City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah, it is a coincidence. All right, everyone. Are we ready to get started? I'll call this meeting to order. City of Steamboat Springs, regular city council meeting number 2026-09, Tuesday, March 17th, 2026. It is now 4 p.m. Julie, would you do roll call, please? Steve Montine, here. Gail Gary. John Aosta here. Dave Barnes here. Michael Bacino here. Amy Dixon here. And Brian Swintch

here. Okay, if we all rise and say the pledge of allegiance. 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, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Our first order of business tonight is to move into executive session to discuss the following topic. The specific specific citations to the provision are provisions of CRS 24-6-42 subsection 4 that authorizes the city council to meet in executive session are set out below. The description of the topics are intended to identify the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized. CRS24-6-42 4F1 personnel matters except if the employee who's a subject of the session has requested an open meeting. This item pertains to the city city manager employee evaluation. So I would like a motion if we can to adjourn and we will reconvene in executive session.

So moved. I move that we Yeah. Yeah. Journ and move into an executive session. Okay. We have a motion by councelor Gary, second by councelor Dixon. All those in favor say I. I. Okay. We will move into executive session.

Russia back. Okay, everybody here? Um, the time is now 510. The executive session has been concluded. The participants in the executive session were Steve Montine, Amy Dixon, Lawrence, Ryan Swint, Dan Foot, Tasha Murphy, Dan Augusta, Michael Pacino, Tom.

Okay. For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion of any matters not included in the motion to go into the executive session occurred during the executive session or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in vire in violation of the open meetings law, I would ask that you state your concerns for the record. Okay. And Tasha, can you just give us um a brief summary of the executive session?

Yes. Thank you, councilors. Tasha Murphy, HR and risk director. Um, we did not quite finish the annual review, so we'll be looking for another time to do that to discuss the 2026 city manager goals as well as compensation. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Tasha. Okay, so we will reconvene for our regular uh city council meeting and we will move on to our next agenda item, which is city council reports. And before we do that, I just want to make an announcement that public comment, we will take that twice tonight. The first one will be at 6 pm or after staff reports, whichever comes first and that will be on any topic or subject that is not on the agenda for tonight. Each person will have up to three minutes at that point in time. We will also take public comment following any presentations by staff or the peti petitioner and that will be done on each topic on the agenda. So with that, who's got some city reports?

Councelor Swintech. None. Okay. No one. I know there's one.

Well, all right. I will um give a quick update on um the EUR meeting that was held um I believe it was last two weeks ago. Um so and we have an SSR meeting coming up um which I'm sure Gates and staff will probably give us um more of an update. Um but just quick update that the phase one of the geothermal feasibility study is in the final stages of review and the study continued to show that a geothermal system is technically feasible but the cost is um still highly uncertain. Um the upcoming phase 2 study will develop more accurate system designs and much tighter cost estimates. Um both let's see here because the final answers on geothermal are still months away an agreement between SSR and SSRC socore um to approve electric boilers as a fallback snowbell system would allow design to resume um progress sooner. Um there is a cost for electric boilers which I'm sure Gates will go over more in detail at SSR meeting. Um and this is still preliminary. um more understanding is needed on the probable impact of the PUC's um coming phase out plan of gas. So lots of work still needs to happen there. Um one big update from that meeting, the consolidated shuttle existing condition phase is wrapping up. And so you all know the consolidated shuttle um was a big part of the GTC design and the preliminary results are showing that the

proposed GTC redesign has enough space for all shuttles even without a consolidation. I know I saw your face. Um, with that finding, the study will likely shift to a consolid a a coordination and permitting effort um focus on driver behavior, operations, and efficiency at the GTC. So I want that to land with everyone up here because we have been talking about community benefit around the GTC and that was always a driver. Um consolidated shuttle was not a benefit for the GTC but also for our community because we were going to get shuttles off the road and not see two shuttles one in front of the other downtown with two or three people on each of them. Um so that right now um it's looking like we don't need to go down that road. So that's um something that we'll talk more at SSR. So wanted to point that out. Um and the major points of concern and a discussion of the GTC's public benefit will be presented at the next SSR meeting in April. So we'll hear more about this in April from Gates. Any question or comment for councelor Dixon?

When is when is phase two going to be done of the consolidated show? No. Of the Oh, the geothermal. Yeah, I don't remember. Did do you catch a date on that? No, but it was a substantial update for us at the SS. Sorry. Yeah, I don't remember. A question. So we are going to get a update and we get a chance to discuss the um um consolidated shuttle in in the next meeting. Is that what bottom line? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um what one followup question if they've decided that there they there's enough room for all the shuttles. Have they decided upon a design?

Both designs would accommodate the shuttles with future growth. Okay. Thank you. Council Gary, you have something? Yeah. Yes, I do. Um, wanted to make sure that everybody is aware that the next Brown Ranch Steering Committee meeting is March 26th. Um, it will be, I think, from 8 or 8:30. Um, yeah, I can't remember. 8 or 8:30. 8 a.m.

Okay. and it's um going to be held at the Vector Bank loc located located at uh 270 Anglers Drive and there will be a Zoom option for anybody in the community that wants to either attend or wants to um watch via Zoom. And again, um what we talked a little bit about last time was really kind of focusing on community engagement. And while that will be a part of this conversation, I think there will also be a conversation regarding working groups and just making sure that the group is um can kind of agreed upon how we want to work. Um I think it will look at what the DST team did, but perhaps um dig a little bit deeper and see if that makes if that works for this group or how it might need to be modified. Um there will also be a conversation and um I'm getting I'm looking at my notes from cliff notes from Brad um because the the agenda shifted a little bit. So um want to just make sure I get this out particularly um because we want to you know again want to make sure that everyone has on council has the opportunity to look at this and provide any sort of input that you all want. you know, specifically as it relates to community engagement and how do we want to, you know, how do we want to go about that? As well as also still under discussion is what's the whole role of this committee and kind of what's the instate? Where does where does where do we need to be when this group kind of says we're done in order to make sure that we've laid the proper foundation for moving forward with, you know, the potential ne next phase of Brown Ranch. I think that also um we need to look at kind of what decisions need to be you know kind of part of that as well as the timeline. So um again that's pretty high level. Um and you know but again that's kind of I think what we'll be discussing next

time and I don't know Brad if we anticipate if there's any anything more that's going to be coming out in preparation for the group. Oh Tom I'll put ask that question. But so that anything that we could again circulate more to council to provide um information because I think everybody should have in the rainbow a copy of the agenda but again it's decision updates defining our instate brainstorming milestones timelines and next steps. So to the extent that there's any documentation that the group will be getting you know the goal is to make sure that all of council sees that. So you can either ask questions and or provide input for D councelor Barnes and I to bring forth and and Tom

the Brad covered planning staff. The one thing I would add is not dissimilar to sort of your practice now. You are seeing agendas for future meetings in your packet tonight but you are aren't seeing all packet materials. We will develop all packet materials in support of the meeting and publish those uh so they would be available to all of council and the public prior to the meeting. Mhm. And I think that, you know, the goal too is we'll try to get this on a cadence where we've got council meetings and council reports. Obviously with the um longer break that we have in between our March and our April, there will be the meeting at the end of March. So I think the goal would be we'll circulate the to council the entire packet and then if you have particular feedback, particular questions, we'd need to either submit it to Dave, Tom or I to bring forth. And and the one thing I would just add that councelor Gary mentioned is uh this is not unusual. Uh we generally as a project team have two or three concepts of meetings in mind and then we actually have a meeting and then we design the next meeting. So the very we were thinking we would do a very engagement slashtransparency focused uh conversation and just based on the 6 hours 5 hours of work that the group did we really felt like we needed to dive into that what is the desired end state to bring some clarity as to what exactly the group's charges what are they going to deliver and it would be really important to do that and then circle back is like what are the engagement strategies what are the communication strategies that we execute uh to make sure that that that the community is informed and has an opportunity to inform uh that work going forward. So, it's it was just sort of a let's see where the group is after 5 hours and then figure out how do we best use their time uh for the next three-hour block that we have them for. So, that's that's the gist of that. And is it fair to say that when we talk about instate, okay, I mean that could range anywhere from I don't think this to be the case, but an a full-blown annexation agreement to basically an

outline of what an annexation agreement looks like to um you know, we've talked about kind of the development light. I mean, can you

The way I the way I tend to describe it is the end state is a beginning definition of what is an annexation proposal this time around. That includes an annexation agreement. That probably includes something like a development plan or a concept plan. It may include other things, statements of public impact. I mean, what are the things that we really feel like needed to be developed uh to make sure the the full implications of an annexation proposal are understood. So, that that's what this group is to figure out what what is the substance of the deliverable that feels like an annexation proposal that would be taken obviously to the public uh in some shape, form or fashion. not not just assume that it's a certain certain number of things but actually outline and and very specifically the conversation that will happen on the 26 is like what are the milestones associated with that how far away are we from having some version of that and let's back into like a road map uh that helps us get there I suspect the conversation that the group would then have have at their next meeting is how are our resources looking like to actually deliver on those things do we have the time capacity and the resources to do the deliverables uh that are needed to sort of work towards uh that proposal.

Does that every does that give everybody on council kind of enough to think about? Yeah. Just quick process question. Are we as other council members allowed to listen in as view as listen only on these meetings? Okay. You can you uh they we we publish them. They're all on I mean they're published as public meetings of council. you can attend. Uh you can certainly watch on Zoom, but I mean they they're noticed so that a third member of council uh can can be in attendance. Thank you. Okay. Well, we look forward to uh the report out from the next meeting. Great. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much, Brad. Thanks for your help and work on this. Um actually Kelly and I also attended the um kind of the mid winter meeting of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns and it was a legislative update. We also heard from the executive director of Dola as well as the um executive director of the department of natural resources and then also got a bit of a kind of an economic update from I've forgotten his name Luwendowski from C you know CU school of business. So you know is somebody that I think we hear from often. So that you know it was interesting. We also had the opportunity to um have dinner with Representative Lucans and actually Speaker McCcluskey was there as well as a number of other legislators. So, it's, you know, again, just a good opportunity to um be able to talk with them and talk with as like a lot, you know, in terms of the other cast meetings with our fellow council members in the other resort communities. And not really, I mean, not anything new has come up, right? I mean, in terms of I think we're all in this in the same positions as we look out with the economic forecast. Um, you know, I do think one of a conversation which we will probably enter into too is big concerns about wildfire, concerns about um water water. And there was actually one of the county commissioners who was asking the executive director of DNR are what about a statewide um fire ban right now? Um, so some, you know, so again, I think things that are on our minds are are definitely on the minds of our our colleagues as well. Uh on kind of following along on that, we talked a little bit um a couple of meetings ago about that House Bill 26101, which was the kind of governor's third

version um or third try at getting a housing um affordability measures across in terms of a legislative initiative or it was also kind of the next version version of the yes in God's backyard, the Yiggby bill. So it did pass um both the house and the senate. There were minor amendments in the senate but nothing that really adhere at um basically CML as well as cast state cast move to an opposed position because the amendments weren't adopted. So this is going to be one that definitely does um kind of uh um what do I want to say doesn't adhere takes away some rights of local municipalities. So, I think it'll be incumbent upon us to basically identify ways that this is impacting our community and and feed that back into Senator Roberts and Representative Lucans. So, we have the opportunity to say, "We told you this bill wasn't going to work and here here is how it's impacting our communities."

Are you able to give some examples or do they give some examples how that can be negatively impacting us and what what are the things that we need to be looking out for? Yeah, we can I mean we can send you the emails in terms of the I think the things that the concerns were but but basically it takes away all municipalities ability right in terms of zoning requirements as it relates to nonprofits and nonprofits is one of the concerns was that it's really broadly defined um and not doesn't necessarily have to be you know perhaps you know a nonprofit that focuses on affordable housing. Tom, do you want to add anything to that or

No, I think probably because of the importance of the bill, we should we should generate a list of sort of pros cons and get that to you for your understanding. So, we'll follow up with that. Yep, that would be helpful. Okay. And then I think the only other thing, but I think you're going to talk about this Tom, right, is the Allison Hill um survey. Yes. I think right that came out. So, just wanted to make sure that that was flagged for council as well. Okay. Okay. That's it. Anyone else have anything for councel? Um yeah, just wanted to mention um Dave and I were at the fire um district meeting. Tom was there.

Yeah. But I just wanted you guys to be aware we're going to have a work session on April 14th and it's one of those things that prior to that meeting we're going to get some good information regarding what consolidating the Steamboat Springs and the fire district may look like. So there's some pros and cons. just just be aware that it's coming down and uh just educate yourself by asking questions and stuff over the next month so that when we have that work session it'll be very uh fluid conversation. That's it. Okay. Thank you. I just have a couple things. Um, I attended the um, A Valley Housing Authority board retreat, which was about a 5-h hour session led by some outside facilitators who work with nonprofit boards on um, helping them become more effective. We talked a lot about leadership. We talked a lot about accountability. We talked about a lot about clarity on roles and expectations, organizational structure, uh, the gamut. Uh there's a lot of work to do and um so there's there's going to be um a lot of action planning out of that meeting. Um as as far as um the mutual separation agreement, I have nothing to report on that. There will be another executive session later this week on that. So stay tuned on that one. Um coffee with council is this Friday. And who's planning on being there this Friday? Councelor Swintech.

I'm out of town. So, somebody needs to take my spot. I will be there. Councelor Montine will be there. Councelor Agosa. We're good. Okay. All right. So, we'll see you all at 8:00. All right. Anything else on council reports?

I kind of want to address the paid parking article thing. Um, just the announcement about paid parking at the resort and then the language that was specifically about coordinating with the city. Um, I have something written. I I'm going to read this. I've put a lot of thought into this. So, as an individual, I am disappointed that a large corporation like the resort is making a major change that benefits itself without doing more to bring our community along. Um, I understand this is a business decision and they have every right to make business decisions that are in its best interest, but when those decisions have serious impacts beyond the resort's property, the broader community deserves better communication and more honesty. Um, this then leads to the biggest issue I have as a counselor, which is the representation of the city's role. Um, the fact what what really upsets me about this is the fact that the city was even brought into this discussion in that article and it swed a level of mistrust among our constituents. Um, the city did not coordinate on this decision. I want to make that very clear. We didn't shape it or approve it or partner on it. There were discussions that were had. I will encourage the rest of council and perhaps staff to somehow either through a letter to the editor or a conversation with Juliet the pilot or somehow to explain what the the communication was. Um but we were not a part of that decision. That was the resorts decision as a business. They did inform us and they asked us staff the opinion and as staff always says they say we will do our best and we'll make it work. But we were not part of shaping that decision. Um, as a council member, I also found out just like the rest of the public, which didn't feel great. Um, I would have liked to know sooner and more clearly that this was coming so that we could work together to prepare for the

impacts. Um, paid parking at the base will not make uh parking demand disappear. It will shift it. surrounding businesses, places like the hospital, Wild Horse, the Walmart parking lot, nearby streets, neighborhoods, and our transit system will all feel those effects. This is cost shifting, and it means the city is left to deal with the consequences that we didn't create. Um, these consequences will be difficult and they will force us to have difficult conversations about how to respond, including whether we need to after even one year discuss the potential of a lift ticket tax to cover the additional needs for transit and parking in our community as a result as a result of this and enforcement. Once again, the resort is free to make its own decisions, but the public does deserve an accurate account of who made this decision and that was the result or the resort and who did not make that decision and who now is asked to manage the fallout, which is us and the community. So, I would like to encourage my fellow counselors, like I said, to either write an op-ed collectively in the paper outlining our concerns and clarifying what our role was. Um, or to speak directly to the pilot about the issues that this poses. But I think in the spirit of our goal of effective communication to the community, I do think that regardless of how we individually feel about this, it is really critical that we make it clear that this was the resort's decision and the resort's decision alone and the city should never have been brought into this discussion and that it will pose real impacts that we will need to face whether we make a decision or not. And that is what I would encourage the rest of council to do.

Okay. Thank you, councelor Swinteek. Any other thoughts? I I would I don't if I I don't know if you're planning on addressing this um because this was an issue. I don't want to ask our city manager um to address it unless he wants to put him um in a bad position. But I completely concur with councelor Swintech. Um the press release what was then picked up by local news outlets, Seamboat Radio, the pilot um specifically said that the ski that ski worked closely with the city and um I think that um is an exaggeration of truly what happened, but to our point, city council was never brought into a conversation with SkiCore. Um, we keep talking about partnership with SkiCore and partnership is hard and you have to work on it and you have to build trust. We literally had the state of the city the week before where President Montene, our city u manager praised SkiCore, which great, you know, I that should be done. Literally, not less than a week later, we get a press release. Um, the community believes that council had something to do with this. The community believes that the city was in partnership with this. Um, so that's my biggest concern. And that a true partnership that would be that Skiquo, they had already made this decision. That's fine. They can do whatever they want managing their private property. Um, I'm not here to say we can we can tell them they can't do that, but that should have been a discussion for us to have about what is the impact to our community

and for them to have that conversation with us and they may have said, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it. People are going to park at City Market and Walmart. People are going to park in easements on sides of the roads. People are going to park in neighborhoods. But at least we would have had that honest conversation and our community could hear that as well. And that didn't happen. And that along with what what councelor Swinte stated is what really bothers me. These are this is a big community impact. Um that should have been discussed. Okay.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Brian said, Amy said. Um, and I would look to the ski resort to publish a press release, you know, defining that to the public. Um, and coming out and saying that that was a total mistruth, whether it was brought by them or brought by the pilot. Um, they should at least declare that we did not work in collaboration with them on paid parking at the Meadows, at least not to my knowledge.

