City Council - Regular Meeting

Oh, fire. What? Everyone, thank you all for being here tonight and welcome to the Steamboat Springs City Council meeting number 2026-13. It's Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. and we have a lot of things going on tonight. So, I just wanted to um review that real quickly here. Um the first thing we're going to do is take roll call, which we're going to do right now, Heather, if you wouldn't mind.

Of course. Steve Montene here. Gail Garry here. John Aosta here. Dave Barnes here. Michael Pacino here. Amy Dixon here. Brian Swintech here. Okay. And now we're going to do the pledge of allegiance. There's a flag in the back. Also a flag up front. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Okay. The first thing we're going to do tonight, we have a couple of proclamations which we're going to do first this evening. Then we're going to uh adjourn and reconvene as the liquor license authority for a very short meeting. And then we're going to adjourn and reconvene as the Steamboat SS um Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority. And then after that, we will go into our regular meeting. I do want to say that we will be taking public comment on anything not on the agenda tonight right around 6:00 p.m. which will mean we will have to break out of um our SS meeting at that point in time and switch over to public comment. So, if you're here tonight or online for uh public comment on topics that aren't on the agenda tonight, we will do that right at 6:00. Okay. So, to start off this evening, we do have two proclamations tonight. And the first proclamation we have is a proclamation recognizing May 2026 as historic preservation month in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. So, Councelor Dixon, if you wouldn't mind. And who do we have here, Caitlyn, to receive this proclamation tonight? Did you see me? Okay. Sorry, I can get that so people can um hear. Um welcome. Thanks for joining us. Um the proclamation. So proclamation recognizing May 20 May of

2026 as historic preservation month. The city of Steamboat Springs, founded in the year 1900, has contributed proudly and significantly to the history of our nation and our state for more than 125 years and celebrates Historic Preservation Month's role across the America 250 and Colorado 150, honoring the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and Colorado's 150th anniversary of statehood. And historic preservation is an effective tool for revitalizing neighborhoods, enhancing property values, promoting heritage tourism, fostering local pride, and maintaining our community character, local economy, and the environmental and social sustainability of Steamboat Springs and communities across the nation, both urban and rural, for people of all ages, all walks of life, and all ethnic backgrounds. And it's important to recognize the role of our history in our lives and the tangible and intangible contributions of the Ute Indian tribe of Uinta and Uray reservation, Ute Mountain and Ute tribe, Southern Ute tribe and Arapjo tribes in their original homeland of northwest Colorado and the contributions made by local indigenous nations following their traditional presence as helping to preserve all aspects of our shared heritage. age and continue to shape us as people and community. And the city of Steamboat Springs celebrates the contributions made by all dedicated individuals, groups, and organizations to preserve the character of Steamboat Springs and Route County through working with property owners to identify, restore, and protect the value of historic places. And the city of Steamboat Springs, it's is is

partners in historic preservation with local, state, and federal government agencies, nonprofit organizations, private businesses, and individuals including Main Street Steamboat, historic Route County, the Treasure of Pioneers Museum, and Route County uh Board of County Commissioners, as long as the Route County Historic Preservation Board, Yampampa, Simba Crates, and the Steamboat Art Museum, as well as Colorado Preservation Incorporated, the State Historical Fund, History Colorado, the Department of Local Affairs, the National Park Service, and the US Department of Interior. So, let it be proclaimed that Steamboat Springs City Council joins with its partners to proclaim May 2026 Historic Preservation Month. Thank you.

Uh thank you members of council. I'm not going to say too much, but this is our cesqui semiquincentennial uh which represents our 250th signing of the Declaration of Independence and our 150th anniversary of Colorado statethood. Uh we're very excited to continue uh the beginning of the implementation of our 2025 historic preservation plan. Uh and as uh councelor Dixon has read off very very many names of our historic uh preservation partners. Uh we have Candace Banister, executive director of Trev of Pioneers here with us to accept the proclamation as well as Bill Loosa, president um of historic route county. Thank you. Thanks, Caitlyn, and thanks to the council and to the city. Uh, every year during historic preservation month, we work with local partners, including the city, to do a variety of activities to celebrate, and one is making these history lives here signs available for all historic property owners. Um, so you'll see these throughout the town just to really remind people of the history that lives in all of our, um, historic buildings. In addition to that, um we opened an exhibit on Friday night with Chula Bogard and the Colorado Cattleman's Agricultural Land Trust. Um where Chula painted for a year in historic um properties and ranches around the county that had been um preserved by the land trust. Um and so that's a very historic preservation focused exhibit um that opened and that will be up until the end of August. Um, also at the end of this month, we're going to be opening um an exhibit that came to us from Historic Col uh his history Colorado um on May 27th and it's called Moments That Made Us and Celebrates um our nation's 250 years. Um and then I just have one um comment first of all just to thank um all of you

through the budgetary process for keeping um Caitlyn on your budget and and here with us. Um I've really seen a lot of um unification and effectiveness um with her position which was missing from the city for many many many years. Um and so just want to continue to support um that part of your planning department I think is so key. Um, and before I pass it off to Bill Loosa, I just wanted to comment that historic structures and landscapes not only represent our history, they also foster community pride, promote heritage tourism, and reveal real social and economic benefits for today's communities. Historic buildings are our community's largest and most visible artifacts, no less deserving of care and preservation as the most treasured items in a museum's collection. But we must remember that preserving history and historical properties is intentional. It's a choice and it takes our action. As a community government and leaders and policymakers, as well as individual policy owners, we must work together to save our heritage. Now more than ever, as acidity government and community, we must confront difficult choices. Will we make meaningful action to truly protect our historic places and landscapes? or will we allow what we value most to be shaped by the financial interests and priorities of the highest bidder? And I'd like for you to consider that when you're in uh future meetings and discussions about the future of our town and our county. Thank you.

Thanks, Candace. Thank you. Hi, I'm Billa, board president, Historic Route County. I was going to read off all the names of our partners, but Councelor Dixon did it, so I don't have to do that. But, um, Historic Rock County would like to, uh, thank you and all of your efforts and support for historic preservation and our community. Um, and, um, in keeping Caitlyn and having Caitlyn here. She's a great asset to us. Um, we look forward to working with you on past projects um, and future projects. And thank you for all of your support. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Thanks, Bill.

Thank you. Okay, we have a second proclamation and I'm looking at all the young faces in the audience that I really appreciate seeing so many young people here tonight. So, thank you for being here for this. And this is a proclamation recognizing the legendary career of Rob Bulman. And I understand we have a a video Josh that you have queued up for this. I think. Give him a second. There we go. Okay. Next. There we go.

Hey Rob, I've been hanging on to this jersey for 30 years just waiting until this day. Rob, thank you for everything you did for me and my development as No, thanks for all the memories, fellas. Thanks for all the heart and soul you poured into this community over the last 40 years. Rob 2002 and 2003. Thanks for everything, Rob. Congrats. Thanks for everything, Rob. Boom. Congratulations, stud. You are the bomb. Well, enjoy the free time. Thanks for everything. Thanks for everything, coach. Thanks for everything, Rob. Congratulations.

Hey, congrats, Rob. Thank you for everything, Rob. Congrats. Yeah. Keep coming. Thanks for everything that you've done for me, for every other player that you worked with. Rob, thank you so much for your commitment. Hey Rob, congrats. Thanks for everything.

Is that the end? Okay. Congrats, man. Boom. Our community owes so much to your dedication. Thanks for a fun four years of high school soccer and a lifetime of memories. A yeah, Rob, congratulations, man. You're a true legend. That's a career for the history books. Thanks, Rob. Congrats. It was all great. Great memories. Thanks, Rob. Boom. 40 years. Gosh, you haven't aged a day in 40 years. But we've come a long way since you benched me one of our my first high school games for yelling at a ref. I'm glad we got over that.

Congrats with your long and successful coaching career. Good luck in the next stage of life. Boom. You're a legend, Rob. Remember Alexander Dawson? That was sweet. Congrats, Rob. Thanks for making us the first classic. Carry the log up the mountain on Lost Ranger. Yep, we're number one.

Thanks for being the best coach ever. Your girls love you. Boom. You've been my soccer idol ever since I could only do seven juggles and you were driving me home from sleepovers in the middle of the night. Boom. I say thank you for everything. Congrats, Rob. Thanks for everything.

Thanks for everything. Your influence went way beyond soccer. Thanks for being such a great role model through all these years.

Congrats, Rob. Thanks for the love of the game. Boom. Thank you for everything that you've done. Boom. You are one of the main reasons why I still play soccer at age 35. Thank you for all you've taught us. Boom. Love you, Dad. Congratulations on an amazing career, Rob. Thank you for always bringing the intensity and keeping it fun. Congrats, Rob. Boom. almost 40 years. Wow. Thanks, Rob. Congrats on retiring. It's about time, I think, to enjoy a little retiree life.

Congratulations, Rob. And thanks for everything. Congrats, Rob. Miss you. Thanks for inspiring us, pushing us, and overall just being a really great coach. Boom. I think you've definitely shaped a lot of really good players and more importantly people. So, congratulations and huge congrats on retirement, coach. Boom. Thank you for being a friend, a coach, and a mentor for me. Thanks for everything, Coach Rob. Congrats on retirement. Boom. Some of my favorite sports memories come from those trips. So, thank you. Heck of a career. And congrats, Rob. Thanks for everything and congrats.

Thank you for everything, Rob. Happy retirement. Boom. Thank you for your impact on Steamboat soccer and certainly my soccer career as well. And thanks so much, Rob. Thank you, Rob. You're such a good coach. Boom. Congrats on retirement and thanks for everything. 40 years is a tremendous gift to the Steamboat community. Thanks for being an amazing role model to so many of us. Yeah,

thank you so much for the years that you coached me and all the advice that you gave me. I will forever cherish it. Hey Rob, cheers at retirement. Boom. Way back in the early 90s. Um, just wanted to say you had a huge impact in my life. Um, enjoy retirement. Love you, man. Just a little things I think you really helped instill in me and I don't know if I'd be where I'm at today if it wasn't for the soccer team and for everything that you've done. So, just a huge thanks you.

Congrats, Rob. Thanks for everything, man. Way to leave a legacy, coach. Okay,

now that is special. This is even more special. Rob, congratulations. I have known you for as long as I lived here. In fact, Rob, people don't know this, but when this proclamation came out, thank you, Steve, for asking me to do this. Um, I've known Rob for when I first moved here in 96 for 30 years and he was the soccer coach and you're still doing it. You're still doing it. Let me read this off and then we'll kind of enjoy and enjoy the special moment that we have. But, um, this is a proclamation and I have been on council now for six years and planning commission for four years prior to that. And I've never seen the city give a proclamation for a career like this. So, this is this is actually pretty special. Y'all should recognize that. Whereas, and I'm going to drop some of those, but it says Rob Bulman is a legendary figure in Colorado high school athletics, having dedicated 38 years to coaching at Steamboat Springs High School and widely regarded as one of the most successful and meaningless winningless co soccer coaches in state history. His impact on the sport at the Yampa Valley is immeasurable. And following a stellar 2025 year where he led the Sailors to a 4A state runner-up finish. Bulma was officially named 4A Colorado boys soccer coach of the year. Well, beyond his extensive win- loss record, he is celebrated as a progressive mentor who prioritizes the development of life skills, and you all know what he's talking about. You've learned each one of those over simple tactical execution using the soccer pitch as a classroom to teach leadership, accountability, and mental fortitude. And his dual role as the head of both men's and women's programs along with

his deep roots in Steamboat Soccer Club has cemented his legacy as the coach who wins and learns alongside his players. Now therefore, the city of Steamboats do steam Steamboat Springs do hereby proclaim a day of recognition for Rob Bulman in honor of his legendary career, his profound impact on the youth, and his unwavering spirit in the sailor as a sailor on this fifth day of May, 2026. Congratulations.

Yeah. Not not everybody not not everybody understands, but I think that uh I'm going to count to three and I think uh everyone would yell boom on the count of three forever. Ready to go. One, two, three. Here it is, my friend. Congratulations. Hey, Rob. Josiefoot was too shy to make a video, but she wanted me to send a boom along for you, too. Rob, would you like to uh say a few words? Would you like to say a few words?

Uh, you know, when I found out about this, uh, I literally was speechless. Um, I'm I'm the one that uh I I grew up uh doing this and you know, Skitown USA, soccer coach in Sktown USA. Um, you know, that's like, oh, you know, it, you know, pinch me. Is is this real? But then you just learn really quickly that it's much more than that. um came here for the skiing and stayed for the community. When I when I I think the first summer I was here, I thought, "All right, I'm I'm going to figure this out. I know there's a little bit of soccer and I landed upon and and my first thing was uh running into the the man himself, Dr. Dudley and um you know from from there I mean to have the opportunity to to do this um to have so many people um that have been involved and work with so many great people. It just it's it's unbelievable. So um I I really really appreciate it. Um I I will have an opportunity. I'm not going anywhere. uh retirement. Certainly, I'm not going to be just sitting around standing doing nothing, but I'm going to be around. Um I'm going to look to really thank uh when this is all done. We have uh one last big push with uh these amazing girls uh of this 26 season. And um uh man, it's it's cannot imagine a better way to go out.

uh a great way to go out with um the boys in the fall. But I just want to thank everybody for um this amazing community. I will say this, Jim. Um you know, I I learned you meet a lot of amazing people. the the coaching world is really really small and you're one contact away from just amazing coaches that you learn so much. But Jim, uh you know, from from the day I I I met you, you know, it's like, man, I found my people. This this is where this is where we want to be. And as a mentor, uh the only mentor that really meant the most to me, it's keep your feet moving. go up, go out and show up and bring the best that you can. You love them, you care for them, and you support them. And there's only one way to have a proper coaches meeting at the end of a season, end of a practice, end of a game, end of a camp, whatever it is, and that's with a nice cold beer. So, Jim, thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, thank you. All right, we're going to move on and I'm going to um

I'm gonna say you're all welcome to stay and yeah, we we love to have all your young people here. Where are you going? Thanks. Now we know what's important. Good job, Bowman.

All right. As as everyone is is leaving, um before we get started tonight, I did want to um I did want to make an announcement. Um we have a lot on the agenda tonight. It is a very jam-packed agenda. We even took an hour out of the agenda and moved it to several weeks from now. So, we actually cut the agenda by an hour. There are a lot of topics on here and I just think we need to make sure that we discipline ourselves to stay focused on what questions we are here to answer, what decisions we are here to make. And so, we'll try as hard as we can to keep things moving and keep focused and discipline. and I'd appreciate everybody's help in making sure we do that tonight because we do have a jam-packed agenda. Okay. So, with that, I would ask for a motion to convene from our regular meeting um and or adjourn from our regular meeting and reconvene as a liquor license authority.

So, moved. Second. Okay. We have a motion by councelor Gary, second by councelor Bino. All those in favor say I.

I. Opposed. Okay. We are now in our city of Steamboat Springs Liquor License Authority regular meeting number LLA-2026-07. So we have a couple things on the agenda here tonight. The first one is the liquor license authority consent calendar. There's one item on there. I will read that and then I will ask if anybody wants to pull that item. If not, we will leave it on the consent calendar. And that item is to set a hearing date and designate a neighborhood for a new liquor lodging liquor license for Steamboat Hotel LLC doing business as Holiday and Express and Sweets Steamboat. Is there anybody on council who would like to pull that item? Is there anybody in the audience who would like to pull that item? Or is there anybody online who want to pull that item? And if so, please raise your hand. Okay, seeing none, I would ask for a motion then to acknowledge and accept the application for a new lodging facility liquor license for Steamboat Hotel LLC during business as Holiday and Express and Sweet Steamboat to designate the neighborhood as the Highway 40 corridor and to set the public hearing date for June 16th, 2026.

So moved. Second. Okay, we have a motion from councelor Gary, second by councelor BCino. All those in favor say I. I. I opposed. Okay, that passes 70. The second thing on the agenda is we have regular meeting minutes from April 7th and April 21st. If nobody has any questions or comments about those, I'll ask for a motion to approve those minutes. So moved. Second. Okay, we have a motion from councelor Swinteek, second by councelor Pacino. All those in favor say I. I. I opposed. Okay, minutes are approved. 70. And now I will ask for

move to adjourn and reconvene as our SSR meeting. SSR. Yes. Okay. We have a motion by councelor Pacino, second by councelor Barnes. All those in favor say I.

I. Okay. Opposed. We are now in our Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority meeting number 2026-01. So with that, we have a couple of things on the agenda tonight. First one is an update on the 2026 project activity plan for the Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority. Before we jump into that, Gates, I just want to say it's 5:30 now. wherever we are in this discussion at around 6:00 we will break and go to public comment on any topic that is not on the agenda tonight. Okay. Thank you Gates.

Good evening Gates. Gooding necessary project manager. Um as Steve just said we have two items on the agenda tonight. First is an update on the 2026 project activities. As a reminder, this is a quick look at the SSR approved 2026 project activity plan, which totals just over 3 million in capital outlay across five project activities. The first and biggest update tonight is on the GTC project. And while we have a long and complex conversation to get into, I do want to take a moment and just remind everyone that the benefits of this project are still intact. Um, this project would transform the entire base area. On the SSR side, this includes new streetscapes from roundabout to roundabout, an improved SSD transit facility, separate private resort lodging shuttle accommodation. It separates pedestrians from vehicular traffic, improves safety. Um, there's a new transit center in the Meadows parking lot where private skier drop off can happen. There's a new high-speed gondola between the two transit centers to take those metal meadow shuttles and other traffic off the road. So, it is still a very impactful transformative project for the base area. Uh the question, as we'll get into, is whether increasing budgets are still justified by these um potential benefits. There were a number of assumptions made when the PIA commitments were put in place in 2023 and those commitments have since become outdated. In able to continue progressing on the project, which is everyone's goal, we need to ensure that any further design spending is supporting a realistic project that's mutually supported by both sides. And in order to guarantee that that's the case, there are several PIA amendments that are required. Um there's four major ones and I'll take you through each of these in turn. The first and most important amendment

is larger budgets. Um as you all are familiar with in the PIA the commitment totals 50 million 20 million from SSR and 30 from SSRC. Uh we've known for a while that our cost estimates have been creeping up and the bottom line is that the total combined project is now in the neighborhood of 75 million or more. Um this is split across both scopes. If we just look at the SSR side, we're now somewhere between 30 and 35 million. On SSRC side, we're 40 to 45 million. And we can get into the details of this during the question period if you'd like. On the SSR side, the question of whether to allocate more funding to the GTC is a question of whether to allocate it away from other project activities. Um, this is a very busy look at EUR's recent project activity prioritization. And all of the red, orange, and brown bars represent project activities that are either already in the activity plan that are either completed already or expected to be completed by adjacent development. So that's like a sidewalk next to a private redevelopment project. Um, projects that don't meet improvement warrants, so where the intersection as it is is functioning just fine. for instance, or that are problematic because of snow melt and easement requirements. So, if we take those out of out of consideration and then look at the current year's plan, which is um these three project activities are the Mount Warner, Mount Warner intersection improvement, and the sidewalk segments on either side. That only leaves us with four additional project activities at the bottom there. So these are lower priority project activities that include an pedestrian underpass at Appre Skiway and Village Drive, a couple of complete street segments that are further down Mount Warner Road, and the spare parts acquisition program. So that's important

to keep in mind that the trade-off that we're talking about budgetarily is really about these remaining projects. So that's the SSR funding path. It's it's in some sense simpler on SSRC's side of the ledger. They have said that they don't have any additional funding available. Um so in effect they're looking for help to to cover their budget gap and they have requested consideration of reallocating the promisory note to their scope. The promisory note, just to remind you, is a $13 million commitment from SSRC and the purpose is to compensate SSR for lost opportunity cost from higher than earlier anticipated GTC budget commitments. So under the the PIA, SSR had committed $20 million and this was more than was previously anticipated. So the promisory note is basically to reimburse the public side of the project after the fact and bring that cost basis back down. Um one note the way that SSRC funds its scope is from the metro districts and the way the PIA is set up the first 30 million in bonds that are issued from those metro districts funds their scope and then any additional cash flow that's available after those bond payments are met would then acrue to the promisory note. So, it's not like a one-time payment after the project. This is uh an obligation that's out there in the future, and we're not sure how long it would actually take for the full 13 million to acrue. Happy to answer more questions about that if you if you have them. Amendment two is extended schedules. Um the PIA includes an outside date, which seemed impossibly far into the future when we signed that agreement, um but which is now coming up quickly on December 31st, 2026. Um that date is the date by which both partners have to be under contract to

