of those individually.

And we are familiar with them, so I hope we can take a deep dive. So thank you. Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I've been a proponent of affordable housing for a long, long time. And I think Basalt's really addressing that and doing a great job most recently. So thanks.

Anyone else?

It's quite cool comments. Thank you for in the city of Aspen for kind of taking the lead on this. It's a really good report. I mean, I've read a few of these. This is, I don't know, that's the way, the info, the way it was formatted. It was really informative. A couple thoughts that just came out of it. I thought it was interesting that basalt isn't seen increased renters as a proportion while most of the other jurisdictions saw an increase in ownership up and down Valley, if I recall. Although that was interesting. And the other thing that big takeaway on this is seeing the increase in purchases from investment proceeds or people say cash offers versus wages and receipts from other home sales in the region. I think we're gonna continue to see that increase. I think I believe we're going to see that non local demand increase here down Valley in the Colorado River Valley is going to happen concurrently with those investment proceeds purchases increasing as well to me that is the crux of the issue for affordable community workforce housing people being able to stay in their homes etc. You know, there's nothing against the people who are doing that. But systemically, I think that is what is really the long pole in the tent to making a bigger dent in affordable housing. Yeah, I just can't. Our wages can't compete with people who can, you know, sell stocks and come in and buy. It's just not feasible.

Once it's sold on local, it's gone forever. Usually the locally serving house is gone. So

one more quick with my my sons are both here great you know fortunately But a lot of their peers are leaving the valley going back to you know, Michigan Arizona wherever they've come for a few years to try the lifestyle and just said And they've owned Deed restricted etc, but there's other issues connected to that ownership like raising a family that they can't cost of living

Thanks, Liz. Yeah, thank you so much.

I appreciate the thoughtful comments on this. And I know it's a lot of not very happy data, but it does affirm a lot of things that we're seeing and puts numbers to it, which is super important.

So thank you all. Thanks, Liz. We'll see you next something, some meeting, I'm sure. All right. Next up, we have our council actions. Item 7A is a resolution number 30, series of 2026, resolution of the Town Council of Basalt, Colorado, approving a contract for construction services to reconstruct the Dirac's Park boat ramp. And Catherine, you have this one and seat ready to go. So we've got about 15 minutes, a lot of this one.

Okay. Sounds great. Mayor and Council, thanks for having me this evening. Tonight I'm bringing you a contract for the construction of a new boat ramp at the Durox Park off of Willits Lane. One of the goals of the master plan is to develop and preserve riverfront facilities that improve access to the river. As part of the 2024 Willits Lane connectivity plan, It was identified through community outreach that river users experience significant congestion when accessing the river at Durox Park. The current boat ramp is steep, has erosion issues, and fails to provide safe and reliable river access at variable water levels. Staff saw input from the angling and boating community as well as a Roaring Fork Conservancy regarding this project and what improvements might be required. In 2025, the town engaged Roaring Fork Engineering to begin the design of a potential boat ramp improvements. and in january of this year town staff applied for a fishing is fun grant which you may recall through cpw and in april we were notified of an award of 68 000 for the project and as part of that grant application we did receive letters of support that came from town council the roaring fork fishing guide alliance and rowing for conservancy In early June, an RFP was issued and six proposals were received from qualified contractors, and tonight we're recommending awarding construction contract to Nixco. Nixco has worked within the town fairly regularly, not for the town directly, but we've issued permits for them and worked with them through the right-of-way process. They also came with strong recommendations. As part of this project, in-stream work is required and we've reached out to CPW regarding their in-stream regulations and some work will need to occur if approved between August 15th and September 30th to avoid spawning and recruitment periods in the river. This project was identified on the future project section of the budget or the parking lot at $107,778. The project costs expected are just over $108,000, and that includes materials testing and a little bit of contingency. So that is in total which will be offset by the CPW grant funds of $68,000 and that leaves a balance of just over $40,000 which could be taken out of post funds and would fulfill the 25% match requirement that is required for the CPW grant. So we recommend council approve the reso that's before you tonight and are happy to answer any questions you have about this project.

Thank you. I just wanted to say I appreciate the financial summary and kind of laying all that out. And also with the grant, making our post dollars go a long ways. Great project and great work. What other questions and comments do you all have potentially?

I have one just one comment I'm in favor the one comment I had though is when Greg and Greg stepped out when Greg and I saw the presentation from Rwapa a couple of months back they talked about with high temperatures this summer that that was really stressing some of the aquatic life and so I'm just hoping that there's consideration of that for the in-stream work

Yeah, we talked to Kendall, who's a biologist, CPW, when you're nailing down those dates. And she felt comfortable, given where we are on the stretch of the roaring fork, and especially with the limited scope of work that will be in stream flow. But yeah, I totally understand that concern. Cool. Thanks.

Mm-hmm.

I just wanted to say thank you so much for engaging all the community partners that you did. I remember when you first brought this project to us. I don't remember what the impetus was for it, but we were like, we have to talk to the right people in the community, you know, so we don't go through this whole thing and then have a boat ramp that isn't desirable for the people who actually use it. So I'm really impressed with the number of, you know, organizations and people that you've worked with. Thank you for doing that.

Yeah, thanks.

Great.

Any other questions or comments? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion.

Mayor, I move that the town council adopt resolution number 30, series of 2026. Second.

She got it.

It's been moved and seconded. Pam, will you please call the roll? Actually, no, we don't have any online. Yeah, yeah. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. Get so used to that.

Thanks.

Thanks, Catherine.

Yeah, thank you.

All right. Cool. Next up, we have item 7B, which is our public hearing and first reading, ordinance number 19, series of 2026. An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Basalt, Colorado, creating necessary development approvals to the Jadwin Black Mountain development, including 64 dwelling units, 12 short-term cabin rentals, or rental cabins, and associated improvements, together with extending and increasing the corporate limits of the town of Basalt and providing initial town zoning for the Jadwin Black Mountain property. 431 Emma Road. And James, I think you're out there. So you have this one. The floor is yours.

Yeah, thank you. Can you hear me OK?

Yes, we can hear you.

Sorry. This is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance.

Hey, James, I think we need you a little louder.