All right. And I I concur with that. And then I would just ask right that um and say that we are willing to work collaboratively with them in order to make sure that whatever plans they do mitigates the impact to our residents and make sure that the our community still has the ability to you know get to the ski area and as we've said won't repeat what's been sped but there will absolutely be impacts. So we need to make sure that we mitigate those and again encourage ski to come down and sit at the table and let's work together on this. So, I I concur. Um, but I'm hearing a slightly different tone from the community. In the community, what I'm hearing is less about how come council was not involved in this and more about now that this is happening, you know, what's council going to do? You know, h, you know, how you because this is an added cost and stress on our transit system. um along with the added stress amongst um the the owners of of parking spaces you throughout the city who you know visitors are now going to be you know trying to you know take over. So um I know that we you know was before um Barnes and myself were on council you negotiated a $2.75 million you know transit um assistance from the ski area. So we are getting 2.75 million but that is basically helping us maintain what we already have. I understand that you know and so um we really need to understand and at some level the impacts so that we understand you know how we move forward with with this decision. Um I'll be honest before I even was even a council member I heard you know rumors that they were going to pay for parking. So this the fact that they did it is not a surprise. The timing for me, I was always thought, oh, they'd probably time it when they build the parking garage.

Um, and they would, you know, would be a higher quality parking, you know, experience potentially. Um, so that for me was the timing that I was surprised by. Okay. Thank you. Anything from you, Councelor Pacino?

Um, I was surprised when the first I heard about it was the article in the paper. Uh this was something we discussed uh for the last four years in our innovative transportation task force back when COVID was there and we were thinking about charging $5 a car for parking because we had some other issues going on with raising money but that's the last I heard about it. So when it showed up in the newspaper I was like oh not part of the city leadership that they were referring to. I'm sure it was staff related leadership and not necessarily the council leadership. And so definitely Julia missed the mark on getting that uh communication out to the public. Um yeah, I I I agree with what you're saying. Um you know, they gave us 2.75 million and now they find a way to to raise it. So we'll see how the community and how we deal with those impacts moving down the road. Um but it does offer a broader co conversation as we move forward with next season. I I don't know what else to say.

Okay. Well, I will I don't want to repeat everyone. And I think you were all right on. And uh I would just say that um today there was uh a meeting set up for April 13th, I believe it is with Dave Hunter and others to talk about this. Um yes, Councelor Dixon, you're right. they can do whatever they want but when it impacts the community and impacts the city that we have to mitigate that and we need to collaborate in some sort of mitigation strategy so that will be the first step in that strategy of how we can mitigate anything you want to add Tom

no I think that that summarized it well um you know they they did communicate to staff that they were moving forward with it they did ask that it remain confidential um for for business reasons. So, we we were aware of it. They met with uh uh John Schneider, public works director, and Jonathan Flint, um transit manager, to talk about what the impacts would be, and uh they committed to sitting down at the table and talking about um what they can do to help to mitigate those impacts, if anything. So, um that's the next step. Okay. All right. Thank you, everyone. So they'll be taking shuttles and going all the way through town trying to pick up people that are parked all over the city. Is that kind of I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I

guess how do we address this communication issue though now? Like that this is a great example of we could do handle it the way that council has always handled it, which is this. We have a meeting on the 13th and we say that, but we don't have control over this narrative. And this is part of why we added that as a goal is changing how we communicate with the community. So, how are we going to handle this differently than we have in the past? Any suggestions? Uh, I would say we've talked about writing something with the pilot or encouraging staff to have an interview with Julia like somehow for us to be more proactive and more out there to control the narrative to to tell our side of the story.

Yeah. I don't know how that looks. I I'm only one of seven, but if we just have a meeting on the 13th, that sounds very familiar familiar to how it always has been. And the the public dialogue is already that the city leadership was involved.

Okay. Anybody have any ideas? I mean, Tom, we we're putting together this community engagement and outreach and all that and and you know, we're going to be writing columns in the pilot on an ongoing basis starting next month. Um, but um I guess we as the city could send something into the pilot stating some of the concerns and some of the misinterpretations that have been laid out here today.

I don't want to fight a battle in the newspaper. I don't I I really don't think we need to write anymore personally. I mean, we're going to have conversations. We have some community engagement that we need to kind of frame and go through there. We have a problem, but we don't need to be sitting there having this. I mean, I understand the clarity that's needed in the community. I'd hope that that Julia andor the ski court could do something, but I do not want to get into a tit for tat with us writing something on this. This is that is not what I would support. This isn't tit for tat. This is storytelling. I mean that is the problem is I I don't want to do that in our local paper. Okay. Yes.

We can do it in a town hall or another venue or format like that where we get to see and work with it. It's a lot more effective in in getting the heart of the issues, but we're leaving it to too much on the newspaper and interpretation.

Okay. Couple more comments on this and then we'll move on. Did you have one, Mr. Counselor? I'd say my focus right now is basically understanding the impacts. You know, how do we understand the impacts and address the impacts? I think that's what the community's focus right now and that's what I when I when I saw and read about the community's impact for me, my resonation was they wanted to understand what what are we going to do now and and and what are we going to do now basically starts with what's the impact? We need to understand the effects. And I think that's what needs to be communicated. Yeah,

right. I mean, it is exactly that. Not a tit for tat, just a we know that Skore is moving down this path and yes, community, we understand that there are going to be impacts and we're committed to looking at those. We're committed to working in collaboration and partnership with SkiCore to come up with ways to mitigate the impact. So, what I don't want to do is start solving impacts that we haven't even see happen. No, I mean I think it's just just simply an acknowledgement that we know there's gonna to our community that we know there's going to be impacts and we are committed and hey skiore we hope you sit down with us right we're committed to working collaboratively with skiore so how can we get right I mean I concur how do we get that message out from the seven of us

yeah and it and there are impacts I I've gotten letters already from people who live on Steamboat Boulevard right down by the Meadows parking lot and they're concerned you know just people just parking right in front their their home. So there there are a number of impacts and and I think that you know having meeting with ski court to start that process and understand that this is a collaboration. This isn't just you know us picking up what the pieces from what strategy you've decided to employ. So that is certainly one step and hopefully that will lead to um some meaningful impact uh of mitigation on this. So um beyond that though what am I hearing from this group because I think we need to move on. We've talked about several things. Do h how do we quantify the impact more? So,

do we need to put this on for a work session talking about parking in the whole of the city? Um, you know, because it's not just going to be the mountain area that's going to be affected. You know, people are going to be parking downtown and be parking on Oak Street. They're going to be parking wherever. Parking isn't enforced and getting on a bus and going skiing. Um, or and so I mean, I don't know if it's a broader subject.

Feel like you guys are like counselifying this. I'm just saying like we just I why can't we just write something in the pilot from the seven of us with city explaining our story? That's what I'm really trying to get rather than like I call Julia or I write a letter to the editor. Can we try a new approach where the seven of us what we're saying is we want solutions. We don't have the solutions because we don't know what the direct impacts are yet but we hear you. And also this was how it happened. The resort came to us. They spoke to us about it. This was our level of involvement and this is our story and and to end it as on the 13th we have a meeting and we encourage whatever is it public is it not you will hear it from like that take control of the narrative and explain where we are we don't have solutions but we hear you

all right so how many people um draft a letter I'll look at it for okay I like your approach many people are thumbs up on having a letter to the editor drafted okay so the the only question is who's going to draft a letter. We we will draft it. Staff will draft it and then give you a copy to review it all. Okay, great. Perfect. Thank Thank you. A question question for a followup question for Tom. Is there have you done any research on what the impacts are? Is your has your team done? Okay. What would it anecdotal? It all be anecdotal. Okay. Is I'm afraid to ask. No. Okay. Well, we don't want to go down the rabbit trail. Okay.

Okay. We're going to move on and uh it's time to move into um agenda reviews and uh if we would turn to our next meeting which is actually three weeks from tonight, April 7th. If you'll turn and and look on there, we have three pro uh proclamations that night. So, I'm I have uh councelor Gary is going to uh read the National Safe Digging Month proclamation. Uh, is there someone who would volunteer to do the national donate life proclamation or the child abuse proclamation on April 7th? I will be remote that meeting most likely.

Can I have a couple people willing to volunteer? I'll do the child abuse prevention. Councelor Dixon, what about the uh national donate life month, which is donate organs? Organs. Donating body organs. I can do it.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. And then um we will have a city council update from um Brown Ranch Steering Committee because that will be after their meeting, but we also expect to get something in writing before that point in time. So, we will have that at that time as well. Uh we have a number of um quasi judicial um resolutions and we also have um on number 11 which is the first reading of an ordinance waste volume based pricing. Um we want to pull this item until July. So I I need a motion from someone to pull this item. We will put it back on the agenda in July.

Do we need a motion? We'll do that. We don't need a motion for that. No, not tonight. Okay. We're just going to pull it. Yeah. Yeah, we're going to pull it till July. Okay. And um we will also have um an appeal that night as well of illegal non-conforming STR use. And we will also have our attorney's evaluation. And we will get back to you as to what time that will be, whether it'll be before or whether it will be after. And we'll see how long that session is. Um, yes, we got everybody can do four. So,

yeah, we had a little more discussion and uh we're going to just look at it. But yes, we'll get back to everybody about that. Any questions on that? And then the other piece is we will have an SSR meeting um as well on the 7th. Okay, with that we'll move on to April 14th. On April 14th, uh we have a work session which will be on fiscal sustainability. the fire district consolidation as well as the emergency operations plan. And we will also have uh our marijuana license authority meeting on a request for a waiver of retail marijuana vertical integration requirement.

Does this have to do with that issue we had a year ago, Dan? Yes, it is the same issue. Is this specifically about them? The April hearing is specifically about that lency. Yeah. Will that rule or that individual uh that lency has not found a local source and is seeking another exemption. So this is a repeat. Yes. Got it. Okay. Any other thoughts on April 14th? I would encourage new council members to watch the original one, please. That would be a worthwhile listen.

Yes. Okay. April 21. Um we have a meeting with uh again a number of um resolutions, ordinances, some second readings. Um we won't have number 10 obviously because that has been pulled. Um not too much else on that particular date. And then on May 5th, we have the joint meeting um with the commissioners that night and we will be putting together um that agenda. We also have um a community report part two of what Kim was talking about. She started the other week fiscal sustainability. So we'll be back on to that one again. And then we have a number of um resolutions, second readings, and uh first readings. Any questions on any of that?

I'm sorry, when did you say sorry, the um joint meeting? The joint meeting. Yeah, I believe the joint meeting is on um 5th. The 5th. May 5th. Yes, it's here at night. It's here. Okay. It's here. Yes. right on May 5th. Thank you. And then you have the updated work session calendar which you could take a look at. Any questions on any of that? Yeah. Back back to uh councelor Swinsack. Um you'd said we should review the marijuana previous meeting. Do you know what that date was?

Yeah, I'll send the links to you guys. I'm guys can watch it. Any other comments about upcoming agendas? Uh Tom, we have about eight minutes. Do you want to start or uh Yeah, I probably will be a little bit over eight minutes, but Okay, we should be okay. Be close. And then we'll go to public comment right afterwards.

Great. Thank you. um city manager report and as promised it is in a new format um formatted by um our outcome areas and all the activities associated with our six outcome areas. It can also be found on steamotsprings.net as all the previous city managers reports are um and so all that information is in there and we will be taking this and creating a community digital newsletter that you can subscribe to as well um to get this information delivered to your inbox. So, starting with thriving community, um I won't read all the descriptions of the outcome areas, but we did include that so people understand when we say thriving community what it is we're talking about. Um just a just a note that uh it's warming up there. Botanic Park is gearing up for their spring opening in their um 2026 season of activities including guided tours, social gardening, music on the green. So, um they do have their website. can get on there and take a look at all their activities that are coming up in 2026. Um, just a reminder, the Slate Creek Parkland Acquisition Project is preparing for its 2026 closing and staff is working closely to finalize the grants in the funding plan um, prior to that closing. So, we're glad to see that move forward. Um, on March 16th, the ad hoc housing advisory committee initiated its valuation of a grant request, which is $2 million from housing authority to replace its aging water and sewer infrastructure serving the 27 lot White Haven mobile home park. Um, the housing authority is requesting STR funds to complete the $4 million project without incurring additional debt financing, which would require increasing lot rents. and they are going to be um proposing to uh have record restrictive covenants on the mobile home park property to limit occupants to those that are income qualified at 140% of AMI um and members of the local workforce or retired from local um uh employment. So that is moving forward and the ad hoc

advisory committee is reviewing that and will make a recommendation. Um the planning department has initiated several projects to ensure the city is compliant with SB24 174 which is the revised house which includes a revised housing action plan, city specific housing needs assessment and two new community plan elements, the strategic growth element and water supply element. Uh the project team has developed a project plan and scheduled init um initial consultations with city council and the area planning coordinating committee. So glad to see that's moving forward. Also included in uh thriving community is an update that is not in the um city manager report, but earlier today the city received preliminary notification that the department of local affairs has accepted the new affordable housing units the city proposed to satisfy our previous Prop 123 commitment as filed with the state of Colorado in July of 2023. The city's commitment was to increase the city's stock of affordable housing by an additional 42 units by the end of this year. And as noted in February, the next step the city must take to ensure affordable housing developments and programs located in the city remain eligible for Prop 123 fund funding is to have an expedited review process that meets state requirements. And city staff has met with state officials a few times over the past few months and has drafted code and policy amendments designed to meet those state requirements. And we will bring be bringing those forward for your review in the next month or so. So congratulations um on on meeting the prop 123 requirements. Uh moving on to connected and engaged community. Um summer program registration will open on March 20th um for the weekly theme camps in parks and wreck and March 27th for daily summer camps. This year we will have space for up to 104 children each day distributed among three different age groups. Theme camps will host up to an additional 36 kids weekly. Scholarships are available.

Um, we also accept payment through the Colorado Childcare Assistance Program and all programs are inclusive for children with special needs and one-on-one aids will be provided as needed and information on that can be found on the uh parks and wreck website if you want more information on that. So, um, that is a very very popular program fills up quickly. Um, so March 20th for the weekly theme camps and 27th for the daily summer camps. youth programs uh partnered with Queer Futures to present the second annual Pride and POW event at Hollison Hill on the 8th of March. This event occurred on a skif free Sunday and was open to all members of the public. Costumes were encouraged for Pride Lap concluding with a rainbow smoke cannon finale. So that was a popular event and glad to see that continue in its second year. Um, in partnership with Mainship Main Street Steamboat Springs, the city is proud to recognize 57 local establish establishments that have officially met the criteria to be included in the Steamboat Springs Legacy Business Program. That program honors longstanding businesses that have demonstrated exceptional longevity, cultural significance, and meaningful community impact. They will be recognized through the program um as featured in the main street's legacy business directory, highlighted through storytelling initiatives, and included in future heritage focused events and promotions. So, congratulations to those 57 establishments that met that criteria. And as part of the city's requirement to maintain um our certified local government status for the historic preservation program, uh the planning department is completing two new historic property surveys in the Fair View and Riverside neighborhoods and is updating survey information for the downtown Steamboat Springs National Register Historic District. So those surveys are a really important part of the program to identify what those eligible um resources are and I'm glad to see that that is continuing in those two um those two neighborhoods and downtown as well.