build the project and there is an automatic option to extend for a year for either side and that brings us to December 31st 2027 but our current schedule estimates for the time required to get through the rest of design and do all of the approvals push contracting into 2028. So we need to move that outside date at least into 2028 again to give ourselves a chance at success. Amendment three is snow melt alignment. Um we've discussed this at length. The current GTC design is reliant on snow melt for safe and effective operation for a number of reasons. Um we need to align on a backup snowmelt solution that will allow design to progress. The reason is while we're still pursuing the geothermal project, the time involved and the risk involved in getting through the full design and feasibility study and then getting funding commitments made is too great for current project decisions to rely on the geothermal project at present. Um, if we could align on an electric snow melt system that would check all the boxes that I think we need with the downside that it has an operational premium over 20 years. So this is just the cost of operation. This is not capital cost of an additional 2 and a.5 to three and a.5 million over the cost of gas over the project's 20-year lifespan. Um under the PIA SSR or SSRC is responsible for all operation and maintenance, but the electric option is a result of the long snowl conversation that we've had. Um and so we likely need to have an equitable cost sharing agreement put in place in order to move forward. And finally on design agreement, we have discussed pullth through versus sawtooth births adnauseium. Um recently SSRC conceded that they would be willing to align on the pullthrough arrangement

which the city feels is critical to support SST's future bus operations as part of a larger amendment package. So what are your options um for considering these amendments? Um there are several alternatives for moving forward here. Uh the first alternative A is to decide to move forward with the larger project, preserve the GTC as designed and accept these larger budgets. Inside of that option, if you decide that that the larger project is the way to go, uh, as pertains to the SSRC funding gap, A1 is to allow staff to negotiate SSRC's funding path as part of the larger amendment package where the promisory note is available in the negotiation. A2 is to negotiate the same thing, but where the promisory note is off limits, where that's preserved to come back to the city. Um, A3 is just allow staff to negotiate an equitable cost sharing agreement on that electric snow melt option. Option B, this is if you decide that the budget has just grown way out of proportion with the benefits of the project, you could direct direct staff and SSRC to try and work together and fit this thing back into the $50 million box. Option C is to throw the towel in tonight and direct the project to proceed to arbitration as stipulated by the PIA. And then finally, option D is to direct staff to negotiate one of the above options, but to give us a firm deadline of June 30th to come back and deliver a full amendment package. Okay, so looking at a I have pros and cons for each of these and I'll try and get through this as quickly as I can and also happy to return um if you have any questions. Uh the pros of option A is this is the option that allows us to complete the PIA project as envisioned. It retains all of the the benefits that I discussed earlier and it concentrates the

remaining SSR funds on the most impactful project activity. SSR does have sufficient funds to move forward with this project. Uh and unan your act unanimously supports this option. The cons here are that the previous cost to SSR under the PIA and including the city net is a net $7 million and that's from a $20 million commitment and then offset by a $13 million promisory note payment. Uh these higher costs that I'm talking about are not offset by additional benefits that weren't contemplated when we signed that PIA. So the economic bargain that SSR is getting from the project is now diminished compared to what it was. So that's unavoidable. You're paying more for the same project. If you do decide to move forward with option A under A1, again, this is direct staff to negotiate with SSRC to plug their budget hole and make the promisory note available as a negotiation tool. The pro of this is that this supports our negotiations with the maximum degree of flexibility. If we make the larger concession up front, then that might elicit stronger commitments from SSRC in return. uh we might get a better outcome for all. And just to note that the promisory note is only owed if the project is successful. So if we decide to play hard ball and then crash and burn in negotiations or if the project is fails for any other reason, the promisory note won't be owed anyways. So why not apply it now and try and preserve the project rather than just losing it anyways on the back end. The cons though are that if we make the promisory note available from the beginning, that is going to be the most obvious path and it's a risk that that'll just become the default solution in any negotiations that we follow. Um that might prevent serious consideration of other more difficult options. Um, if

SSRC uses the promisory note to fund their own scope, that is using a previously public pledge of resources on private improvements, the money is coming from the metro districts. It's not public money, but it's private money that's been pledged to the city in the past. Uh and because of that, it would just it would require careful um require us to proceed carefully to make sure that we're we're properly calibrating and protecting the public interest in this project. A2 is proce direct staff to proceed with the negotiation but take the promisory note off the table. The pros here is that there is no obligation for SSRC to reallocate the promisatory note. Sorry, there's no obligation for SSR to re obligate the promisory note to SSRC. Um, this option therefore preserves more of that original economic bargain. Um, assuming that negotiations could still be successful and it would force the negotiations to focus on other funding options rather than just going immediately to using the promisory note. The cons here is that it makes it more difficult. It might slow or even derail the negotiations um if we can't find any other workable options. Refusing to allow the promisatory note to be used as a negotiation tool might be seen as a lack of pragmatism or uh blocking progress and that might um result in a less open approach or um you know that would be reciprocated by SSRC A3 allowing staff to negotiate a cost sharing agreement for electric snow melts. Um the pros are we just need a viable snow melt solution so that we can proceed with design. the project is reliant on design and this would allow us to point to a solution have an agreement in place so that we know that we're designing a project that is constructable. The cons here are it

would just add additional expense to the project um on the order of 1.25 to 1.75 million additional and there is a risk of overs subsidizing the on andm costs that are SSRC's obligation under the PIA. Okay, option B is direct staff to work with SSRC to redesign the project and get back down under the budget. Um, the pro here is there's potentially a possibility where we could redesign the project to be within budget and somehow find a better cost benefit balance. The con is that the current GTC design is not just arbitrary. It's the result of a long planning process, lots of stakeholder engagement. We've already been through a value engineering process and cut all the excess out of the scope. If we cut anything else, we're really talking about core project elements that would really degrade the performance of the project. And the way the PIA is structured, both sides have to approve each other's scope. So, we can't do anything that's completely unacceptable and still have a successful project. And that might be very difficult within our budgets. Option C is to direct staff to proceed to arbitration right now. Um the pro here is that this would end the drift. Um the project would stop just kind of lumbering along without a solution and this forces both sides to come out with the formal positions of disagreement. Um this would avoid making any premature concessions in negotiation and moving to arbitration. If we can't work out our differences, arbitration is the next step as stipulated by the PIA. The cons to this option is that this would undermine obviously um any potential amendment or negotiation process. Um arbitration is stipulated by the PIA, but it is not at all a perfect solution. A full arbitration would cost easily over a million dollars and take over a

year. um an expedited ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar arbitration would be shorter but it's very limited in scope and therefore has very limited utility and arbitration as a tool may not actually be well suited to the problems that we have. Um if we can't deliver the desired project within the committed budgets, there's nothing that arbitration can do to force either party to go above and beyond what those commitments were. So it might just send us right back to the negotiating table anyways. And last, it might further damage the relation or probably would further damage the relationship between SSRC and SSR. The last alternative here is again to direct staff to negotiate under one of these options um and deliver a full amendment package by June 30th. Um the pros here is that this sets an aggressive deadline for us to work together and get through these barriers. It provides a reasonable amount of time to work on the package and it allows staff some degree of flexibility to use our best efforts to defend the SSR and public interest in the project. Um, if the negotiations do fail, then we would return with an official finding of impass. And at that point, we could either move towards arbitration or take some other steps as our council may recommend. And the the cons here are just that this requires good faith participation from both sides. Um there's always a risk if the negotiations are unsuccessful. We just lose more time on the project. Um and this is a tight deadline. It's entirely possible that there could be a workable solution that we just don't have time to fit within this when the this time period. Okay. I have a couple more quick regular project updates and then we'll return for the the hard conversation. Um so the GEO GTC geothermal feasibility study is proceeding. The phase one report is complete and it confirmed technical feasibility within um broad broad

bounds. That report is attached to your packet in case you want to take a look. Um the phase two study is already underway. Grey came and did their site visit before the end of ski season. And phase two is going to develop things in much more detail. It'll include schematic level design to support a detailed cost estimate. Um and it will be continued to be supported by our $150,000 remaining in the Colorado energy office grant. The consolidated shuttle study is also proceeding. Fair and Pierers just delivered the existing conditions phase of that study and it showed that the future GTC actually has enough capacity and this is again as designed has enough capacity to support the current distributed operations of the existing shuttle system with some degree of coordination. So a full consolidation effort is not required. Um, shuttle coordination is an interesting approach because it's still valid regardless of whether the GTC moves forward or which design we end up going forward with. Um, so it's a very interesting approach and the study is now moving into the feasibility phase. We recently had a large stakeholder meeting with all the different shuttle operators and tested a bunch of different coordination strategies with them. And you can see on the right that they were they were actually fairly supportive of a majority of these coordination strategies. So the team is optimistic about the prospects for this. Quickly on complete streets 4B phase 2. This is the missing sidewalk segment along the null parking lot and adjoining median improvements and URA lighting. Native excavating won the bid. Contracting for construction is underway and we are anticipating an early summer start to construction. My last update is on the Mount Warner Road, Mount Warner Circle intersection and complete streets improvements project. Um staff hired Stantech Consulting to do an intersection control evaluation and uh look at a bunch of

different intersection improvement options to make sure that whatever improvement we choose is the proper direction. The budget on this project is potentially very large and staff felt that even though this has delayed us a little bit, it was worth just double-checking that we're moving in the right direction and not spend unnecessary funds. Um, the last part of my presentation is a quick look at the 2026 supplemental budget appropriation. This totals 221,000 and it supports ongoing um closeout and warranty work on the ski time project. Um supports the GTC GE geothermal grant and then has very small amounts for the complete street segment 4B and spare parts acquisition program. The total URA budget would be 3.3 million after the supplemental. And with that I will turn it over. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you, Gates, for the presentation. Um, what questions do we have for Gates?

Okay, I'll I'll take you. There's questions. There's questions. I know there are lots of questions. Who wants to start?

Basically, I'm what I'm struggling with, you know, I I am admit I'm coming in new, but at the same time, I've been through this a number of times. And there's a lot of different numbers and even when he went through here, we we went through those numbers rather quickly and we're talking about millions of dollars here. And and so I'm struggling with getting the detailed big the big detailed picture of everything we're doing and what we're doing with with these funds be beyond, you know, the GTC and then GCC beyond. Um and so so if can you can you frame what the the SSR how much money does SSR have today in its funds and how much money do we anticipate that we would be um acrewing I think over the next two years is I think this this ends in two years. So the the TIFF officially sunsets in 2029 and but what that means is we realize the sales tax in 2029 and 2029 property tax won't come in until 2030. If we look at all of the funds we have available from now and through the end through the sunset it's somewhere between 35 million and 40 million. Um it depends on where you draw the line. Um you know which which current projects count which don't. Um

well ju GTC just say GTC only not to to do that entire pitch. Oh

so if we look at at so under the current PIA the GTC commitment is $20 million and that was roughly broken down with approximately 5 million for the Mount Warner Road, Mount Warner Circle intersection which may be a roundabout or some other improvement and 15 million for the GTC itself. So 20 and that was a very rough budget at the time. This is our updated budget. Um taking that 15 for the GTC um expanding it after our value engineering process and then adding some contingency and the likelihood of of um inflation. We're getting to approximately 25 million for the GTC. Um, we still have the five or six million

the M the I'm trying to follow your Mount Warner Road Mount Warner. So the five or six million is for the Mount Warner Road Mount Warner Circle intersection and that's straight out of the original PIA. And then another we're guessing three to five million and that's for either a contribution to an electric snow melt cost sharing agreement or a placeholder if in case there's a potential need for a public subsidy of a geothermal system at some point in the future. And that's these are very round numbers but that's how we get to 30 to 35 million total.

Okay. And and then my understanding is the SSRC that you know basically SE skis court their their portion went from originally two years ago from 50 million to 75 million to today

well to to 40 to 45. So looking at the SSRC side they have to build the gondola which is going to be somewhere between 22 and 25 million. There's another up to 15 million for improvements and reconfiguration in the Meadows parking lot and then they are responsible for off-site improvements at Pinerroveve Mount Warner and Banktail Pinerove most importantly. Um so that will add another couple million to their scope and that's how we get to 40 to 45 million total for their side.

Okay. And so this and this gets us into over two a two-year accelerate, you know, over two years we've we've increased our our cost by 50%. Yeah, we've reduced the scope as much as we can and seen the budget increase. Oh, I I will say that the original SD plans came in at approximately 100 million and the that didn't include anywhere near the amount of detail that we're talking about now. So, we veded that back down, but we have not been able to get it back within the $50 million box. Let's let someone else ask. Okay. Can I ask a question? Yes.

The point of these funds is to reduce blight and encourage economic activity at the ski base area largely around accessing the resort, the shops and restaurants and lodging. Right. Correct.

Okay. How what I'm getting confused is I feel like the scope on this is larger. So, how is a gondola for $20 million going to better encourage that economic activity than using busing and using that to save funds? Um, we've had I've had fairly extensive conversations with um our council but at Butler Snow about how we should think about what blight means. And when we look at the GTC, the transit center itself is old and outdated. Um whether we're going to label it blight for practical purposes is is another conversation, but legally that constitutes a blighted condition. Traffic congestion, outdated traffic systems like the Meadow Shuttles, um the Meadows parking lot, and all of those can constitute blight. uh even poor poor emission standards and outdated systems that create more environmental pollution can be considered blight. Um so all of these things are a generalized improvement in the base area to show public support to kind of refresh everything, create, you know, a revitalized area and and hopefully catalyze more private investment.

Okay, that's helpful. Okay, others. Can I tag on to the um this slide and to counselor Swint's question? Um for a refresher for folks, the Meadows parking lot is not in the URRA boundary. Correct. Yes.

So why do we keep talking about SSRC's dollar amount for Meadows when that is really honestly outside of the scope of the URA? It's outside the scope of the ORA, but it's part of the project and the agreement. So, you know, there's a kind of a nuance distinction there where we would not be you unilaterally or independently making an improvement there, but because their commitment to make those improvements was tied to SSR's commitment to make the GTC improvements, we've become tied together since this PIA was executed in 2023.

Okay. So, I think it's important for not discussion. Just clarify real quick. And so the and the 15 million is specifically for the gondola. No, so the 22 to 25 million the gondola itself. But sorry, the 15 million is basically completely redoing the Meadows parking lot. And so it's transit functions to support that gondola and re rebuilding the parking lot to bring it up to modern standards and adding a new entry from Mount Warner Road on the north, new exit onto Pine Grove going towards Strings. I mean, it really is a full reconfiguration of the parking lot.

Okay. Okay. So, so it is what I was I guess getting at is it's beyond just the infrastructure necessary for the gondola um to start and end there. Well, it is in terms of what you just described. So, it has been the opinion of city staff that in and in the agreement, this is this is part of the commitment that the minimum required improvement to support that gondola includes these new pathways through the parking lot because people have to be able to easily drive into the parking lot and drop their kids off and access the gondola. So, it's not you can't just build the gondola by itself. You really have to think about all those second and third order impacts.

Okay. Thanks. Sorry Dixon. Can I ask one other question then pass it over and it ties on what you for the history. So you said that the agreement was that this company that owns the parking lot, they said that we will invest in our own asset and in exchange that's conditional. We will conditionally invest in our own asset as long as you guys build GTC. That was the agreement at that time. Yes. Well, so they invest in in the Meadows parking lot, which they own. Yes. And the gondola charging for which they also will own, but which they will also pay to operate, which may easily be 5 million or more a year. And which they will be collecting revenues on on the parking, but not on the gondola. Okay.

Um the gondola is free and open to the public and again there's the promisory note and there they agreed to do full O andM on the entire project. Got it. All right. Thanks, Councelor Dixon. Go ahead.

Thanks. One more question about the gondola. Um in the mountain um area master plan that was completed a few years ago. Um it obviously talks about GTC. Um it talks about the gondola, but it doesn't talk about building a new one. It talks about repurposing or upgrading the current one into more of a high-speed gondola. and it shows um it's picking up and dropping off at the I'm not picking up but dropping off at the same location in front of one seamboat place. Um so clearly there's a huge cost for putting a new gondola in when we already have one. Why why are we moving away from what was recommended um the mountain area master plan? I mean, this is effectively what was recommended. When you really get down to the reality of it, you can't put a bigger cable on those existing lift towers. This is, you know, that's a fixed grip pulse gondola that has a very low capacity. And so, if you took the meadow shuttles off the road and pushed everybody there and and told everybody to go and drop their kids off, we would have, you know, lines to who knows where. Um, so you really do need to replace all of the existing hardware in order to upgrade the capacity. And then there's not enough room in front of one Steamboat Place without installing an elevator down off of that that top station. So that's what's driving the the turn into the plaza.

Okay. Well, it's privately owned anyway, right? What? That's privately owned anyway. The Wild Horse Gondola. It is. it it's also open to the public. Um Gates, help me um where are we at with the impact of the snow melt system in this whole increase in cost and touch a little bit on the conversations that you've had with the SSRC regarding snow melt specifically and how that's related to this project succeeding or failing. Before you answer that, Gates, and after you answer that, we will move to public comment. So, after this question, after you respond, we will move to public comment and come back to you.

Sounds good. Um, so disagreement on snow melt has been a very important factor in why this project has been delayed so long. At this point, I think given where we are, snow melt is a relatively small part of the issue. Um there's been some important regulatory changes. I'm sure you've heard about the PUC ruling recently that adds another element of risk. Um at this point, the snowmelt agreement for electric snow melt might add, like I said, between 1 and a quarter and 1.75 million to the overall project budget um in a context where our gap is maybe 15 million over the previous commitment. So snow melt, it continues to be an aspect of this, but the big picture is really whether SSR feels like the project is still worth moving forward with at this $75 million budget level.

So it is become diminished overall the uh the argument or the disagreement with snow melt in relation to the whole cost of it because it just seems like it's a small amount now in relation to the $75 million the project is.

Yeah. Yeah. And then there's just additional risks. You know, it used to be gas versus electric. And now looking forward, we're seeing that one of the the biggest value propositions from a geothermal system is you can insulate district participants from the regulatory risk that if they still are reliant on their natural gas assets, at some point in the future, it might just evaporate. Like they might have to shift to electric all of a sudden and incur a huge cost. We just don't know. and it's going to probably be over another year before we understand what the implications are. So in your opinion uh as we go through this discussion tonight, the snow melt is really a small uh component of the discussion

moving forward as we've learned with the geothermal study and the other expenses that are coming on there. there's solutions that you guys have found that we can work together on and it seems like this three to five million is a reasonable aspect to just say that solves this snow melt one way or the other. Let's move on to the bigger question which is do we spend another 20 or 30 million. Is that accurate? Yeah. Okay.

Okay. This is a good point. We'll just take a quick break. Uh Gates and what we're going to do is just open it up to general public comment. So, city council will make no decision nor take action except to direct the city manager. Those addressing city council are requested to identify themselves by name and address. All comments shall not exceed 3 minutes and any public comment should be on topics that are not on the agenda for tonight. So, come on down, John. First and third.

Good evening. Thank you. I'm John Thomasini. I live on Mark Twain Lane and I came here tonight to um ask you for some consideration on two subjects and of course the one most notable would be known as uh the Brown Ranch formerly presented to you as the West Steamboat Development Plan. Um, as I recall, it's been 2 years and 2 months since it got voted out the last time. And so, um, while I have been absent from these meetings for a couple months, um, I can't help but ask you if you all have had time and have passed this around to each other and have time to review the previous West Steamboat Development Plan that was adopted in 2006. And what I'm asking you to do is consider that plan and modify it from what um was presented back in March of 2024 when got voted out. And so what I'm asking you to do is modify from 2265 units of mixeduse development with a priority on affordable housing and knock that down to something that you could possibly uh run a referendum vote on in this community and get this project going. It's well needed. Um, and I would suggest a number of 800 units that would be 350 in affordable housing and 450 in open market housing. Um,

and with the project that's been on the table here for so many years, you've already got the infrastructure plan pretty well established and you could execute and start with this in pod number one. Um, and also adding a grocery store and of course a fire station and a well needed lift sanitary station. And that's what I have to say about Brown Ranch tonight. Um, I'm going to ask you all to make a consideration on uh creating a new ordinance in this community and in this county um that you need to have a driver's license to operate an electric bike and or an electric um motocross bike. And if you make some observations in this town at 3:30 in the afternoon, you'll find that we're very we're really getting close to fatal accidents where you have people under the age of 16, anywhere from 10 to 16 operating a motorized vehicle, electric vehicle. It's no different than a gasoline operated vehicle. They have no um training. They have no drivers training. And um notably, you'll find that in the intersection coming out of the high school, you'll find people passing the post office blowing through the stop lights with two or three kids on the back. And incidentally, they're all on the cell phone. So before this summer passes, I'm scared to tell you that there's going to be an incident in this town. And I would ask you guys, all of you, all you ladies, gentlemen, to um think about uh an ordinance in the

community of Steamboat Springs that you need a driver's license and you need driver's training. I'm sorry to spoil that for the young people, but uh we're approaching a fatal accident in this town. Thank you. Thank you, John. Thanks, John.

Thanks, John. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to come down and make a public comment? All right, seeing none, is there anybody online who'd like to make a public comment? Please raise your hand. Okay, seeing none, we will uh close public comment. And um John, in terms of um your comments specifically around um electric vehicles or electric bikes, I should say, Tom, maybe um we could give um John an update on what we're working on or what we're discussing as a city around this particular issue because we spent some time on it recently.