This is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance that would approve of the Jadwin Black Mountain final plan application to construct 64 dwelling units, 12 short-term rental cabins, and one single-family residence at 431 Emmer Road, which is located just down valley of the post office on Emmer Road. As background, the property subject to the application is nine acres. It contains a single family residence and a trailer on a portion of it. The applicant received sketch plan and preliminary plan approvals and was Viewed by the as well as Bach as part of the final plan application. The final plan review is primarily to ensure consistency with the preliminary plan approvals and to work out any kind of hanging details. And I'll let the applicant go into more detail on their proposal. But as I noted, it's for 64 residential units. And it's a mix of multifamily units and duplexes. And then 12 short-term rental cabins. They're also proposing to preserve four acres almost of open space on the north end of the site. And let me see if I can share my screen here to show you. As part of the proposal, the glamping that was included in the sketch plan is no longer included. That was removed as part of the sketch plan review by the council. Of the 64 units, 32 are proposed to be deed restricted, with 24 being category units and an additional eight being RO units, so that the total is that 50% of the project is deed restricted. in addition council was looking for additional community benefit as part of the sketch plan review and as such the applicant proposed to provide 20 first tracks units which require marketing to locals for the first 90 days so they're free market units that require marketing to locals that have lived in the valley for at least a year Additionally, they've proposed small adjustments to the occupancy priorities. They've proposed that the normal town occupancy priorities be adhered to with the addition of Aspen Valley Ski Club, as well as the Forest Service as first priorities, as was discussed at the preliminary plan phases. In reviewing the application, staff identified a series of discussion items that are in the staff memos. With regards to these discussion items, the proposal hasn't really changed from preliminary plan, with the exception that the dog leg is now proposed to include a single family house, and that will be discussed here momentarily. In terms of the discussion items, the master plan compliance staff included the goals that the application satisfies that are part of the PNZ memo that's attached in your packet materials. As I noted, in terms of the affordable housing mitigation, The applicant has proposed more than the town code requirements of 20% of the units and 25% of the square footage being category units. The applicant has proposed 35% of the residential to be category units and then an additional 15% to be RO so that the total of the project is 50% deed restricted combined. in reviewing some of the other discussion items that are in your packet materials, the unit sizes for the affordable housing, as well as the amenities for the livability requirements were reviewed by the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission, BOC, and were determined acceptable, as they have not really changed from the sketch and preliminary plan phases. Also, as I noted, the transportation improvements in the staff memo at the sketch and preliminary plan, I was determined that the applicant would be required to provide a improvement to the Midland Avenue and Emma Road intersection by adding a dedicated right turn lane to Emma Road for down valley facing traffic. This was a requirement of staff's traffic consultants and has been included in several editions of the application on the Jadwin site. In addition, the applicant was required to make improvements to the intersection of the slip lane and Emma Road to improve the turning radius at the fire district's request. And so these requirements for transportation improvements are included in the draft ordinance, and it requires the applicant to make these improvements in addition to the project. From the parks, open space and trails standpoint, they are consistent with their preliminary plan approvals. They've provided public access to the river through the open space area. They've also proposed to provide an eight-foot bike path extension to the western extent of the property, as you can see here from the post office area. There's currently a trail by the post office, but it dead ends, and so that would be continued by the project to the western extent of the property. In addition, the applicant has requested a... Adjustment from the path width that was recommended by Picken County. Picken County recommended a 10 foot wide path width. The path is proposed at eight feet long Emma Road. It was necessary to reduce it those two feet in order to accommodate landscaping and a berm for screening from the project from the highway. And that was a request of the council at the preliminary plan phases. Other discussion items included the impact fees. The applicant, as you can see here in the draft ordinance, recommended or requested waivers from the parkland dedication fee, the daycare fee, as well as water tap fees as part of the preliminary plan. The Council was supportive at preliminary plan of the parkland dedication waiver as well as the daycare fee waiver, but Council was not supportive of the water tap fee waivers at preliminary plan. So the applicant has removed their request for the water tap fee waivers, and that has been included in the draft ordinance for just the waivers of the daycare fee and the parkland dedication fee. Other requests include wildfire mitigation. It was a discussion item. The town has adopted the wildfire code requirements and the applicant was required to update their plan to meet the new wildfire state ordinance requirements. And so the applicant has done that and made some adjustments. Another topic that is out there is the dog leg. The applicants, this is the dog leg parcel. It's also owned by the applicants. It was originally proposed to have a daycare on it as part of the sketch plan. However, the council at the sketch plan level did not want to require a daycare on it because it's outside the urban growth boundary. And so as such, the applicant removed the request for the daycare on that site and instead has now proposed for it to just be a single family house on that property. This is a request that came about because if they did not have an approval on this property for it to be annexed, it would create a non-conforming lot in unincorporated Picken County. And so it wouldn't have any development rights with it. So the applicant has proposed for it to be annexed for the construction of just a single family house up to 3,000 square feet. The P&Z thought it was consistent with the town's master plan in terms of the intent of the urban growth boundary, as they identified that a single family house that replaces an existing single family is not urban level development. So that's a discussion item. It was decided at the sketch plan level that because the applicant was directed not to do the daycare, that they would do a $700,000 community benefit contribution. And so that was included in the preliminary plan phases. And it's carried over into the draft ordinance. There is a request related to the timing that they would provide the $700,000 contribution for community benefit. That timing request is that they are requesting that the 700,000 be provided before the seventh free market unit townhome. This is an adjustment from the preliminary plan approval. The preliminary plan approval had timing of providing the 700,000 before any development on the property. So this is a request for consideration by the council as part of the final plan review. Other topics included the phasing and vested rights. The applicant has proposed that all the sub-plats be recorded within five years of the approval, and then each sub-plat would have three years of vested rights for each plat, and that all seven of the plats would be recorded within seven years of the issuance of the final plan so that would mean that all the buildings should be under construction within 10 years of the approvals this is similar phasing invested rights that has been provided for other larger projects like parcel five of sopress meadows as well as the park modern project that is now a build out the town code provides for three years of vested rights But in these larger projects, there have been adjustments to the vested rights to accommodate the construction of larger projects. Other topics, staff has a couple items that we'll be looking for from a technical standpoint before second reading. One of them is a just report to reflect the irrigation beyond the town's water system. There was a bit of conflict in their proposal and so they've clarified that the irrigation would be on the town's water system also an updated drainage report showing the storm water treatment being adjusted so that it treats the storm water before it goes into the wetland area and then third an updated site plan showing a replacement for the location of two parking spaces that were displaced by the well easement the well easement needed to be adjusted on the site because there was a A telephone easement that couldn't be removed, so they they moved it 5 to 10 feet and so they have to replace those two spaces that were eliminated by changing the well easement. And then there is a slight conflict between a fire hydrant and landscaping that we'd like to see adjusted before the second reading. So this evening staff would recommend. taking applicant comments, taking public comments, and then providing council discussion. If you're comfortable, you could approve the ordinance on first reading. So with that, I will stop sharing my screen, and we have the applicants here this evening. Gentlemen, how you guys doing?