Um additionally airport um an airport tenant meeting was held on at the fixed FBO the fixed base operator facility on Thursday February 26. Topics discussed included upcoming capital improvement projects, new on call engineering service, instrument approach procedures, and an open question and answer session. So, thanks for staff for reaching out to those folks. That's an important um outreach effort and uh and glad to see that that is going well out there at the airport. Um, I also wanted with respect to connected and engaged community, I wanted to highlight that um, the city of Steamboat Springs is seeking community feedback on a conceptual project proposal by the Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club to develop the youth sports center. The proposed facility would be located at House and Hill and the project proposal comes as an outcome of the House and Park Sharet and House and Park user group processes that were directed by city council in 2023. This project reflects data and feedback gathered from a comprehensive traffic and parking study and involving uh the youth hockey association, pro- rodeo series, winter sports club, all other community uses represented at the house and park city councilors and city staff. Um and more information on this can be found on the city's engaged steamboat and go to the steamboat springs winter sports club youth sports center. Theformational survey postcards were sent out to residents and then they should be in your mailboxes um on Wednesday, March 11th and the open participation survey will be mailed on April 8th and the city's survey contractor Poco will close data collection for both surveys on April 22nd. So a draft report will be ready by the end of May and reviewed by the parks and recck commission prior to being presented to city council. So an important survey. We want to hear from residents about your feelings about um some of the proposals down at Allison Hill. Um so please check your mailboxes and uh participate in that survey. In

healthy environment um with the arrival of spring, the streets crews will continue citywide street sweeping operations as part of the ongoing cleaning efforts. So please make way for those street sweepers. Um I know they go slow, but they're an important element. Um, and this is also a really important step to improving our air quality. So, they will be out there. Um, you'll see them in the next few weeks. The city water uh resources division worked with Ducks Unlimited to submit a grant on the new uh Colorado Parks and Wildlife Wetlands for Wildlife program for restoring wetlands on open space as part of the Yampampa River Walton Creek Confluence Restoration Project. Um, so glad to see that. We will keep you apprised of that grant request. Moving on to high performing government. Uh the park's winter operations team has been using the slower periods between wintertorm events to refine internal policies and procedures improving operational efficiency across all crews. So that kind of happened throughout um the the city quite honestly with the slower uh winter and it did provide an opportunity for folks to focus on some other things besides um just moving snow all the time. and staff from the parks division recently completed a two-day training course to support their pursuit of certified irrigation technician certification which will enable them to operate park irrigation systems with greater efficiency. So glad to see that training um and professional development continue. Haymaker has launched its new mobile app which will greatly improve our customer experience. It will allow customers to access tea time tournament lessons booking oncourse GPS and live scoring mobile food delivery orders and much more. So, uh, it is available in the Apple and Android app stores by searching Haymaker. So, nice improvement on that. Glad to see that. Uh, airport manager Josh Schroeder attended the Steamboat Real Estate Forecast Conference on February 5th and supported Randall Hanowway in promoting the airport terminal building leasing

opportunity to attendees. So, got a lot of good exposure and it has led to an interested party. So, we'll keep our fingers crossed on that and keep you up to date. Um, let's see. safe community. Um I think I I mentioned this earlier that um the parks and recck commission is holding some discussions about ebike safety and ebike usage on city trails and roadways. Um that continues and an update in community discussion will take place at the April 8th parks and recck commission meeting. So if you're interested in that, April 8th at the parks and recck commission meeting. Um and just an update uh you know we did have that aircraft c crash that occurred on Emerald Mountain. staff is continuing to work closely with the NTSB in performing the investigation. Um, and we will be providing more information as we collect that information, but the site has been completely cleared. There does not appear to be any significant environmental concerns. Um, and so that's good. We've closed off the area to access. Um, and so please, if you get to that area and you see signage, please stay away from that area. Uh, it is still um, under investigation. reliable and resilient infrastructure. Uh there's information on the Steamboat Springs Pro Rodeo Series um effort to replace their secretar's office at the Romic Arena as well as the House and Hill pump house improvements project which continues. Um a lot of good information on the uh capital improvement projects. A lot going on out at the airport this uh summer. some fiber optic infrastructure to support FAA asphalt milling the terminal area improvement project as well as runway lighting rehab. So um a lot of work going on out at the airport. The West Steamboat Trail project is currently um being advertised for bids. The pre-made meeting was held on February 19th and the public opening was on the 12th. So pending C dot concurrence a notice of award will be issued shortly um shortly

after that and then uh construction is anticipated to begin in early May. So, I know that's an important project. I'm glad to see that moving forward. Um, just a note, Steamboat Springs Transit, um, let's see, did I Yeah, Steamboat Springs Transit, uh, ridership down was 11% um, compared to last year, and it's down 11% year to date. So, not surprising given this lower year. Um, the average cost for SST has increased by 63% per rider compared to last winter. Um, that's the bad news. The good news is SST is operating this winter with a 91% um arrival on time rate and um by comparison SSC operated at an 86% on-time performance last winter. So glad to see that that's increasing. Uh the water meter replacement project will continue. Um the contractor is scheduled to resume and complete that remaining meter replacements in May of 26. So um that will continue. So, if you get notified, um, please cooperate with those contractors. And just, uh, a note that there is a list of upcoming meetings and events, um, starting all the way through March 18th and April 13th of our boards and commissions and various meetings that the community should be aware of. That is my report and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Well, thank you and thank you for the new uh, format. Looks very um, promising. Yes. I just I'm just gonna call sorry I'm gonna ask for Emily or Josh to if you guys can help us. We're getting some sort of messy or the computer is going to reboot reboot up here and that we're going to be signed out soon. So, okay. You need it help. Is that what you're saying? You need We need need it help. It help. Thank you. We've only got 10 minutes, so probably probably. Um, while that's being done, does anybody have any questions or comments for Tom? I have a quick question. Oh, go ahead.

Uh, going back to the, uh, aircraft crash, um, as, as owners of, well, the initial investigation shows that it was it came in on a closed, um, route. I know that's initial. Um, as owners of the airport, do we have any influence over closing a particular route that is problematic? Um my understanding is that uh appro approach I guess it's called um there's three different approaches into the airport that that one particular approach has been closed. Uh we worked with the FAA and that's been shut down at least until October as they do this investigation to better understand um you know sort of the cause of that. So I don't know that we have any influence but it's already been done because they recognize that it is a potential issue. So,

okay. Thank you. Just a question on the playground. Are they looking at scaling it back to make it fit in budget? The playground at Emerald. Yes. Yeah. Is that your question where it is or what do you want to know? Are they scaling it? Are they looking at Yeah, they're looking at some value engineering like to call it. So, yeah. I have a quick question. The non-golfer would love to know if Hay Maker has an opening date yet. There is gossip going on in the community about a date. So, I don't know if you all have a date yet. We do not have a date yet. Yeah, we would like to open it and we'll open it if we can. Um, but there's a lot of factors to take care of. Yeah, of course.

And mainly there's employees at House and Hill use the So, they got to finish their job. Yeah. Finish that and close down House. Any other questions for Tom? Yes. Um again um want to I guess just call out in terms of the it looks like from the airport fuel sale sales right revenue I mean we're seeing an increase there and I think we were seeing it kind of just an overall increase right I mean to the extent that that's something that we've been asking for yes I just wanted to definitely you know call that out that we are seeing some movement in the right direction so absolutely appreciate all the work Josh is what Josh is doing

thank you I'll pass that along Okay. Thank you, Tom. All right. We will move on to general public comment. City council will make no decision or take action except to direct the city manager. Those addressing city council are requested to identify themselves by name and address and all comment shall not exceed three minutes. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a public comment tonight? Come on down and state your name and address, please. My name is Brent Romik. I'm at 17700 County Road 21 just outside of Yampa, Colorado. Um, I am not Most of you know me quite well and I'm not generally a complainer, but and a something that came to my attention here recently is I'm trying to prepare for the 2026 Pro Rodeo season and my biggest rodeo of the year called Cowboy Roundup Days. It just happens to be the oldest most continuous event that we have is the cowboy roundup days celebrating over a 100 continuous years of doing a rodeo. What uh I wanted to bring up is that you initiated another RFP process here recently about hosting uh a secondary event uh the night of the 4th of July. And uh that is uh problematic in in a lot of different ways because this discussion has been had. It just so happens that that is the biggest weekend that we have. Uh my goal in producing the pro rodeo series which happens to be one of the most dangerous sports in the world is safety and safety it not only in the arena but out of the arena. and that take we take very uh seriously the responsibility of of making sure that good circulation and all the spectators that come in and pack into that arena that night are protected

as well as my competitors there. me saying that I have spent 47 years doing this and I really appreciate the partnership I've created with the city of Steamboat Springs because you are truly my partner because I can done what we did to create what is the nation's best summer pro rodeo series but I really uh question our judgment on doing the RFP because I just completed with Councilman Pacino and Council Gary uh an exhaustive sharet process. I went through a parking process and there was only two things we gleaned out of that that we asked of the city uh before we supported the second sheet of vice at House and Hill unselfishly and got rid of our restroom. Those two things were you and voted unanimously by the winter sports club and the hockey group that we would not host free events against paid events. Uh, I'm not uh concerned because more than likely I'm going to be sold out. Last year worked extremely well. I'm hoping all three performances are sold out, but that means we cover up House and Hill pretty well. I have breakaway uh roping for women this year. It's going to add a lot of horse trailers. Those people start fogging in here from Gley, Red Lodge, Montana, and various places through the United States. all those days of Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. And hopefully those spectators spend a lot of retail sales tax. But what's important to me is is that the processes we do in that trip process, we only ask for two things. Don't compete against us privately when we're doing uh an event in which it's not just us. I have a hund I'm sorry, I have 125 sponsors that are hotel years. They're retailers and they step up. It doesn't only disappoint me when that happens and that type of activity happens, but it disappoints those sponsors.

Very small part of the year that we have to use Roma Karina and that is our biggest night. So I would respectfully request of you after dedicating my entire life to making that facility better and this community better, please reconsider and let's quit putting 10 lbs flour in a 5B bag and start taking uh eventing seriously because what happens is when you've got too many ants on the ant pile, my biggest defeats have been my greatest accomplishments. When you have way too many people there, it backfires on you and it's not a good experience. I spent today with Ski Corp talking about how we make that experience better. Last year went very well. They had record crowds. We had record crowds. They chose not to put in the RFP. I did also not put in the RFP. But the point is is they're going to have a free concert that night. I have and have scheduled uh for quite a while uh pre-rode entertainment and a dirt dance. So, we're fulfilling that. And I'd just like to see you keep that money. And that's uh basically uh what I said to Teresa the other day. We can afford to pay for the entertainment, but please don't compete against us if you would. And I appreciate our partnership, but I went through that shre process and we came up with those conclusions and I don't think that asked too much of the community. And thank you for indulging me. I'm sorry I ran over time. I do appreciate you and I love this community. I only want to make it better. So I'm not here like everybody else just throwing rocks at glass houses here. I'll back up. We do. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Brent. Appreciate it. Do we have anybody else in the audience who would like to make public comment tonight? Come on down, Brian. You have three minutes. And please state your name and address.

All right. Uh Brian Krill. I'm the executive director of Simo Springs Winter Sports Club. I'm at 245 24345 Old Tramway in Oak Creek, but I spend most of my time at 845 Hollison Parkway. Um, I am here uh with a very simple message of thank you and appreciation uh for this council, for the city staff, for parks and recck staff, for the Hollison Hill crew, and of course our crew at Steamote Springs Winter Sports Club. Uh we had uh all collectively it was a very challenging winter. It was a challenging start. It was a challenging finish. Uh we had, as everyone knows, record high temperatures, record low snowfall. Um, so I wanted to take the opportunity to just come and say thank you because despite all that, we had an amazing and robust season of activities uh through this partnership. So, I'm just going to paint a little picture of uh what winter looked like over there. I'm sure many of you got to enjoy some of it, but we had almost 40 days of sanctioned competitions at Hollison this winter. That does not count a lot of other community events and the high school races that we also helped host. Um we had eight almost 800 competitors from around the country and around the world. Um obviously many from the region um and many of our races represented up to 20 different nations uh from this winter. So lots of activity and sanctioned races. We have recommitted uh to our steamboat cup series. Our Steamboat Cup is for our youngest kids just to experience all our different sports, dabble in competition and low stakes. No results, no ribbons, no points, just uh the fun of competition and trying all the different sports. We had a probably about 250 unique kids join those competitions. Those are open to every

kid in the community whether or not they're in the Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club. So, we see a lot of our uh kids that have friends uh that obviously ski and snowboard and and also maybe kids that have done winter sports club and are coming back uh for a competition. We also hosted the Carl's Cup which is our adult league/beer league racing and that uh was about probably about uh 50 racers per race, probably close to 300 unique competitors. um help host and and uh coordinate CMC's training the high school team and the high school team hosted a couple of events at at Hollison. We uh help with the city staff put those on and then of course it was an Olympic year so it was excite there was excitement throughout uh the community with our Olympic heritage. uh three numbers that got a little confusing to remember. 13, 10, and 8. We had 13 total Olympians uh representing Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club. We had 10 on Team USA out of 97 on Team USA and eight of those were new Olympians. Uh so our total Olympians went from 100 to 108. Every one of those eight except one are are born and bred Steamboat Springs uh kids. Um indulge me for 10 more seconds. Another really fun thing that we did in association with the uh Olympics was hosted. Soda Creek uh came over for an opening ceremonies on the same day of the Olympic opening ceremonies. We had six Olympians there talking to about 150 wideeyed kids. Um, and they just thought that was cool. Did a flag ceremony. Um, and of course our 114th annual 113th annual winter carnival. Uh, many said that it was the best ever. So,

I'm honored to host all of that and all that activity at Hollison Hill through this partnership. I'm equally excited to cross all of it off the list. So, thank you for your support. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Brian. Okay, come on down, Todd. Uh

Todd Gnish, 64 Spruce Street. Um here is a Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club parent uh board member and part of the organizing committee from this past weekend's Junior National Championships for ski jumping and Nordic combined. I'm here to echo the thanks that Brian just extended and the thanks that uh Dean Vogel are extended at the March meeting. Um the partnership that we have with the city is incredible. Um, I'm focused on this past weekend. Uh, Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club is grateful and honored to have the city be our partners in hosting the 2026 Ski Jump in Nordic combined junior national championships in Skitown USA. We do that every 5 years. Um, it was a huge hit, huge success. The folks, the best ski jumpers in Nordic combined athletes from around the country, their families, their coaches were here this past weekend. We blew them away. uh both with the fact that we were able to host the events given the current conditions um and the uh bonus features we had like helicopters landing at Hollison Hill uh historical presentation um depicting Carl Howson to all the young kids at closing ceremonies and everything in between. Um these events would not be possible without the team effort between the winter sports club and the city. Uh Mike Nes and his crew at House and Hill have been awesome to work with. This events, this event and ones like it are important to carry on our community's history and legacy that goes back over 100 years. Hollson Hill is a unique asset in our community authentically set Steamboat apart from other resort towns across the West. We have the opportunity to continue this tradition, continuing to set Steamboat apart and create stronger bonds with those who visit and get to return. There is some economic impact here as well. Events like this carry an important economic impact. The visiting teams, families, and officials all fill

beds, shops, restaurants. They purchase lift tickets. They spend money while they're here. We appreciate that. It adds up over time. Uh maybe a couple fun facts here that program director Todd Wilson has shared with me. Um both the sports club and the city have attracted employees that have come to this event as kids as competitors years ago and have now made their home here and and work with us like Carl Denny, Garrett Fisk, Scott Larson, and Scott Kby. I'm sure there's more that after a long weekend of events we can't think of right now. Um these events also feed our Olympic heritage. every single Olympian in ski jumping or in order combined has come through the junior national championship programming um over the past 40 years. As a small token of our appreciation, uh we've got a bib that all the kids have signed. Um I'll give it to you, Tom, but if you want to pass it along um to your team at Hollison Hill, we appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Todd. And thank you for your announcing prowess too at these uh events. Of course. Okay. Um we'll open it up for more in the audience in a minute here. I just want to go online. We have someone Enrique, is that who that is? Who has their hand up? Can you unmute? All right. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you state your name and address, please?

Yeah, my name is Enrique Meestas. I'm at 753 Tamarack Drive, Hillside Village Apartments. And um I'm calling about as a bicycle commuter and um Michael Bacino probably a little familiar. I I talked to him last week. Um I was detained on Lincoln riding an electric bike at 11:30 in the morning on a commute that I make every day. Um, I work at UPS, so I'm commuting every day. And I was detained by a police officer. I I just remember his first name. I was looking for his card. I don't have it. His first name is Dante. He was fine. He was very polite, all of that. But he did detain me even though I asked him if I was detained for riding a bike on Lincoln and told me we're we are barred from doing so. Um, I'm concerned about this for a number of reasons. one when I talked to route county riders they were very surprised as well and they're you know we we need to deal with this issue about having a bicycle passage on US 40 especially during commute hours now here um in the summer and during you know non-s snow times it's not as big of an issue but we still need to have passage there because the side streets are dangerous for bicyclists and the side streets especially in winter are dangerous. Yampa is a sheet of ice on mornings. We uh can't be restricted. The core trail is not passable most of the time if we have good snow. And Oak Street is just kind of a mess because everybody else is trying to come up and down conduct business. The safest place for us to ride is 40, especially in the winter and during the farmers market. This could be a problem if we're trying to move on Saturday and we're being shunted to where everybody else is. That puts us in danger. So, this is a problem. I don't

know what the specifics are around this code, if it's an actual code. The officer tried to show me a code. Um, he did not even give me a warning. All I got was a card. So, I don't have a warning on this. I don't even know if this is a ticketable offense. I don't know what it is, but I know that I was highly inconvenience and late to work and this needs to be addressed. Um, there are other issues involved in this, particularly for me. Um, I have been targeted by aggressive drivers on side streets with coal rolling, honking, aggressive driving. Again, US40 is safer because it is patrolled and it is public. So, we have to have a better option for this because this is a problem. And for those of us bicyclists, you know, especially commuters, we need to have a better answer than just move over to a shared place like Yampa. Yampa Street. I mean, if you want to make a commitment to that, get all the cars off of Yampa like most of the towns in Colorado. They give us some space as bicyclists, especially as commuters. And if it has to be a non- enforcement issue like it is on the core trail and the speeds and all of that from what I I gather that from route county riders then a non- enforcement issue works because our rights are not going to be violated because to move is a constitutional right especially for commercial purposes. Sometimes I am doing UPS business with UPS clothes. I should not be barred from moving up and down 40. And I don't think that that's I don't think that's constitutionally illegal either, but we'll have to see about that. When I did talk to a lawyer and I told him that all I got was a card, it was like it's we need to get this documented if we want to pursue this. I don't think we have to do that. I think we just need to get some understanding that we have a right to ride our bikes on 40. And if not, then

we need to address that publicly. And I don't know if Steamboat wants to be a town that is not friendly to bicyclists because that's probably where this would head if we had some type of session with Route County riders and others. So, I did want to bring that up. Wait, wait, wait, hold on, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. You gave other people more than three minutes, but not me. I just want to put that on the record. If you want to go on, you can go on. I just want to be sure that you give me the same courtesy that you give to Mr. Romic I gave you had over 300. Thank you. I didn't hear anybody. Yeah, I heard others.