Well, sure. We are uh working the police department is working closely with the parks and rec commission and the park staff on on what amounts to a concerted um public outreach and education process. Um it hasn't been completely defined yet but they are working through um that making sure that we have stations along the core trail. Um we have uh information out there for parents and for kids. Um, it is not anywhere near a requirement for licensing, but it is definitely an enhanced uh public outreach effort to try to improve the safety and and educate uh both adults and kids on um on this on the risks associated with these vehicles which are high speed.

Yeah. Okay. You have it as a rainbow. Yeah. The uh Why don't you send Can you send it to us, John?

Yeah. Send it to us. Okay. Yeah. Forward it to to us. So, I just also wanted to follow up, John, and let you know that there's a rainbow item in the back that is kind of an update on the what's now being called the Slate Creek Steering Committee in terms of looking at what's um kind of the plan and a road map for moving forward. So, you might want to pick this up and this will give the minutes of our last of our last meeting.

Yeah. Okay. With that, we will close public comment. Gates, we'll come back to questions for you if anyone has any other questions. Um, I would just like to ask you if you could just making sure that I have the numbers right. If we commit all of SS's funds, remaining funds to this project, there will still be some funds left unallocated afterward. Is that correct?

I think that's the likelihood. Um, this is a little bit more budget art than science. There's some uncertainty in what the revenues will actually be. It depends on whether these development projects move forward and where some of these rough budget estimates actually end up, but there will likely be some extra money um to maybe do some extra sidewalk segments or something near the end of the URA's life. And the other one is as far as SSRC is concerned, what how much are they forget the promisary note for a minute. How much money do they say they don't have to complete the project? How much is that? So their stance is that 100% of their budgets for the project come from the metro districts,

right?

And there's a there's some uncertainty. Oh, just pull me off if I stray here. Um there's some uncertainty about what the bonding capacity will be. We they understand what development has to happen to support $30 million worth of bonds and then have you know some additional trickle come in to the promisory note but above that point it's uncertain how much additional bonding capacity there is. If they're allowed to take the 13 million and apply that to their scope then it just limits their overall commitment of metro district revenues. Um there are other options like we could say well just increase the par value of of what you so instead of issuing 30 million in in senior bonds issue 40 and then have the promisory note remain on top of that. Um but the question is how much development will it take to support that level of bond issuance. Um, and what we're hearing again, especially following a difficult season, is that the Metro District bonding capacity is the only source of funds that they have available for this project.

Okay. So, if reading between the lines there, what you're really saying is SSRC will not commit any additional capital to this project beyond what you just said. and they see the promisary note of $13 million as the cushion to offset any um other shortfall that they would have. All I can say is that no other source of funds has been committed or or offered to date. Okay. And my final question is just around the electric piece. We're talking two and a half to $3.5 million over 20 years, correct? Split between,

right? So that's like about $120 to $150,000 a year split in half. Correct. So it's $60 to $75,000 a year for SSR and SSRC. So this would be capitalized into the project now. Um the URRA will cease existing before 20 years is up. But but yes, those are the numbers. Thank you.

Yep. I have a couple couple of questions. Um, and thanks Gates. I I sent a few in advance and I think just to kind of follow up on councelor Bacino's question and I don't know if everybody realizes that there has been a recent PUC ruling that requires the major um gas producers or investorowned gas utilities to achieve 41% reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to 2015. So I mean and again this is a fairly new ruling and I mean I think the landscape out there is just really uncertain at this point right in the sense that certainly natural gas will I mean you know there's a there's a future out there where it goes away um and certainly you know as we look at geothermal and I think this kind of goes to one of your questions about the operationalizing or the cost of electric I mean I think it's assumed that electric is going to be more expensive. But certainly from a geothermal perspective, we know that the capital costs um are greater, but there's direct pay and different types of offsets that are eligible to bring that initial cost down, but then the ongoing costs are um a lot less. Um, and so I guess if we're going to agree to potentially um, cover the electric snow melt um, operational premium over gas, I would want to say that if we see a reduction, I mean, if we go with the geothermal, then that should be split um, between the two parties as well. So, um, I'm not necessarily at all in agreement that we agree to the operational premium over gas because I think it's just an uncertain landscape going forward. And the wisest course at this point both from a economic perspective I think in the long term as well as from an environmental perspective is to move forward with the geo thermal. So I mean that just has wider benefits but

we'll put that argument aside for another day but just wanted to um ju just a quick response to that. Um I I do think that it could make sense to say that you know in concept we split the premium or the savings. Um the issue with the PUC ruling is we won't know the outcome for a while. Um but with the way this project's going, we won't be finished with the project before we know that outcome. Um for now, it layers additional risk on both sides. It has um implications for how we're looking at the geothermal project as well. Um but yes, absolutely.

Okay. Thanks. And then the second question I had goes to the consolidated shuttle and I had asked the question um based upon some input that had been provided that at one point in time we had 12 to 15 short-term parking spots that were designated. So again, right the opportunity that you know you're you drop your um you know kid off and they forget their gloves, right? So you have the ability to pull in and and um give them their gloves as opposed to having to have all that happen down at the meadows. But we no longer and there's a myriad of reasons, right, that those short-term parking um spots are beneficial to our, you know, our local residents and our community members. So my question is with the comment being that with the consol with the shuttle and looking at that now to the extent that we think there's plenty of room right to accommodate not having a consolidated shuttle um system is there a way to get any of those short-term parking spots back into the design?

We can add back whatever we want. Um, so I had responded earlier that we did have 15 12 to 15 short-term parking spots in front of the Grand in the original um, design, but if we redo the Grand Street street street front at all, that curb line, we have to completely rebuild their snowmelt system, which was a huge cost. And so that's why it got value engineered out of the project. I agree with you that it's it's a missing part of the project. Um, there's currently two to three available drop off spots in front of the Grand without reconfiguring their curb. And we can completely revisit whether it might make sense to add some additional parking on that side, but it would come with additional cost.

Can't do it on the south side because we're controlling access with the shuttles and the buses. Um, so it would have to be on the north side of the project and there and there's no place else just add 15 or 20 spaces in ski time with that with that project activity but but those are probably two hour aren't they? They're twohour so we could you know in theory you could designate a few but we could some of those could go to 10 minutes.

Mhm. Okay. Um and and we will we I forget one of the questions is to talk about the consolidated shuttle program, right? I mean in the sense of I understand that it sounds like it's still feasible and that there's a lot of of potential benefits again from the community perspective, traffic perspective that we would realize even though there still is space not to have the consolidated shuttle system.

Yeah. So in a sense the consolidated shuttle system was a very like huge impactful option that would have been tough to administer for the city. It would have been tough to accept for the shuttle community and it would have just been like hugely complex. Um the coordination approach is in many ways actually I think better. Um it's easier for the city. It's flexible. Um, coordination can mean a lot of different things and access to the GTC can still be the city's leverage in and frankly the resort's leverage in forcing compliance into the into the coordination system. And it's kind of the sky's is the limit. Um, the issue has always been if you put rules in place, who is going to be around to enforce them? And the city doesn't have the budget and or the capacity and neither does the resort. But we could conceivably schedule arrival times. We could have licensing requirements. We could put GPS chips and shuttles. Um we could, you know, there's a number of things that we could do. And so it's a different approach, but the main difference is on the ownership. Um instead of a single consolidated system, it's distributed ownership.

Okay, I think I follow. Um so there so so there's still coordination. Um and do we still reduce the number of shuttles that are out there running around?

No. So, so that is the one downside here that you do not reduce the number of shuttles on the road. There are some private efforts in play right now looking at um private shuttle consolidation which I think in many ways is a better fit for that. Um, this is curbside behavior. Um, scheduled scheduled drop off, potentially dispatch, um, maybe partial consolidation, registration, just behavior, coordination. Um, we could maybe have some impact on which shuttles are chosen, what the size of them are, and but it's not, you know, the hammer of reducing the number of vehicles on the road.

Okay. And remind me when the gondola is put in place those shuttles drop off at the Meadows. So before we thought if you aren't going to opt into the consolidated shuttle system, you can't come to the GTC. You have to go to the Meadows. Now we could still say if you're not going to going to go along with the coordination strategies, then you still can't come in the GTC and you have to go to the Meadows. But coordination again is a much easier pill for people to swallow. So I think we'll probably get close to if not 100% participation. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Barnes.

Um council sort of visit on the promisary note and negotiations with that. What would what is the estimated time frame of the payback on the promisary note as if it was the deal was to go forward today without us committing? What would the what time frame would that promisary note come back? estimated.

So again, it's it completely depends on how many taxes or how much taxes acrew in those metro districts. But when we were looking at bond runs three years ago, it was a few dollars starting to roll in maybe 3 to 5 years following the project and then it ramps up as taxes. It's same model as the URRA where you know as tax revenues grow there's there's more cash flow available and so um I think we are looking and making sure that it would be paid out within 20 years and it was um depending on which scenario you looked at it was well before 20 years before it all acred.

So it's not like cash we're we're going to be trying to allocate anytime soon. No, it would be a few years following the GTC would be time to stand up a new committee and start talking about how to allocate some funds. Have you guys ever floated a proposal of splitting the promisary note and maybe asking corporate to come in with the other balance? Well, so that we have not had the detailed negotiations yet, but that's what we're we're getting at where you know should we be able to have that conversation or should we say promisory notes off the table. We need to negotiate other funding sources. But as of right now, corporate hasn't chipped in anything into this project. Not yet.

Okay. Then on the snow melt capacity, um I just think, you know, we're talking about spending this money um on electric boilers. What's the the gas capacity is up there right now. Is there enough gas capacity without adding new boilers to fire the snow melt requirements for the GTC expansion? Uh I believe there is. And so could that be used as a bridge with hard stops on greening of the grid andor geothermal becoming available if um if could that be a measure? Is that still being considered or have we just scrapped that all together?

So right now we're not considering that as an option. Um I think there's a difference now between could it physically be provided which I think the answer is yes but there's this new regulatory risk. We're not sure if a new huge gas account will even be permitted by the time we get around to this. We're still pursuing geothermal. So if that's a three to five year project, then then natural gas is still within the realms of this PUC decision potentially. Potentially and it could save the taxpayer a couple million bucks over time.

Yeah. Investment. the again I mean we're like at you know approximately a million and a half over 20 million over 20 years under under that scenario that I presented an option as a bridge with a hard stop if say 2030 or when a geothermal becomes available it could be with a waiver from council yeah because there's yes yes yeah really a waiver as it was explained to me is an exception um because about 80% of the snow melt that's up there is require required for ADA and and fire access and so it could be it could be waved by the building department. Now

I think it's more that you know this body would have the power to grant yourselves an exception from the code if you decide to I ask a question about the electric real quick. Um the amount I just want to make sure we are not including the Meadows parking lot with that um 2.5 to 3.5 million. This amount is only for GTC. It's only for GTC and it's the plaza areas and the bus islands. Okay. Why? And what I'm hearing is we split essentially 5050 is what I'm kind of hearing right now. It hasn't been negotiated yet, but that's why I'm saying equitable.

Okay. Well, equitable to me would be square footage possibly. Yeah, we should reduce the square footage and reduce the cost as much as possible. Absolutely. Okay. Or are you saying Well, yeah. Yeah. I think you know, President Montine, is there um an opportunity to have uh members of the SSRC to come up and field a couple questions? Sure. Michael or you want Michael? Yeah. Kind of winging it. Sorry, Michael.

Um, as you've gone through and you appreciate you sitting here and being comfortable and listening to this conversation and I know you're part of the um URAT committee as well as uh councelor Dixon, I'd be curious to see to ask specifically on you guys. What are your concerns with where we're at right now with the process? Michael Anne Lamont, director of development and strategic initiatives for Steambo and Resort Corporation. Just a really quick clarification, I am not on the UR committee. I attend all the meetings to support Gates. Thank you.

Um where we're really at is what was the original vision for this project and how do we best accomplish that? How does that benefit all stakeholders and deliver long-term value for the community and for users of the Bay Area? And I think there's a lot of components that have changed since the PIA and the funding uh the funding commitments have been put into place. And so we really have to look at what landscape has changed and how are we responsible for responding to that. And that is really what we've been wrestling with at the steering committee level over the last several months and close to a year and a half now. And so um really we just want to make sure that we're looking at the full picture. it's snow melt alignment and what is the allowable power source? What makes sense in the short, medium, and long term? There's been several of those components mentioned up here tonight. Um what are the other transportation initiatives at play and how does this project intersect and complement all of those? Um, I think a thing with the budget is there's a real likelihood that this budget was always too low and there's a clarification that's needed about yes, our funding comes from the metro district, but there's a lot of um things that have to happen in order to generate that funding in order for those tax revenues to start flowing in to fund this project and then the promisory note behind it and that is private investment. So it's I think an easy thing to say that what is corporate whoever that's in reference to bringing to the table, but that is our development execution risk that we're taking to even unlock those real estate values. Um if I can continue going down the list, I've just been keeping a couple of things that I wanted to respond to. Um councelor Gary, you mentioned the shuttles. Um I think it's important when we talk about the shuttle piece of this that we the study is looking at the shuttle system as a whole. So right now

that includes the meadow shuttles which is about 32 shuttles an hour on the road causing congestion uh carbon emissions associated with that. So really that's another interdependency of the project that we need to get those shuttles off the road out of the GTC. That's where the gondola comes in to unlock the other pieces for how that the private shuttles are accommodated in the project. Um so it's you asked are we taking any shuttles off the road? Yes, actually quite a lot by com combining um both of those uses. Um you also asked a question about the Meadows law improvements and I think it's just important to to mention where those improvements are coming from. These aren't like over and beyond. This is not like this isn't beautifification. These are just code requirements that we're addressing. drainage, landscaping, lighting access, different components that are just required by the development application. So those are that's where that number comes from. Um I think that uh covers the list.

Does anyone else have any questions for Yeah, Michael? Yeah, I do.

Go for it. Um, so we don't have, but I'll reiterate the numbers that uh, Gates had put up for SSRC contributions and and you're I I'm hearing your challenge with these um, the costs and but I look at the costs and I look at 22 to 25 million is for the gondola, 15 million is for the men's lot. So about 40 million of the of this 40 to 45 million is directly benefiting Ski Corp. And there's other off-site improvements of four to five, you know, 2 to four million. And so I'm I'm looking at this and saying Ski Corp, what is Ski Corp's contribution to the GTC? um be that is a benefit to the the greater community. Um because I look at these numbers and and and and this and I look at it and I go um you know the SSR is putting up you know 30 to 35 million to you know to build out the GDC. And on top of this, Ski Corp is asking for the promisary note of 13 million to, you know, to offset your cost, but you're offsetting the cost of a gondola and and metal slot. So, I'm the numbers aren't adding up to me, right? I think it's important to remember that both sides of these projects are reliant on the improvements being the improvements being put in at the GTC are reliant on the improvements that are happening at the Meadows lot. Neither side can work without the other. If you

don't have the gondola, you cannot eliminate, you cannot close off Mount Winter Circle. If you do not close off Mount Winter Circle, you're going to still have all the private vehicles coming up there causing all the pedestrian safety issues that exist today, which is the catalyst for doing this project at all. There was a reference to community plans earlier. This project is in almost every community plan that has existed over the last couple of decades. The priority for enhancing the Bay Area arrival experience, making it more sustainable, making it more pedestrian friendly, that is listed as a goal. And so looking at how does that how does that improve the base area for all users, that's where the the synergy of this partnership really came from um on the heels of the full steam ahead investment. So when we talk about the benefits, we're looking at the Bay Area as a whole and the ability to leverage a public private partnership to accomplish a greater vision that has been a part of the community's priorities for quite some time. I'll I'll I'll save the rest of those comments to um uh for disc, you know, council discussion. Um I have some more questions uh for Gates, but if somebody wants to have more questions for Michael, that's

any other questions for Michael. I'll just ask Michael this and then I'll ask um Gates this as well. So, we agree that a June 30th deadline is reasonable. I mean, if we say go back And um I mean in terms of one of the options to come back, I mean in terms of the option of the June, you know, uh one of the options is basically to to take another stab at this, but with the June 30th deadline,

uh Gates and I worked really closely to to put together the uh communication form to explain all of the nuance of the last four years. Um the idea behind the deadline, we weren't necessarily consulted on June 30th, but as we have been for the last year and a half and throughout this project, we're at the table. We're willing to look at all of the options to make sure that this project is is delivered, right? I mean, I guess I'm just really trying to do a reality check because you guys because we have been at this for a while, right? I mean, so I mean, are we really setting ourselves up for success if council were to say, "Come back to us by June 30th." We're willing to give it a shot.

Thank you. Thank you, Michael Gates. I have a math question for you, Gates. Sure. Well, a math question. Just I understand the the project we originally uh SSR was committing to was 20 million. Correct. Correct. We were going to get a 13 million promising for $7 million net investment. Okay. Now, we're being asked 30 or 35 million and give up the 13 million. That's correct. So, our involvement will go up to 45 to 48 million.

No. So it's just that the investment will total 30 to 35 million and then if we end up negotiating away the promisory note there would be no refund coming against that on the back end but so the 30 to 35 million would be the total commitment from the public side. So the net the net would include the non-repayment of 1300 correct? So you go from seven to 30 to 35.

Okay. I was just checking to make sure it wasn't added on to that. So to follow up on the primary note, that's why I make it very clear. My understanding is the primary note is money that goes not back to the SSR, but basically goes back to the city's general fund,

not to the general fund, but to the city. Um, it would go into its own account here, Kim, is that correct? Yeah. Um, so it would be its own account reserved for improvements in the base area and there would be a new URAC like committee that would be temporarily created to help oversee the the spending of that money and it would be kind of like EUR and the URRA but the funds wouldn't be limited to pre predefined project activities. It could be used for any base area improvements. So fair to say it's like a a uh EUR continuation or you know yeah kind of

FA EURC phase two because it it's not collecting additional TIP money tip funds but there's still essentially other funds that can be used to um you know and basically but if we were not if we didn't have those funds then then those priority projects that still will be there will still have to be covered by by the city. Corre if if if or or they just won't be won't be completed. You know, this could be extra things. I mean, for instance, the GTC if we didn't have a special pot of money to fund the GTC project, it's not likely that it would be improved, right? Gates. Uh

okay.

Are you done? Yeah. Um sorry, I didn't want to take your spot. didn't mean it that way. Um, help me understand this. If we value engineered this down to 10 million aside and created some kind of a GTC that was pretty with new sidewalks the way it is, we would be left over with a lot of funds in this general fund in this SS, the URAK funding to the tone of 10 or 15 million. the list that I'm looking at right there is that exhaustive of what was part of the ballot language for this tiff and I'm leading what I'm leading to is that let's say we did not do anything with the GTC or a $20 million lipstick on a pig kind of thing. What would and we did every project that was part of the original ballot language. It goes to reason in my common sense that we're going to have an excess of funds. What happens to those funds at the end of the tiff? So, and and all the projects assumed are finished that were part of the ballot. So, what you could do, there are several improvements such as a roundabout on the Highway 40 offramps that the city could move forward and make that improvement even though it's not necessarily warranted. I mean, there's not enough of a delay there that you would typically move forward with an improvement. So, there are a couple different cases or the the intersection of Burgess Creek with Mount Werner Circle. Um, that intersection functions fine today. There's no reason to make an improvement, but you could if you had money to burn. I mean, you have to defend it, but you could go and make all of these different improvements and try and spend down the funds. Alternatively, you could return any excess funding back to the tiff taxing

entities, which the property tax would go back to the county. The sales tax would come back to the city, and I've been told there might be an issue with Taber limitations, so it might end up in refunds back to the taxpayers inside the URA boundary. Okay. Okay. Are we

I have one more question. Sorry, I have a roundabout question. So, I don't know, Gates, or if you want to pass it off. I'll ask my question then I was looking at John and Matt. But my question is so I understand that um the roundabout at Highway 40 at Mount Warner um has one rack has um deprioritized it and two um because the um traffic does not show a need for a roundabout at this point. The traffic flow. So the way that that project was initially um structured for funding, it was going to be a partnership between the city and the URA and the city's side depp prioritized that and took it I don't know if it was ever on the CIP. Was it ever in the CIP? So at one point it was in the CIP and then the city decided to dep prioritize it and take it out and at that point the URRA took it took it out as well and it does not meet warrants for improvement. Okay. Um, but it is in the URRA.

It is an approved phase three project activity. Yes. Yeah. So, it does not actually require city funds outside of the URRA funding. So, it's correct.