How's it going? Good. Good to see you guys again tonight. Let me see if I can share screen here. There we go. okay well thanks james and thank you everyone for being here for the benefit of council members who might not have been following this project through the years i want to briefly run you through the intentional process that has landed us here today starting with an idea that came during the community visioning of 2019 and 2020. In mid 2020 the new owners of this property started master planning and development with our team after seeing the roadmap for community interest taking shape with the feedback and work sessions behind the 2020 master plan. The then draft master plan showed how this property in conjunction with the neighboring Stotts parcel could be incorporated in the town as a key parcel to support the community's growth vitality and need for housing that stabilizes community members at risk of displacement. including density recommendations, open space allocations, and appropriate land use designations within the property. Initial analysis proved that the largest challenge to realizing this goal was the limitations of the site constraints, including wetlands, flood plains, and utility easements. In December of that year, we prepared our first master planning packet for staff to review and consider. This spawned into two more years of analysis, design studies, staff feedback, neighbor communications, utility, county, CDOT, fire department, and engineering feedback ahead of preparing for annexation application. Jumping forward to the culmination of planning and outreach to neighbors and referral agencies, we arrived at our first formal planning application. Shown here for engagement in public hearings and public committee feedback, the opening opportunity included 68 residential units, 35 as affordable housing, above the code required 20%, as well as 12 fishing cabins as a hospitality offering. It also included seven glamping sites and amenities and recreational elements provided in the extensive open space north of the housing. Plus the land dedication of the dog leg for child care and community benefit. During sketch plan approvals many topics of consideration were weighed and accommodations were made for improvements to fire access police management concerns traffic issues architectural response project density and above all the amount of affordable housing. Some of the most noteworthy accommodations of the request of the public, P&Z and council include the following. A move to 64 residential units, 50% as affordable housing. Above the code required 20% and the initial offering of 35%. As well as the introduction of the first tracks housing priority for locals, increasing the deed restricted housing offering to 81% of the residences and a total of 52 units. At this time, we also removed all seven seasonal glamping sites as well as most all improvements other than trail access to the open space. We further agreed to a $700,000 gift to the town for community benefit as a better contribution to benefit the community than the land donation previously proposed. These items along with the planned improvements to Emma and Midland Avenue resulted in the sketch plan approval in February of 2024. Last summer, we once again engaged with BOC, P&Z, and Council for further discussion, consideration, and feedback. After illustrating refinements related to our traffic and intersection design improvements on Emma Road, additional composting and trash area refinements, as well as clarity on ADA-compliant units and accessible design, just to mention a few, resulted in approval to continue our work in refining the design proposal and annexation of the Jadwin parcel into the Town of Basalt. Bringing us to tonight's application. Current updates to the application reflect technical refinements and resolutions to previously open topics, as requested by staff, as well as further vetting and development of civil, landscape, and architectural designs with an intention to not make material changes to the prior approvals. Our proposal summary once again illustrates the development of four multifamily residential buildings, two two-story structures and two three-story structures, of which one two-story and one three-story structure are designed as deed-restricted community housing buildings, shown in orange, plus 12 single-standing and duplex townhomes and 12 hospitality river cabins operating as a single hotel with onsite management. as well as an extensive dedicated area of open space, lightly touched river access, and per the direction of post wildlife and ecological consultants and river hydrologists. Our final approval design includes a consistent land use zoning and density model as previously proposed, and a consistency in our response to the Basalt Master Plan and subsequent feedback. It also includes a consistency in our approach to neighboring parcels, open space, public frontage, and Emma Road. The architectural design and character remain the same and consistent with prior approvals, which are a result of sketch and preliminary review feedback with considerations to the importance of apparent scale and materiality reflective of the site's context and community interests. A further detailed and defined community housing offering and clearly defined public benefits include 81% deed restricted housing, of which 50% are category units, 31% are first tracks, four acres of open spaces and trails, $700,000 gift to the town for community benefit, Emma Road and Midlands Avenue improvements, betterment of public access to the river, provided vitality as envisioned in the master plan through the river cabin hospitality, pedestrian connection to Old Town, and a dedication of a permanent easement to the town for a new water well. As a final note before we turn it over to staff, we're excited to announce that with the remapping of the floodplain that was officially adopted on June 5th, we are now clear to proceed with our final approval and prepare for construction to begin. With BOC, we reviewed our deed restricted units and our alignment with community housing guidelines, as well as the proposed category unit mix in bedrooms and floor plans. We also met with the town's technical review committee in discussion of final approval comments, including adjustments to comply with the newly adopted Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code. And most recently, we presented and discussed the final application with members of Basalt's Planning and Zoning Commission, Reviewing and zoning the density alignments with local needs and the 2020 master plan resulting in their recommendation for approval Today our team is supportive of the final conditions of approval presented by staff and after discussing We'd be happy to hear a motion allowing us to proceed to achieving the goals set forth. With all the community benefits and contributions allowing Black Mountain become an extension to the town of Basalt. We'll now turn it back over to staff unless Michael has anything to add. We're happy to answer any questions and thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you, Ramsey. For those of you who don't know, Ramsey is our architect and has been from day one. So thank you, Ramsey. Excuse me. My name is Michael Forrest. I'm one of the development partners with Coulter and Bridger Smith. And I just wrote a couple of things down that I wanted to say. Mayor Knight and council members and staff, first and foremost, I wanted to just say thank you to everybody here. This doesn't happen with a lot of people pulling in the same direction. I wanted to specifically call out some people that are not here that have worked on this for many years with us, starting with the former town manager, Ryan Mahoney, planning department manager, Michelle Thibault, who both worked for years with us, and of course, James Lint, who's guided us through this whole process and has been amazing to work with. I couldn't not mention the former mayor, Mayor Kane, and all the folks that worked on the 2020 Basalt Master Plan for many years. Some people, familiar faces from way back then. And then I think as you heard tonight, the housing crisis and the housing shortage continues. It's certainly not going to be cured by this project, but The vision that started in this room, this, I believe, will be the first project to break ground that was identified in the master plan. I think that's pretty cool and pretty great. And we love this town. We will be proud to build here, and we appreciate everybody's help.

Thank you. all right well this is a public hearing so we will go ahead and do that before we get into council questions and comments so i'll open the public hearing at 7 21. see i don't see anybody in the room i don't know if there's anyone online james uh if you'd like to make comments and you're online if you could please raise your hand

Looks like we have no no hands online.

Alright, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And we'll open it up for opened up for Council questions or comments of the applicants or staff.

Floors open. I'll start some brand new here. First, just like a disclosure. So I've known like Colter and Bridger on the African team my entire life, probably since our parents are friends. I've known him my entire life. We've never talked about this project. I have no financial interest in it. So as far as like a disclosure, there are no conflicts. So I understand that this has been before Council a few times. I'm not trying to reopen every prior bargain. I'm just really focused on these final documents that are before us to make sure that they're complete and then to see that these public benefits are enduring and enforceable. So just a couple questions kind of on that for you. So one thing I didn't see, and if it's in the packet, just like direct me to the page, I'll look at it. I didn't see exactly like where's the private space. There's like an outdoor and a space that's private. I guess that's the pond.

So the required private outdoor space for each unit. Oh, that's not. Is that what you're asking about? I don't know.

There was a part in here where it talks about the part of its public, part of its private as far as the open space.

The open space that is north of the development is all public area. It's for the benefit of the town of Assault residences and any other passerby, but it also provides a nice amenity for them to have nearby the residential development. So the multifamily structures do have the required private outdoor space that's required by the housing guidelines and the storage facilities that are required of those. And actually for the units that are not part of that criteria of community housing, we actually gave the exact same benefits to those because we thought that that document was well drafted in a way that benefits everyone's interest as living in a multifamily building. Great.

So there aren't set areas in that space that's a private land?

There's no designated area for residents only. Love that.

Great. And so, like, the one thing I noticed in here, for example, it's like 22 of your memo. It says hours of operation. It says public use of the trail to and from the river. I just wanted to be sure that's not, that's anybody. It's not excluding. Okay, great.

And dogs on leash for public and for people that live there, right?

And maybe I didn't want to start. I also want to highlight, like, I think there's some really great parts about this project, right? I want to highlight... I really appreciate you said in there that you can put appliances on all the de-districted apartments. I've lived in a lot of these parts, and that's been a gripe of mine. I'm like, wow, we get no horrible lighting, and we don't have any appliances. So I really appreciate that. I thought that was great. I think the mix of accessible units, the two Type A you required, but a lot of Type B. I think that's great. I really appreciate that. I think it's a good mix of units in terms of studio and three bedrooms. I like seeing all that. The 50% deed restricted, that's awesome. I just also think to be clear, for us, when other, applicants are coming and talking about a precedent, it's 50% by unit, but it's 35% by FIR, right? So required to have 25%, it's 35%. So it's, you know, obviously 50% sounds nicer. I think we could also say 35% as far as like a precedent when we're going forward looking at other issues. Other questions I had for you, though, was about, well, I heard you say duplex townhomes, but you had clarified in the water memo that they're not going to be duplex in terms of, like, there's no way I could buy one townhome.

You can. There's 12 separate types. So they're made up of single family and duplex structures with a party wall vertically between two. And then because of the way the land divvied out and the acreage we had, there were on the end where it didn't have a partner bookended next to it. And it has a little bit ability for more window area on both sides. But you basically own, you know, it's your unit from ground level second and third. And then through a party wall, there's another unit adjoining to it. So it's technically a duplex and a single family structure by the definitions of IBC. But from the stylistic qualities of what we're creating as a row home, It looks more like townhome development.