So just keep in mind that I request the same rights as the other white in your view. Okay. Can you can you please finish your discussion? I'm giving you time to finish. Enrique. Thank you. Thank you. So I did want to say that. So I will call you Michael again. We should deal with this. Please don't be rude to me. I won't be rude to you. have the same respect you have for me for the luxury enjoyers. I am a worker here. Respect that as you would respect an investor or a rodeo head. Respect us the same. We all deserve the same respect.

Enrique, we do we do respect you and thank you for your comments. Thank you. Okay. All right. Is there anybody else online? Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to make public comment at this time? Okay, with that we will close public comment. And can we address um I guess what uh Mr. Romik is saying is that there's multiple events planned for that night um including a free concert as well as their most popular rodeo event. Yeah. Can we get filled in on that? Because I'm not I'm not

It's in a committee right now. the the the Fourth of July committee, uh we usually go through and and present an RFP out and look at that to give anybody that wants to go for some funding for a Fourth of July event. And uh from what I understand, the fire chief, police chief, and staff has gotten together and made the um awareness that they could handle another event on that mountain that day. and it opened up the idea of putting out an RFP. I don't know if anything I'm sure the I don't know what's gone on since then, but that's where the catalyst was to putting an RFP out.

And and just a clarification, it was a it was a it was an basically an open invitation for proposals, and RFP is probably too formal for an event anywhere in the city. Um, and it wasn't it wasn't limited to house. We did we did say that house would be evaluated as a potential venue, but it again it would depend on what the proposal was and and so um it was open to anybody in anywhere in the city. Um and I honestly don't know if we've received any proposals. Um but that's that's where we are at this point. Is there an event happening also at the ice arena that on July 4th?

Um I don't know. I I would have to check. Not that I'm aware of, but I would have to check. And all of those things would be considered if and when a proposal came in. Okay. So, just to put a cap on or a lid on this, is is those events has all the events been finalized for July 4th at Hollison?

Um, I don't believe so. No. I mean, I I we we haven't I don't know the I can't remember the deadline of the of the request for proposals. We'll have to evaluate that when it when it comes in. But um if you know council says no more events at Allison, then the decision's made. But we want to see if there were proposals for anywhere else in the city as well since the fireworks or the drone show I should say at SkiCore will not be occurring. So Brent's concern is not necessarily um a reality at this point in time. I think he's I think he just was stating his opinion that we probably shouldn't even have opened it up for House and Hill and Okay. Yeah.

Oh, sorry. Maybe my listening skills are poor tonight. Was the issue the fact that there is just a third event? Is that the issue or is it that the issue is that the event was at the third event was at potentially at house? I think that the event that's the potentially at not that there is the existence. There's no decision about another event. What's the second event? Well, he had I think he had two different events that were Oh, okay. Okay. Although he exist one isn't the problem. Did he me I mean I think I don't know that this is by he mentioned a concert at ski at the mountain right so I I I interpreted that as the second but that there be a concert right next door utilizing the same parking and everything else at the exact same time is how I took it

and it was brought up during the sharet process in our house and hill user group in our user group meeting where we talked um specifically about conflicts and that was one of the main conflicts of the entire year at house and hill most the other sharet and And this discussion was pretty uh amicable in a lot of things, but when there's a free concert and a rodeo, there was always a challenge. Thus, his concern was justified in bringing up that an RFP was sent out, but there has been no decision on what we're doing on that 4th of July as this point.

And just to sorry if you said this, um, councelor Bacino. So, Councelor Bacino and I have been on the July 4th additional event committee um since my gosh. Yeah. Um because it was a blackout date. Um and so we started talking about should we allow more events over Fourth of July. Um so the past couple years it was up on the mountain two one or two. We have a meeting um with the committee next week. Um, and per the email that we literally just got yesterday or today, um, there is one RFP that came in, um, for Hamilton, um, from the free concert series. I'm sure I can share this, um, because other people are on it. Um, and the committee members include the two of us. Um, Lisa Papovich, um, Kevin Seni from the club, um, Sarah Leonard from the chamber, and John Shipley represents, I believe, the rodeo. Um, so we will definitely have a conversation next week, and I'm guessing we won't make any decisions. We'll probably bring it back to council um, at an upcoming meeting. Okay.

Yeah. You have a plan. Okay. And we do want to thank um all the people at the Winter Sports Club and all the people in the city staff who work over at Hollison as well as for what a super job they did. I did go to that jumping competition last weekend and uh um there wasn't much snow over there and they moved a lot of snow over there, didn't they, Angela? and it's just unbelievable what they did to to hold that event which is uh was really exciting. So, um we appreciate the the relationships we have and uh want to continue to build on those. Um as far as the last gentleman and this EV bike situation on Lincoln, I I don't know. I see the chief back there, but I don't know uh what the rules are around EV bikes on Lincoln. I would uh if you want me to follow up with a memo to council about kind of um that event and the rules, I'm happy to follow up with that.

Okay, that be great. Okay. Yeah. Super. Well, could we just get an answer? Is it legal to ride a bike on 40 through town? I I think

just to give some clarity on that, he did call me and we did talk uh at length regarding this. Um I I don't have any I didn't I wasn't on the other side with Dante and what happened. So it was more of like trying to figure out what to do. And one thing we did talk about was uh you know Yampa has the you're allowed to ride your bike through the whole lane on Yampa. There's there's signs and everything that say that in the road, but that's not on any other street in Steamboat. So I think he was implying that. Um I don't know for sure. So I kind of see kind of let it see what happened. So I'm glad it brought up. Good evening. Good evening.

Mark Becket, police chief. Um, I'm gonna look at John. I I Yes, I think bikes the only place that to my knowledge bikes or ebikes are not allowed is sidewalks. Correct. Look at that. Got one right. So, yes, they can ride. And are they I I guess the intention is can they take up the lane of a vehicle? Because if he was riding down the middle of a lane and if that's where he got stopped, I think that's and I'm not sure that's what happened, but it seems like he was just kind of going down a car lane. Yeah. No, they cannot ride in traffic. They cannot ride in traffic.

Not unless it's an actual vehicle. So like an ebike, uh, an e motorcycle, if it's registered and licensed, then yes, it could. Um, but an ebike, so like a class one, class 2, class 3, has to be on the side like any any other regular bicycle. Is there a defined ride of way that's for bikes like five feet from the edge of the street or anything like that? I don't believe so. Okay. The the only the only statute I'm aware of dictates how much space a vehicle has to give a bike when passing which I Okay. But there isn't much room between the two lanes going each way and the car is parked on the on the curb. I mean there very little room there. I wouldn't do it. I'm just saying. Okay. Okay.

It's legal and what what we may do are two different things. Yeah. I think it's legal. I I know it's legal. It's may not be a good idea, which I believe is what precipitated the decision to open YAMP up and create that make that a complete bike road. So, okay, that's a little before my time. Thanks for coming. Thanks. Yep. Okay. Anything else? So, we have a decision here. It's uh about 25 of 7. We have about an hour presentation which is coming up next. Do you want to have the presentation and then take a break or take a break and have the presentation? I'd say take a break. We've been kind of going for since 4. Since 4. Yeah.

Okay. Then let's take a 10-minute break and we'll get back here at um 7 or 6:45. Here you go.

Okay. Are we all back? Sure. All right. We're going to move on to our next item, which is agenda item number G, community reports. And we have inclusionary zoning linkage fee preliminary recommendations. Brad Thanks everybody. Let me get this fired up here.

Uh thanks President Matine. Brad Calbert. I'm in the planning department. Um I've been working with the folks at EPS uh on this project. You'll hear from both Brian and Rachel uh from the economic and planning systems for the sort of bulk of the presentation. I just want to do a little bit of orientation uh for you all. And I gave President Mina a quick heads up. I'm going to add one discussion question that I think would actually be helpful for the project team. So alerted to that, but I'll I'll state that here uh in a second. Um you obviously what this is exactly as it is being proposed on the slide and in the packet. This is a preliminary set of recommendations uh as outlined in the memo. Council has had various conversations around inclusionary zoning, inclusionary housing and linkage fee for the past couple of years. we are at that moment where you have in front of you this evening some preliminary recommendations uh from the consultant team but when it's the consultant team and essentially the project team uh including staff uh as well uh what you're seeing in your presentation this evening are high level or essentially high level findings from relatively detailed technical analysis uh I just want you all to know that if if we as council advances into like the policy conversations all of that technical docu documentation will be available to you just know But that is part of the deliverable is to make sure you see a full nexus study. Uh you see all the case studies, all that sort of thing. We've been sort of titrating that information to you, but you will you will continue to see that information uh going forward. Um in addition to the technical uh analysis that inform the recommendations in front of you tonight, uh there they are also informed by adopted plans and policies. I threw a a couple slides at the end of the presentation that talk about the housing strategy and action plan as well as a Steamboat Springs community plan. I put those slides in there as reference. We won't cover them. I can obviously be a resource to you if you have conversations about that. Um, and again, if we arrive at let's call it policy guidance tonight, then the real sort of code and policy drafting uh begins in

earnest, but you will have set some parameters uh for for us. Uh the one additional discussion question that I would love to add to your list is um we we will likely need policy check-ins even during code and policy drafting times. It would be great to be able to use the city council housing subcommittee. It's kind of a place to touch base with on that. I'm not suggesting they would make decisions on behalf of council, but if there are five or six options and we simply want to narrow to two uh to provide to council, that's really where I think that group could be really helpful to just use those standing meetings to get some uh check-ins uh versus trying to sort of work around uh you all scheduled for something that feels relatively light uh in terms of the policy impact, but we want to have uh again someone to touch base with. So, I'd love to just sort of hear uh council's feedback on that. Uh you did receive some public comments for this. I think a couple of them came via Rainbow. So I just want to make call your attention uh to that. Uh otherwise I think Brian and Rachel, although they're both there and they're both standing, uh you're probably going to hear from both of them. I'll be your resource either during questions or deliberation. But with that, I'll turn it over to you all.

Perfect. Thank you, Rad. Um it's nice to be back in front of all of you. Um last time you just had Brian, now you get the the duo. Um, and I think this is our third conversation on this topic. And so hopefully you'll see how we've been building throughout. So this evening we're going to do um a quick summary recap of what we've done through this process, where we're at right now, go over the findings and draft recommendations, and then really have a lot of time for questions and discussion. Um, and then just talk through the next steps, which Brad kind of outlined. Um, and the key questions, these are not the discussion questions, but just key things to keep in mind as we're going through one, um, are we comfortable moving forward with these recommendations and we're not making decisions right now, but are are we on the right path or do we need to sort of pivot to a different path? Um, and then are there additional questions or information requests that you all have to to make informed decisions as we move forward? So, this is a preview of the discussion questions that we'll be coming back to. And so these will be back on the slide at the end. Um but just key things to keep in mind. Some of these are process, some of these are that on the right path question. Um and then of course as always if you have any questions about the analysis, the findings, what it all means, you know, that's why we're here. So first quick intro and summary. So just a recap of what we've been doing for the past few months. So the study had two main components. So the there was the inclusionary housing feasibility part of it and then the linkage program nexus study and those are related. There's a lot of the same analysis components in those, but we did both of those um to look at what an IHO program might look like, look at what a linkage program would look like, um and then we had looked at some case studies as well, and then we're at the draft recommendation part. And the key questions that were guiding us through

this process were which program or programs are best suited for steamboat. So, we did the the case studies of what are other communities doing, but also what's right here and then what should some of those program parameters be. And so, that's what we're talking about this evening. And so, uh, spoiler alert, we are recommending a linkage program. Um, and so wanted to recap what that means and what that looks like. And so, a linkage program is primarily a fee program. It's sometimes also called an affordable housing impact fee. That's how it functions. And so it is a fee placed on new development or significant redevelopment additions. So net new space um to address affordable housing impacts. And so it can apply to both residential and non-residential development. And we'll see how that can play out. Um it uh you know when compared to an inclusionary housing program and Brian will talk a little bit in a second about how we considered inclusionary uh housing. um it can be easier administratively to implement. It functions similarly to a lot of other fee programs that already exist. Um it gives a flexible benefit and so for communities that have the ability to utilize revenue, which Steamboat has through other affordable housing revenue sources as well, um it creates flexibility to utilize that funding in the ways that are best suited to the community at different times. And so we're not stuck in like very specific ways um to meet the requirements of the program. Um it is also a lumpy revenue source because it is tied to development. And so Brian also will talk about how it can work really well in uh conjunction with other tools and environment uh and programs that exist. And then we'll talk through some of the other components about you know the how it adds to the cost of development and and what that might look like here. Um, so just again a brief overview um, to keep in mind as we talk through this in terms of how the program functionally

works. And so like I said, it's based on new development or net new space. So if someone, you know, is adding 5,000 ft to a 10,000t building, this would just apply to that 5,000 square ft of new space. And so we just take the new space, we use our employee generation rate from the nexus study that says how many new employees do we expect to be associated with this new space based on the land use. Um and then we take our mitigation rate and we say how many of those employees are we expecting the development to mitigate the housing needs for and then we take our fee and we apply it to that and that's the fee. Um, so it's a very uh transparent linear process in terms of um how it applies, which means it's also predictable for the city, for developers, for anyone looking to understand the program. Brian's going to jump in with with the good stuff.

We're we're going to tell you the recommendations. I think we're telling probably two or three times. So, this is complicated stuff. It's very technical. Um, so I'm going to kind of go through this very intentional pace. So, we are recommending um a linkage fee program over instead of an Idaho here. Um we're recommending that it would apply to residential and non-residential development. Um it it would also apply to substantial additions. So, potentially greater than 50% net new uh floor area added to a project. Um was some important some important um finetuning around this. So, the residential fee, we're recommending to apply citywide. The non-residential fee, we are only recommending that that be applied in what we're going to we're going to put it in air quotes for now, the mountain area. So, some subset of like the STR green zone, but basically, you know, sort of resort adjacent development. um because the way we we've looked at Steamboat's economy and other work um through throughout the years and it's you know it's it's it's a it's a complicated place. you have a you have a very strong tourism economy and that creates a lot of the affordable housing impacts that you're facing, but you also have, you know, the more traditional economic base functions of Steamboat as, you know, the regional service hub for northwest Colorado. And during the comprehensive plan, there was a lot of talk about the need to and and talking with Route County Economic Development, the need to keep trying to grow those other sectors. So, we're we're recommending that the non-residential commercial development fee would only apply in the mountain area. Um, thereby exempting non-residential development in other areas. So, think about industrial parks like Copper Ridge, West Side of Steamboat, downtown. Um, places where we want to encourage additional commercial

development.