Whether the city decide to fund it or not, that doesn't matter. Um, so this is my specific question. Um, so I get we're saying right now there might not be a need based on traffic. I'm guessing. Um, I I question that with that hotel coming up this summer. I I understand staff projected out so many years. Um, but looking at the purpose of roundabouts, it's more than just traffic. Um, so I would love to confirm my understanding. We're talking about safety um for pedestrians and bicyclists. We're actually talking about time savings for people to get through um the intersections. supposedly they're more environmentally friendly. Love to check that one. Um and that um there's a it saves money by not having traffic signals and other um costs. So I mean is that are there other benefits to roundabouts outside of just saying we don't have enough cars?

Yeah, absolutely. It's it's one of the highest performing intersections intersection options that we have. Um absolutely. I agree with everything you said. Okay. Okay, that roundabout in particular is a smaller project than the Mount Warner Mount Warner intersection would be. So, the budget is smaller. Um, that one might be on the order of $4 million. Um, and you know, we very well may have enough money to do the GTC project and that roundabout. Okay. Thanks, Keith. Do we feel we have a fairly good understanding here? Then we could go on to public comment. I have additional questions. Sorry.

Okay. Are people then understanding to be able to make a decision? Um the uh on this the slide you ahead of of the the cost I was actually confused and I think I have it understand the budgeted cost you had 3 to 5 million on snow melt geo but that's not really geo the geo what what I'm I'm getting that is basically that's the offset the electric boilers it's not there's nothing geo there

so if if it ends up that we were doing a cost share on an electric snow melt option then the total cost would be again a million million and a quarter to a million 75. Uh if we get down the road and geothermal looks like it's potentially feasible. Um there's a range of scenarios. I mean it may be feasible by itself. Maybe a third party comes in and the financial profile of the project is such that they will fund the entire thing and there's no public subsidy required. It may be that the numbers are so tight that to get it over the the hump and make this project feasible, the geothermal project that SSR may have to consider a public subsidy into that system um potentially again in partnership with SSRC. And so that is just being transparent about that financial risk. Okay. So does that mean there's an additional there's an additional two to you know two to two and a half million that needs to be added into this because because that is for electric boilers.

No. So it's an eitheror. Okay. because I'm you know because I read the at least the intro of the geothermal study and and the numbers that it's showing is you know you know the low at the very low end of phase one is 13 million um but the full buildout is 150 million and I'm trying you know I'm trying to you know we need to get to a budget here for this and I'm I'm just I'm struggling with numbers that could come in and explode these you know with the these numbers And

so again to my earlier comments, the time that it'll take us to to finish the phase 2 study to get through those detailed designs and actual cost estimates to bring that uncertainty down on the the cost and then the time after that to go and negotiate with third party funding partners and negotiate a full construction and funding agreement. It will just take too long. I mean there's a lot of risk and a long schedule involved. So far, it's still a potential. It's It's okay. I I was trying to understand the numbers that are here. So, thank you. So, yeah. Okay.

All right. Let's open it up to public comment. Is there anybody in the room who would like to make a public comment regarding this item? If so, uh you're welcome to come down. Okay. Is there anybody online who'd like to make a public comment? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will close public comment. Bring it back to council for deliberation. And Gates, can you just put up that those slides that had the options there? So here you go. Yes. Okay. Let's discuss. Where are you at?

I can open it up. Go for it. Go ahead, Brian.

Um, at a high level, looking at this with clear eyes, uh, SSR funds should be spent on public spaces to encourage economic activity. Um, there I believe there has was some mental and verbal gymnastics to normalize this agreement early on. Um, it worked well when the council president at the time was an active employee of the resort and was drinking the Kool-Aid at the same time. Now that things ch have changed, um, the the only thing that really has changed is what the resort wants and that they are not exactly getting what they want. This is not complicated. I believe that this is intentionally being made complicated so that we have a feeling of a sunk cost fallacy. We are being told that too much time and money has been spent on this and therefore we must move forward to give exactly what the resort wants. As Michael pointed out, this project has been in the plan. Pedestrian safety is a priority. Improved traffic flow is a priority. How that plan is imp implemented is being framed as if it's fixed and it's not. how that plan how the resort wants that plan to be implemented is fixed and that is creating the problems that we are running up against. The way I see this that chart that we had up there the gondola and meadows are investments in their own private their own assets. So basically what the way I read that is between2 and $4 million is the amount that the public is getting from the resort. We've bartered a seat at the table for$2 to4 million for a wrench to be thrown into something that does not need to be this complicated. We if we take the goal of trying to improve pedestrian safety, improve transportation, and improve improve GTC, I guarantee you that we could come up with some reasonable plan

that delivers that there. But this once again is being made overly complicated because and I believe it's intentional to try to get a specific outcome that Alterara wants. So my what I would like is I don't really know what any of these words mean. I want whatever gets us out of this as soon as possible. I think this was a horrible mistake to come to the table and start to do this and we need to get out of this so that we can actually deliver value for the community. And so whatever option up here gets us out of that. If that's arbitration, if that's whatever, I don't think proceeding with any negotiations is valuable. I've been on council since the minute this started and we've made no progress. So whichever one that is is what I want to vote for.

Thank you. Other thoughts?

I'm I'm actually, you know, thank you for saying that. I you know I think that that positioned you know my thoughts pretty well cuz you know but I but he said it a little more elegantly than some of the words that are coming through my mind because I've actually I'll I'll say it I'm I'm actually insulted that they're actually coming to us and and saying they now want the promisary note um money when you when it's the cost of their infrastructure that they they're trying to offset. It's not the cost of the city's infrastructure. is 100% of the cost of their infrastructure. So I'm I'm insulted by it, you know, frankly. So I don't see anything to negotiate on on that side.

Okay. Thank you. So what you're saying, if I can assume, um, the SSRC has taxed the the remaining land that they own at the base of the mountain to pay for. So the development, new hotels, new condos, new whatever, the increase in property tax, the metro district will then pay for this improvement for a way of alter to not have to pay for any of the improvements at all. It's passed on to the metro district. Is that pretty much what you're gaining toward? And in that same vein, the $13 million, which was in essence to be paid for by the same metro district, uh would be a reimbursement to the city if there was something more than the $30 million that's needed for our portion and we would get that money back. And in essence, Alter once again is you're saying is that they're using the metro district as their funding mechanism and not dipping into Alterara's pockets at all. Is that pretty much what I'm hearing from kind of what you guys are saying?

That is not my problem. My problem is that this is being made overly complicated so an entity can get exactly what they want and they're trying to use public funds to accomplish that.

I don't really care if they want to use financial tools to avoid having to pay this directly. I really don't care. It's just this is dragging on long enough. If I look at it objectively, our goal as counselors is to deliver for the community, it's to improve pedestrian access up there and get people up there more efficiently. And somehow we have ended up at a table where we're talking about the need for gondilas and it has to this is impossible and saw tooth has to be it. And I just don't buy that. How has it been 3 years and we still are talking about four potential plans? if they were not at the table, we would be able to find a solution to get people up there efficiently and improve pedestrian access.

And I'll, you know, I'll add to that is the reason the the we have an ever growing problem with mobility and with pedestrians and traffic and cars is because visitor um uh visits are up. I mean, you know, the use of the ski area is up by their promotions. And so they've created this extra um amount of traffic and and and volume of traffic that's going through the area and and so they're now asking us to fix it. So why is there a gondola transit center there in the first place?

So I I'll say I'll address that because I was going to talk about that. So, um, we we have heard from city staff that what we have currently works. Is it great? No. Do we need to update and improve it? Sure. To councelor Swint's point, we could probably do this on our own and get it done um for half the cost and half the time. So, I think um what we we already have it. What what has been proposed in front of us is a massive redesign, which while the GTC has always been on the plans for an upgrade, I don't think this is what people were talking about. $70 million to upgrade a transit center we already have and funded with taxpayer dollars. I mean, let that sink in. Councelor Swintech mentioned that. um when we have other projects um that we should be funding and to um sink all of the funds into now just the GTC I think is misguided and I don't think that um serves our community.

Um and I am also one last comment I'm struggling with the community benefit of this project. We have more people tonight here with us not for this topic I know but thank you for being here so you get to hear all about this. Um but I don't think people understand the implications of what we are talking about. There is no skier drop off. No one will be able to drop their kids off at the gondola transit center in that area. You have to go to the Meadows parking lot. Wave bye to Billy. send him on the way to the gondola to take it up to the ski area. Hopefully, he's got everything. Um, we say that in the PIA the gondola is free um that skills will um provide in perpetuity, but now people have to pay to park in the Meadows parking lot. So, like is the gono truly free anymore? Um, and so I think there are so many things I am struggling to find a true community benefit. The last thing the community benefit the metro districts. We all talk about it like everyone knows what what that means for folks in the room. This means all the parking lots on the mountain are going to be developed. Fine. They can be. Ski Corp, you know, owns those lots. There will no longer be any parking on the mountain. Everyone will have to park in the meadows. Um, that's the stuff that I don't think we're truly talking about that people really understand. And for $70 million, you've got to be kidding me. So, Councelor Swinte, I think we should get Dan's opinion, advice on the PIA um around um what that looks like if we didn't do arbitration. But I'm honestly leaning towards more B because I think we need to do that to probably

do that before we move to arbitration. honestly, but I would love to get Dan's opinion. So, um, that's where I am sitting with that. Would it be fair to say, Councelor Dixon, that when you talk about community benefit, what you're really saying is the community benefit may be diminished by doing this approach? Yes. Would that be fair? That's how I see it. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Other comments, Councelor Barnes?

Yeah, I'm probably going to be in the minority again. Um but uh I think it's important to remember the relationship with SkiCore and the fact of what they do bring to the table um in the form of sales tax and in the visitors and the reason I mean we're co-partners in this city and and that's not going to change and I'm not saying and I'm not justifying the the price tag of $70 million and and I'm not justifying the way that the new split is looking. It does look very lopsided and one-sided. Um it feels like um I think full steam ahead was somewhere around a half a billion 400 million of investment you know from corporate and it feels like corporate's been sort of left out of this process. Um I I'm I'm for continuing on. I think the GTC has a has a lot of benefit that we're not also considering. I've been dropping my kids off up there and I mean it's been a it's been a quite a show. Um not the good kind of show. um just a lot of vehicles, a lot of people, you know, going everywhere. You talk about the people in Ski Time Square that just drop off in all different locations. So, you know, we're going to grow and we're going to continue to grow. So, to get very angry about this process and to see these costs, um I I agree it doesn't seem very equitable at this point, but I think to scrap this whole thing would be a mistake at this point. Uh I'm for continuing negotiating. Um but I I think the promisary note in my mind needs to be preserved. I think that's something that they bargain for. Um we bargain for and there just needs to be some some more um more equity brought to the table from from SS uh SSRC.

So I I state that um I asked the question why is there a gondola transit center there in the first place? And then I kept my mouth shut intentionally, right? mainly because somewhere a city council member way before my time and that city council felt that the city bus should terminate somewhere up there at the base of the ski mountain for the locals so that people can get on a bus and drop off right at the base of the ski mountain and before even parking. And so there is a huge public benefit to having a gondola transit center. Does it have to be Disneyland? Does it have to be the top of the line with everything that's there? I appreciate what you're saying that it's it's working for the most part, but it's not the most attractive destination. What I'm seeing is that it's truly a partnership. The partnership has been divined because there's a ski mountain in the city of Steamboat Springs. And those two partnerships we have to maintain and will maintain long after I'm gone. Okay. And so as we look at this gondola transit center and we look at where um the amount of money or lack of money that Alterara is willing to put of their own capital investment into this one project that might be one of those triggers that help our negotiated team to say okay if if Alter Corporate decides to pony up a little bit of money how would that make you guys feel toward this project even that it's maybe too big but if you saw Alter corporate putting in some money in capital toward the 75 million. What would that make you guys feel toward all coming from the metro district and the URRA? It's not about the money, it's about the lack of good faith. It has been three years and we have heard that this is

impossible that there's roadblocks. We have to have saw I mean we spent a year and a half talking about how sawtooth was critical and pull through just never could possibly work then the buses is my problem. It's not about the fact that they aren't coming up with money. It's that it has been three years of dragging our feet

to to because this is what I want. That's what it is. It's the way that it was when the prior council approved it is exactly what I want. And so now that it's slightly different, I'm unhappy. And so I'm going to do my best to try to get back to what the original the original vision was. Cuz that original vision was perfect. And that's my problem. Okay, let's let's see where we are really fast here. Councelor Augusta and Councelor Swintech, as you look at the alternatives up here, which one are you guys supporting? Dan, what does any of this mean? And how do we get out of this as fast? Like I want I'm just trying to see where everybody's at here.

Like I want this to be over. So which one of those is that? You're done. There's no circumstance in which you would want to proceed with the project. I like is arbitration the best one where somebody just says uh you know so arbitration is one way out. Arbitration would take time. Um there is an end date on this thing. um at which point the contract just terminates which is uh December of 2026 can be extended for one year. So do nothing. Doing nothing in arbitration probably get to the same result at the same time. So my vote would be to do nothing. I there's lots of projects to spend money on. Oh we could direct them to

you said redirect the funding to other projects outside of this. Is that actually No, I don't agree. I'm going to say we should continue to fund the way things are, but I would say do nothing because if this pot of money we could use to build a GTC, that would be great. Okay. So, are you in the same are you on B then? Direct work with SSRC to attempt to redesign project and reduce budget. I mean to going back to the fundamental original I think that time has been wasted. We keep going. These are the same things. We keep going back to the same meeting. You want to do you want to do nothing? Yeah. Stop wasting time. Okay. Councelor Barnes, I thought I saw Are you at A2? A2, I think. Okay. I think dropping dropping it at this point is a big

All right. You're at A2. Mine's not up there. Mine Mine is B is is is the closest is B. But the challenge I have with B is it's not about reduced budget. It's also about um a community benefit. I I feel like this does not add community. You know, what's there is not fully adding the community benefit we need. But B is the closest for you. B is the closest, but it's not the but it's not. Okay. Over on this side of the room, just trying to see if we're anywhere near a consensus here. Councelor Dixon, you were leaning towards something. Um,

yeah, I was um so I want to be clear. I support a redevelopment of GTC. I want that to be like super clear. The direction we have been going in, I think, is misguided. I would support um none of them are perfect. I would support B. You would support B. Okay. So we have two for B at this point in time. Councelor Pacino, councelor Gary or myself.

Well, I was just seeking clarification. I mean, I think if we lean toward B, then that we need to give direction, right? I mean, and that's kind of what I was trying to ask with councelor Swintech in terms of going back to the original vision. I mean, I do believe this is a partnership. Hasn't felt a lot like a partnership lately. Um, and I do again think that we need to make sure that our local residents and our community is getting public benefit. And as was the comment was made, we've got a gondola, but we've got a paid parking. So, I don't know that that's necessarily free. We also have done away with a lot of, you know, the ski or drop off. So, there's going to be a lot of inconvenience for our local community. We don't we know that we don't have the funding to increase our transit. I mean, that's the obvious choice, right? Is making sure that we have the transportation so people have another way to get up there and have a great place to land at the GTC. So, um I guess I would lean toward B, but I think we need to give direction.

A I would ask one question, Gates, on B that requires um uh a redo of the dates, correct? We would have to extend. Yeah. If we actually want to move forward with the project in the partnership under any scenario, we would need extended dates. Okay. But aren't there fundamental things that have been agreed to that you feel like you can move on with? I mean based upon the conversation and what you're hearing from

the current issue that we're having is that moving on means signing contracts with design consultants and if SSRC doesn't trust that we are going to still be around and and decide to extend when the when the outside date comes then why are they going to risk those design funds and vice versa why would we risk any funds if we can't trust that there's going to be a successful Okay. All right. Well,

so I think um you know what what puts the there's two deadlines that put a time constraint on this and clearly it's the PIA and the PIA becoming null and void, right? And that was the funding mechanism for Alira portion their scope of the project. our scope of the project. We have money to do. So, we can do we can we can do what we want with the GTC knowing that it's partially on their property, but we know we have control over that with $30 million, $35 million left of the URRA funds. Um, if this PIA goes to the wayside, there's no consolidated shuttle program. there were some requirements that were part of that to allow Alter to be able to spend or have money to to put toward the GTC. So, at this point, um, it's unfortunate that we're at this impass and that we've been here for so long and if we see this thing coming for the past three and a half years that the design that was on the table that we spent hours with and looking through and and everything, um, one component has made the change in that. And to me that's been the cost for parking at the base of uh the meadows. So for people that live the public benefit living out in the community out in the county who by season passes for 30 years would drive in park at the meadows and take their kids skiing. You know we've gotten those emails that those people are now concerned. So as we're moving forward trying to figure this out and then SkiCore and Alura is now finding a funding mechanism on again of charging for parking that's not a public benefit and so we are

seeing a couple of things that are swaying toward Alira and less on the city when if we take the option B and direct staff to just say you know what we need to kind of start over and uh put lipstick on a pig and see what it turns out to be or see if Alira decides to dig deep in some of their capital funding and say we'll cover the difference just let us build this pretty um entrance to ski the uh steamboat ski resort because their motivator is that we want a bigger better place to to have people arrive. It's the arrival experience. Okay. What we're all looking at on the city side is we just want to have public benefit where people can get dropped off and it's easy for the kids and families to currently do it. So there there looks like we may just have to go back to B and just scrap the whole thing. And and my concern, the reason why I was asking about the money, what happens after 2029 is that we now have a trove of money that we then are no longer going to be adding to. In other words, there's no more tiff that's going to add to that fund. And we now have a finite amount of money. And then there's no metro district, so we have no trickle money coming in for any maintenance. That's all we have left to fix the blight of the mountain. Okay. So, are you advocating B? I I would be I I really like A um or A2. Uh but B is sufficient for me right now. Understanding that I don't know if we can get past the PIA successfully and it's really because the PIA has so many.

Well, I think we we may have have a a majority here. We'll find out in a second. I just wanted to say one thing and Gates you can you can respond but councelor Swintech mentioned for two years and six months now right that we have been going through this and made actually when we first started it it would seem like the big stumbling block was snow melt and now here we are two and a half years later and that is not the big stumbling block. Um, and I too struggle with the community benefit side of the diminished return on on that benefit. Um, so I'm hearing that I that we might have a majority here who wants to proceed with B. So

is that where you're at? That's where I'm at. And so I would ask for a motion at this point in time by somebody unless you want to say something. Yes. This is just

dig deep. An important legal detail. The PIA was written to protect this the URRA's interest in pursu pursuing this project and there is a contingency project which has previously been referred to as the breakup project and if the project fails for a reason that SSRC causes so if SSRC is the cause of the failure then they are liable to pay 50% of a revised GTC project with no gondola. up to $50 million just at the GTC. If the cause of the failure is SS, then that contingency project is no longer valid. So, I just want to throw that out there that the

what if the cause of failure is both parties.

Then that's a question for Dan. You know, I think arbitration is really intended for a situation in which there is kind of a workable project and one party doesn't want to do it, which that's not really what I'm hearing right now. I mean, we have a project that has changed quite a bit since we negotiated this agreement. Um, so, you know, to answer Gates's question, if we can't move forward, I I I can't really get be a definitive answer on that. I mean, I you know, we've been working with Ski Core and maybe there's some disagreements about um you know, who has been uh trying hard and who hasn't, but the fact is the project has gotten dramatically more expensive. Um and so I I don't I don't know what would happen if we did that. We'd probably need to um spend some time in an executive session if you really want.

What you've heard right now is is are we the ones that are reiging on this or is this a mutual thing in your opinion? No, I I hear you directing staff to continue working with SSRC, but I'm not I'm not really hearing a lot of hope from anybody that we're going to figure out a way to to solve this tens of millions of dollar problem.

Well, the other option, right, would be D is we direct so direct staff to work with SSRC under option A2, which I heard I think was the there was a potential at least a couple of council members, right, that believed that and to report back by June 30th. I mean, would it make a big difference to council if if um corporate did come up with funds and did come back and they said, "All right, well, we're going to put our best foot forward," which case D looks like.

I mean, 60 days is not a lot to ask to go through that one more process and then we know where the tone of council is right now. So, I mean I that's why I say A2 to me is workable and I would like to see us negotiate a little bit if it's just till June 30th, but after that I think plan B is B. Okay. I mean, I still have an issue with the lack of short-term parking. There's a lot of We can get into the nuances and the weeds on this because Yeah, I agree. There should be parking and all that other stuff, too. So, but that and but that would beg for um option B, right? Is that we become specific in terms of what we're directing staff to renegotiate.

Well, re value the construction documents on yet. So, there's still room for redesign and some design on some minor scale that adds some parking. Oh, no. But there's there the construction documents aren't built. Have you guys paid for construction documents yet? I'm telling you, they're not willing to do it. I that's I'm just saying. Okay.

But may I clarify A2 though is saying that we will increase SSR will increase our contribution and that we will deprioritize. Am I right Gates? We will depprioritize any other project and only fund this one area in the URRA. That's what AT was saying. I disagree with that. Assuming assuming that the um rest of SR SSR shortfall they make up. Yeah, that is the assumption in

Yeah. And I kind of been with councelor Swint. I don't I don't care what Skor or Alterara comes to the table with. I'm looking out for the interest of our community and our taxpayer dollars. Would you like to retract my A2? I'll retract my Would somebody like to make a motion? Let's see where we are here. Councelor Dixon, would you like to make I would like to make a motion to direct staff to pursue option B with um SS RC. Do we have a second? I'll second. Any further discussion?