Okay. So each other on water.

I thought there was something in that saying that wasn't the case, but they sold separately.

Great. Just checking them off. Other question for you about. So then I think the biggest stuff that I have questions on is some of the stuff that's not in here. We'll get to it. It's like the water. got to get updated like James mentioned those those documents that we're not seeing here. We're just assuming we're going to see those before the second reading like it's important to see those because things have changed since the last one is particularly the part of your gating with treated water which understand you're able to do it, but I just I think that's a real. I think that's a real shame to be using treated water for outdoor irrigation.

Yeah, and a lot of these things, you know, Stephanie is going to do her diligence to update the required documents James brought forth before the second reading. And then, of course, there'll be a lot more refinement that has to be done to all the civil before we can get building permit based upon these approvals as well.

And then my other questions come into this one. So the master association, right? You have it set up. Each building has its own separate master association, right? And they have their own assessments and all that. What about common areas between the two buildings? Who owns those?

Yeah, that would be the common area of the HOA. and be maintained by the HOA association. So there's, each building has its own HOA, and then there's like a master HOA for the entire complex.

Got it. So like that's the part, there's a part in there talking about like reduced assessments for these detrituted units? Exactly. The challenge with your makeup is you have 100% of the de-districted units in one building, so when they need to replace the roof, there is no discount for those de-districted units on the roof, because that's their own HOA, they have to pay for the whole roof. They're only getting that discount when it comes to a sidewalk repair.

Yeah, look, I think it's a fair comment. I think it just speaks to sort of the larger issue of actually getting a project like this off the ground if, in kind of simple terms, the free market is paying for the de-districted. And very early on in the project, we spoke to local lenders in the Valley, and we were counseled that we need to keep them separate, and we need to keep the P&L separate. We need to keep the economics of deed restricted separate from free market, or else the project really just doesn't underwrite. I think it definitely speaks to a larger issue that's going on in other places in the valley where these capex items pop up years and years later and roof replacement is obviously a big one. You know, I think it really comes down to, you know, sound management in the beginning. And, you know, these units are really, in a lot of ways, you know, the property of the town of Basalt, right? This is to serve the town of Basalt's needs. And I think... These projects are monitored by the town of Basalt, and from a financial standpoint, very early on, I think if the town takes a more proactive role in auditing the financials and making sure they're putting away money for those items that will pop up in 20 or 30 years that are inevitable, and it's just about planning.

the town's not actually going to i'll add one thing to that there is a new legislative change this year to kiowa that would require developers to prepare a capital maintenance study basically a reserve study prior to the time that the project is handed over to owners for management of the association so at least like that's a new legislative aid to help owners of the building that are then running and managing the HOA to be in a position of, okay, here's maybe where we should set some kind of capital reserve funding because we know we're going to need to pay for this. It says right here in the report.

And that's where I was going with it, right? So I haven't seen the Master Association docs. But, like, to your point, it's about good management from the beginning. So, like, I would like to see something in there that says, like, they may have a reserve, but I think that they should. And it should be something that says that, like, as part of the Master Association docs, like, you need to have a reserve. So we're setting up these homes from the very beginning to be on a good footing. We're not looking at, like, we've seen that in Aspen. A lot of deed restricted that weren't maintained 20, 30 years later, 40 years later, they're falling apart. Right? So I think that's something. Are the townhomes part of the Master Association?

Yep.

Okay. And the pond is part of the Master Association as well? All of it. But that's the overarching of Master Association? Correct. So if I buy a unit, I'm living in the deed restricted unit, I'm part of two HOAs? Correct. Correct. I've just gone through this in my neighborhood, and it was a nightmare. That's why I'm looking at some of this HOA stuff, because I love where I live. It motivated me to be part of this group here. A lot of things were done really well. This was a problem we walked into that we had to spend a lot of time managing and focusing on. And I think that's a real challenge for somebody who's just super excited to have a place. You feel so fortunate and lucky, but then you don't realize it's a problem until pretty far down the road.

Yeah, there's a lot of nuance there for sure. And Jody Edwards, who's our attorney, who's been drafting these documents, has a lot of experience locally with HOAs. And we can certainly consult with Jeff and the town about legislative stuff that maybe we're not aware of in drafting that.

Sure in Greg, I'll just add to on kind of the layer of the associations here. It essentially requires layers to layers of associations because you're it's essentially a planned community with condominium developments within it. And so there's necessarily a kind of a condominium association for each of those multifamily buildings. And then those for the buildings themselves and then for kind of those larger areas that are part of the planned community. That's kind of what the master association is for. You know, if this was a case where this was all rental housing, there wouldn't need to be a multilayered multiple layers of associations, but because it is can be kind of minimized for sale. It just necessarily requires that. Yeah.

It just makes sense. As an anecdote, I lived in a community up in Crystal Valley where we didn't have that master's association and just getting anyone to repair roads or repair bridge was, you know, volunteer ism. And so, yeah, this is going to be set up much better to have a hierarchy and governance, I think.

Yeah, I would just like to read those docs. They weren't in this packet. I'd like to see those. And then that goes into the next part, kind of the bigger questions about these deed-restricted units. So let's start with the first TRAX program. I didn't see anything in there. That's why I had these questions. It's like, I'd like to see that actual language written in there before the next time. But just because then I'm in a couple questions. So how do you verify somebody's local?

that so james could maybe speak to that that process but the the town would be administering that process of verification of somebody's residency um and qualifying for the program and in this quick quite clarifying question for you jeff how much of a hoa documentation and actual um operational documentation of these programs as part of

this process versus something that you know called upon to be created after the approvals are done much of it is is after so it's implementation of the final approval we'll have a development agreement we'll review James and I will review you know all the the deed restrictions for the for the units will review the master declaration and then uh for each building when it gets built uh prior to recording a condo map for the building and you know the condo declaration for each of the individual buildings so i don't that's stuff that's not unless unless you guys have that stuff these are questions that won't be answered we're gonna have to these are prove it without having answers to these questions like my other questions would be could i own multiple if i have this first tracks program

I live locally, can I buy multiple units?

So the first protracts program can be better defined now as part of this approval. I think if there's greater, if there needs to be more detail on the parameters of what that program is, but I think that too will ultimately be, well, that'll be a condition of approval. I don't think there'll be a separate, other than it lives in the development area.

I think we have in our packet a draft of that de-distriction.

Okay.

both for First Tracks and the category and the RO. I believe that was in our packet. There's a draft of that First Tracks deed restriction, because it is a deed restriction, although it's not a...

It's a market. It is, and that's my question. Also, I want to commend you guys. I think there's a lot of really creative things done on this project, which I love. I think it's great, right? I just want to look into this, because a lot of other projects are going to look at this as a precedent. And so I just want to make sure that we've fleshed out the details and we know what we're getting.

I think to us, and I certainly welcome comments, and I know, Mayor, we talked about this in some previous meetings when you asked us to go further than the 50 if we could, or the 50% deed restricted. That was the genesis of this. What else can we do to give locals a head start? Because we do think the demand is local. So to me, the intent of the program would be not for somebody to get two units as part of that first tracks. The purpose of that would be you're an individual or a family, you live in the valley, you're that qualifies you for one unit who is that second unit for if it's for your 29 year old daughter who also has been living here and has a job here you know i think like that's where it gets a little confusing but i think the intent from our perspective is this is not get one unit and get three others for your friends

I love intent, but that's not what people are going to read and apply like down the road.

And I do want to be cognizant of time. I think this could be an amendment to as a requirement to the ordinance for the requirements for the first tracks program to add this. But I do also want to make sure everybody else gets a chance to ask some questions and make some comments. Right.