Um, um, we'll show you what our what our thinking is on the mitigation rates. So, that's the act the fee level. Rachel showed you how you go from the maximum calculated in the nexus study and then you can choose what feels good to you and or feels, you know, like a reasonable balance of the amount to charge. Uh so we'll show you our thinking on that. And there and there these things can be phased in over time if you wish, you know, to to give the market time to adjust. You don't have to, you know, say it's going to go into effect at the at that amount this day. You can ramp it up over a couple years. Um, another important exemption um that we're recommending um we're recommending that on residential that deed restricted housing at or below 120% of AMI would be exempt to this fee. So we're basically exempting affordable and attainable housing and applying the residential fee only to market rate residential. Keep we'll keep rolling. That's a lot. It's a big bite. Let's see. So why are we not recommending inclusionary housing? Um this so a couple a few quite a few reasons. Um so most of the city's pretty built out. Um and so smaller projects aren't going to generate a large like afford affordable housing requirement. Um they would end up paying a fee anyway. Um and so the linkage fee program kind of serves the same purpose and you're going to you get you get the fee revenue. Um the large projects that Steamboat sees are we think are more likely to occur around the mountain area. Historically that's one large where large the largest development projects in Steamboat have happened and um but at the same time that is in our opinion and talking with others not the best place to put affordable and attainable housing. Um because people want to live, you know,

with with and near their communities and you know, you end up with, you know, two people, two households living, you know, in a 50unit market rate building that's empty for, you know, you know, weeks at a time. Um and, you know, perceptions of halves and haves, halves and halves have nots. Um the linkage fee program gives you the flexibility to spend the money to put the units where you want them, not necessarily where where new development's happening. Um developers um generally tend to pre prefer to pay a fee than to build uh units on site and then have to um there's there's a lot of work that's involved that you you need to build infrastructure around. Um whether it's the city or a housing partner or a nonprofit to have really efficient um reliable processes to qualify renters to qualify buyers. Um, and you know, when when rental units become available, it can be slow and clunky to release those if they don't have, you know, easy access to already qualified tenants. Um, you know, it's more fluid with free market units. Um, and and it can become it can become difficult for the city for a housing program manager to to manage, you know, a small number of units scattered around around the city. It can be a lot of work. Um and so and then the linkage fee captures revenue from all project sizes. Um afford inclusionary housing ordinances. There's a million ways to design them, but a lot of times they exempt out smaller projects and so you have this threshold problem and the small projects either generate a fraction of the unit that gets rounded down or they pay a fee. Um and I already said this, but the link linkage program is just simpler, cleaner. it applies to every it would apply to everything. Um so you kind of get the same result. Um so under an IHO administrating units is challenging. Um you know small we work

with a lot of small mountain communities. Um and one of our clients her position probably spends she's probably spending 80 to 90% of her time just trying to trying to clean up compliance issues on on older deed restricted housing units that were built you know 20 years ago and they lost people lost track of them. It's it's a lot of work to um to more than you would think to maintain and track those in that that inventories when you when it's not something you built. So those those are our our thoughts. And then what did we say? Most importantly, I'm just going to read it. Existing in existing development incentives, STR tax fund investments and imposed proposed linkage fee exemptions produce similar outcomes. So those that's our that's our thinking on the two of those. Um, and so linkage fee, the linkage fee program is prim primarily a funding source. So it it slots in nicely to the STR tax fund. Um, and just and complements that. And so it's it's easy to just to combine those two sources of funding um to fund the projects that you want. Um, and I think that's enough on that. Back to you, Rachel.

Okay. So now we get into what this actually looks like. So this first piece um you've seen before this is a little bit updated. This is the the maximum fee. So this is part of the result of the nexus study based on the employee generation of different land use types, the wages of those employees, what the gap is between what those employees earn and what housing costs. This is the maximum amount to mitigate the housing needs of employees per square foot or for hotels per room for each of these land use types. And then um as you'll see the the mitigation rate gets applied to this and so typically something less than this maximum this is 100% less than this gets charged. Um and that that is a policy decision and also as we'll see um is related to development feasibility. And so a second piece of this that we did,

yeah, go to the mic. The last bullet, it's rare for communities to adopt the maximum fee. Some places do it. Why it's rare in the cont in your context is look at those maximum fees. If you charged an impact fee of $1,500 a square foot on restaurants and bars, you would get zero new restaurants and bars in Steamboat. So Rachel's going to talk about this balancing act of selecting a mitigation rate that accomplishes some housing goals and doesn't absolutely kill the market.

Yeah. And it gets to this point that it's it's a shared responsibility. And so this program is looking to the development community to mitigate some of the impact of new development but not all of it. And there are other programs and tools that also help with um sharing the load there. And so this is the overall recommended program right now. Um, and so we have the different land uses there and then this just sort of sum the first two columns summarize what Brian went through before. So residential in the entire city and then all the non-residential land uses only in that mountain area that will be defined as we go through this process. Um, and then we can see the mitigation rate ranges there. And so we're leaving them at ranges right now. We're not making any decisions on specific rates, but this is where, and we'll walk through in a second, how we got to these ranges where we think there's a good balance between mitigating enough and not to Brian's point, um, killing development feasibility because again, you know, it is a policy decision. um council can adopt any mitigation rate they want and also there are downstream impacts of that and so we don't want to recommend something that would kill the development market. And so you can see on the far right just what that fee range per square foot or per room would look like. And so this is just again this is very high level right now but based on the last you know about 10 years of development in the city what this could have looked like at different mitigation rates. Um again very high level this includes all residential and so to the point of you know what housing developments would have been exempt because they were affordable up to 120% AMI those are still in here and so

huge you know full container of salt with these numbers but wanted to give a general sort of um order of magnitude of this can generate millions of dollars a year um and so it is it is not insignificant and then also keeping in mind that it is potentially very lumpy and you can see that as we go through the years there there are huge fluctuations and so you know this can be a really good revenue tool to help with infrequent large investments right we build up the revenue over a couple years and then we can expend it on something potentially large so the one key piece of this analysis was the development feasibility impacts and so we used um what we call a static proform model and so We're not looking at year-over-year and all these things. We're just looking at full build um full occupancy, what it looks like from a cost and revenue perspective to add this fee into development. And so looking at general costs for different development types around the city and looking at prototypical development sizes, what impact would this fee have on development at different mitigation rates? And so as you can see in that last bullet, we're typically looking at mitigation rates that have and this is it gets confusing because we're talking about percentages with both of them. Um but in general not increasing development costs by more than 5%. So that's something that keeps development generally feasible, right? It can be absorbed by the development and still can produce a meaningful amount of revenue. And so we'll walk through these one by one. We're not going to spend a ton of time on each, but the charts all have the same format. So on the left we have the increase the incremental increase in development cost. Um and so that axis will change based on the land use that we're looking at. Some of them

get pretty high. And on the bottom we have the different mitigation rates. And so this is for the fees specific to this land use type. So here we looked at three different types of residential. Um the rest of them are just single. But this we can see that at about you know somewhere between a 25 to 50% mitigation probably closer to like around 25 to 35 we're still within that sort of 5% um increase in development costs at those mitigation rates. And so we can see on retail about 10 to 20% gets us there. And so again we can see you know if we implement a 75% mitigation rate on retail that could potentially increased development cost by 25%. And so that that is not likely to pencil in any developers proforma.

Yeah. Um restaurant as Brian noted um has the highest fee which we would expect. um it has a lot of lower wage employees and so the the feasibility impacts are a lot more significant and so this is where we see the the lowest recommended mitigation rate range um really you know below 3%. Office again is in that 10 to 20% range. Um it came out pretty consistent for a lot of the uses. um hotel as well. And we looked at hotel um in the mountain area specifically um and then industrial as well. Not that we would necessarily expect any industrial in that area, but just again showing those impacts just to show that it has um you know outside of restaurant the the non-residential uses even with different different costs, different development programs, different fee levels, it all you know the the sweet spot range came out around 10 to 20%. for all of them. So that is that was a lot of information. Hopefully we talked slowly enough that uh it it settled. Um so we'll go back to the discussion questions in a second, but in general um tonight we're looking to confirm the policy direction. Again, not making any specific choices, making sure we're on the right path. Um then we'll go back um finalize all the technical analysis, write up all the reports that Brad mentioned. Um and then you know keep working through the process. Um and there's you know I'm sure Brad can speak to a lot of the details that will be worked out. You know when would the fee be charged? How would it be paid? What fund does it go into? What's the process for you? that that those are all important considerations and things that will come once we make sure that we're we're heading in the right direction. So with that, we'll take any questions.

Second. Yeah, I know that I'm so fast. I was so worried we were going to go like 10 minutes over. So um thank you. Um, so back to these discussion questions and then also just any questions on the analysis, the findings, the the logistics of the programs and anything that you all have questions on. Please use us as a resource because this is complicated stuff. Well, thank you. I mean, it's complicated, but you gave a very clear presentation and we really appreciate that.

I'm sure there's some questions from council, though. Well, you didn't go slow enough for me. This is the first time I've seen these numbers and I have to admit I'm, you know, you're not going to, you know, I I need to see some examples. I need, you know, and to actually see the differences. Um, and I was I'm rather unclear when we have recommended programs, are we recommending different rates across the different uses? And that's what I'm getting is that a hotel versus a restaurant versus retail, you're having different numbers. And then I think when I see the the hotel, I see a pretty big number, you know, it could be like $10,000 per room. But then there are some um time shares that kind of act like a hotel like the like the Grand is, you know, is is a time share, but you know, for all practical purposes, it's a also a hotel. So how does that come into play? So, I said a lot of things. Um, I don't know if you where you want to start there or if you want to come back next time with examples that's probably, you know, maybe we're better use our time.

Yeah. Um, I can do part of it. The the how land uses are classified. I'm going to let Brad take that one. Um, the short answer to the first part of your question is yes, there can be different mitigation rates on different land uses. So, it is absolutely great to say we're going to do 20% on all of the non-commercial other than restaurant. We would not recommend that. Um, there can also be a different rate for hotel and retail and office and all of those. That's those are all policy decisions. We think that these ranges are where those decisions should probably be bounded. Um we can definitely especially as part of the the technical writeups have more examples of um you know like what what fed those the proformas that led to these in terms of like this is you know a 2700 square foot house on a this size lot that you know would sell for this and this would be the fee um and it's this percent of the cost things like that. um we have all that we would have been left with more than or less than 16 seconds. Um but no, that's a great point. Just, you know, walking through what it would actually look like. We can definitely include that.

Go ahead. Yeah, I have a I have I have another question. Um so con like time show time shares and condo hotels are kind of tricky. Um, so res if it's residential, the way we've got it structured right now, if it's residential property, it would pay the residential linkage fee. So a condo hotel, you know, those are those are residential units, they would pay the residential linkage fee. A a pure key hotel, you know, one owner, many rooms, um, would pay the hotel impact fee.

Okay. All right. And then um one of the things I struggled with is basically making sure we didn't impact you know you know uh small businesses that want to you know kind of want to grow in our community and you kind of address that saying well we'll only do the um mountain area but I do look out at um let's say around the airport let's say you know UPS wanted to put a you know a distribution hub there that's a pretty you know there's some space out there that we could potentially you know do that Um, but I don't wouldn't I certainly would not want to miss that opportunity of having an impact fee there. So, you know, how do we address the those large, you know, commercial outside of that area?

That's that's a trade-off, right? It's it's hard to it's hard to craft policies like this um for sort of, you know, unique opportunistic things. So that that is definitely a trade-off. If you were to get a big, you know, national employer out there, they would probably be exempt.

Oh, yeah, that's a good one. That's a good one. Um, you some um some options on non-residential would be to exempt you put a put a size cap. So you you could exempt buildings under 5,000 square feet or something like that. Some is would would be one option on the non-residential fee. That that yeah that I think that would something like that would be a good recommendation I think.

Yeah. And that's that's what we're working through actually with another community of Denver. They have the same issue. They have a lot of Amazon coming in um and also don't want to disproportionately impact small businesses. And so there we've recommended I think um new developments would be exempt and so that is another option. Is there a scale at that point or where or it automatically turns on at 10,000 square feet? You know, I the way we've looked at it, it's just an onoff switch. The scale gets a little

or not or the first 10,000 is not or the first 5,000 is not tax and then then you go after that. Yeah. I mean there there are options. Um and that's I think that's you know again what we're looking for oh sorry what we're looking for here um is you know are we on the right path and then if so what are these other considerations that we should be thinking about. So this is all great like maybe looking at options to account for potential really large employers that come in in other locations like we can we can weave that in. Okay. Thank you. You're on the right track. Yeah. Perfect. Let's hear from some other counselors. Who else has some questions? Councelor Barnes was first, I think. Okay.

Okay. All right. Well, we'll just keep going down the road. Thank you, councelor Barnes. Um, so just a couple of clarifying questions. If you look at page five, um, linkage program, we talk about impact fee to fund affordable housing and directly related to capital costs. Is that something that we will dig deeper into um, in the sense of just thinking about some of the issues that we're facing? I mean from the perspective of does it have to be for new a building or it cannot can it can't be for like retaining affordable housing or infrastructure or what what are the restrictions around how this money can be used? Good question. Okay. Um and is is there are there I so I assume it sounds like there are

impact impact fees need to be spent on capital costs. Um so it could be building affordable homes, planning for affordable homes, engineering studies, infrastructure costs, fee waiverss, fee incentives, things like that. Um, it would um buying down existing homes, you know, a buy down program. So, buying a deed restricted on a home, I think you could consider that a capital cost. Um, but that those are pretty rigid um legal requirements on impact fees. So, they would not be able to be used to fund things like child care or or rental assistance programs that aren't, you know, hard permanent capital costs.

What about infrastructure for like a mobile home park? Um, if I would say yes, if there's um some permanent, you know, deed restricted deed deed restrictions that come along with that.

Okay. All right. Um kind of along that same line then like if we flip on to the next page um in terms and maybe following a little bit upon what um counselor said in terms of exemptions when we talk about residential beyond I mean we know right we're talking about deed restrict at 120% AMI or below I mean can that go higher to the extent that we know that we have middle income issues problems with our middle income folks or could we do this on a size square footage so anybody body that's building something that's 3500 square f feet or less doesn't get a fee in l

I think you could do those both um again those those are the the pol so we tried to color code this in terms of what can be changed and what can't be um so anything that be can be considered a policy choice

can be pretty flexible obviously you know as we've talked about within the bounds of what is likely to be feasible um we use 120% just because that is sort of current existing definitions. Um but again, you know, this can point to other programs and policies. And so if there's, you know, broader definitions of what affordable or workforce housing is, this just points to that and says anything that counts as that is exempt, that's fine. Um there can also be size thresholds for residential that can be a little sticky, especially when you have a city with some smaller lots and you know, some of them you can only build smaller things on. Um, so it's just, you know, thinking through, again, like Brian was saying, we can't make a a policy or program that speaks to every possibility, but it's just thinking about what works best for the context, and there aren't necessarily right or wrong answers. So, these are all like the right things to be thinking about.

Okay. And I guess my thought for when we get to council discussion would just be, you know, making sure that we're not increasing the cost for our workforce. Yeah, I think tying tying it to a deed restriction would be the would be the key. So maybe less focus on a specific AMI, more focus on ensuring that it's per there there's permanent affordability associated with the fee waiver. Okay. Thank you, Council Bars.

Mine was kind of addressed, but I just wanted to hone in on a little bit. So there' be a sliding Can there be a sliding scale? say under 1,500, no fee in L. And then as you go up and you know $5 for 1,500 to 2500 square feet, um $60 for a square foot for 10,000 ft² houses and up. Can there be a sliding scale like that? So yeah, I don't know that we've seen that.

Um I think we probably want to noodle on that a little bit more. Um there's there's some flexibility in the program. there's also some pretty strict parameters in how it has to function just because it sort of walks and talks like an impact fee. And so there's a little bit of that. Um that's you know why we did the Nexus study. Um, but I think as we go through this process, thinking about why we might be interested in something like that and you know what what end users or what types of development we're looking to potentially impact less and then looking at ways to structure the program to to get that goal whether it's through a sliding scale or something else.

This is kind of like the storm water management fee we're talking about, right? The more surface area you're taking up, the more you're going to pay. The bigger bigger project you're build, the more impact you have on more employees take care of it.

Yeah. This, you know, the linearity linearity is built in with the per square foot fee. And so the the total fee paid is scaled to the development, but the the fee per square foot would be the same based on whatever mitigation rate is chosen. And the next so it's you know there's the way the the analysis is set up is saying you know a retail space whether it's 500 square feet or 50,000 square feet generates the same number of you know employees per square foot or square feet per employee. Um which you know that is an assumption but that's just the the best way to do these analyses right now. Um and so the it that sort of scaling by size already exists but I think there's definitely a good question around you know impact on smaller developments, smaller businesses where there's there's just less wiggle room and some of the feasibility and so do we want to um set thresholds for application and some of that was sort of already done geographically. We would expect smaller developments outside of the mountain area and larger developments there. Um, but definitely good questions to be asking.

Yeah, I was just thinking more on this single residential unit where you didn't want to affect the workers here that are building a smaller house versus the people that are building a 10,000 foot house where it might not matter to them as much, right? And that's where something like a a resident occupied deed restriction where it's not tied to income, but it is set as permanently local housing. I don't want to like open any cans of worms, but that's something that can address that where it could still count as exempt because it is, you know, permanent workforce local housing um without, you know, without a resale cap,

right? Yeah. Yeah. So, there's, you know, there's lots of ways to integrate this with other approaches to affordability and local housing. And then can we also model this with our other sort of impact and building permit fees so that we when we get down to that point we would know what the total cost is coming in just to see so that we can see what that stack looks like.