Um yeah, the discussion I have there is is I want to make sure that one t that one focuses on today on budget. So I wanted to add something before you even said it. um that ensured more community a community benefit to the design and I I feel like we're struggling with that current design and so it's more it's it's not just about budget. Well, remember councelor go Augusta that that B comes back to us. So if the community benefit isn't there, we won't approve it. I I think we also give that directive to your rack.

Okay. Okay. We have a motion by councelor Dixon. We had a second by councelor Giri. All those in favor say I. What do we want to Sorry. Okay. Just ask Gates if this is clear or what clarity he needs. He's got it up there. Yeah, it's it's clear. Okay. All right. Any swaying conversation you want to add? Motion by councelor, second by councelor Gary. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed?

Okay. Motion passes four to three. Okay. Um, can I have an that we can adjourn from our SS meeting and reconvene to our regular city council meeting? Are we done with everything on the agenda? Oh, no. We got to approve the budget first. Approve the budget. Let's go to that. Who is going to Thanks, ma'am. We got more. We're good. Who? Let's do the um agenda item two. A resol agenda item number two, a resolution approving the supplemental budget. Gates,

hopefully this will be a little faster.

Yep. Uh you've already seen this this table, the supplemental budget appropriation totals $220,000. Um the only part of this that's for the GTC project is supporting the GTC geothermal grant. It'll be 100% offset by grant proceeds. Um otherwise it supports ski time and then a couple other small project activities. Questions? Okay. Is there any public comment? Anybody in the room have any public comment on this? Please come on down. Is there anybody online? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Bring it back to council for a motion.

Move to approve. Second. Motion by councelor Swinte, second by councelor Barnes. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Okay. Motion passes 70. Now, may I have a motion that we adjourn from SSR? No, we have to approve the minutes. Minutes. Oh jeez, you're right. So, move trying to move us on. I'm trying to move it. We have two minutes to approve November 18th, December 2nd. Any questions or comments regarding the minutes? Then I will entertain one final motion. Motion to approve. Second. Motion by councelor Barnes, second by councelor Swintech. All those in favor say I.

Opposed. Minutes are approved. 70. Now can we adjourn from our SSR meeting and reconvene city council? Motion by councelor Pacino, second by councelor Barnes. All those in favor? Opposed. Okay. Now um we are going to take a break. I also see there's a bunch of young people in the room who we have at number 12 on this list tonight. So, I would like to suggest that maybe we move things around a bit when we get back. Yeah. Can we do that? Yeah, we can. Can we do that? Yes, we can do that. All right. So, we're going to

make a motion. Yes. Move that we move to a move agenda item 12 up to agenda item three. Agenda item. So, prior to city council reports. Can we do that, Dan? Yes. Okay. Do second. Yep. Second. Okay. Motion by councelor Swinte, second by councelor Gary. All those in favor? I opposed. Okay. Motion passes 70. We will be back and deal with that item at 7:30. Yeah.

Looks like my gabble. Okay, we are going to get back and reconvene if we can. I did use it. Not that hard. Finally.

Are you good? Are you good? Okay, everyone.

Yeah. One minute. We're going to get started. And we have everyone back in the room. Am I missing here? Okay. Um, we're going to get started and we're going to move things around a bit. As you were here a minute ago, we're going to move into our consent calendar item number 12 and that is a revol revolution a resolution approving a fundraising agreement between the city of Steamboat Springs, the Steamboat Springs Youth Hockey Association, and the Steamboat Skating Club for the expansion of the Howlson Ice Area. Would anybody from council like to pull that item?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, that is fantastic. So, Angela, you want to come down and give us a brief presentation, overview, whatever?

Very brief. Wanted to share with council that I'm very excited to be at this point tonight. In your packet is a strong agreement of a public private partnership for consideration. And I wanted to say a huge thank you to the team who put the agreement together. Carrie Shay, Paul Saxs, Jason Lacy, Drew Pickle, Demetri Chase, Doug Wilson, Danfoot, Kim Weber, the Yampa Valley Community Foundation, and Land Title. Then, most importantly, a huge thank you to the generous donors of the Steamboat Springs Youth Hockey Association and the Steamboat Springs Skating Club totaling $4 million in donations at this point. I'm happy to answer any questions about the agreement or review highlights if you would like.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Angela? Okay, hearing none, we'll ask for public comment. So, if anybody would like to come on down and make a public comment, now would be a good time. Anyone? Anyone? And Carrie Shay or with some of the kids. Come on, kid. You get a microphone. Let's hear what you have to say. Would you make sure you give us your name and I don't know maybe where what grade you're in. How about that? I'm Shaylen O'Connor and I'm in seventh grade. Okay.

I'm Olivia Rosen and I'm in fifth grade. Okay. Welcome. Good afternoon and thank you for being here today. We are so grateful for the opportunity to speak and share our appreciation for the second sheet of ice. On behalf of the entire community, we want to sincerely thank you. This is something our whole community will truly appreciate now and into the future. This additional ice time is not just helpful to the SEO skating club. It is helpful for everyone who uses the ice. It's something we have genuinely needed. With limited practice days, many of us in the Steamote skating club have struggled to stay consistent and continue improving.

In fact, some of us have even felt our skills slipping without enough time on the ice. Skating is a sport that depends on repetition, dedication, and time. And without that, progress becomes difficult. This second sheet of ice changes that for all of us. It gives us a chance to practice more, grow more, and support each other as a team. In our club, the new sheet allows beginners to build more confidence and stronger skaters to keep advancing at a faster pace. It gives every member of our club and the community the opportunity to reach their full potential. We will not take this opportunity for granted. We will use every moment on the ice with purpose, focus, and gratitude. As a community, we are incredibly thankful for this investment that you have given us.

It shows that you believe in us, and that means everything. Most of all, we are so excited excited to keep skating, improving, and doing what we love. Thank you for making this possible for the Steamboat Skating Club and everyone in the community. And thank you for supporting our future on the ice. Sincerely, Shayen Oconor and Olivia Rosyn. Thank you. Oh, you're welcome. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, girls. That was great. Is there anybody else who'd like to make a public comment? No. Boys want to come on down? No. That's why we're doing this right there. So, um, thank you girls for getting up and having the courage to do that. Carrie Shay through 316 Street, president of the Steamboat Springs Youth Hockey Association. And just want to add to Angela's comments and want to thank you. Uh, obviously this has been a very long road to get to tonight. Um, but it's all about timing and and making sure that uh things happen and things happens for a reason and uh the the growth and the need for this has grown through time and the fact that we're here now uh with a solid plan. I think this is a great demonstration of a public private partnership that can work. Um we're really excited about doing exactly that and that's getting to work. Um but I do want to thank you for the time and consideration. Look forward to getting past uh this evening with the agreement and rolling up our sleeves and uh getting to work. want to thank you on behalf of the Steamos Springs Youth Hockey Association and our friends over at the uh the skating club um in terms of our joint venture in terms of fundraising uh and getting uh what is needed to get to the point of city contribution and knowing that this is a little bit of the chicken egg conversation but we're all here together arm-in- arm uh to make this you know facility expand and benefit uh future generations to come. So thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you Harry. Anyone else want to come on down and make a public comment? Is there anybody online who'd like to make a public comment? Raise your hand, please? Seeing none, we will close public comment. Bring it back to council for a motion or discussion. Well, I will start because yeah, this has been a long process um since I've been on council and before. Um I think that it was tough pulling this uh agreement that we had in the past and we have negotiated a fair deal with this two million to4 million. And yes, just like the Casey's pond was purchased because of our initial money that we put up, when the city of Steamboat put some money up, there's people in our community that will double and match it. And so we've seen that happen more than once. And I think that that was the catalyst in this endeavor, getting the second sheet of ice. And so I'm very positive and looking forward to approving this um resolution. Great. Again, I just want to say I think we're, you know, we're absolutely grateful for the donors that were willing to step up and and, you know, help make this partnership move forward. And um I think that there's a lot of opportunity here for community benefit. You know, obviously we heard about it tonight, but I think there's some other needs that will hopefully be able to be addressed in terms of some of the offseason. So again, appreciate everybody coming together and moving forward on this.

Yeah. And I just like to say I'm super proud of being part of this community and and having seen all the donations and the donators that have come to town and come to these specific um causes and so glad that you guys got it done and so glad we can help. I'm going to say something that's going to be really old, but to all the kids, like I know that to you it's this is a boring meeting, but when you get older, you should talk to your parents about what it was like to get this done and realize that it's really impressive and super cool that your parents did this. So, just remember this moment and when you're older, talk to them about it and you'll realize as adults that like your parents actually did a really impressive awesome thing. So, just remember that.

Thank you. And thank you to everybody here. Who'd like to make a motion? I'll make a motion. I move to approve agenda item 12. Second. Okay, we have a motion from councelor Pacino, second by councelor Gary. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion passes 70. Congratul.

Thank you all. Thank you. Okay, we are going to skip past uh the city council reports, agenda review, and staff reports, and we're going to go straight to the consent calendar, the other items, which are items 6 through 11. I'm just going to read through those, and then I will ask you if you want to pull any of those items, and then we'll ask the public. Can I just mention this? Yes, you can mention that. Okay, I will. I'll take a little privilege here. You get a little privilege

quickly. Just want to remind everybody that we again, you know, the Slate Creek Steering Committee did meet and so you the notes came in I think this afternoon from the last meeting. The next meeting is in June I think the 16th and the 17th. So we'll reserve time on a future agenda to talk through this and get people and get council's input. So just wanted to flag that and flag that for the community as well. Thank you.

Okay. So, I'm just going to read through these items and then afterward I'll ask which ones you want to pull and also ask if the public wants to pull any items. So, the first item on the consent calendar is item number six, a resolution approving a development plan conditional use major variance PL 20250300 Eddie Line Town Homes. Item seven is a resolution approving a development plan conditional use major variance PL 202 60002 lift up of route county building expansion. Item number eight is an ordinance amending chapter 26 of the steamboat springs revised municipal code by replacing section section 402 and amending articles 234 and 8 and the appendices to update the landscape code for water conservation, wildlife resiliency and minimum requirements PL 20250313. Item number nine is the first reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of a utility easement located on lots one and two overlook drive subdivision PL 202600050. Item number 10 is an ordinance reszoning property located within Hilltop Resort condominiums parcel one city of Steamboat Springs County of route state of Colorado from multifamily residential one MF1 to a custom planned unit development PUD zone district described and depicted in exhibit A for the Hilltop Resort PUD PL 20250398. And item number 11 is a resolution adopting a new street name in the city of Streamboat, Steamboat Springs, Ed Eddie Court. So, is there anybody on council who would like to pull any of those items?

I would like to pull number um six. Six. Um eight. Okay. Eight. and we will get to that. Any other members of council want to pull any of the others? Uh, I want to pull up 10. 10. I want to have a discussion on that. Okay. So, right now we have items 6, 8, and 10. Is that it from council? Okay. Let's look online. I think we have someone with their hand up. Did we

probably wanted to pull 10? Yeah. So, he put his hand down. Okay. So, we see nobody else online. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to pull any other item besides 68 and 10? Okay. Seeing none, we will close public comment. And I will ask for a motion to leave on the consent calendar items number um 7, 9, and 11. So moved. Second. Okay. We have a motion by council Gary, second by councelino. All those in favor say I. I.

I. Opposed. Okay. Motion passes 70. So we'll go back to item number six, a resolution approving a development plan conditional use major variance PL 20250300 Eddie Line Town Homes. I need me. I need to recuse myself. The applicant is my landlord. Okay.

Yep. I pulled it. Um, obviously I I don't need a presentation. Um, I just for the record I wanted my um vote to be on record. So I don't need a presentation. If others would like a presentation that you know wasn't here at the last meeting or anyone else, it's up to you. What's your concern? Um, my concern is um that I a consent agenda is automatically approved by all of council. So just annoying. Yeah.

Yeah. My I was just conf I'd say I was confused because this says something that was the planning commission was was uh denied it and we approved it and so I was just was not clear on the language of what when you say you were approving this were you approving the new language and so sure you approved the project um but you did adopt findings. So really what you're doing tonight is adopting findings i.e. the resolution and with the one can change right with the 4oot fence the fence. Yes, 4 foot fence which I believe you recommended.

So any other discussion? I I I my I I guess my one comment I still have the same concerns that I brought up um at our last meeting um that I think this project needs a higher level of scrutiny um being in a CS zone um and being at the west side of town as we're seeing development um that this requires a higher level of scrutiny. So um I'm still no.

Okay. Anybody else? Is there anybody in the audience who would like to make public comment on this item? Is there anyone online? Please raise your hand if you'd like to make public comment. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Bring it back to council for further discussion or a motion. I move to approve agenda item six. with the new resolution that states the front fence would be 4 feet tall. We have a motion by councelor Pino, second by councelor Barnes.

All those in favor say I. I opposed. No. Okay. Motion passes 51 and councelor Swintech recused himself. No. Okay. We'll move on to item number eight, an ordinance amending chapter 26 of the Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code replacing section 402 amending articles 234 and 8 and the appendencies to update the landscape code for water conservation wildlife resiliency minimum requirements PL 20250313. Bob, hello. Good evening. My name is Bob Keenan. I have a presentation prepared for you.

Yes. Yeah, I think that would be good, right? I mean, again, this is, you know, we've all I think a great change and um a significant change. So, I think, you know, I know it's been fully vetted.

There's been a lot of community engagement, but there's probably a lot of folks in the community that um may not be aware of this. So, I think it's important that we do spend a little bit of time Just about there. One second. Okay, maybe not. All right. Uh, yes. Um, excited to be here tonight in front of you guys. Um, it's it's been a while while in the making. Uh, but we think we have a a great product here. Um, my name is Bob Keenan. I'm the development review manager for the city planning department and I'm co-presenting with Julie Baxter, our water resources manager. Um, just a quick overview of the intent here. Uh the purpose from the beginning was to create a clear practical standards um to support our community's goals uh regarding landscaping, water efficiency, wildfire resiliency as adopted in uh numerous uh plans that we

have. Uh the as noted, it's been a multi-year effort. Um there's there's been some unforeseen challenges along the way, but as I said, I think that's given us uh the time to actually uh really dial this in. So, we're excited about it. As a reminder, this is uh the applicability remains unchanged. This is for multif family and commercial development um not single family in duplex. um more specific to the goals of the project uh to improve our the readability and usability over our um current landscape standards. Uh the strengthen the community resiliency through water conservation and wildfire protection and to also provide a a list of regionally appropriate plantings that are tail tailored to our our local climate here. Uh and then along the way um there's a number we kicked the project off and then the state started adopting some new new codes and policies that related uh to landscaping and what we were doing. Um and that was the Colorado wildfire fire resiliency code that was adopted uh by you all in March uh of this year. Uh and then um some bills dealing with uh artificial turf and non-functional turf and irrigation of those and the water consumption from those. Uh like I said, the community plan alignment uh it aligns with uh the plans shown here on the screen, climate action plan, our water conservation plans, uh wildfire protection plan, our hazard mitigation plans, and the community plan. uh the the community canvas. Uh so along the way we received technical support from a number of entities. Uh first and foremost our stakeholder group. It was and more of a

internal stakeholder group of of uh local and regional experts as shown there. Um we also consulted with a zoning uh code consultant team uh which kicked us off and got us our first draft. uh we worked with NWCCOG uh they helped us provide uh guidance on um water conservation measures the best practices uh we've worked with SPAW and uh they were helping us with our wildfire resiliency standards uh and then later on in the project we decided to contract with uh Norris design a landscape architecture consultant to test and and give did a test run our draft code just to see where there are any kinks and that was time well spent. Uh we made some good adjustments based on that feedback. So um uh at this point I'm going to turn it over to uh Julie and she's going to talk a little bit about water conservation.

Hello Julie Baxter, water resources manager. Um, part of my role is to coordinate our water conservation plan and to help manage uh many of the water conservation activities um for the water utility in partnership with Mount Warner Water District and really all of our city departments. Um, so I'm here to talk for a few minutes um to emphasize the importance um of these new water efficiency standards in the landscaping code um for the water utility um for achieving the goals in our water conservation plan. Um as well as some of the other activities that we're doing to help support these proposed changes. Um and so some of you have heard some of these talking points before, but just starting with why is water conservation really important to our community and our city? We are a water utility, a drinking water provider. It's a critical lifeline utility. It's one of the most important services we provide um as a city and water conservation is how one of the ways that we really ensure the reliability of our water supply so that we have flexibility and the resiliency in the face of years like this um and snow packs like this prolonged droughts wildfire um in the Fris Creek wershed calls on the Yampa River and and potentially the Colorado River compact calls. Um so it also helps us save money because it delays the needs for expensive capital improvement projects and expansions which then increases um our customers rates. Um it helps protect the health of our Yampampa River. Um especially in drought years when you know the the less that we divert the more stays in the tributaries in the river. Reduces our carbon footprint. Treating water takes a lot of chemicals and energy. Um and we just know it's something that our community um members really value. It's connected to environmental sustainability, disaster resiliency, lower water bills. Um, so all things that are valued by our customers. Um, so incorporating these

water efficiency standards into our development code helps us tr, you know, transition to a built environment that is more resilient, that helps meet our community's goals for efficiency and resiliency. Um and in years like this which are likely to be more common in the future um onethird of all um our water use like averaged over the year is outdoor water use and national studies estimate that about a half of outdoor water use um is wasted. Um so this is this is why focusing on our landscaping code is important. Um and and it is one of your city c one of our goals as city council. It's in the city's uh strategic plan. Bob ran through the list of all these other plans that is in the climate action plan. The water conservation plan is part of our growing water action strategy. So we've been saying we're going to do this for a long time. We've worked on it the last few years and this is where the rubber really hits the road. Um so in developing and sort of figuring out identifying what the appropriate standards are to propose for water efficiency you know we were you know began debating like well how do we start li limiting turf and then the state passed this law and made it easy for us. Um and so that's as as Bob mentioned that's incorporated in the code. Um, we also looked at what model codes were out there, best practices documents from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Department of Local Affairs, Western Resource Advocates. Um, we looked to our peer like other communities in Colorado. A lot of the front range communities implemented these types of standards several years ago. Um, Telleluride and Aspen have more stringent codes and the ones that we're posing are sort of along the same lines as um, Glenwood Springs and uh, Durango and Grand Junction. Um, so let's see here. And an important part of these standards is requiring qualified professionals put together the

landscape and irrigation plans. Um so these are professionals that are trained for to meet water efficiency um to design for um varying site conditions for our tough mountain um conditions and um really understand how to apply the technical standards. So we believe that'll this will reduce staff time in review um and for developer this can mean cleaner plan reviews, fewer reset metals, fewer installation errors, um and better long-term performance and cost savings for property owners. So I mentioned that these national studies show about 50% of outdoor water use is wasted. Um and that's mainly due to loss, runoff, overspray, inefficient systems. Um, and most of that is in design and installation errors. Um, so just to wanted to make you aware of some of the things that we're doing to help support these changes, we um on Monday our new water quality and conservation specialist started, Jenny Fritzen. So we will have, you know, introduce her to you at a council meeting soon and she'll she'll be helping to work on a lot of these water conservation activities. Yes, we're so excited. Um, and we are also we last summer we rolled out the new rebate program for to help community members that want to upgrade their irrigation um systems to be more efficient. We continue to work with Western Resilient Center on our education and outreach program in partnership with Mount Warner Water. That includes the new garden in the box program that rolled out last year. It's continuing this year. Um, we're looking into hosting a qualified water efficient landscaper, a quell training for our landscapers that offers, it's a certification program through the EPA water sense program. And that um we will we'll offer that for free and that would let landscapers um they would be able to achieve a

certification um in irrigation auditing, efficient auditing. Um and then I know you all are aware of some of the great work that the parks department has been doing to make our our facilities and our parks more efficient in our water use. Um so this is a shared effort across many um departments, but the land the um planning department has taken the lead on this very critical um foundational component to achieving our water conservation goals. Um and so I'll turn it back over to Bob to talk a little bit more about what those specific changes are. Thanks, Julie.