So if there's. Council wants to move this to second reading there are already a couple of things that the applicants are going to come back with with more detail but if we want to Council wanted to approve it on first reading and set it for second reading and also ask that you know there be additional review of the first tracks program and address, you know, a concern like what Greg is raised here for second reading. You know, I guess a couple other comments just based on this discussion is, you know, this is part of this hearing and otherwise but the applicants they are in an annexation setting and so you know part of the reason they have proposed what they have beyond the code requirements you know the council can require that you meet the code you're in an annexation process there's been a negotiation that yes we're going to extend our services municipal boundaries and as part of that you know they're going above and beyond the code to bring that in there So the property brought into the town. Just another point on some of the implementation pieces. Some of that is not here with the application because that's just part of the role of staff afterwards, with James and I working through those implementation pieces. Some of it is also with the timing of construction for particular multifamily buildings where You know, you can't record a prepare a a condo map and then without it being substantially complete. And that's kind of when we're looking at the declaration. But, you know, those those sets of private covenants. So there's there's things that are kind of within our scope at this point. And there's there's I think things just with how this is structured that it's that's part of the role of staff is working through. And then I guess lastly, just with deed restrictions, we have worked, you know, that we have a lot of projects with category deed restrictions that we've been able to work through over the years, you know, as we just have recorded some with the Basalt Center project. So I just want to be clear, like a lot of this stuff is not stuff we're just making up for this project. There is a lot of precedent already in how we're preparing these implementation pieces.

First Tracks piece is new though, right?

So I guess I'll just offer the opinion that, you know, I think between first reading and second reading, if we can get to a vote tonight on this, um, we can certainly provide what we have to date from the HOA documents for Greg to review before the second reading, as well as the first tracks program details, which we do have. And James has, it just didn't make it into your packet possibly. Yeah. Um, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, The last item would be this idea of someone moving in to get more than one First Tracks offered for 90 days in that cycle is, I think, something that could be amended about the First Tracks program before it's distributed to you. at the second reading. So I think all these items are, we can deal with them on that level in order to kind of keep the thing on the rails. Because we have been sort of working on this for a very long time. 100%. And I'm not trying to derail it. Yeah, and I know you're not. They're great questions and they're great comments. And that last one about someone buying two or three, you're the first person to bring that up as a concern. So I'm glad it came to light.

Yeah, it's like I could buy two or three and then rent them. And I guess we're getting to the RETA. The RETA is a pretty big discount, the 0.25% RETA. It's a pretty big discount. It's like regressive. So the more valuable the asset is, the bigger the discount is. And so that's where I'm really honing in on what is this enduring public benefit. And that's why I just want to see the docs and just kind of understand.

I think those are all items that we can kind of If you have anything else to add, that's fine, though.

Just a clarification, because you said that the town was going to administer this program. In the memo here, it says that the Jadwin group will administrate the program through the first sales process.

I will let James handle that one, because I think it's better if it comes from the town's voice.

I hope you can hear me. I apologize for being remote this evening, but The answer would be that the Jadwin applicants would take the first stab at reviewing it, and then the town staff would confirm after they took the first stab at reviewing a qualification. from somebody requesting to purchase one of those units. And we would look at proof of residency in the valley, and I think it's set out between Aspen and Parachute. So we'd look at voter rolls and proof of residency on the First Tracks program.

Who else has questions or comments? Elise.

The other newbie here.

Not really.

Not really. But you know what I mean?

Yes, you're back.

I'm back. Can you clarify for the first tracks? Are those market rate?

Yes.

Okay. And then just to be clear, this has been tried before. It wasn't called first tracks, but it was a slain for tree farm. He only did 60 days instead of 90 days. But we just heard a presentation that basically nobody under what, 300% AMI, 400% AMI, 400% AMI can afford market rate. So I don't think it matters how long you open that up for and how forcibly you market it if we can't afford it we can't afford it what I would love to see is just RO just just make it RO unfortunately yeah what's that I mean it's

literally impossible I mean that that brings the project to 82% deed restricted if you include the first tracks units and I just I don't think we get financing for a project like that unless there were other levers that you guys could pull you know, the fees, water tap fees, building fee. I mean, I think our last calculation fees were somewhere close to $4 million. So it just doesn't underwrite at 80% deed restricted without state funds, local funds. It just doesn't. And those free market units are paying for the 50%.

No, I understand that. And, I mean, what is the calculation? It's like 8% to 10% less than market value for RO units. Does anybody know that one? I can't remember.

James is nodding online.

You're nodding?

Yeah, it was between 8% and 10% is what we've heard from mortgage lenders.

So, yeah, for a private development like this to – be able to move from a 20%, you know, I think there's a reason why 20% is sort of the baseline of that affordable housing for a for-profit development model to succeed. Because of the townhomes, we're calling them, and the hospitality amenity, it is sort of, circumventing the funding for us to be able to increase that to 50%. And that's on a very, very tight business plan with construction prices and what we have today. And so we were able to achieve what we think is a landmark sort of conclusion where a for-profit developer can achieve 50% true community housing benefit on a project which yields 32 deed restricted, true deed restricted units, not this 90 days for locals program that is in addition to that another 20 units. That was just our additional offering in order to kind of try to come up with a creative way to keep the profitability that's required in order to have the 32 built. and also address concerns about locals not getting priority on housing the valley. So I don't think that those 20 units are going to take care of the things you heard earlier tonight where people can't afford 300, 400% AMI properties, but you are keeping locals as an option on those developments and you're allowing those funds to go into the 50% deed restricted for this development. you buy one what's that would you buy one um if i sold my house that i currently own yes not all of us have that luxury i understand but we are we are we are going to the point of providing 32 d restricted houses that are kind of being made possible by the ones that are free market and i'm not saying that the work that you've done to date isn't great work

please don't get me wrong. I think that, like Greg says, there's lots of great pieces to this. I think I'm just, I'm making a point that it's great that you're trying to prioritize locals, but those free market units are just gonna be out of pace with what our salaries are.

I get that. It was a creative way to increase the offer.

And I guess my creative ask is I wonder if there's a way to make up that 8% to 10% difference to be able to offer everything as RO.

If we take a look at the project in totality, there's other... financial commitments that we're making, right? We have two intersections that we're doing improvements to. We have the daycare payment. You know, it's right now, you know, based on, and this came up a lot at PNZ. PNZ was somewhat encouraging us to ask for more fee waivers to make sure, like they were kind of pushing us to say, are you guys sure this project is gonna actually get off the ground? You know, I think that's, where I'm landing is like we've all been here going on six years to get this project off the ground and we've been meeting with our lenders and we we've really done our homework and what we've presented is a project we know we can do but if we start moving that needle it's almost like we have to start from square one because it just it sounds easy to say that it's eight to ten percent but You know, Coulter, who's an active broker and real estate agent, maybe has an opinion on this, but we think it's more. But it's also perception from an underwriting perspective and getting a lender to back this project. And that's what we've presented here is a project we think we can get off the ground, most importantly.

And I'd just like to mention, since we started working on this, I mean, construction costs have doubled. And it's gotten increasingly difficult to find a living.

I think to echo, because I do tend to see it more from the business and the lending side and the cost of construction. And I believe that these applicants are giving everything they can while still presenting a feasible project to get off the ground. And I think that if we determine that these 21st First Tracks units should be RO, then we have to be willing Oh, yeah. Participate financially and pull some of those levers. That's fair. And say, okay, well, then we're going to waive the $700,000 child care fee. We're going to waive some of the water tap fees. We have to help them make that. I think that's fair. And so I think that if that's the discussion we want to have, and if that's feasible...

then that you know i don't think we can just at this point look at that yeah no no no no figure it out financially um there has to be some give and take on our side i think that's fair i'd be very interested in having that conversation like what would it look like to get a few more ro units or to convert all of those to ro units what what would you need in terms of fees um to the degree that we can have as open a conversation as possible. I'd be very interested.