Yeah. It's kind of it's kind of baked in at a high level to what we did. I mean we didn't get like super granular on every fee. Um because right now we're I would say we're like I'm going to use this analogy that I use too much. We're picking up rocks off the beach. We're not trying to dig too far in the sand. So just like it's worth spending 30 seconds on some of the development economics like if you know I think the single family home prototype that we modeled in here going to go to that slide. I'm going to get the numbers wrong so bear with me. But like you're probably paying what? $500,000 for a lot. I'm trying to remember what we put in there. Probably more than that. Like 750,000 bucks for a lot. you know, a free market home is going to be a thousand bucks a square foot. Um, and you know, so you know, you're you're at four or five million bucks for a free market house. So, you know, t, you know, we're adding, you know, we're adding 20 to $30 a square foot to that. That's that's a%

Yeah, it's a different market, right? that the those the second home market is a completely different market than what you know what the housing needs are for the for the local workforce. So, um I think that's that I can't finish my thought. Yeah, I think that's definitely a good thought and I think something comes up in every community as a valid consideration of what does this do to the overall fee impact on new development. Um, so yeah, like Brian said, some of that is baked in at a high level just in terms of non hard costs that are a part of development. Um, but that's definitely something that can be brought back just to see, you know, on the whole, does this double the fee per square foot on new development? Does it add 1%? That's yeah, a good question.

I go real quick.

Yeah. Um, so I'm going to pick up on the um residential other um folks have. So, just trying to get my head around the residential um because the linkage feed works by connecting your development directly to the housing demanded crude and you have on what the slide that I'm looking at that has your um house actually calculated and I was looking back at the PowerPoint that you all presented back in August and saw some communities um do one or the other, some do both. So, I'm just struggling to get my head around the residential because I was going into it where um it's the commercial is creating that demand or that impact potentially year round. So, you have a new hotel who has to hire workers that's been creating this um housing crisis um for us to be able to house um our employees. Um, for residential, in my mind, what I'm hearing is if someone's building a house or expanding their home, that impact is the folks that are actually working on building that home, but then they're off to the next one. Is that right? So, I'm just having a hard time getting my head around that one.

Yeah, that is a great question. Um, and you got probably 25% of what is all built in there. So yes, it is the construction impacts and the analysis accounts for sort of the span of someone's career as a construction employee overall and like how much of their career is can be attributed to, you know, one house. So it's not double, triple, quadruple, you know, 200 time counting that same employee for every single house that they build. It's looking at overall like what fraction of an employee does, you know, a square foot of housing generate. Um, and that will all be laid out in the in the technical reports. And then on top of that, we also, and this wasn't we we sort of refined the residential analysis a little bit since the last time we chatted. We also look at what is the impact of people living in that home, right? Those people go to doctors, they go to the grocery store, they go all over, they go get gas, they they do all of these things. And so there is an impact of new residents on the community and on employment. And so those a lot of those people work in some of these non-residential uses also. But one of the benefits of not mitigating anywhere near 100% is that those they end up not overlapping um in terms of the employment generated. But it is it is the construction and it's the fraction of the employee. Um and so it's accounting for one person over their career and then it's also looking at the impacts of residents in a new home on the community. Yeah. and visitors. So, if that's, you know, we've accounted for if it's used as, you know, like a short-term rental or something, what are those impacts as well?

And maybe just one quick followup to that. The communities that, um, do one or the other, I mean, why?

It's a great question. Um, a lot of them, a lot of communities that only have non-residential linkage also have inclusionary housing. Um and so because like we've talked about that the also the conversation around inclusionary housing and linkage has changed in the last year or two just because of some legal cases. Um and so you know you typically would do one or the other. And so a lot of those communities that were seeing a lot of development, you know, for a lot of the reasons that we're not looking at an inclusionary ordinance here, it worked really well in a lot of other communities that were seeing a lot of new development in areas where you would want like there's already sort of community and amenities and access and trans transportation, all of that. Um I think a lot of communities now are looking at migrating to linkage just because they find the flexibility of revenue can be a lot more useful. Um there's just you know a lot of places where local governments are partnering with developers are providing gap assistance providing infrastructure to projects and there's they find a lot more benefit in being able to have the the funding capacity to assist in housing in that way rather than ending up like Brian said with all of these sort of dispersed units. Um, there are some communities that have seen some definitely unintended impacts of well-intended policies and sort of empty units, you know, above the garage of a 20 million dollar home. And

it was never intended for someone to actually live there. They built it because they had to. And so, again, understanding what what we're really trying to do and then what tools get us there. And so that's why we think that, you know, a revenue stream that can help complement other revenue tools that we have um because we have really good ways to use that revenue um is probably the most beneficial. Yeah, thanks. You're right. Looking at this, you're right. The ones that have one um they have inclusionary. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.

I follow up that same question. Go ahead. Um if it was inclusionary, it was let's say let's pick a, you know, a 50-unit, you know, um 50 unit condo. It was and it was inclusionary, how many units would that be? And how does that compare to what the what the linkage fee would be if you did a linkage program versus um a inclusionary program?

It's a great question. um we can half answer it because like I said we updated the residential analysis between our last meeting and this meeting and because we had migrated towards the linkage we did not update the inclusionary which we can do it's pretty simple in the model we just I was literally sitting outside and ready to pull that number anticipating that question and going oh we haven't updated this um so the the previous analysis was a 4.2% set aside so 4.2% 2% of 50 is we also just talked about how we should never do math on the fly. So I'll let somebody else do that. Um so that would be the unit. Um and then the the fee would essentially be the linkage fee because the way we would calculate a fee in L would be a fee in L for inclusionary would be very similar to if not the exact same model to how the linkage fee is calculated. And so that's how we were talking about um you know with the option to fee out a lot of developers would just fee out anyway. And so the the process of implementing an inclusionary policy and having to administer any units and then having kind of the same fee program underlining it anyway would probably be a wash. But we can definitely have those numbers when we write up the full analysis. We just we were like ready for that question and then I opened up the model and I went oh no. Um but it's a great question. We'll definitely get those numbers.

One thing I want to caveat that with it's we don't want to I don't we don't want to compare um these older inclusionary housing programs to newer linkage fee programs because um we we think that the legal environment is different now and that these need to be based on nexus studies. So, you know, these these these older programs with 10 or 20% set aides are generating far more units than a linkage than a linkage program will. Um, and you know, so it's it's it's just kind of a reality, you know, you know, if our if you're our 50 unit project today, if we were going to do it all on site at 100 100% mitigation, just cowboy math, caveats, don't quote me, what what's 10 what's 7% of 50? um three and a half three or four units maybe he might get in the project.

One follow-up question on ADUs. you guys is anybody back those out of like square footage um as an incentive or for a de restriction or taking or some sort of local workforce restriction taking that backing that out of a nuke new so I I think that goes back to many of the questions like if it's I you could have some options on ADUs if they were if they were deed restricted they could be exempt from this fee is that where kind of where Yeah. or a workforce workforce mandator.

Yep. If they're if they've got a permanent affordability um commitment on them, they could be exempt. I just had a um question regarding your methodologies on I was trying to understand. I I get the MIT rates are something that we can adjust to see where we want to handle, you know, what kind of impact they have, but really it was your maximum defensible fees um are so variety and you were based upon a nexus study. Just give me a little bullet points or at least how that how did we come up with that? Yeah. Is that just to our community or is that the whole like estate or something?

No, that is a great question. Um it's my favorite kind of question. I will mentally walk you through the model of all the steps. So this is for route county and then steambo specific data where possible. Um a lot of employment and wage data is only available at the county level. Um but it's not the state. There are some sort of um national metrics that we use. I'll talk about again just because the data is not available at any lower level. Essentially what we look at and this was in partnership with RRC who we worked with who this is like their bread and butter. Um we looked at current conditions in steamboat. Um so what is the overall um building square footage by each of these land uses and total employment by each of these land uses and that gave us employee generation rates. So what how many you know if we build 10,000 square ft of retail space how many employees would we expect there to be in that 10,000 foot space and that's steamboat specific so that is based on all the existing retail spaces in steamboat and then what we do is we say okay what do retail employees look like and so we look at not just retail which is what we call an industry but we look at the occupations and so within retail we have managers we have sales staff we have accountants, we have all of these people. And so that's where we use the national data. We look at in general in retail, if we have 100 employees, what's the split across those occupations?

Wages wage distribution,

right? Well, that's so that's the next part. Um, so first we look at the the employees by occupation and say and in retail it's like 50% are like sales staff. Um, and then we say okay, what are the wages for all of these employees? So, um, if we just look at retail, we would have an average wage of, you know, say like $40,000 a year, maybe 50. Um, when we look at it by occupation, we can we can get more of that distribution to better understand the range of employees in the range of wages. And then we say, okay, what can these employees afford for housing based on all the wages? And that's across all industries. And so we get, you know, our professional services employees who are making $170,000 a year and our food service staff who are making $32,000 a year. And then what's the affordability gap? Um, so what's the difference between, you know, what housing typically costs or what it typically costs to build affordable housing? We used a an average cost approach in this case um to account for people buying housing and building new housing. What's the general the gap? So not the full cost because we're only looking to mitigate the gap. Everyone can afford something. So what what's left over and then we take that gap for each of these land uses and translate it into a per square foot fee of what is built.

So that's the whole process and that also will be written up step by step. Um so when we talk about you know what additional information um that will be sort of fully step by step laid out but that's that's the process. And so it's based on steamboat and route county data and specific to each land use. And to give you an example,

give an example, right? The the restaurants have the highest employment the highest employment density, most jobs per square foot, and the lowest wages. So they have the highest fee. Um office. Oh, let's I picked a I picked a bad one. Um, industrial has the typ typically the least amount of employees in the building per square foot and decent wages, so lower fee. So, it's all scaled to the there's a couple big levers. It's how many jobs per square foot and what are they making? Cool. Thank you.

I have I have a um a question and and just a comment here. Can you just go to that residential page again? Um, yeah, cuz when when you mentioned you want to keep this below 5%. Right. And as I look down all these numbers, I look at this for a single family home and basically you're keeping it 1 to 2%. And if I look at retail, it's well under 5%, restaurants almost down to nothing, and office is about less than 2%, hotels are less than 2%. So in reality, this is far less uh uh extra development cost than 5% on what you're recommending here. Is that just a correct assumption that I'm making?

Yes. And so it depends on the land use. So in this case, because right now we're assuming that residential is one bucket. So what applies to a single family new home would also apply to a market rate rental development. And we can see the differential impacts there. And so if we go to, you know, the 50% mitigation, the the impact on rental is closer to 6% even though the single family residential is still closer to two. Um, and then the others, yeah, we're looking at 5% as the ceiling and then just looking at where kind of gets close to there. The the restaurant is very small just because the scale is so big on the chart,

but even the hotels are relatively low. And when you think about 5%, it's like half of 5%. The other question I have is for communities that have done this for a long period of time. Is there um anything in there um for like uh for lack of a better word, inflationary adjustments over time to this stuff? Um or any other things that are taken into account that influences mitigation rates over time? Yeah, so I can start and then Brian can add on. Um often times these types of studies um will be updated say like every five years or so.

Yeah. 572. Um you know you can update the employee generation rates and or just the fee. Often times what we've seen is the generation rates typically don't change very much. Um but the fees, you know, those will be adjusted based on wages and housing costs. And so generally speaking, it's good practice to update those. We've seen some communities that have not updated theirs and it's, you know, they're they are not bringing in as much as they should or need. And so it also, you know, when you update that, it's scaled to the costs that we have to support affordable housing also. And so making sure that happens. Um, the other part of your question was, yeah, Brian, Brian, finish. Um, so we would recommend that you we build an annual an automatic annual update process into the ordinance. So tie it to a median home price, a consumer price index type of thing so that every year it marches along with some relevant index so that you don't run into a stairstep problem.

Okay. Thank you. The mitigation rate um that can also be updated through policy if or you know yeah updated increased decreased what have you. Um this doesn't have to be a oneandone. we do this and it's set in stone. Um, you know, we can do it like Brian mentioned earlier, it can also be phased in, but we can do it and see how it goes and address intended or unintended impacts moving forward. Thank you. Any other questions from council? One super quick question. The restaurant, the wage that you have, does that include tips? Does it include tips? I'll let um

No, that's not

No. Um that you know, you're all hitting on all of the conversations we have had this week. Um it's a hard data point to get and also from a very technical standpoint. Getting back to the technical questions, the wages are done at what we call it a twodigit industry level, which is accommodation and food services. And so hotel and restaurant are all bundled together in that. And so adding into the restaurant wages and keeping the hotel wages low when they're all based on the same sample of employees got a little complicated. Um like I said this is all draft so we're still thinking through all of these things. Um and if we find ways to include that we might it's just it's hard because like the data on it just isn't really there and this needs to be sort of publicly accessible easily updated those kinds of things. Well, plus it says seasonal here as well. I mean, yeah,

there's a big balance in, as you can maybe sense, there's a big balance on this kind of work of trying to make it complicated enough to be rigorous and not so complicated that when you come back to try to update this in 10 years, you say, "What the hell did they do? We need to spend, you know, $200,000 to hire somebody to fix this." Like, yeah. So it, you know, it that's that's the balancing act with a lot of these very good nuanced questions you're asking. There was one community, I'm not going to name names, but I was trying to figure out their policy to use as a case study, and it had a logarithm in it in in the formula, and I I just went, "No,

a logarithm like the I'm I'm not going to embarrass my math teachers by trying to remember what that is." Um, but yeah, again, easy to implement, transparent in how it applies. Um, like Brian said, the data behind it is complicated, but we want to make sure that the the process is clear. Got one one more to address your question. The mitigation rate also kind of solves some of that. So, if the wages go up because we add tips, then the fee, the gap, the housing affordability gap goes down and the fee goes down. Yeah. So it there's there's a lot. That's why we've got, you know, so if our Yeah, I've said it.

Okay. Are we ready to go to public comment? Is there anybody in the audience who would like to make a public comment? Come on down to the podium. Okay. Seeing none, is there anyone online? If you want to make a public comment, please raise your hand. Okay. Okay, seeing none, we'll close off public comment and bring it back to councel to discuss the questions that Brad has put up there. And you've added one more, right? Or is it in there?

No, no, no. No, it's not. And I'll just restate it. Um, as as you heard, like there is a lot of parameter type conversations that that we will have as we actually get to ordinance drafting that for all intents and purposes are policy level discussions. I would love to have the opportunity to just check in with the housing subcommittee as as sort of a sounding board for council as we're actively working through that. So, I just want to ask permission to be able to do that because that will help us refine and formulate a final proposal uh to bring forward to council. So, I just I just wanted to put that as a as a possibility we go to discuss. Okay, we're going to sit, but please feel free to call on us. Thank you.

Okay, let's discuss. You want to start with the first question up there? Does council support the re does council support the recommendation to move forward with the linkage program and opting to not advance inclusionary housing ordinance? Well, and I think um first of all when we when I just got on council, we had just stopped the moratorum on the inclusionary zoning and because it had not been used for a long time. And you know, I appreciate Brad and their opinion that um inclusionary housing ordinances can work, but the linkage is a little bit more flexible for us. And so I just I think moving forward I'm there's still a lot of questions out there but clearly this is an avenue that we need to investigate now whether we do those percentages and the reason why I was interested in the methodologies is how do we get to those large numbers for the hotels and other things like that because it truly affects if we would have those examples now how would that have changed any projects in the past 5 years. Let's not go past 2020. Um and then would that you know what it could have made but also what it could have discouraged growth in some of those areas. So I don't no answer today but as we start to work through this and start looking through the matrix of what the policy will end up being we need to kind of in my opinion take this policy retroactively and say what now we can only guess that some developer may not have done something because that would have been too high right so those type of conversations I think when we ask for public comment from the development community across the board whether it's

housing or industrial or commercial um would they have been you know not wanting to do this because this mitigation rate was too high so as we go through this process I think we should do it but I think we should look at it from that level lens as well okay others

yeah just to play off what you're saying um is getting specific modeling on what that would look like on projects that and I mean we have examples we could use, you know, like the Marriott town suites and look at what that fee would actually be on that hotel, uh, and in conjunction with all the other impact fees that we have. We can compare the total fee structure against other communities perhaps or you know where we where we land in that structure because it's hard to know that just this is going to be 5% but what is it in totality with all the other sales tax building impact piece? It'll help me understand the policy as we start to implement a policy having that as an example so that when we're making this policy we understand a little bit of the risk that we may be you know incentivizing but also decentizing.

Okay. So I I understand there request who would be able to put that I mean is that something you would be able to put together for us because we're now talking about fees um that are outside of your area or is this something that we'd go to staff and say hey can you you know could you you know put this together? Um I think either either way like we could do it. Um it might you know it just might add some time to this process um because it gets pretty granular to get to that level of detail. Well, we already know what what a past project has paid. A

and I'll just add I mean what what Brian and Rachel were pointing to is that additional let's call it 2 and a half% to or 5% is over and above total development costs which already incor I mean they are incorporating those soft costs those fees into their total cost to develop. So it is I I you're asking for a data point that we can certainly deliver as to like what's the total sort of fee structure that applies to collecting fees related to development. Uh so we we can certainly uh provide you know across all manner of uh developments maybe a little bit more difficult but we can give you some some representative samples of what that might look like.