All right. Yeah. And and so some of the key changes from what the existing landscape code requirements, you you'll see we've actually um backed off some some requirements in some cases for the amount of landscaping required uh with the elimination of the parking lot setback requirement. We now have a screening uh parking lot screening requirement to replace that. Um we uh the entry corridor landscape uh requirements were like almost double the landscaping required on along the frontages for those c and we found that just to be an excessive amount of landscaping. Um and keep in mind we're you know with along with water conservation you know obviously the number of plants you put out there is is contributing to the water usage. So, um, that's one of the the the goals and I should back up like we try to provide a balance, right? We still want to have a beautiful community. There's a lot of benefit from landscaping and plantings uh, as you all know. Um, so and there so there's competing interest between that water conservation uh, and wildfire resiliency, right? So, it's just this kind of balancing act, but we think we've we've kind of hit the hit a good sweet spot with this. Um but I I do want to like just note these um these changes here. Um uh the amount of frontage landscaping has been uh slightly reduced. Uh we've eliminated the interior landscape requirements and I'm happy to answer any questions on these. Um but I don't want to take up too much time here. um the minimum uh size of trees and shrubs um have been uh reduced uh for what needs to be planted on day one. Um and then compliance with the wildfire resiliency code will inherently limit the number of plantings uh particularly on tight sites. Um what um

like I mentioned with the new screening requirements, we we've allowed some um some flexibility where a property owner can choose to build a wall or a fence and reduce the number of plantings and the depth required for that screening area or they can choose to not do that and just have more uh depth and landscaping uh for their screening area. And then uh what's new is parking lot perimeter and repairarian buffer landscaping. Uh water conservation, we've talked about this, Julie brought up um that plans uh uh for landscape and irrigation are to be prepared by a qualified professional. Uh require uh plants and landscaping to be based on the city maintained plant list. I'll explain a little bit more about that here in a minute. uh 75% of plannings must be native or low water needs. Um standards increase standards for efficient irrigation systems. Um and we will no longer require permanent irrigation for for plantings that qualify as low water needs. Uh they will need to be temporarily irrigated to get established but that for a period of time but then but permanent irrigation would not be required for those. As noted, we're incorporating aspects of the uh wildfire resiliency code um along with the class 2 defensible space requirements and maintenance requirements. Uh plant list. So there's currently a plant list in the community development code that has not been updated in quite some time. uh we are planning to planning to pull that out of the code. So it could be a living document that we can update without having to go through ordinance and uh have some flexibility and and how that's uh how that lives. Um

it includes uh water like the water needs it's whether it's native uh the canopy spread the height of the trees etc. Uh it includes a list of irrigation resistant plantings that uh support the fire code and um we've derived this plant list uh by researching uh regional appropriate uh plants uh reviewing comparable community plant lists and along with input from local experts and uh nurseries. Um there's edits to other sections that are required to make the changes. we are making to the landscape standards uh such as uh the zone and district standards, screening standards for uses uh buffering and fencing development standards and some definition new definitions. our public outreach efforts for this project. Uh we've worked with the communications department to issue press releases. Um summarizing the proposal and listing up upcoming hearing dates as well as making note of our dedicated web page on engage steamboat. Um we've emailed uh notifications to those that subscribe for code updates. We have a list of those that subscribe for regular code when we update our codes and then we send direct emails to our common development applicants and consultants. Uh next steps would be second reading on May 19th. Uh and then staff uh has some post adoption work to do with public outreach and updating submitt requirement forms and getting things prepared for the proposed uh start on July 1. And with that, I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you, Bob. All right. Thanks. Um, questions for Bob. I had one quick question for you. Is is the plan to um do single family and duplexes at some point in time in the future? a phase two. And because the state has initiated some rules surrounding single family use um um water um and irrigation for um sorry non-functional turf um we do that is another phase that uh we need to be working with. Is that is Julon is there a time frame around that at all?

Do you have any thoughts on that? I think we have a little time on like meeting this the state requirement. They passed some additional legislation that requires that communities limit turf for single family residential, but there's it's not as prescriptive. We have more leeway to figure out how we would do that. Um I don't know off the top of my head when the timeline is, but we have a little time. Yeah. Yeah. End of the year. Okay. Questions? Yeah, I have a quick question. Um the requirement that we have have have to have a landscape a certified landscape architect certify that is that a state law or is that a steamboat specific law?

This would be a well it'll be our law that they need to follow the Colorado revised statutes for the requirements of landscape architects. So we're basically referencing the state law and so this is this is that that requirement is coming from the state. Yes. Okay. Yep. And uh number do we have an idea of number of certified um architects in Colorado that a landscape architects? I I did not research that. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. And on that vein um that was the one I'm I think it's important

um to have a land in California where I come from every property has landscape architect. It's part of the requirement to get a project through development. If I understand you correctly, that's not a requirement for single family or duplex. That's correct.

Right. And um it would just be for multif family and for this code to have a licensed architect. My concern is as we're working through some of the developments and I think we need to have this for the right reasons that you guys mentioned, but how many licensed or qualified landscape architects are within Rout County? I mean, are we going to all of it? I mean, we you've been asking for some engagement, but are we now going to put all the development on notice that says y'all should have been working on this or now you need a licensed architect? So, that's part of the question. The other question is what really deems qualified because it seemed like it's either landscape architect or nothing because we really don't identify what qualified means,

right? And we are going to uh to answer your last part of that question, we're going to put out um some guidance on what specifically that means. But there is it is a landscape architect. The qualified professional um for irrigation is uh is another um aspect of that. Um as far as the number of landscape architects in town, I don't know the exact number. I think there's only a few. Um however um most of the the plans landscape architect or the land landscape plans that we see are are from consultants across Colorado and and um so it's you know in this day and age everything's digital and um working with consultants outside of our community is not uncommon.

Can I follow up with that same question? Yeah. So but I want to clarify again this is not coming from the city. This is coming from or or the county. This is coming from a state requirement, right? But we are reinforcing the state requirement. So whenever it's required by the state, it'll be required by us. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So Bob, is there a min is there a minimum? So I got a commercial property and I I want to do a repair to my parking lot or I want to put a little addition on. Is there a minimum? Like my project costs $10,000. Do I have to and I'm going to remove one bush and replace one bush? Do I have to go get a licensed architect to stamp

stamp that revision or is there is there a minimum amount? I'm just worried about the bureaucracy of that. We haven't specified a minimum amount and I I think we would need to reference the state code to see

what um allowances they have there on on whether that would be exempt, right? Those minor uh Yeah. I don't know though. I don't know. I mean, do you guys have a lot of latitude within, um, planning to, you know, uh, massage the code or to look at those things or are we going to be hearing a whole ton of new variances on landscaping? Uh, well, we don't have the ability to do it without your authority and through ordinance. Um, but we just like many and maybe not if not all of our rules and regulations, you know, we find problems with them and we we you know, you've seen the co regular code updates the planning department brings this group and and we will certainly be tracking any problem areas and and coming in to try and try and fix those. And yeah, I mean it's it won't be perfect. I can guarantee that. But we we feel like we've got a good a good uh solid um code.

Just have a it's okay. A couple one like scenarios on on the parking lot screening. Um so if somebody buys a a retail frontage spot and wants to develop it. Um now will they and they have parking in front of their building, will they be screening themselves from the visibility of the road? Uh the the intent is to screen the the parking parking lot and um mechanical areas and that sort of thing from Yeah. from the road. So if I'm a car dealer and I put in a new car dealership and I walk frontage, my whole parking lot's going to be hidden,

right? Yes. Mhm. And it's not if you buy it. It's only when you you propose a new one or you make changes to what's existing there and those existing those areas of the site that you're proposing to change would now need to comply. Is there any merit in in keeping those those road frontages visible because I mean that that's a big to those

Yeah. And I say screening and it's not just it's not a wall of landscaping as as I understand the the amount of plantings that are going to be required. So there is there is um you know it's softening I guess it's not like uh unless you you know you you go to that wall if they which I wouldn't think they would elect to do um the wall um technique um and I also should mention regarding variances you know that's there we have the variance process for unique situations that can't be anticipated or are regularly anticipated to happen. Um so um we may need to utilize the variance but it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Yeah. I have a two questions. One around the compliance timeline. Is this enough time for everyone to adjust? I'm flashing back to our snow melt when I think we did it very quickly and then we had a bunch of stuff that came back that it was like we were in the middle of this.

Yeah. um you know it's it is a couple months away but we've actually but we've also been you know we've been doing public outreach on where we're going with this um and we've been um sharing this like the wildfire resiliency code standards that are coming up at the same same time July 1 um as as we've been giving heads up when we have presemal meetings and and that sort of thing right and then but I mean it's not yeah some people will probably still be surprised that but we're trying to cover as much as we can. Yeah.

Um and then my second question in the planning commission there was a lot of dialogue about industrial zones and I think specifically around screening. Can you summarize what the concerns were on both sides?

Yeah. Um regarding then that particular situation um the reference was for real small lot industrial where those those lots are being maxed out from setback to setback and with the uh it would it was really the only the the requirement for the perimeter landscape because everything else is kind of has been reduced um that the perimeter landscape sorry perimeter parking lot landscape requirement um would um would be impactful to the development of those lots. Um and so that's the yeah

uninitiated language. What does that mean? So like if I'm developing an industrial now I need to line my drive in with trees like what the perimeter the what does that mean in a so like so the edge of your parking lot you know if you had you know if you had a 25 foot of sorry space parking lot and the the edges of it the perimeter not the front but the basically just be the sides. Okay. Uh in the rear if it if it bumped up against a property line or didn't have a building between it. Uh there's a requirement to have plantings every 50 or so feet number of plantings. Um

that's a sixoot screen right?

That's six foot wide. Yes. Mhm. Yeah. Six foot wide area. Um, and that is to so we have the the requirements and we've had we currently have them in the code for landscape islands, but we those are just for the interior. There's been nothing to shade uh provide water quality on the perimeter and also to soften the uh parking lots from adjacent properties. um you know an industrial you know we have a lot of res we have quite a bit of residential in indust in our industrial we have a you know we allow a mix of uses there. Um so um that that was the thought process be behind the perimeter landscaping and and how it would apply to industrial

and the residential component of that it makes it more livable. Was that the What's that for res? You were saying because we have a lot of lot of residential to um to buffer uses uh between properties. Got it. Yep. Uh and landscaping. Um Yep. Okay. Thanks.

I had a couple questions. Um, and I was going through the code addendum, the 74 pages, and and just something that caught me a little bit off was the turf, grass, and artificial turf under section 5A, um, page 10ish, whatever. It says, "The standards of this section apply to all non-resident properties and land owners, common interest, homeowners." And then it says B says installation of nonfunctional turf and artificial turf are prohibited except where turf is considered functional. If we're trying to do water conservation, why would we prohibit any artificial turf at all?

Uh well, there's a lot of um impacts from artificial turf. Um and uh I know I've asked myself the same question when I saw that. That's so that comes right out of the state bill. So that's state law. Um and so we've incorporated that into our landscape code. But um it it degrades the soil health. Um it it you know ruins all the insects. It doesn't provide any environmental benefits. Uh it's contributes to poor storm water runoff. Um uh what else am I missing there? Um yeah, I mean it does consistent with water conservation on a common sense. I'm like this that would be Mhm.

you know now as a again multif family commercial projects that would want that little artificial turf. I can only think of one area in steamboat which is along a ski way where the high mark is and instead of putting grass along the sidewalk they have a little artificial turf running the whole way. Would that be non part of this? That would be out of compliance. Correct. Yeah. I mean they it's grandfathered until some understood but that would that's an example of where multiuse has used this product before. That's my understanding. Yeah.

The other concern that I have and I just kind of want to I I'm I'm all about the the plant list and I look through this plant list and I'm very familiar. My father's a landscape architect in California. I would never want him to design me something in Colorado, right? Because the plants that he would pick and the climate and everything would be totally different. So, I I see the the value of pulling that out of um the code. the plant list. Um, but I do want to caution when does the authority of the city, the city council at that time, again past my tenure, would there be someone that who's going to oversee if who who gets to dictate the plant? The plan the current planning director gets to say that plant's good or bad and that's the the last say or

I'm just concerned. There's no checks and balances with some of these plants and I I like where we're at, but I don't know what you guys have planned for that aspect. Yeah, there is an allowance um in in the draft code that says that the with the approval of the director, something that's not on the list that still meets the goals and intent of, you know, regionally appropriate landscaping can be considered by the planning director. And I guess if the planning director was to say, "No, we're not going to accept that um it could um come in through a variance and you'd have an opportunity or Okay. Um that's good. Yeah. Um yeah. Or yeah, it would come out through,

you know, they really want either appeal if it was an administrative application or if it was an application that went before this group, you know, you'd have a chance to to uh to work on that. Cool. Yeah, those are my only things. I kind of went through it in detail, but those are the few things is the landscape architect and then this plant kind of the purpose of pulling it out. Most everything else seemed reasonable. Other other questions? Yes.

Y a quick question. Um, you know, again, thanks for all your work on this. I know this is it has been a while, right? We've talked about the landscape code for for a couple of years now. Um I was curious about the public comment that we got regarding hydro mulch and um you know the and how intense it is in terms of water use and because I was thinking about it more from the perspective I know the the landscape code also talks about like soil amendments. So I was curious like whether you talked about um things like hydro mulch or you know integrating compost into you know um I guess requirements as well given the propensity for you know compost uh you know with the soil amendments make the soil um healthier as well as water retention and is that something that gets did you talk about that at all? Is that something that's next phase just totally out of scope? Yeah, I guess it was kind of out of scope and um I think you know we're that's a reveation technique um which I think we could um I think I did you know I did share with the uh engineering department and it could be something that's looked at you know on our public works projects revitation or what we require for reveation of of sites that have been disturbed. Um, but it's not something that we've that's we felt was necessarily uh something we would require for landscaping for new development, if you will. It's kind of like a a construction kind of revge kind of technique versus something permanent, I guess, is is why that's not part of this.

Okay. Thank you. Yep. You're welcome. Anyone else? My question. I just had one quick question on turf sod for example. Yeah. Is that a high water usage sod?

It depends on what it is. And yes, I've been learning a lot about this myself. I'm no expert. Um but I the um the way the state law is written and how it's incorporated in our code and Julie can correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but the it doesn't prohibit sod so long as it's a like a regionally appropriate like fescue. It's it's been designed for aid climates and then you can use it all day long, but you can't use like the high water use Kentucky bluegrass unless you are a sports field, a golf course, a common space, and a and a development and that meets that definition of functional turf or or whatever the exemption is. I' I'd have to pull it back up.

Thanks. You're welcome. No other questions for Bob. Okay. Thank you, Bob. You're welcome. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone in the room who would like to make a public comment regarding this down?

Thank you. Um, good evening, city councilors and city staff. It's my pleasure to join tonight's meeting for the first time. Um, and have the opportunity to share a comment on behalf of Western Resilience Center. Um, I am the resilient water and wersheds director there and I've been in that role for just about 18 months now. We at Western Resilient Center wish to express strong support for the proposed updates to the landscaping code and staff's recommendation to approve the ordinance as presented. As a participant on the stakeholder team, we believe these amendments reflect best practices in water conservation and efficiency, balancing reduced water demand with maintaining aesthetics, pollinator habitat, and urban cooling. These updates are timely and proactive steps to protect our community's water future. Implementing stronger landscaping standard standards is essential to meeting the goals of the city's 2020 water conservation plan, the route county city and climate action plan, and the community plan while enhancing drought and climate resilience. With roughly 30% of treated water used outdoors, water wise landscaping and irrigation systems are practical, proven ways to stretch limited water supplies. We view the requirement that plans be prepared by a qualified professional as an important provision that ensures highquality implementation while importantly supporting city staff and their time and capacity by giving them the confidence they need to ensure that standards are met. We also appreciate the added flexibility that staff has provided clarification around and recognizing a range of qualifying landscape and irrigation related certifications. I would quickly like to underline that the city's adoption of landscaping code measures that conserve and protect our valley's precious water resources are appreciated and salient to our residents and partners. February and April community meetings which focused on drought and the city's water conservation plans for this summer

respectively with Julie Baxter as our second presenter in April drew record attendance of about 150 attendees per meeting. And this underscores that our community is concerned about water availability and interested in conservation solutions as climate variability increases, including the likelihood of more frequent lowwater years like this year. These code updates represent an important step toward preparedness. In closing, we strongly support these amendments and stand ready to assist the city in informing the community and supporting successful implementation. Prioritizing water conservation is essential to our economy, community, and quality of life here in the Yampa Valley. Thank you for your consideration and leadership.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else want to make a public comment in attendance tonight? Okay. If there's anyone online, please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will close public comment and bring it back to council for a motion on item number eight. Can I make one comment first? I don't know if are we going to Well, doesn't matter. Can I start with a comment? Um, so I apprec I agree with all this and I appreciate the sentiment specifically around industrial zone, but I so I am one of the people who live in an industrial zone. I don't know how else to say this other than like it's great like for many reasons it's given us a leg up. I don't particularly love living in an industrial zone. It is not a residential area. It is not pleasant to live in. And I don't think that it's b because of code. It is just because of the inherent use of the space. And it is a landscape graveyard. If you walk through there, there are trees that are like teeny stumps. There's just dead trees. Like things get planted and they just go there to die. And it is I don't think it's because of a lack of anything other than the fact that there's huge trucks flying up and down. They get backed into, they get rocks dumped on them. Like it is a hightra. It's an industrial space. People are going trying to go to one area and they drive up the other drive. There's a lot of in and out. So it's not even the developability that was raised in planning commission. It in my mind it's more the practicality. Like we can have this in here and they'll comply, but it will be just more dead sad shrubs in an industrial zone. Um, and the flip side, the other side that I'm thinking too is is as a residential living there, like would it be nice if it was more residentially? Yes. But also putting on my I don't live there hat. Like it's crazy that we have people living in an industrial zone. And do we really want

to make it nicer so people want to live in an industrial zone? Honestly, no. Like, do I benefit from it? Yes. But do you get what I'm saying? like it's like a yeah, people live there and so we're trying to make it nicer, but it's not actually going to change the fact of it is what it is. So, I would love to see just the changes in here to remove those things with for industrial zone. I don't know what specifically I would ask staff, but like just from a practicality point of view, my own experience

to summarize. So, you're saying like the way that this landscape code does not relate to single family or or duplexes or industrial zones is what? Yeah, it doesn't it just the implementation like it doesn't it will I don't see it actually achieving what the actual goal is cuz they'll all be run over and dead and not cared for of residential creep into industrial. No, I get it and I thank you for the personal experience. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So the when if I you know make comment and actually I was going to say you know come around the same lines and in fact the the two uh commissioners who opposed it was imposed around the the having these requirements for the industrial zone because they industrial zone does have um unique requirements like or doesn't or things that they don't have. They don't have glazing requirements. They don't have um setbacks, you you know, things like that. But um I support that. I support the having um uh that we we have the landscape in industrial zones. Not so much that you are is for the interior but for softening up the exterior for as you as you're driving down in the through the industrial spaces that you just don't see you know large you know large you know tin cans you know down the street. I think you know having some softness there at the street level and that's what this is asking for um at the just at the street not the interior. Um, I support that. So,

I get that, but I'm saying they need to mature and grow in order to provide that. And what I'm saying is is like I think about 70% of them will end up just being mowed down and killed. But it's if it if it's a code requirement, then they it's then they'd be out of compliance if they do mow them down. So, but I I don't Well, I don't know. Is that true? enforcement like are but are people enforcing that? Like I can point walk you down the street and point out like a lot of dead trees there made aware of it. We we can you say it like has to be there. Well landscaping that was shown on a

shown on a development plan that needs to stay in perpetuity. Yeah. Um if it dies so it needs to be replaced. Uh, and I just while I'm up here, that that requirement applies to parking lots of 15 spaces or larger. So, smaller parking lots, it it wouldn't even come into play. Can I ask a question, Dan? Can can planning commission approve the variances for landscaping code and we hear appeals? I don't know. Do you know what the process is? Uh, for would come in through a development plan with a variance. um and to approve a variation to our landscape requirements. I

mean, could planning commission approve those variances? Oh, not without it going to city council currently as have we have all of our variances structured? There are major variances. They go to city council. I'm just not sure how many one shrub variances I want to hear. So, you are adopting a code as proposed. So, you could also change the procedures if you wanted to. I was that's kind of my question is do we want to change those procedures and hear the appeals on landscaping code? I'm all for the water conservation. I think there this is going to be a a proof of concept as we go forward and it could add a lot to our is your

that there's a can you speak to your mic? Yeah, I I guess I would like to just see us move forward. We are discussing right? We are discussing. Okay. in terms of what we've got in place. And I think as we've said, it's an iterative process and see what you know works and what doesn't work. Yeah, there there's a bigger discussion within that. I think that would need to happen because it's hard to just take some variances to city council and others stop at planning commission. I think we just want to really kind of be holistic about how we approach that because there there may be good reason why the city council wants to give more authority to the planning commission for those for variances. But

well, I think we'll find out once things are implemented here and we can make changes accordingly. Yeah, I I I support it as is. I appreciate staff um work on this. It's a massive undertaking. So, thank you. Um, and we have been talking about this for a while on city council. Um, and I think there is more benefit than just aesthetics. Um, and so I don't want to lose sight of that. Um, and so I approve it and if we have um, a lot of variances, we talk about them. But then, but uh, make changes now. We don't know what the outcome will be seems um, yeah,

we'll see. The only other comment I'd like to make is and just just u just saying that the additional cost that's going to go into development. Um that was also brought up in the planning commission meeting notes and and some one of the commissioners that has had real life experience and could look back at those and and see what the additional cost would have been in those projects. I think it's just good that we note that for um the community for developers and and for people with small commercial businesses that that this code might affect. So, uh, like I said, I'm I'm all for the um for the water conservation. I think there's there's going to be a lot of a lot of comeback to us for this.