And it is a dollar amount that that would help would sway the lender because it's possible that they would just look at it and say no 10 more deed restricted units are or category. It's just we won't underwrite that.

I think the answer is it all depends. And there's just so many inputs in this. If you saw our financial model, it would make you dizzy, right? Because each property is underwritten separately and then you have the whole property and then you have the, you know, Hospitality component which is you know at this point somewhat unproven, right? There's no comp to point that in basalt to say hey This is what they're getting for hotel units and this is their occupancy, right? So a lot of this is just you know Has just evolved over a long period of time and a lot of it is scary quite frankly right because there's you know. Tariff right like there you know a year and a half ago whatever was we were building a metal building and you know prices were going up in it so there's so many factors what I think what. we know is what we've presented. We have a lender who is willing to commit to that. And we think we can build that. I think it's easier said than done to draw that direct line and say, if you take this free market unit and turn it into RO, that is this dollar amount. So wave tap fees and I'll add three. It's like fuzzier than that. It's more like we're betting on like 50% sounds good. You know, it's like 50% is deed restricted, 50% is free market. It's going to work out. We're going to make it work. And the first tracks was like, okay, how can we be a little creative to just hold back and fill some of that demand with locals who can afford? And I would say this, from an affordability standpoint, I mean, this project, the nature of the project of the real estate we're building is really towards a more affordable product, right? We're close to the highway. There's obviously some noise. This is not a super high-end luxury development. This is really a workforce housing development. And I think even the free market units will be affordable, obviously not for everyone, but for high-paid professionals, doctors, lawyers, people who are in this community that have that income level but don't have housing. And I think that goes back to... even the 2020 master plan, which talked about that missing middle, right? That was like a big term back then, build to the missing middle. And I think our free market is building to that missing middle. It's free market. People also like to own in this valley because of that appreciation. So this gives people home ownership. You know, they're living in a small studio or one bedroom or two bedroom, maybe not forever, but they'll buy that unit. It'll appreciate. And maybe then they can graduate to a home. So we really look at it is it's feeding the whole ecosystem of housing. And it's like we got a little bit for everything.

When our unit is still gonna appreciate it market rate. I mean, you can set that up. I think the hard part is like we've been burned before by the idea of a affordable development and yes, then COVID happened, things went sky high, vested rights, 10 years later, got to take advantage of that. Could go the other direction, we don't know.

Yeah, look, if you look at, you know, what has been published for the lumberyard project, you know, at ABC, I mean, their construction costs are scary. And we're mindful of that. And we're, we're, as you can tell from my posture, which, you know, I respect what you're saying. And quite frankly, if I could just say yes, I would, I really would. But I'm aggressively protecting this because I want to get this project built.

I mean, another way to flip the coin on this whole thing is...

Microphone. Shift that mic over. Oh, sorry. My name is Mike. Where's Mike?

Sorry. Another way to flip the coin on this is, you know, instead of saying, you know, maybe the town doesn't get the $700,000 gift, maybe the town does waive the tap fees, et cetera, et cetera, to make these ROs work. the town could always buy out some of these units. We could have that as a sort of position that the town is optioned to do as they've done in the past in their developments in order to increase the amount of affordable housing the town offers. If the town's willing to go dollar for dollar to make more affordable units in this community, that's something that they could, potentially buy free market units during that 90 days and have a priority position and choose to make them deed restricted that's the same or choose to make them ro that's the same sort of the buy down the buy down policy and then and then it's not the burden's not put back on the applicant that's at the very edge of the ability to make this project work and i'm just the architect i'm not a financial partner but brother-in-laws are and so i'm i'm worried about the construction price of this and them actually coming out of this thing without being burned themselves because it is such a tight thing to go 50 affordable housing and make the numbers work the construction costs so just offering that but i i appreciate the the intention I just feel like the intentions have gotten us to 50% and I'm not sure that there's any more that can go.

I think you're at a good spot with this 50%. I think those first tracks is the part that I don't think it strengthens your proposal unless it was like, just having not seen the details. If it was something like, hey, they've been here for 20 years, something more meaningful. Because for the town, this is an ongoing... I mean, when we're looking at like, we just had a conversation last time about funding stacks for development we're trying to do and these RETAs are a big part of funding that. And having this reduced RETA, Drew my attention more to this first tracks program. And that's why I'm just asking more questions about the details. One thing that you just said that kind of questions bumped in. My next question, just the only question I had about the D district and the tier levels. In your thing, you talk about material changes are the only thing that like the town would have to prior be a part of everything else you could. What constitutes material change?

Material change would be if let's say we had, I don't have it in front of me, but you know, 10 category two units and we wanted to only have eight category two units. The flexibility that we asked for was the ability to say, okay, we've gone to market on these deed restricted units for some reason. these category two three bedrooms are not renting or selling so let's move that category two to one bedrooms and kind of move unit type but keep the same amount of category two so we couldn't change the the composition of deed restriction without coming to the town

What about the employer for employers that you have is like a tier one.

Yeah.

Could that change? Would that be a substantial change?

No. I mean, right now, the priority list is essentially the same as the town code, except that we added in Aspen Valley Ski Club. Yes. And the Forest Service.

And Aspen Valley Hospital.

And Aspen Valley Hospital. Right.

They came to us early when we were trying to scrap for ways to get to 50%.

I would advocate for the Town of Basalt to be in that employer list as well. So you just mentioned like if it's in there.

I imagine Town of Basalt is a tier one already. Yeah. It's in the guidelines. So it's not just what's listed on your... James can... No, it's...

It lists another... In their list, there's... I believe our list is nested in there. Is that correct?

I don't think... I think we're an essential employer under the community housing guidelines. Is that right, James? Yes.

That's correct. Yes, we're already included in that here.

Okay. So we are getting close to time and not everybody's spoken yet. I'm going to probably recommend when we get the time that we continue the first reading. I'm not going to be able to support if we can't get all the counselors to be able to speak in the first reading.

I'll be pretty quick. I have supported this. proposal since day one, and particularly with all of the amendments that you've already made. In my opinion, the applicant, you know, being part of the master plan process, it's a near because it was a part and your perfect match to master plan intentions. we don't ever see that there's very little ask other than annexation of course from the applicants on the town's part but a lot of willingness to give as far as bumping up the affordable housing you know I think we're always going to want more but I am personally very aware of financing struggles and the cost of building and all of that and I can imagine your dizzying projections because that's kind of stuff I look at on a daily basis for my job so I appreciate your diligence and the time you spent. I think it's a well thought out project that has been analyzed for a long, long time. And I see no reason not to support it in this final approval process, personally.

that's all I got. All right.