Yeah. And comparing to neighboring communities what it looks like. So to say what Brad said, but as a peer, like what is that data going to do for you? You'll find out that it's five% more and their bill to build that hotel was $250,000. What are you going to do? You're going to say, "Oh no, like we we can't do this." Like what's your threshold? Like it's it's a nice data point, but how does it But if it's too much of a high data point, I don't have any examples except for some numbers in front of me. What I'm asking for is a couple of examples of some projects that we currently have. And I don't I mean it's going to help me guide the policy. Maybe 10%'s better than 20, right? And so if we're going to establish a

we have those graphs all that show the percentage increase to the total cost. So you you would be able to see on average what the increase is going to be. And a percentage is going to be way more valuable to assess that than a raw dollar amount. When we come up to a do a percentage to go into this policy, is it 10% or is it 20%. Are you talking about the mitigation rate? Yes. Okay.

When we come down to actually coming up with this policy, we need to have some examples to let us guide us to where the numbers of the percentages. She already explained to me where we get the max fee, but it's more of like where we control it. And all I'm saying is that I don't want to make a mistake when we have this policy out of the gate because I fully intend on approving the policy that we have the numbers that we have some examples that tell us how that would work. I just there this is not an exact science like we will not be it will not be perfect and I see this as just data for data's sake. Understood.

Okay, let's hear from a few others who we haven't heard from. Oh um to the first question in terms of do we want to move forward with the linkage program and not an inclusionary housing ordinance. I mean it pains me to say that you have convinced me that we don't want to move forward with an inclusionary housing ordinance and you know and particularly when I think back to what has happened right over the last four to eight years and the opportunity that we have missed is painful in terms of the impact to our community and now we and now the position that we're in. So um as I say support the linkage program. I would um love to have kind of explore more this idea of the residential exemption and whether we do it on and again if if the rest of council agrees with this right looking at it from the perspective of either exempting workforce you know deed restricted or I really like councelor Barnes's um suggestion in terms of scaling it up. I mean, I understand your point about the fact that if I'm building a 10,000 foot house, it's going to be more, but still the square footage is the same, even though we know that the impact is not. So, I would would love to explore if feasible that option as well in the sense that it tears, you know, it tears up in terms of maybe it's $40, you know, under 5,000 or 80, you know, 80 a square foot or, you know, something like that. And again looking at what that impact would be.

Is there anyone who does not want to move forward with the linkage program versus the inclus inclusionary housing ordinance? In other words, is anybody supportive of the inclusionary housing ordinance over the linkage program? No. No. Okay. So, so we've answered the first bullet. So the second bullet is would council prefer to have detailed deliverables prior to providing initial direction. Does that mean yeah what does that mean? That is a good question Brad.

These are my words. I should take that. Um generally again as I sort of mentioned in my quick little preamble you are seeing findings from relatively rigorous technical analysis. If for some reason you all wanted to see the app the the actual nexus study before say before answering question one I just wanted to give you that outlet to say that that you haven't seen enough that you were convinced and that you wanted to see every piece of analysis that could be presented before you actually give us the the go-ahead to continue policy development. So that was just to give that option to you all.

Okay. So for that, yeah, I just want to see some examples and I think they said so come up with examples because I want to see I need that data to see what I'm approving. Um, so I know you don't need the bias. I'll send it to you. But I I need it.

Fallacy does not change your end decision. ask a clarifying question is that so the all the charts that we showed with the marginal impacts those were based on the proformas that we developed based on prototypical projects either based on development applications that were coming through projects that were recently built or we looked at parcels in town and the size of the buildings to get a sense is it just the like the outline of that analysis of for this project here are the overall costs here's what the fee would be here's how that math came to be or are you looking for more than that? No, just that. Okay, perfect.

And I don't want to get very granular in that. I don't that's not necessary. So, I appreciate not having the wrong kind of data. It's just worth giving us the example of what it would look like. I mean, right now, if I was going to sit there and ask Brad, what was the inclusionary zoning that we had on the books and what would it have generated these last five years? Do you have that answer? You know what I mean? And so it's like that to me $4.3 million per year was was is that is that from the last policy that we had with No, that's from that is that's not that's okay. See what I'm saying? So I appreciate that because of $4.3 million based upon your analysis your nexus study just send the nexus study and the rate we'll get there. I got you.

Yeah, that's all. But the question number two is on on these detailed deliverables prior to providing initial direction. The initial direction we're providing is we want to go with the inclusionary I mean the linkage program. That's a no- op. Number two is no op. No detailed deliver please. We go with number two. Okay. Number three. Is council supportive of the proposed applicability and mitigation rates? Are there potential adjustments to either both? Which I think gets into some of the things you raised. Councelor did as well. Yeah.

Yeah. I just want to I get the I don't know if it's necessarily logic. I get the line of thinking about you know these tiered steps and exemptions, but I have a hard time not that it's like pro- rich person, but what's the difference between a 10,000 an additional square footage on a 10,000 square foot spend because we're looking at this on a per dollar impact versus an additional 15, you know, 1,500 foot additional square foot. And that's where I I don't how would you come up with that number because I believe all of this would need to be rooted in some source. So like how do we

for mind melding? Yes, that is that is my primary concern is the math has to detail out math has to math to make the tier to to essentially make those tiers defensible and that is my main sort of just worry about that. the the other conversations about sort of seeing how this fee structure layers on other fee structures I think that's pretty easy to arrive at but making the math suggest there's you can defend tiers that you know essentially jump you know based on square footage feels a little difficult to to hit

and I guess my last thing is is even from a fairness point of view like even if you are adding an addition that's 500 square feet like there still is an impact you can add to the pot just like somebody adding 10,000 square feet It's yeah I mean and I would say again if the math can support this right anecdotally certainly um I a 10,000 foot house I mean right from a construction perspective but from a job I mean and to the extent that I heard you say kind of from a job generation perspective right whether it's doctors or whether it's um landscapers or I mean just the um m you know the maintenance aspect of a 10,000t house is more than say a 1500 foot, right? I mean, what I mean I I think that would be justifiable. I mean, I think we there's data there that could probably prove that out. So, one would hope, but I mean, so, you know, so that that's where my head's going. And again, yeah, and sorry, I'll just say that's that's why it's all structured on a per square foot basis. And so, it does scale that way. And so whatever the the employee generation rate is that goes through that whole model we talked through is based on the size of the development being built and so everything is scaled according to the size. Like I said it's a linear model and so it just assumes that

it's kind of straight line. I will also say we we talked about this a little bit about you know what are the goals in terms of all of like the taring or the exemptions and all of that and thinking about those and then there's ways to structure the program around that that are defensible. Um, a lot of it is just, you know, if there are established community goals, which we didn't go through the slides that Brad put together, sorry, Brad. Um, about, you know, the different plans, but, you know, if we can say we want to support local residents in building local homes here, and those typically are, you know, smaller, so we're only going to apply this program for homes above 1500 square feet. You know, if that points back to established goals and policies, then that is probably the the easiest path to do those things. So again, it's just thinking about what what the goal is in some of these different options and iterations and then just finding the way to achieve those goals um in a way that's also easy to administer because thinking about it from you know the the the permit side of like someone that someone has to like do the math when every building permit comes in. Thank you.

Would you say uh this is just a a sidebar you talk about 25 to 50% being in that range or whatever. Um, in your experience, is the average at the higher end of that or the lower end of that? It's all over the place.

Depends on the community. Um, for residential especially, communities are pushing higher and higher. I will say mountain resort communities are pushing higher and higher. Generally, it's been like 30 35 um if you exclude some communities that are really pushing the envelope. Um but yeah, most places don't mitigate any at like 50%. And then non-residential is usually lower just because of the like we've shown the financial feasibility.

You know, the it's the aspens that that have the highest Aspen, Turide, Mountain Village that have the highest, you know, push and 100% mitigation on residential. Yep. I just have one. So, um I would have to talk about tonight, but as we're moving forward, um I just want to make sure we have the opportunity to talk about um the recommended parameters around non-residential only in mountain area. So, again, I don't I think that's probably for a follow-up conversation maybe, but I think we should have conversation about that. Yes. Uh I maybe maybe say a little bit more. I understand like just so that um

Yeah. Um, I guess I do I would like to have a better understanding as to why. And I'm feeling like the mountain area is becoming more and more of its own thing. And so it's it's feeling separate from the rest of our larger community. And so I'm trying to avoid um policy that is just around the mountain.

Totally uh understand that. Brian sort of pointed to this, but the reality this is a market-based solution. So, you actually have to accept that there are different markets that operate in the community and that this policy has different implications in those markets. Uh so we we had a conversation I don't know we probably went back and forth a couple times getting this ready about hotels in particular but the reality is a hotel uh closer to the resort can absorb the fee easier than a hotel that is south high highway 40 right so there are implications because essentially the the the ability to absorb the additional expense is simply different in different submarkets in this community and that's where that sort of the last slide that's in here that's about uh the community plan. That's how one of the reasons we arrived at the recommendations is that it very clearly notes the importance of having a balance of land uses and that market um that resort market is going to be predisposed to a certain type of land uses and there is more opportunity to have a balance of land uses in other parts of the community. So let's not impair the ability for that to happen uh throughout the community.

Okay. and it's been a goal for a long time to attract more hotels to downtown. So, we're trying, you know, trying to strike that balance of not disincentivizing the things that we want. And you don't see if um in in the work that you've done that this has continued to perpetuate this division. And I'm all for doing on the mountain, trust me. Like, you know, but I I'm just seeing we just talked about earlier tonight, the mountains becoming its own entity. It's like it's Disneyland that's like and it's no longer a part of our community. So I I just worry. Do you see that or it won't that this won't perpetuate that?

We agree with your your sentiment. You know, we're we're not trying to divide the community with policies like this. We're trying to, you know, we're trying to address the critical housing shortages and and worker shortages with this. And so this our recommendations are trying to you know trying to balance the the fact that the mountain area attracts higher cost higher value development which has greater impacts on affordable housing and agreed can more because of the values that you know the money money values um can better absorb a fee like this than other parts of the community. So that's yeah no I agree I agree with everything that you're saying. I totally do. I'm good. Okay. Yeah,

just a point of clarification. I mean, the first bullet says apply to residential citywide. I mean, that includes the mountain area, correct? Right. Okay. Yeah, that's citywide. Okay. Uh

I mean, I guess I would just go back to if we're still talking about this. I mean, what we talked about in terms of the applicability of the fees, again, just, you know, I would encourage us to be as broad as we can kind of within whatever legal confines that there are. you know, to the extent that I think we know and we've learned from some of our ballot language that we want to make sure that again, not saying that it's going to go to something that's not housing related, but thinking about all of the different types of scenarios that we're encountering in terms of needing to spend money to just preserve the the affordable workforce housing that we have in this community today.

Do we feel okay with this one on the third bullet at this point? Brad, do you feel okay with what we've given you? Uh, yes. I just I want the fourth bullet that's not on the slide. I I want to Yeah, I'm I'm going to address that if everybody's good on the first three. Yes. Um, and the fourth bullet is Are you okay if Brad uses the housing subcommittee as kind of um sounding board? Who's the housing subcommittee? Is that the council or is that that larger? It's Steve. I'm good. It's Brian and myself. Good. Steve has to answer all these questions. Yeah, I mean all the data. Yeah. Are we all okay? Thank you. A lot of work so much. Very impressive hanging with us. Thank you.

It's a great presentation. Okay, we got a little bit more to go. Is everybody good for hanging in or do you need a really quick five minutes? Keep going. Okay, that was Brian. That was Michael. Is anybody else okay? I own five. So, you want to keep Yeah, if we're still going at 9ine, we might need a break.

Okay, let's move on to uh the consent calendar. Items on the consent calendar may be reviewed and commented upon same manner as other agenda items. Any member of council or the public may request withdrawal of any item from the consent calendar for further discussion at any time prior to approval. If items are not removed, they may be approved with a single motion. Item number six is a resolution amending the urban growth boundary future land use district map of Steamboat Springs Community Plan. Uh this item was post from January 6th and I believe we need a motion this time because we want to postpone this indefinitely. Correct. Right. So we need to pull that. Yes, we do.

And the other item is a resolution adopting 2026 2027 city council goals. Does anybody want to pull that one? Yes. Okay. So, that are the only two items. So, let's go back and to item number six, a resolution amending the urban growth boundary future land use district map. Um, is there any discussion on this or can we have a motion to postpone this indefinitely until we have further dialogue with the commissioners? Motion to postpone. Second. Okay, we have a motion from councelor B, second by councelor Gary. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Okay. Number six passes 70 to postpone indefinitely. Okay. Number seven, a resolution adopting the 2026 2027 city council goals. Councelor Gary, would you like Tom to review these again or do you want to focus on something specific? I just um wanted to spoken I wanted to focus on something specific but if we think for the good of the order it makes sense to go through the goals again. How does everybody feel about going through the goals again? Let's get into the meat of it. Let's get into the meat of it. We don't need to. Everybody agree. Okay then. Councelor Gary,

you're not agreeing. I I was not sure what I thought you said. Go ahead.

Okay. Are you okay? Okay. All right. Okay. No surprise. Um, you know, again, I think we've done a great job on the goals. You know, feel really good about those. I think we spent a lot of time talking about them during our council retreat as well as during subsequent conversations. Um, I do still have an issue with adding the third bullet to the fiscal sustainability and financial stewardship where we talk about codifying the dimensional and development standard recommendations in the downtown plan to ensure continued economic vibrancy in downtown Steamboat Springs. And um I go back I was thinking about your question councelor Swinte in terms of the last time we talked about this. I think it is process and I think it is policy right from the perspective of um you know when we kind of look at the downtown plan um I think that there are uh you know certain things in that I mean we already had kind of a conversation about something early on in the downtown plan that there was um different perspectives from council and um I think that this needs further discussion. And so I would just say kind of in the spirit of collaboration um would you know would go back to kind of what we talked about last time and basically talk about you know kind of evaluate and adopt as appropriate kind of the dimensional and development developmental standard. I mean I don't know who had an opportunity to go back and look at the development plan. I basically think that we're saying codify certain things that we really haven't had a conversation about. I did ask Rebecca And you know as I look because as I was looking at the downtown plan I'm like okay what what qualifies as dimensional what qualifies right as um kind of the development standards and so you know she provided kind of a list of potential items. So from my perspective rather

than we're blatantly say codify I would again say that you know in spirit of uh collaboration and cooperation and consens let's let's modify this to say evaluate and adopt as appropriate. Okay. Councelor Dixon I have I honed in back on the codify the down you know the dimensional development standards. Yeah. Which I agree with. So I don't I don't know what other council that that would that's my comment. Okay. Is there any other comments?

I would just like to highlight too we always go back to our goals. All of us have always said well is that one of our goals and so we're holding each other accountable to that. And so now I think what uh councelor Gary and I are saying is that the way this is worded, this is a goal that we're going to c we are going to codify. And so um that's where I am really uncomfortable with. I appreciate the language that um Gail just suggested.

Okay. Well, I mean, I appreciate that you have a problem with the word codify, and if you're making the implication that we're going to solve this and put it in there, um, it is a goal that we're trying to achieve overall, not just the heights of hotels downtown. So, I'm a little concerned because you're you're you're using that one example to not codify this whole report. And so I really have a problem not including that in there for the one reason that you guys have brought up before.

Well, I mean I guess I would argue that a lot has changed since 2019 when this was adopted and certainly you know to the extent that we need to have kind of community community input when we go back and particularly you know when we're talking about I don't know if you know some of the potential items that are in here. So, but it it's it's it hasn't been I mean this is just a goal

and we're picking pieces out of the downtown plan. We're picking we're not saying codify the entire downtown plan, right? I mean there's transportation, there's mobility, there's other factors in the downtown plan. So, let's look at the entire downtown plan, not just spec, not just say we're going to specifically codify. I mean, you know, again, to your point, then maybe we need to, you know, evaluate and adopt as appropriate um the recommendations in the downtown plan. I mean if really right

yeah if it's a goal it's not like we're to your get it done city staff does not have the bandwidth to work on the entire downtown plan in this year I believe is what you have said in the past I would I would I mean what you mentioned councelor Gary um I had written down here to evaluate the CDC to see what opportunities there are to better align with the downtown plan And my view on that is just to hone in though, we have to start somewhere. If we say we're going to evaluate the entire plan, we're just going to get stuck in the mud and do nothing and let it sit there since it has from 2018. That is my concern. I'm fine with evaluating parts of it to see if we want to implement it or not, but I don't like just throwing it out there in the holistic macro way because I don't think we're going to make any progress on it then. But the word codify, I'm I'm fine with evaluating because evaluating means you decide go no-go. But is there a way are you okay with honing in on onto what Rebecca or or Director Bessie's talking about and we can evaluate those to at least get started?