Well, time will tell on that one. We'll see how it goes. Are we ready for a motion? It will be voting no. Not because I'm against water conservation, but just because I don't think I can't apply logic with the industrial zone thing. I just know from experience I do not think it'll accomplish it. Okay. All right. Well, I would like to make a motion to approve um agenda item eight. Eight. Thank you. I do have my reading glasses on. I still can't see it. Um eight, the ordinance amending chapter 26 of our revised municipal code. Um yeah, second.

Okay, we have a motion by councelor Dixon, a second by councelor Aosta. Any other comments? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. No.

Okay. Motion passes. 52. We'll move on to item number 10. I just wanted to add as we start to see variances or in the industrial zone, those are the those are the triggers for me to want to relook at the code. we continually are getting people asking for variances or denial of because of a certain plant or requirement in that zone. Um, after, you know, we get a few of these, we should really stop and look at it. But if nothing happens and it doesn't come to us or any of you guys down the road, that's that's what we have to look at, you know, when code changes come. So, thank you. Okay. Sorry, Steve.

All right. We'll move on to item number 10. First reading of an ordinance reszoning property located within Hilltop Resort Condominiums parcel one city of Steamboat Springs County of Route State of Colorado from multifamily residential to a custom planned unit development zone district described and depicted in exhibit A for the Hilltop Resort PUDPL 20250398. Kelly, good evening. Kelly Douglas, senior planner. Good evening. Um, would you like me to give you a presentation? Did you have specific questions? Okay. Uh, tonight's request is a planned unit development or we'll refer to it as a PUD. It's at 1000 High Point Drive. It's known as the Hilltop Resort property. The request is to modify the underlying N MF zone district to allow hotel use to be considered as a conditional use at this location. Uh no new construction, expansion or site modifications are proposed as part of the application. Um this is a reasonzoning the property as background. The property was originally developed in 1972 as a ramada hotel. That was prior to annexation into the city. Um, in 1996, the hotel use was terminated through a minor development permit that converted the property into the timeshare uh multiple family residential use. Today, the site contains 56 units in as well as 21 lockoff rooms and is served by 114 parking spaces. Uh over time the operation of the property has gradually shifted away from traditional time share occupancy toward transient lodging through centralized management of units. This operational shift it occurs over time um without the property

owners influence or consent. These are individual fractional owners that are defaulting or selling over time. So, not the property owner's aspect to manage uh and changes there. There's also been no changes to the physical uh development either. This has all been internal. Um the applicant is requesting the PUD in order to allow hotel use to be reviewed through the conditional use process at this specific property. So, again, a PUB is very custom to this specific property, not the entire zone district. the zoning here. Um, and as such that there was a conditional use application that's also been reviewed that was approved by planning commission. Um, and that approval only becomes in effect upon approval of this ordinance. So, they're they're linked together. Um, regarding recommendations, the planning commission held a hearing on April 9th. They recommended approval of the PUD, the 4-2 vote. uh planning staff consistent with their recommendation, we recommend approval. We've received some final sorry, finally, we've received some public comment uh opposing statements that have been primarily related to the contention of High Point Drive. Um happy to answer any questions applicants here as well. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Kelly. Does anybody have any questions for Kelly at this point? um related to the High Point Drive and Long View 3. Um the development that was um approved by us a few years ago that said they would improve High Point Drive. It seems like that's a an area of concern for citizens and the public that it's a private road and it's not maintained. Um it was a part of the development agreement with the Long View 3 subdivision, the lot three, whatever property that is. And yet we're, you know, 18 months or two years away from that. If they don't pull a permit, that development agreement is now null and void. As we're looking at this, there's been a lot of concern, the sticking issue both with planning commission and with some of the public comment is related to the maintenance of that road in perpetuity. Who owns that road right now? Uh, right now I understand it's the Hilltop Resort.

So, the Hilltop owns it. And in that development agreement that they had with whoever was going to brought us that application for all those apartments, they were going to rem redo that whole road with a sidewalk and redo to to city standards. Has that been in any of your discussions with the applicant right now?

Um, sure. Yeah, we've discussed that a lot. It's come up in public comment. Uh we discussed the road a lot internally as staff when we were reviewing the planned unit development as well as the conditional use application um application of the complete street standards. I think that's kind of generally what you're referring to what would bring that road up to the standard of the city of our engineering standards. Um that's related to the scope of the proposal and for this proposal there is no change. So consistent with how you know we review developments um there's no additional traffic proposed as a result of this you know the scope of the of the request does not necessitate improvements at this time. Uh so that's how we've applied it. Um staff feels confident that's the correct application. Um but certainly planning commission, city council have the ability to add conditions um you know the applicant agrees to that are reasonable. Um so that's how we've applied it. It's certainly been part of the discussion, but again the the outcome has been based on the scope. So Dan, when it comes to looking at an application like this where it's not necessarily directly related to the increase of use, it's just a transfer from a multif family one to a PUD. What um does city council have any leverage at all to get that road back up to city standards or is this outside the scope of this conversation? Well, in order to require that a developer um spend money to construct an improvement, you've got to show that there is a a nexus between the improvement and the impacts of the development. And that is a constitutional requirement. That's the rough proportionality and rational nexus um elements that you may have heard about. So um in this case you would have

to find that this change of use creates impacts to um to the access road and that those are somewhat proportional to the amount of work that you want done. Um this is an interesting situation in that it you are being asked to basically acknowledge what is already out there. um you know the use changed from the residential use through the default of time share owners which is uh it's kind of an interesting situation in that you've had a lot of individual time share owner decisions have over time added up to a change in use. So you know we can't really point to a moment in time where the property owner changed their use. It it just kind of happened and that is the situation you're looking at today. So, um, yeah. I mean, is that enough of an answer?

Kind of. I mean, it just, you know, not yes or no. I mean, we as city council have the ability to require them to do anything or not really at this point. Well, I I guess I would ask you, is there anything in the application that makes you think that that approving this change of use is going to create additional impacts to the to the road? No. Yeah. And if that's your answer, then then no, you don't have a constitutional basis to require the developer to improve the road. Okay. there was a change in use that caused an increase in the use of the road and this event marks the acknowledgement that there was that change.

Yeah. And so that you would and you were pointing back to this this history of the time share units turning into hotels over time. Um so so there there is that change in use and then we would also need evidence that that the ch that that change from the residential time share use to hotel itself creates impacts um which you know that that may be the case. I think hotels are generally viewed as being a more intensive use than than time share. Um but I don't know if we have any we didn't do a a traffic study on this did we?

Um I don't have the answer. Can I ask this question? Does the PU does granting the PUD allow them in the future to make improvements to the building without addressing the road that's there? The PUD is basically zoning. Is there a development aspect to the PUD?

No, this is a strictly a reszoning application. And the only aspect of the zoning, the underlying zoning that is proposed to change is what the zoning procedure, the way we allow a hotel use to be considered. If any new development was proposed, additional parking spaces, additional units, additional space that isn't units, like a ballroom or a restaurant, but that would all come back through the development plan process that is appropriate based on our applicability in our code, how big it is, the scope. Um, anything that require major variance would come back to this body. So, it wouldn't be a workound to around improving the road.

No, by no means. This is absolutely a um it's sort of a solution to uh it it's it's what staff has found to be the most reasonable solution to solve an issue that has kind of come to light. Um we can't point to when exactly it moved from one use to another. This use is to reuse your it's very interesting. It's kind of on a sliding scale. who's in the unit, a fractional owner or someone that rented it for the night changes the use. So that is always moving around. So from a staff perspective, you know, the one perspective, we look at it from many to come up with these recommendations. But from a staff perspective, that's that's same same if you will. So I hope that helps.

Just one other question. In living here for 30 years, I've never driven up that road till this afternoon. Um, so, um, going through the 7in puddle at the bottom and going up through the road. Who owns the stretch from the parking lot up the hill where it turns to dirt? Is that is that the from US 40 up the road that way? Well, from the park from the top of the parking lot up to the next road where it turns to dirt and it's just who owns that portion of that road. You want to speak to that? I think that's the same folks. Yeah. No. Okay, I'm mistaken. Good thing you asked.

So, for me, it was just more of an aspect of of what TR and there's a paragraph in the um report in our a packet that just basically talks about this is a zone change. The use change isn't changing. If they build the 110 units, the increase in traffic then triggers a sidewalk, a brand new road, and fix the bottom of that where it hits US40. Other than that, we don't really have a leg to stand on, per se. Well, and I think just a point of clarification is the 110 units is the other development. The other development. Yeah. Right. Exactly. Long view right. What happens to the property if we don't change the zone?

They're operating under a use it. Okay. This this is easy.

Uh I think the use would have to cease. And I did just want to ask a question because I I I may have been reading and missed the comment but um the application does I mean right we talk about the uses but it does include four workforce units right that's correct um this application does not the conditional use approval that's contingent on this approval does those four workforce units uh are proposed those would require a limited use permit and they are proposed within nonunit space within the building. So there'd be no external improvements or changes. Uh and we've already done a parking analysis. So we know that there is enough parking to support the use now and the addition of the four workforce units. Um so yeah, that is a that is four additional units. However, I understand from the applicant those units are intended for employees. So from an impact standpoint, I think that actually lessens the impact. People are coming and going less. Um anyway, yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Does uh Yes. Um so John Senator, if you correct me if I'm I'm wrong, but my understanding is once a road is a private road, this is a private road. Once a private road is actually developed, there are no maintenance and no compliance requirements after that point unless it becomes overly, you know, a health or safety, you know, issue at some point. Is that correct,

John Snder, public works director? And yes, that is correct. Once it's built and ex and uh approved, there is no maintenance standard other than an impassibility which is then a function of safety, right? And I guess there, you know, some people could say, well, we I can certainly see why why they were saying this. Um, you know, there was a lot bunch of landmines um up and down that road that have since been filled in. Um but yeah, they were there for years and they miraculously this past couple days they got filled in. So

is there any cross easements that we know about um um fire access easements for the neighborhood for that road? Uh I'll look to Ryan, but I believe there is a public access easement and emergency access easements. The road's required, right? The road has to stay. I believe is there any maintenance standard for that? No. And I believe as part of the process, right, this did go through I mean the fire and and and the kind of the safety, right? I mean in terms of looking at this Yes, it went through any red flags or any reason, right? It went across the fire marshall's desk. Yeah. Okay. Does does the applicant wish to make a statement or anything

and maybe you might have questions? Good evening everyone. My name is Alex Smith. I'm president of Anco Hospitality. Um, Kelly did a great job explaining the situation here. I have a presentation, but conscious of your time and, uh, any questions we'd like to run through, uh, I'm here to answer. I would ask one, uh, you mentioned, I don't have the exact wording, that you were open to discussion with the city or or around this road or you had what was it your maintenance agreement? I I don't have it handy right now. Yeah. During the planning commission meeting, there was a um a question if we would be open to entering in a maintenance agreement at that time. Yeah.

Uh with with the city and the planning commission. And uh I didn't feel it was right to agree to terms without even knowing the terms. Um so I wanted to take a step back and just acknowledge that we have an annual maintenance program that we do every spring uh for this road. Um there's a lot of high traffic, a lot of high frequency on the road. Um, some of them are hotel time share owners, some of them are connected to the neighborhood as well. Um, as the developer or Anco, we've been burying that cost for the last 20 years on the maintenance program. And that's basically what filling in potholes. Correct. And you will continue to do that. Correct.

Maybe just a a follow-up question to that. I think you said in the uh in the your comments before the planning commission that there is a you're there is a legal dispute going on regarding the road. Yes, there is um between two private entities um a dispute going on on a court-ordered stipulation agreement that's in place currently. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have a question? Do you have a plan for the future to improve the road? Uh

the plan is going to be working through this court-ordered agreement and the stipulation there. Um if that doesn't get resolved, then we will address it because it is a concern for us and it's a concern for the city.

Okay. Well, thank you.

Thanks for your time. Thanks, Alex. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to make a public comment regarding this item? Come on down, sir. State your name and address, please. And you have three minutes. Mark Friish, Post Office Box 774056, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. I represent Long View Village, Inc., an adjacent land owner um who has an easement across High Point Drive. The city is in the ideal position to request a muchneeded improvement to High Point Drive as a condition to the request of the plan unit development and um ordinance reszoning the property um made by the applicant within um Hilltop Resort Condominiums parcel one. There were some minor patches done to the road since um the planning commission meeting, but those patches are certainly inadequate to address the problems associated with High Point Drive. The proposed development on Outlaw 2, Long View Highland subdivision, required the rec reconstruction of High Point Drive to city specifications and dedication of the road to the city. This may never occur due to a conflict which exists between Long View Village, Inc. and Legacy Resorts and related entities. Specifically, Long View was accused of trespassing when it attempted to make improvements to High Point Drive. If the city is concerned about the health and safety of its residents and anyone who makes use of High Point Drive, it should address this issue as part of the approval of the requested planned unit development. Although Long View feels strongly that it has the right to make improvements to High Point Drive and has

done so before. Um, High Point Drive easement was used to build infrastructure to build a sanitary sewer for Long View Park, which consists of 64 homes. It is certainly possible this issue will need to be litigated. The city council requires improvements to be made to High Point Drive as part of this planned unit development. there uh there will be very little question that the work will be done a lot sooner and the need uh to litigate this issue certainly may disappear. Long View uses High Point Drive together with others based upon an easement. Requiring the owner of Highpoint Drive to make improvements which enhance the safety of the roadway makes the most sense. There is a long history of the owner of High Point Drive not maintaining the roadway and there is very little doubt of substantial improvements are necessary. The guests who use Hilltop Resort deserve a safe means of accessing the hotel. The adjacent land owners and their guests should not have to worry about their health and safety due to the poor manner in which High Point Drive is maintained. Improvements will not occur without the city making it a condition to the requested PUD. The PUD should come with an obligation to provide a public benefit other than four workforce units. The public benefit should be improvements of High Point Drive. The city should not be placed in the position of having to monitor the condition of private roads like Highpoint Drive. The best way of making high point drive safe for the use of the public is to make it a condition to the requested PUD. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Okay, we have um Walter McIll on line here. Walter, would you like to unmute and video and put on your video?

I have to have video. Uh let's see. Video. video. That's always a problem. See if I can do that. Video work. Oh boy. Well, I uh I may not have video and that is a requirement here. No, I'm not gonna be able to participate without that video. Huh? Is that required, Dan? Yeah. Yeah, that is in the the rules.

P for public comment or presentation. Uh participation in a quasi judicial hearing. Gotcha. I'll have to refrain with my comment. Thank you. Okay, Walter. Is there email? Is there anybody else online? Please raise your hand. Anybody else in the room who'd like to come up? State your name and address. You have three minutes.

Jim Black. I'm general counsel of Legacy Vacation Resorts in Anco. Excuse me. I live at 1884 Michael Faraday Drive in Restston, Virginia. Um, I just wanted to address a couple of things that Mr. Fri said because uh he conveniently omitted to mention that the obligation to improve and redevelop High Point Drive lies with his own client. There's a very simple way to get a brand new highpoint drive that's for his client to fulfill their legal obligations to do that. We have stood ready to deed over the road to the city anytime. We've spent countless hours, thousands of dollars in discussions and negotiations about how to make that happen and it hasn't happened. So, that's a pretty neat trick that Mr. Fri is trying to take an obligation of his client and have you shift it to my client when the road is not the subject of this PUD. So I think I would ask you not to take the bait. Um there is a legal standard and a legal process for High Point Drive to be redeveloped by Long View and for us to deed the road over to the city. We are completely willing to comply with that if Long View does its part and to this point they've done none of it. So, I just want to make that very clear. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in attendance who would like to make a public comment this evening? Seeing none and seeing none online, we will close public comment and bring it back to council.

So, I have another question for John. If the if the applicant had actually closed High Point Drive to any use beyond their hotel or time share, is that legal? I mean, is there a egress requirement for, you know, that uh that's that's there or so? I'm not certain because it's been a number of years since I read the documents, but I do not believe they could close it because I think it is a public access easement and a public emergency easement uh that also benefits the Long View neighborhoods.

Okay. So, it is a Okay. So, it is a safe it is a Yeah, it's a easement. Okay. Thank you. I don't know who to ask. Maybe it' be the applicant. Was there was there compensation for the easement when the easement was granted to the Long View neighborhoods

197 apologies. Uh this was a long time ago when the easement was granted. I'm not aware that there was consideration for that. Um the stipulation which is the legal document that lays out the process for the improvement now was entered in 2015 as a result of a litigation initiated by Long View. So that's and that was a dispute about the scope of the easement. Um so that resolved sort of what the easement means. They've been asserting that they can as they did last year send a crew up and shut down the road and reconstruct it without our consent and without apparently getting the proper permits. Um they were shut down uh by the city, not by us um because they didn't comply with the process that's required to do that. So they do have an easement. It's an access easement. It doesn't give them the right to do a wholesale reconstruction. uh we absolutely respect their easement rights and we think that's important. But again, the stipulation is the legal document that sets out the process and requirements including posting a bond in form and substance uh and amounts acceptable to the city before they commence that construction.

Is that where it comes up with the word trespass? So they claim that they were trespassing on this property. So they sent their crew up without talking to us. They were on our property, not just on the road. They destroyed some trees on our property adjacent to the road. Um, that was completely without our knowledge or consent or any prior discussion. So, we didn't file a complaint for trespass, but I think we could have. Different topic for not tonight. Yes, agreed. Thank you. Okay. Well, I think kind of just in following up on that comment, I mean, I do think that that this discussion is for another night and that we really need to focus on what's before us, which is the approval of the PUD,

right?

I would like to chime in. I we we're never going to get a direct answer from our lawyer whether or not in any one direction. I don't I feel pretty strongly I don't want to support this or do it with a require a condition to repair the road. The applicant is the one who owns and needs to maintain the road. And I feel that them applying for this does indicate a change in use that is a higher intensity use than it originally was. It's a business, more intensive use, more money. Why else would you be motivated to have it like this rather than keep it as a time share? So I actually personally think there is a case to be made here that this is a clear indication that there has been an increase in use and therefore repairing the road is necessary. So I would either support denying this or approving with a condition. That raises a question I like to ask um Kelly and that is if this was not passed what would be the implications of the the use um because they want basically what they they wanted they wanted to change

a hotel illegally right is that yeah so if this was not a I don't know what they're operating now is it is it is it a is it really a hotel that they have like a front desk and it operates totally as a hotel. And

uh yeah, I'll answer both questions. Um so to give you the context of the history because I think it's important to note that it was originally a hotel. It was a Roma in 1972. That was its original development before it was even annexed into the city. It was a hotel of the same size that it is today. And then it became a time share. And then it's drifted back to a hotel. Um the applicant in their narrative for the conditional use as well has described that this is a hotel operation their central management their central booking um if this use sorry if this zone map amend if this PUD zoning amendment because again the use is not the conditional use is not the application that's before you this evening it's the planned unit development the custom zone district so if that zone district changed the PUD modification was denied the use would have to cease Thank you.

Yeah. This Kelly, did this do we have any councelor Swintech brings up this notion of that since it's become a hotel versus a time share that it's more intense use, meaning occupancy is higher, road use is higher. Um, yet I remember reading in the PC minutes that that was not necessarily the case. Do we have any proof of that?

I think um okay, how would I explain that? I think it's really I've come to understand a lot more about time share, the structure of a time share. It's a little it's a little peculiar. Um units, they have fractional ownership. As people default, they don't get foreclosed on like a normal condo, let's say. they get absorbed back into the pool and rented that through that central there's no incentive to go through the foreclosure process. So they kind of I think what my perception is which you know please feel free uh Rebecca Dan anybody John that has a little more insight or if I'm misspeaking but the way I understand it is these units get absorbed back into the pool so they are essentially functioning like a hotel and they and as the number of units kind of shifts gets sold fractional ownership changes it it is operating like a hotel and it's been the same number of units uh the same occupancy for those units. You know, the number of people and obviously whether they get there by car or shuttle will impact, you know, the comingings and goings, but from staff's perspective, there's been a change of use. We can't exactly nail down when that happened. It's just not I don't based on the information I have the applicants provided, that's not possible for us to know at what moment it shifted from a time share to a hotel. And then I'd argue even further that that changes all the time when you have a mix of hotels and or when you have sorry when you have time shares that are centrally managed and fall back into that pool. It's just kind of impossible. It's moving daily as people come and go.