Full disclosure. I've known the family for as long as I've lived here. I've been through a number of projects in, you know, the first deed restricted housing in the valley was developed by this family. It was called Soper's Creek Cabins back in 1983. I distinctly remember that. So they have a kind of a legacy here. The Wilds, several projects at Carbondale. I'm full disclosure. I've been in a business relationship with the family their dad specifically for probably 35 years or something like that. I don't have any interest in this project other than I think it's a great piece of work you guys put together. I think the discussion of pulling levers has been had over and over again. There's you know, there's no public here this evening. So I'm thinking that a lot of those things that were brought up. I like the fact that it exceeds our standard for affordable housing. I think removing the glamping took that feel of being a tourist destination off the table, made it more local. I like the mix with the hospitality. I think that's a great idea to bring in visitors and guests and mix and engage. I like the passive approach you've taken with the riverfront because before it was a little aggressive in my opinion. I hope the $700,000 isn't restricted in any way, that we can use it for general purposes, like buying a unit or whatever it might be. And I just think that you guys have done your due diligence. The asset management of the properties that are purchased by people is on the people that purchased the property. If they haven't have enough wherewithal to plan for a future roof replacement, then I could say the same thing about my house. I wish I'd put $10,000 aside for 50 years and I could do something else. I also think that there's not a full understanding of the economic power of some locals that live here that work here like you mentioned not just doctors and lawyers but people that are 35 to 45 in a career path that has a trajectory with the ski company and other places can sell maybe the one bedroom in Snowmass and move down Valley where they'd like to live you know and I think that that's to to suggest that that isn't an opportunity for some people I think there's a number of people that I know and that my sons know that could potentially relocate to the Mid-Valley. And I think that that's a great market that we haven't tapped into. So I agree with Angèle here that there's a few details to work out, but I don't know the first reading is the right answer, but I think that we should be moving forward on it. Thank you.

Thanks Rick.

I've got a couple of things.

I have a couple of things. I will not repeat everything that's been said about the first checks. But I I'm of the same mind of Elise and Hannah. I think it's a really well-intended program. I don't I don't think at the end of the day it's it's going to serve the purpose that you're hoping that it will serve. I do. I do appreciate your effort. And there were a couple of things for me that I just wanted some clarification on. So the the hotel aspect of the development is referred to several times in the packet as short term rentals. And so I want us to all just be really clear that we're on the same page, that it's it's either it's a hotel product, it's commercial or it's STRS, not just because of the fee, but also because I saw in the sanitation um letter from the sanitation department that they are saying they have the capacity to service these strs and so i want to make sure that is that a typo do they understand what they're committing to yeah it's commercial hospitality it's not str it it's lingering because the master plan

in the map said STR, so it kind of just lingers there sometimes, but it's not short-term rental. These aren't homes for rent. This is a hospitality product.

And I think that your part of the packet made that completely understandable. I just saw other entities referring to it as STRs, so I wanted to be sure that we're all on the same page there. As it relates to the construction of the hotel component, You mentioned an interest in prefab and I would encourage you, if at all possible, to do that, especially because of the site and the ecosystem there. I think that it is highly preferable to build something like that off site as much as you possibly could to defer construction waste also away from landfill and just to you know, protect that habitat. So I you know, I really do hope that you will look into that. I think brief that has come a long way.

It's not and we have been bridges. That's that's bridges area. But yes, he's been looking at it for years and visiting manufacturing sites and the whole thing.

Right. I really do think that's the future. We're going to look back and say, we used to build homes outside in inclement weather with whoever would show up that day. That's wild. My husband's building one down the street, so I watch it all the time. So yeah, I applaud you for being interested in that. I hope that that could work out. And then I just wanted some clarification about the water rights issue. So maybe I'm misunderstanding, but our our options as they were presented that. We if we waive the tap fees, we would be able or you would be able to irrigate your property with non potable water as opposed to irrigating it with the town's treated water.

not exactly they weren't they weren't necessarily tied to each other um stephanie who i believe is on zoom can speak to kind of what we were kind of going back and forth with with james and and the experts in that stephanie can you speak to the uh irrigation i can't speak to the the water rights portion of it but i can speak to the part that the town of basalt has a lot of water and we were

Urge to use the town's water because you don't the town of us all has great water. You don't have to treat it very much. We will be dedicating water rights to the town of assault for the town to use. And James, you can correct me if I'm wrong. But that was my understanding of what the direction we were given for the irrigation.

Yeah, we were encouraged to use, which seemed a little bit because we know maybe James can kind of get into details, but we were urged to use town of the salt water for irrigation. So that's what we've proposed.

I don't know that you were urged to use town of basalt water. I think you were required to make a choice between either irrigating with non-potable or with potable from the town's system and not a mix and match, I think. So if you're interested in using non-potable still, we can have that conversation before.

And we are interested in using a non potable water for the portion of the project, but for the rest of the development, it doesn't really make sense. There's not a lot of there's not a lot of irrigation and to build a non potable. Irrigation system for that amount of water. It doesn't make a lot of sense for this. For this project, sorry, my voice is going, but. We had a meeting with town staff early on, and what I remember from that meeting was that we were urged to use town water because you have a lot of water and you don't have to treat it. There's not a lot of treatment that has to go on that needs to be used. And we will be dedicating water rights to the town of Basalt in lieu of that.

Angela, I would say we can... Yeah, we can clarify before second reading what the town's recommendation would be on that.

Okay, thank you, James. I guess. And lastly, do you plan to house any portion of your employees for the commercial part of the project? Do you plan to house any anyone on site just to reduce, you know, traffic?

Yes. Like the the people working at the property like property managers. Yes. Oh, yeah.

That's all I have for now. Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, I have a couple clarifying questions. Um, do we have a sense? This was probably for the town. Do we have a sense of what the cost to administer that program? The first tracks program would be to the town. I don't James.

I would say generally 10 to 15 minutes per tenant. So it'd be 10 to 15 minutes for 20 units. And so 20 times.

It's five hours.

Great.

That's good.

Five hours times $20, $30.

I feel fine about that. And does the hotel piece require employee housing offsets?

Go ahead. Sorry, Jeff.

The town code, when the applicant submitted their application, required mitigation for both the residential and the commercial components. But the way the town code was set up is that it was required for the higher of the residential and the commercial. And then the lower of the residential and the commercial was forgiven. So in this situation, the residential is considerably higher than the commercial mitigation. So the commercial would have been forgiven.

Gotcha. I won't repeat the points folks made on first tracks, but I have the same feelings and I'd love to see At second reading, like a substantive menu of what those options would be, knowing that the town would need to give. You guys have been able to think creatively on other things, so to the degree that we can have something to work with, that would be very important to me to try and increase RO, I think, what we saw at Tree Farm was that that was well-intentioned. I know you guys are well-intentioned. You're trying to do the right thing, but it just didn't work at Tree Farm. I love a lot of the things you guys have done on sustainability. I think prefab is a great idea. It's transit-oriented. There's a lot of good stuff going on. I personally believe that we should be electrifying our buildings, not in the future in 20 years when people are replacing their appliances. But right now, I think winters like this fire seasons like this have reinforced that we should be acting with urgency on climate. Um, so to that extent, I'd love to see them be all electric and I feel very strongly about that. Um, I know that you'll have to kind of go with whatever the current sustainable building regulations are and likely by 28, that's what they will be. Hopefully you guys can pull them far before that though. But I like to see us get a jumpstart on that. And then one clarifying question that Greg had brought up for the meaningful change on categories. So if you had, say category fours or whatever that aren't selling that are two bedrooms, can you switch them all to studios? Like could multiple, deed restricted category houses go smaller. I guess I ask because my concern is that a two bedroom deed restricted house is far more valuable to the town than a studio. And I like that we're having some flexibility. I've been on the other side of that where I'm like the wrong category for the bedroom allotment. And I wish there was more flexibility, but I just want to have a sense of how that could migrate.

the way that James has set this up very intelligently is that when we want to make an adjustment to which type of unit or which individual unit gets to be category two or category four and swap those, presumably that's something that goes in front of Bach and it goes in front of the technical review committee. It does not go to PNZ and council because it's, That's a lot of layers of the onion to make something administrative. You're trying to flow with the market. So he set it up so there is third-party review in that process when that time comes that we want to do so, if we do want to do so. You can't just change it on your own.