And my my other question is how did this come to to the surface now? What precipitated this coming up now after all these years of it transitioning over to a hotel? What what was the catalyst for I understand it came to light through uh like functions of our finance department that I you know would be kind of outside of my lane. I'm in a different department but um it came to light it came to our attention needed a solution and this was the most wasn't precipitated by the applicant.

Oh no no I think this was precipitated by uh the situation kind of coming to light. But I do want to push back because you're phrasing it as if when it's a time share and it's a hotel, they're the same thing. And they are not. The customer when it's a time share are other time share owners. It goes into the pool and the only people who could book it are, I believe, people who own time shares. When it's a hotel, it could be anybody. So the the it is not the same thing. The pool is different. If I have a time share building and I have one person who owns a time share, I'm not going to fill all 100 rooms. I have a hotel could have put an advertisement out and I could fill all hundred rooms. They're not the same. Do we have the Do you have the data to support that?

I don't I don't have the data, but I don't I that is not my job to to do that. That this would be our job to make that decision and then if the applicant would want to pursue it, go forth. I appreciate the assumption agreement, right? You would the individual time share owners would be responsible for for fixing the road, right? assessment because they own the road whereas as a hotel it would be the corp. Well, I want to make it clear that like we can't be positioning it as if it was the same thing when it was a time share and now it's the same thing when it's a hotel. Like they're not.

I don't know that we know that. I mean, I think that that's what I wanted to do is follow up on on councelor Montene's question, right? I mean, in terms of we talk we don't know whether there's more or less usage when between a time share and a hotel. And I think that goes directly back to Dan's point about the nexus and whether or not there's data to support that there is increased usage, you know, with this new PUD, which but again, and we go back to kind of what Rebecca says in, you know, during the planning commission is that this is, you know, this is really not part of this discussion tonight. Well, to answer that, I mean, Brian, with all due respect, um, when when a when a time share owner does not use their week, it's usually or almost always put back into a pool and rented by somebody else. I'm part of a time share in Vale, and I don't ever use my time share, and I bank it, and I get to rent it in Europe or Italy or California because I use somebody else's week who didn't use it there. It's part of the exchange program. So the time share up hit Hilltop, although it may not have owners using that, they're usually exchanged by those that want to come to Steamboat and use it. So in in essence, it is a daily hotel just like a hotel.

Those people are time share owners themselves. Yeah. And they're using it like a hotel. People is smaller than the customer of a hotel because I don't need to buy anything to book a hotel. That's fine. do another anecdote, you know, along that I, you know, back in I stayed at, you know, vacation international, which is over by the tennis owned by over by the tennis center. It was a time share owned by vacation international. It felt like a hotel. We're not talking about feelings. We're talking about facts here. It Well, it was full. All right.

Okay. Let's try let's let's try to keep this on the what we have to decide here tonight. PUD zone, you know. So, this has been changed to a PUD.

Yeah. So, here's here's where I'm at, you know, in terms of, you know, position is is I'm f I'm trying to find a way to deny this um because it's like they are not upkeeping in the road. They've never up the road. But the bottom line is we don't have maintenance requirements or compliance requirements on on that road. uh there are remote hotels that you have to take four drives to and so the fact that um you know that it is not well conditioned and we don't have any compliance requirements I I can't find a way to you know deny this um and so I'm going to support this and and support staff's recommendation.

Okay. Do others feel that way? Um yep. I am saying that I also support um SAP's recommendation. We are talking about a zone change. I get the road is in poor condition. In my mind, these are separate issues and I don't have all the information on what is really going on with the road. Like who's involved? There's a lawsuit. Like we don't I don't have all the info. And to me, these are separate issues. Um zone change versus the condition of a road. So, I'm supporting staff's recommendation. Okay.

I will. Yeah, I might I'll just um underscore what councelor Dixon said. Okay. Then um I think I'm hearing a clear consensus here. Would somebody like to make a motion? I motion to approve item number 10. Second. Okay. I have a motion by councelor Augusta, second by councelor Dixon. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? Thank. Okay. Motion passes six to one. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. We are moving on to public hearing motions and resolutions and ordinances. Number 13, second reading of an ordinance amending chapter 26 of the Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code by amending articles 1 through 8 to update references for the recently adopted community plan and adjust language for the expedited review process to maintain eligibility for Prop 123 funding to support development of affordable housing. PL202 600037. Toby, good evening.

Um, we discussed this at the first reading. Um, I could give a short presentation, answer any questions, whatever you'd prefer. Does anybody want a short presentation or does anybody have any questions? Toby, you did such a good job first time around. I am good. I like that. Good job, Toby. Good job. Okay, somebody

Let's go for public comment first. Well, I got to I got to ask for a public comment first. Is there anybody in the room who would like to make public comment on this or is there anybody online? Please raise your hand. If not, we'll close public comment and we'll go for a motion. Motion to approve agenda item 13. Second. Motion by councelor Dixon, second by councelor Pacino. All those in favor say I.

I. Opposed. Motion passes 70. Takes us to item 14, second reading of an ordinance vacating a snow storage easement located on Mountain Ventures 2, lot 1, PL 202600032. I'm covering this item for Kelly. Um, if you have any questions or want a short presentation, do that. This one I feel like we did not pull from consent. This is I think the second reading. Is that right for this last time around? Um, I don't I don't think so. Yeah. So, I don't Do we want a brief summary or are we all good? No. Does anybody want a brief summary?

Okay. This is your lucky night. Really quick, I'll go ahead so you feel comfortable. Um, the easement will be vacated and a new one will be rededicated. It's in a better spot and there's more room for snow storage. Yeah. Perfect. Thanks, Toby. Okay. Thank you in one sentence. Good job. Okay. Is there anybody who would like to make public comment regarding this item? Is there anybody online? Please raise your hand if you'd like to make public comment. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Bring it back to all of you for discussion or motion. Move to approve agenda item 14. Second.

Motion by councelor Pacino. Second by councelor Barnes. All those in favor say I. I. opposed. Motion passes 70. Thank you, Toby. Thanks, Toby. Thank you. Okay. City attorney report. I'll yield my time to the city manager. Okay. Does the city manager have anything they really want to say tonight? Uh, yeah, I do actually. Um, council, you had requested a update on the change in ownership of the lofts at base camp.

Um, and that how that might impact uh the city base camp partnership. Um, and I just have a little bit of information here um, thanks to uh, Brad. As you recall, the city um, provides an operating subsidy to the project um, such that some market rate units in the development are leased at reduced rates. um those rent rents affordable to households between 60 and 100% of the AMI. Um the staff met with the property manager to review the pricing plan for the apartments under the new ownership and the new owners have opted to significantly reduce those rents significantly reduce. Um the revised pricing results in rents that are affordable to households earning at less than 70% uh median income with many of the units offered at 50% of AMI. Um, so under the grant agreement, both parties have the option to terminate the agreement. And because the new pricing structure for the property delivers the affordability outcomes anticipated in the grant agreement, the city will provide notice of termination to the new owners because those that the the reduced rates do not apply to the city um to the uh units under the city agreement. Um, the grant agreement notes the termination will not affect existing tenencies, meaning existing program units will continue at existing rental rates and operating subsidies until existing leases end either at the original date or via an early termination. The net effect of termination is that base camp will not enter into new leases for units that will include a city contribution to cover the differences between affordable and market rents. And as noted, city payments to base camp will continue until the existing tenencies under the program end.

If you tenants move out prior to their term, do we get a rebate on the subsidy for unused months? I don't believe so. No. If they're under they're under the obligations of the lease until the lease ends. Other than that, I'm happy to answer any questions. is my city manager report that that you read from page to page. I I think we should talk about um the Campbell property. It's under contract. Yeah,

congratulations to the entire team. Um kudos to um everyone involved. Um that was a a big effort. Um so we now own that property. Um and we are under contract as you know with COT. So continuing to move forward with that. We will be doing an RFP for um sort of a development team if you will that will probably incorporate planning and um hopefully a development component on that as well. Um so we're moving forward with that project. Um and congratulations to everyone. I would like to bring up another subject if we're okay since uh we kind of touched on it tonight and that was paid parking. you know, we have another paid parking meeting coming up on May 11th. And um that meeting, as we decided last time, for those of us who were here, um we said we were going to that was going to be a private meeting. And so we met today, some of us, Tom, John, Councelor Gary, and myself around talking about that meeting. And uh we came up with um a couple things. Um I think one is that uh this whole piece around um SSRC's business model kind of shifting the burden um of moving skiers onto the city's bus system to us. Um in some way, shape or form um if there's a percent increase in ridership, we should be compensated for that. Isn't that what they gave us $2.75 million for?

No. Well, $2.75 million was given to maintain SST at its current levels. I'm just saying one of the things we want to talk to them about is that um the other thing that we came up with was that we have the ability to use Haymaker as a um a point where we could have shuttle service to the mountain for people who live on the south side of town or whatever. Um and we will probably we will be asking them to support a shuttle service provide a shuttle service free parking out at Haymaker for those people. How many spots are at Haymaker?

I think we have available around 100 120 80 to 100. In the winter there would be roughly 80 to 90 available. 80 to 90 extra spots we could get. Uh we also wanted to look at Emerald. Um we're talking to Wells Fargo. their lot. Um again trying to suggest that as part of that mitigation that Ski Core should uh provide some free shuttle service um for us. So those are some of the thoughts we had um and I throw it open to all of you to say what other thoughts do you have given the fact that um you know their intent is to proceed on this.

My question is when did this turn into a negotiation with them? I don't think it it ever did turn into a negotiation around whether they were going to do it or not. What we're trying to figure out is how do we mitigate the situation um for locals. But why are we having this conversation privately with them then?

Because at the time when we talked about this last week, we talked about how we wanted to have a discussion and they wanted to uh be able to share potentially confidential information. um as part of that discussion and we felt that we could have a more productive discussion in private and I will say based on my my experience with them they slowwalk this to push it out. The only conversation that I think we should be having is they can tell us if they're going to be doing anything and if not the conversation we need to have is about a lift ticket lift ticket and pursuing that aggressively to get it on the ballot this year. There is no other solution here unless someone's able to point that out to me. They have shown their true colors on what they do with this.

I know you're bringing, you know, you were involved in the negotiation. So, I appreciate your perspective on that. Uh, we did have that discussion last week. The meeting is next Monday. We had a thumbs up on that 4 to one to proceed that way. So, that's where it came out. That's not an answer though. I mean,

no, I think you bring up a really good point. I think the hope is that this is negotiation and that we you know again the belief is that we have a partnership and so to the extent that they have imposed this how do we work together to mitigate the impact to our communities so I think as uh councelor Montine said here are some of the solutions but to your point I mean if we leave Monday's meeting and there is no negotiation aren't longterm effective solutions Wells Fargo is going to get knocked down and built into something that's going to disappear. Emerald and Haymaker, we then just have a shuttle for a couple 150 spots. That's not a solution.

Well, first of all, this is the first year of this, so we don't know the extent of the impact of this. We have no idea. And it will only be weekends.

Okay, guys. I mean, you guys are all far more experienced and smarter than me. You all know this is moving to the same parking as every other place 7 days a week for $50 a day. You're kid or $70 a day. You are kidding yourself if you think this is the first step. Please take the wool out like off of your eyes and see it for what it is. We've seen this so many times already. It's a you're you're right. It's a step. I I want to pull this I I try not to develop solutions here, but I want to pull this back in a question for Tom. It you know, we need like C do DOT has been asking for for land. You know, this the ski area has been I think for years been looking for another piece of land to put free parking on and they've just haven't found it. Is there anything that we should be opening up and bringing this the county in into this discussion to see if there's any land that they you know that they can assist with for both S DOT and a parking lot?

Well, the the county's been um certainly part of the process. Um they've been made aware of that. They've met with COT as well um to talk about um their facility needs. Um, and we are still working potentially with Sedat to help them try to find a location for their facility. Um, we agreed as part of our conversations with them to help sort of facilitate that process. I don't know if if we'll be successful in that in that. Um, you know, land is extremely limited. Uh, particularly in the South Valley. Um, that's where their preferred location is. Um most of the holdings is are is private land um with the exception of Hay Maker um Legacy Ranch Mount Warner Water. Um the rest is uh privately held and um a lot of it is under conservation easements. So the availability of land particularly for a parking lot is just is extremely limited. Um, and I I just don't I'm not aware of any parcel that that would fit the needs um of either one of those.

And it doesn't address the enforcement problem. I mean, we're going to have issues if you have a parking lot way out. It still doesn't prevent people from wanting to park on Mount Werner. No, you're right. And so is your in thought, counselor Swintech, that we just stop and forward with a tax

playing into their old tired script of bringing us into these private conversations, paying us lip service, telling us that we're partners, saying they're going to do things, and dragging us out until August or September until it's too late to get it on the ballot and pray for another election cycle. We have seen this like the only option is a lift tax or do nothing and we shouldn't be wasting our time with these meetings with them.

Well, I hear what you say, but I also am a firm believer in we want partnerships. We want win-win solutions to things and we fight for those and we fight for the locals and we fight for our community. That's our job. So going to these meetings I don't think is you you might if they come to zero impact or zero results I hear you but I still think it's worth the effort to put in to go to this meeting. We've only had one. We have one more on Monday. See where we come out with that and then we'll go from there. I don't personally think it's a it's a waste of time but it may turn into from your perspective a waste of time. it results in nothing, but I still think it's worth the effort um to do it. And um

we can do a thumbs up, you know, we can something and and they got some messaging tonight that they haven't heard in a while. Oh, yeah.

No, I I Steve, I mean, the the the the conversation that you and Gail and you guys are having with them right now is very prudent and it's very uh poignant for right now. They made some business practices. They made some decisions that affect us. We're anticipating an impact. We don't know what those impacts are, but we have a right to sit down and say, you know, this is the way we see it. We were looking at some stuff, but Brian's right. It's going to end up being there's there's nothing we're going to have on the ballot this year anyway. um it's March and so I don't see it happening but I think the conversation about the impacts is is something that they need to recognize is you know this council is not changing this year. Well, I don't think about that initiative. I mean, it's I mean, we have till

July, right? Well, to pass an ordinance by um the first council meeting in September. September. But but we have to come up past the resolutions and pass the ordinance and stuff like that. Tuesday, we will have an update on this. I mean, I I absolutely hear what you say. Yeah. in order to have a partnership like we can want it as much as we want but the other person has to be willing to meet us and they have never shown that they will they that is never going to happen. We can wish it until the cows come home. They gave $2.75 million. It wasn't a give. I I like I'm telling you it was not a give.

I I think turning turning that turning that ski resort into a hostile partner or a hostile hostage here is the absolute worst thing we can possibly do. I'm not saying we got to cow to him, but I mean you're going we're going down a path of of a partnership that has existed. I mean, money rolls downhill into this town. But we have no benefit now. That's my point. All we're doing is being taken advantage of. And so we need to be smarter and more creative. We don't need to take our ball and go home. And if we And if we put the screws to them, I mean, I just I just urge caution in putting the screws to I just think you're waxing nostalgic for a steamboat that no longer exists. Yeah. Okay.

I agree with where you guys are. Keep going. Thumbs up. Yeah. And so, one comment though, we were meeting on Monday for the parking at Haymaker. I'm pretty sure that look at you, Dan, that we negotiated that in the agreement that they actually already have access to Haymaker parking lot. Yeah. They don't have to. So, like this isn't like a, you know, like a win like that's already in there. I feel like there's another they they have a portion of it along that's the row of parking that's basically adjacent to Highway 40 um for some you know extra vehicles and that type of thing but they don't have access to the remainder of the parking lot a portion but so we're giving them more and then they will do a shuttle that they're already running so we're just giving

they don't apparently run a shuttle out there okay but we're giving them more and then we're getting a shuttle that was one of the things that was proposed to use that lot as a park and ride. Got it. These aren't solutions, guys. I'm sorry. So, one other comment about um ridership. I agree. If we can show, you know, that there's an increase. Um I worry that that would be hard for I maybe just work with Jonathan Flint on that. Um because as our buses are already at capacity, there's then no way to then I'm assuming continue to count people that are not actually on the bus because we didn't have room for them. And that's that is the problem. And these are are at capacity. Right. Right.

On I don't see our city buses going down to hay maker at all. No, not not part of the No, no, not our city buses. Right. These would be just saying it just keeps on the metals the metals bus. You're right. How we can, you know, and and I use the word impact fee, but we use that differently in this town, but there is a cost of that impact on our bus system. Y and I'm not sure every single bus that goes to the GTC is full.

But we can certainly get the numbers and if the numbers go up, now obviously you got to compare it, you know, to trends. You can't just take last winner and say, well, it's up versus last winner. But there may be some ways to do that. Um, but we got to understand the impact.

Yeah, totally. And one other can I make one other comment to ask them. Have we explicitly asked them about um managing traffic control? And I don't say that like I don't want to say it from a like police department like I'm not trying to like people are probably like what? So not from like a law enforcement, but when people are parking illegally, do have we asked them what is their responsibility for that? Have we like illegally wear? Oh god. On Mount Warner Circle, public streets on public streets called boots. They have no they have no responsibility. They said that. So you've asked them and they said no. They have. Okay. I just want to make sure.

Well, and to be clear, it is not illegal to park on Mount Warner Circle. It is. There's a no parking sign. There's no parking on one section of it, but as as but where they have parked, there are there are no no parking signs. And so, as long as they're not in the lane of travel, they're not parked illegally. So, we've had a couple years in the in the past where that's occurred. We've gotten complaints. We haven't ticketed them because they're not parking illegally. Um, if there's a lot of snow and then they start to park um in the lane of travel, then we will ticket them. Right. There are other impacts even if they're not parked illegally with people crossing the street.

I just found out and I don't know maybe you know about this councelor Dixon but the north lot which has come out now because of the stockman it will not be open up there any longer. They're losing 180 to 200 parking spots. Skiore is by building the stockman. So that's 200 less parking spots and those parking spots were probably used by a lot of locals. So that's another you know talking about the winter sports club.

So when up but they have 2,000 spots ski total. They're losing 10% of those spots with the stockman. When we see in two years that ridership is increased, what's the plan? Lift ticket. You're asking me to predict the future. I don't know what the future holds. No, I'm not asking you to predict. I already predicted it. When ridership increases and we have a problem, then what is the plan? I'm not I already predicted it. So, what is that's what I'm saying. You're all I'm hearing is we're kicking a can down the road. I if that's what you're the goal is

I I don't think that's all you're hearing. I think what also you're hearing is you don't believe any of the possible actions will solve anything. So if if we if I said to you in two years if if the impact was 10% increase in ridership okay should we charge a 10% fee to cover that or whatever the fee is. So the solution would be to look at all funding sources. We would just do the whole holistic thing and charge writers or we got to do something property tax or something. Okay. I don't agree. I think that's but not saying it's fine if that's I'm not going there. He wants a property tax guys. He does not. All right.

Today not tonight. Any other thoughts for month's meeting in terms of again with I mean that's with kind of the general thought being we're approaching this again from a partnership perspective they've imposed this upon the city they need to acknowledge that there are going to be impacts how are you going to help us I into their hand like we should just wear a dun's cap when we walk in I mean we're it know how it's going to end well no to your no to your point though we'll We'll find out on Monday and we'll bring it back on Tuesday. And again, it's this it's the if this council doesn't want us to be in that room, then say it now. No,

no, it's private. Will not be live Zoomed, but on Tuesday night if we come in wearing Dun's caps, might give you a

idea. Um but seriously I you know we this is a this is a challenge for us this relationship. Um you know we all know what's going on in the ski industry. It's all about um the visitor which I call the guest which I don't call the local. It's not just a steamboat thing. It's happening everywhere. You know things are more and more expensive. You know they're building 4,000 square foot stuff at the base of the mountain now. Um, you know, it's uh it's what it's become. As long as sales tax doesn't go down, I'm fine.

Well, in four years when the stockman is is I mean, supposedly it's 25% already. 25% um full sold. When those things are all full, that will be a lot of sales tax, won't it? Property tax sales tax. Yeah. But again, it's our responsibility to make sure that we right we mitigate the impact to the we're we defend the locals. That's what we ultimately I'm not I'm not disclosing I'm not ruling out a lift tax at this point. We're not ruling out anything. I mean because we do need money for the transit. Yeah. Do what are we doing in a minute? We done or we're going to go through

I don't have anything else. I wanted to bring that up to you in all transparency. We have uh notes or um we will go to the minutes unless there's any other things we need to talk about. Um I'm going to the economic summit tomorrow. I don't know who else is going. I'll be there. I I will be there as well for parts of it. Part of it. Okay. Um so we have three minutes on here. March 31st, April 7th, April 14th. Any comments? Anybody see anything in there that needs to be discussed, revised? If not, I'll take a motion to approve those three minutes. Motion to approve. Motion by councelor Gary. Second. Second by councelor Swintech. All those in favor say I.

Any opposed? Minutes are approved. 70. Any other business? Motion to adjurnn. Move to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor? Uh good evening everyone.