Got it. Cool. Thanks.

Thank you.

So if you guys are, we're a little over, but if you guys are okay with that, a few quick comments. There's one question off the top. James, are there any other technical items that are outstanding to resolve in addition to what you had listed on that one document? Second reading, I know, because I saw Catherine had a letter, and I just want to make sure we're covering everything that's been raised from a technical perspective, or are going to be. Okay.

Yeah, the four items that I listed were the four items that are still out there for discussion and technical adjustment before second reading. And we'll certainly get you the additional information on the first tracks program. We didn't include that in the packet because we put excerpts in the packet of the application. There were just so much documentation that was in the final plan that we went with excerpts, but we'll get you those additional pieces to the first tracks.

Okay, thanks. Just some quick comments. Thanks for figuring out the dogleg parcel. I know that came up several times earlier on. I think it's a good solution you guys have. Community housing, I'm not going to repeat anything anybody else said. I think generally, though, you're meeting the requirements, and you put a lot of work into it. The First Tracks program, I was pleased to see what, I guess, the glass is half full, seeing that we did, you know, one, that there's a mechanism to establish a program in perpetuity, right? Because I think that's the big fault I have with other similar programs is it's like one and done. And then at least this, it's like, hey, if the intention is to have a right of first refusal for locals... at least it happens every time it's for sale or rental. And I think that's good. I do think there's opportunity and we should elaborate on requirements at the next public hearing. So you've raised some good ones, Greg, and I think there's other things that we could do to kind of help inform the process and framework or the operational details that staff's going to need to do later with Jeff. Let's see what else. For transportation and traffic, we never really got to it, but that's the option one. I think James, you and Catherine recommended, I think CDOT recommended, I'd be supportive of that. Just wanted to make sure we're covering that off. The 700K in lieu of the childcare facility and daycare fee, I've been good with that and I do think that as an opportunity for buy downs like we talked about. I think just like we always talk about, buy downs is the most optimal way to spend our money to preserve affordable housing and kind of get the most bang for our buck. I think it would be in this development as well. The computer went to sleep there. I do prefer the existing condition number 10 where the 700K is paid before issuance of the first building permit. Yeah, vesting rights and phasing is good. So yeah, that's what I've got. Well, I think we'll talk more about the technical parts and the first tracks program, but I'd be okay if someone wants to make a motion to advance this to second reading.

Can I add something to what you just said? Sure. With regard to the $700,000 paid up front as opposed to on the seventh unit, I think to your point that if it is getting used for buy downs, because you often sell property off before it's even built, we would need to have that up front if we were going to use it for buy downs.

Yeah, I don't want to push that back. I want it the way it is written in condition 10. We can accept that.

I got a question for Jeff. Just one last question. In what we're seeing here in this ordinance, right, there's the zoning parts that are under, I believe, Section 5. It doesn't mention Parcel 2, but then when we go into the conditions, it lists the single-family home as an entitlement. So would we be able to pass this that gives entitlements for a home if we're not also annexing or at least zoning the property that gets or does not get annexed? It has to get annexed for us to zone it.

Yeah, yeah. So when annexed, you're required to zone property within 30 days. So James, the intention for the this for parcel two to what is the zoning and should we is that an amendment that we need to make to the ordinance then?

We could add it to the ordinance. The intent is that it would be zoned R4MD as well. I'm sorry, R4MD with a PUD overlay. And so it would lock it into the 3,000 gross square feet that's in the conditions in the ordinance.

It's just referred to as all the residential properties, which would be inclusive of that one.

But they're not in the putt. The single family home is not part of the putt. Because in here it says all with a putt overlay shall apply to all residential development, but that single family home is not part of the putt.

It's intended to be part of the PUD as well. And we can clarify that to make it more clear. That's what we're saying, right? Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Intended to be, that's not what we're seeing right now, right? Just so I'm clear.

It's hard for me to see it in real time with you talking, so I'd be happy to look at it.

I don't think at this point that we need to make an amendment or anything. Unless you go back and see something later.

Yeah, so I'll take a look at it between, if you guys want to move it forward, something we can take a look at.

I'm very much in favor of moving this forward. I think it's great. This is my first time seeing this. Yeah, of course. I just... The other challenge I see, I just want to see a complete packet, because in this ordinance, it referenced exhibits that aren't in here. And so what I'm seeing here today, I couldn't approve on a second reading, because I have so many questions that I think would be answered with that information in there.

I think that's just everything with the exhibits with all the deed restrictions as drafted everything in one.

Yeah. And that's why specifically I want to ask him those questions about first tracks. That's where I have like you're just playing catch up. Yeah, I'm playing catch. Yeah, we got it. I'm doing that for like a couple months now. There's a lot to catch up on.

I'll be to throw you all 2000.

I did entertain a motion to approve ordinance number 19 series of 2026 and first reading and set the public hearing and second reading for August 11th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

Been moved and seconded. Pam, will you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Let's begin with Rick Stevens. Yes. Angel Dupree-Bouchard. Yes. Greg Schaffran.

Yes.

David Knight. Yes. Elise Hoddle. Yes. Hannah Berman. Yes. Angela Anderson. Yes. Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys. Good presentation. Thanks, James. Appreciate it. Thank you, James.

The next time comes before us that we get all the str language out of it first. Just the perception is important. All right, if you want to be accused of it just needs to be cleaned up just a lot in there that was just not.

So thank you all. But we have two more items before we get to the end. Item 7C is a public hearing in Second Reading Ordinance Number 16, Series of 2026, an Ordinance to the Town Council of Basalt, Colorado, annexing to the town certain unincorporated, municipally owned, and located, usually with land, sorry I can't read, located at 20526 Highway 82. And Jeff and James, you got this one.

sure this is a second reading on two ordinances one to annex a piece of property and one to zone it so this relates to the pd public works proposed facility that campus is comprised of two parcels one that's referred to as the shelton property and one is the umbrella property the shelton property is already annexed within the town the umbrella property is not to allow for a more efficient and So the first ordinance would be to annex that parcel and then

and that's all i have unless there's any questions well we do have a public hearing to do so i will open the public hearing at 8 24 to see if anybody has any uh public comments i don't see anyone in the room i'm not sure if there's anyone online but gloria is checking there's nobody online there's not they all failed and i will close the public hearing and see if there's questions or comments from fellow counselors or a motion

Mayor, I move that the town council adopt ordinance number 16 series of 2026 on second reading. I do have to do 17 separately. We'll do 17. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you, everybody. And 7D is a public hearing, a second reading ordinance number 17 series of 2026, an ordinance the town council of Basalt, Colorado is owning certain municipally owned Real property annex to the town located at 20526 Highway 82. This is Jeff and James also and related to what we just spoke about. Do you have anything further to add before public hearing?

No.

I will open public hearing at 825. Anybody online? I don't think so because it's still four participants that I see in the gallery view here. So I will close the public hearing. And questions, comments, or a motion?

Mayor, I move that the Town Council adopt ordinance number 17, series of 2026 on second reading. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Next up we have number 9 which is executive session. There's a motion for it. After, well, let somebody make the motion and I'll explain what comes next and go from there.

Mayor, I move that the Town Council enter executive session for a conference with our attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions in accordance with CRS 24-6-402-4B. Specifically to discuss updates on town litigation matters, DBM, VTOB, SURE, VTOB, Jensen v. Wright, Shoshone, Watercase, 25CW3177.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. So folks watching online, we're going into executive session. So the broadcast is going to end here in a moment. Once we finish executive session, the meeting will be adjourned. So thanks for tuning in, and we'll see you all next time.