Do you want to comment? No, I mean what's you can respond to? Well, I mean again back to the point right of we only have limited bandwidth, right? I mean again the develop the downtown development plan plan you know in my in the perfect world I'd say let's look at the downtown plan and see and codify evaluate and a cottify which one of those um recommendations support all of our goals. So not just fiscal sustainability and financial stewardship but there's also transportation and mobility in there. Yeah.

So I'm going to chime in and take a step back. I feel like there's a like a subtext here that's not being said out loud. So, I will just say for me why I think this is important in here. I really worry with the amount of investment in the Bay Area and this is what councelor Montene said, the investment in the Bay Area and what we had a conversation about with the bid as well like our downtown looks kind of tired and there we have not encouraged much development and investment there and whether there is good and there is bad that comes with development but in just encouraging to maintain the economic vibrancy of our downtown that's my concern and why I think regardless less of the word codify or assess or evaluate. I personally think pushing these things through will help us start to bring that maintain that vibrancy in our downtown so we can keep up with the base cuz I'm really worried about Disney World at the base and then no one really wants to leave because oh there's underinvested underdeveloped sad downtown. So that's why to me I want this in here because I think it's a it's a step in the right direction.

So what words I mean again I don't I mean I think I don't disagree with or I agree with continued economic vibrancy right um I just think that what we did is we sliced one piece out of it when there are other pieces that can contribute to that as well. So again, you know, whether your language or some sort of language, let's, you know, I think the piece we're trying to take out of there is a piece that can have impact on the vitality of downtown and can have immediate

encouraging investment in downtown. Like to be even more specific, like I'm not worried about bike paths and green whatever whatever million other things. I'm like I would love to see more development downtown. Like I think that having additional investment downtown would help it to m be like remain vibrant. That's my worry. Like I we we've had the Chief sit empty for how long? Like we just had a parking lot changed into four condo like STR. We don't have like great investment that it's like wow this is a win for the community and a win for the economy of downtown. So that's why I think like carving into this like councelor Montene like I think these are the ones that could encourage that.

Yeah. I guess I mean I would again go back to we're saying we're just saying we're going to codify it without I mean um I would want to have more community input than saying we're going to codify the dimensional and development standards. Right. when we look at you know when we look at this right I mean again we had the conversation about use by hotels used by right on oak I mean and that's one of the recommendations and I know we said because of the conversation may not move forward with that but um we're talking about allowing the same building height for lodging uses as residential on the uppermost floor do we want to give in on not requiring residential on the uppermost floor

in let's well we're not we should not answer that question tonight. Well, no, but we're saying we're going to codify that. No, I'm Well, if we change the word to evaluate. We're saying what? We'll evaluate it and we'll bring all the facts and figures to council and then council will vote on whether to codify it or not. I mean, that's the way we do things. It doesn't say codify as written. Amen. Oh, I I don't know. Codify the dimensional. I could argue that it does. Yeah, I I say it does. That the word codify is what is really getting We changed the word to evaluate. Are you okay? No, I think what I hear council saying is that there is support for saying evaluate and adopt as appropriately.

Yeah. The dimensional development standard to keep everything else the same and that we've also committed to having a larger discussion about the downtown plan at a work session I believe in June. Yes. So that'll be a further discussion about those other elements that you feel like need to be addressed. We can talk about what are the highest priorities and start to establish a work plan for those.

Yeah. So I I'm not in agreement with any of this. And what I'm not agreement of is I'm trying to tie how we take dimensional and development standards and and and say that that's going to help us with the fiscal sustainability and fiscal, you know, stewardship. I understand the blight of downtown and but I don't see the connection between the blight of downtown and codifying the dimensional standards of of buildings in downtown. I mean you can clarity to developers tourism runs this town.

Well, it's a diff it's a differentiator like we are a town with a ski resort. Well, well, if someone, you know, I I could also argue that on the other side is that if we had a, you know, um, better, you know, parking, transportation, you know, mobility plan downtown, that that would also entice, you know, more people downtown and that would entice developers to want to develop because because there is now a traffic flow, a parking flow and and So that that's a different you know so I see that as adding more viability or you know vibrancy to um downtown. Yes we need building but you need to you know you need to attract people downtown for that. So you're smiling what whatever I have never visited a town and the first place I visited is a parking garage but hey it may be yours. I don't know. So yeah, so ex you know please explain how how we improve upon the blighteness of downtown by codifying dimensional standards of development.

We have kind of two codes that that butt heads with each other, right? And all we're trying to do is add some clarity and we're trying I I mean after in the year when we I think yeah we just get back to what the goal says so we don't have to sit there. I mean, we're not going to solve this right now, Tom. G. Say again what you said. Well, I just was repeating. I know you were, but go ahead. To evaluate. I believe what uh Council G Councilman Gary was saying was to evaluate and adopt as appropriate the dimensional and development standard recommendations the downtown plan and then continue that goal as stated.

Okay. And we can if we do that and we vote none in or who knows how many in but then we can go right from there to the next one which could be what councelor Augusta is saying. Let's now evaluate and adopt as appropriate whatever recommendations there are from the transportation or mobility side of things in the downtown plan. But the downtown plan's been out there for 8 years and it's been said this is what we need to have economic vibrancy and vitality in the town and that code is not the code that is in place to do that because nobody has moved forward on it.

I guess my only point of clarification is I did hear you say that at our work session we would look at the entire downtown plan. So, so, so I, you know, again, well, didn't have the staff time to got with the whole downtown isn't like a okay I mean, you know, again to that point, right? Explore or evaluate and adopt as appropriate stand recommendations. I would del eliminate dimensional and development, but recommendations in the downtown plan. That gives us more flexibility for when we have the conversation in June to identify what in the downtown plan is feasible and with staff capacity.

We already gave up the evaluate and adopt as appropriate. You got to lean in as well. Yeah, that's too broad. Halfway. We're trying to come halfway. I will meet you halfway, but I I don't want this to become the primary goal for a handful of council members. That will rub me the wrong way. God, then you show me that. So, in future council meetings, I don't want this to become the primary. What? It's on every agenda item. Well, but this is a lot of work though. This will be a lot of work for staff. We got the email the the okay let's let's focus for a minute there is

like when we started with the cap I don't know what the word was but but the first year was like evaluate this and then this was just the start that's the way I see this okay so we're I'm going to say it to evaluate and adopt as appropriate the downtown say what you said again well I I included the dimensional development standard conditions yes say that one time and let's let's see how many development standard recommendations in the downtown plan to ensure continued economic vibrancy in downtown Steamboat Springs.

Okay, let's hold on that for a second. We haven't done any public comment on this. I can tell on the there's a lot of people out there who want to comment. Anybody want to come down and make public comment? Please do so now. Anybody online? Please raise your hand if you'd like to make public comment. Okay, we close public comment. We come back to deliberate deliberate councelor Swintech. What was that last remark you made? There's just thumbs uping to we we've still got dimensional and development developmental standards. Yes. Meet in the middle. All right. Move to approve.

Well, what what is the the motion? Let me motion talked about it. I'll make the motion to approve the goals with the modification to the third bullet in the fiscal sustainability and financial stewardship to say evaluate and adopt as appropriate the dimensional developmental standard recommendations in the downtown plan to ensure continued economic vibrancy in downtown Steamboat Springs with the caveat that in our June workshop we will our work session we will broaden the look. I second that. Thank you. That that is not in the goal though. It's a caveat. It's not in the goal.

It's not the goal. It's not a caveat. It's an astero. So I will unwritten agreement amongst Okay, we have a motion. Did you second it? He second it. He second it. He second it. You can comment if you'd like before we vote. Yes, I'm com I will to comment. Um so I'm not going to hold up the you know I agree with all their other goals. I'm I'm not in agreement with the um with the dimensional standards downtown, but I'm not going to hold up the rest of the goals for that. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed.

Okay. Motion passes 70. Thank you. So, we're moving on to public hearings, motions, resolutions, and ordinances. Um, we will start with item IB, the second reading of an ordinance adopting the 2025 Colorado wildfire resiliency resiliency code and appendix A, the route county wildfire map and providing an adoption date and an effective date. Chuck, you want to give us a quick review uh or after questions?

Uh yes. So, this item is pertaining to the the adoption of the 2025 resiliency code um with the two amendments that uh we've talked about um the map and the uh and the historical preservation um caveat. And I'm happy to go into more detail if you'd like. Okay. Are there any questions for Chuck from council? Yes. Not. So maybe kind of a question but more of I think a statement probably. Um at our last meeting we've talked about the plants and um you know what plants would be recommended? Am I remembering this correctly? Uhhuh.

Um and then the conversation came up. Well, how are we going to know what plant and is staff going to have to be able to recognize all the different plants in our community? And I remember it coming up um where well maybe we just have folks leave their little tags on their plants. Would love to not do that. Okay. Because what's going to happen is that those things deteriorate over time and then they potentially end up in our river water streams. I don't know. I was just I my understanding is the intent was they would be left on the plants until the final inspection is as occur and then forever absolutely take them off. What about that afterwards?

Not like in perpetuity. Thank you. Okay. All right. Any other questions?

Has there ever been any talk about if you're if you're using inflammable materials in the exterior of the house, why they would have the landscaping restrictions as well? Um uh there's been plenty of talk about that in the wildfire kind of best practices. Um it what we know catches houses on fire and homes structures on fire is the combination the combination of leading the home or leading the fire right to the home and then having fuel sources right next to the fire and so or right next to the structure. So you know picture a stack of wood next to a fire. You can have a non-combustible siding, but a stack of wood is a is a large fuel source that will generate enough heat to eventually catch the house on fire.

I'm just thinking about these new developments that we're going to build with, you know, maximum density that will have no landscaping in between them or shading of them. That's probably another conversation for now, but um well and and one of the things so the approved plantings list is pretty um fairly comprehensive and includes things like aspen trees and um and so the idea that there will be no plantings between homes um I don't think is going to is the reality of the the code. The I just think of like the the small compact houses up at sunlight and you look at the 10 feet apart. Yeah. So

these those approved plantings are approved in the 0 to 5 foot zone and I you know unfortunately had to miss so I mean maybe just for the public can you just kind of talk a little bit about what approved highlight kind of what the approved plantings might be. Well, so the approved plantings list and I I only ones I really remember are ones that I was like, "Oh, aspens are on that list, right?" So, like I was like, so you can have aspen trees in that zone. Um, but there it is a long list that is available on the um Colorado State Forest Service website. Perfect.

Um, very easily nonflammable plantings um search will get you to that list. Um, and it is um it is a fairly significant list. Okay. Any other questions for Chuck? If not, we'll open up the public comment. Is there anybody in the room who'd like to make a public comment? Please come down. Seeing none, is there anyone online? Please raise your hand if you'd like to make a public comment. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Bring it back to council for further discussion or a motion.

I just did have one more question. So, I know the legislature was talking about potentially delaying. I'm assuming that's probably not going to happen, right? And even if it were, we'd continue to move forward knowing that it was inevitable. Um I I just heard today from Todd that they may have delayed this the April 1st date. Um but I don't believe the enforcement date has been delayed if date. Y um Okay. And you know, quite honestly, we're we're in a great position. I think um this is a challenge. This has been a challenge throughout the state, right? And I I think Route County uh is has been doing actually a stand-up job and we're in we're in a good spot.

Perfect. And I was going to say I'm absolutely not advocating right that we shouldn't. It's just more from the perspective of something that came down so fast and making sure that we have the opportunity and all communities have the opportunity to kind of implement and as and um do the work that's needed to have a program that works. Yeah. And we recognize that um the adoption is today, but with effective date July 1st, we have work to do to get together with planning department, uh fire departments, building department, and talk about how enforcement looks. Thank you. Yep.

Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to adopt the 2025 Colorado wildfire resiliency code in appendix A, the route county wildfire map providing an adoption date and effective date? So moved. Okay, we have a motion by councelor Gary, second by councelor Dixon. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Okay, thank you.

Ordinance passes 70. We're on to item number nine. Second reading of an ordinance approving the purchase of a track of land owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation located in the southwest one quarter of the northeast one quarter and the southeast one quarter of the northwest one quarter of section 7 township 6 north range 84 west of the six principal meridian in route county Colorado lying south of of Lincoln Avenue and north of the Amper River totaling 1.859 859 acres and providing an effective date and setting a hearing date. Kelly, do we have any questions for Kelly or do you want her to make a short presentation? Anyone?

No. I'm going. No. Okay. Are there anybody in the room would like to make a public comment? Come on down. Seeing none, is there anyone online? Raise your hand. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to council for a motion. Approve. Okay, we have a motion to approve by councelor Barn, second by councelor Swintech. All those in favor say I. I.

Opposed? Ordinance passes. Motion passes 70. Number 10 is the second reading of an ordinance approving a supplemental budget appropriation for 2026 US utilizing short-term rental tax funds for the purchase of two parcels owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Okay, Kim, do we have questions or do we want Kim to present anything on this one? No questions. Maker do an hourong presentation? Not tonight. Okay. Is there anybody in the room who'd like to make a public comment? Seeing none, is there anyone online, please raise your hand? Seeing none, bring it back to council for a motion. Move to approve.

Second. And we got a motion by councelor Barnes, second by councelor Swintech. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Motion passes. 7. Brings us to number 11. a resolution upholding the planning director's decision related to CE 20260003 and denying appeal PL 202600008. Rebecca, you should go first and then we will Are you Mr. Wolf? We'll we'll bring you up right after this.

Good evening, Council Planning Director Rebecca Bessie. Um, just to give you a brief summary of what is included in your packets, on January 5th of this year, the city received a complaint related to exterior lighting at the property located at 103 Anglers Drive. Um, so we did open a code enforcement case to investigate that complaint. Staff reviewed the complaint. We also reviewed relevant code sections and um, past interpretations and determined that there was no code violation. So, we closed that enforcement case. On January 12th, we received an appeal related to our decision regarding the code enforcement case. Um, so just to give you some background on how we came to the decision that we did, um, exterior lighting within the city is regulated in section 405 of the community development code. 405B includes some explicit exemptions from the lighting code. Um it says that um exempt I'm sorry it states that exterior lighting standards apply to all lean uses in development unless explicitly exempted. So 405C includes two exemptions that we find to be relevant to this particular circumstance. One is an exemption for temporary holiday tree lighting and the second is an exemption for seasonal decorative or display lighting. The CDC unfortunately does not include definitions for either of the terms holiday or seasonal. However, there are some related terms that I'll get to in just a moment. So, the our decision to close the case without taking any enforcement action in this situation um was based on several factors. As you all know, it's pretty common to see string lighting similar to what's at this property installed on both trees and buildings throughout town for extended periods of time. The CDC lacks clear guidance on what is intended

by seasonal lighting. Some think this could refer to the seasons of the year, winter, spring, summer, fall. Some think it could relate to ski season. Perhaps it's related to specific holiday seasons. Um but the code does not clarify for that that for us. Prior interpretations of these undei undefined exemption language um has resulted in similar lighting throughout the community. Um and the need or desire for a definition and clarity around what these exemptions relate to should be addressed through a formal code amendment, not through the creation of new standards or new definitions on a case-byase basis through the complaint process. So, while the appeal appeal narrative that's included in your packet that was provided by Mr. Wolf requests that seasonal and holiday lighting be interpreted to mean temporary lighting associated with specific holidays of Christmas, Hanukkah, Halloween, and Thanksgiving. There is no code basis for this kind of an interpretation. We acknowledge the CDC lacks definitions of these specific terms as I already mentioned. However, there are instances where the code uses similar terminology. So, I've included these in your packet. Um, section 307A7 provides a use definition for a specific use called seasonal outdoor sales. Section 802 also defines the term holiday decorations. A little bit different. Um, but both of those definitions suggest that within the context of the code, seasons and holidays may not be intended to be as narrowly defined as what Mr. Wolf suggests in the appeal narrative. The bottom line is that the current code language lacks specificity and clarity to effectively enforce in this circumstance. And while this is not an ideal situation, the appropriate way to

resolve it would be through, as I already mentioned, a code amendment with community engagement and discussion. Um, it's not our practice to essentially create new standards by way of an interpretation, especially in response to a specific complaint. Um, I also wanted to just note that, um, Mr. Wolf did provide earlier this evening after the meeting started um a reference to the some excerpt reference to the National Electric Code. Um this information was not provided either with the complaint, it was not provided with the appeal, it was not provided to me um in advance of this meeting. I have not had an opportunity to review it. um it was not part of the record by which we made the decision or by which we evaluated the appeal. Um and I am not prepared to be able to speak to that tonight other than to note that there is a difference between the CDC and our lighting code and the electric code which would be administered through the building department. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, before we bring Mr. Wolf up, are there any questions for Rebecca? Uh, sure. I I'll start. Um, so Rebecca, um, 405D represents standards for lightings. Um, and so, and then 405C talks about exemptions. So, exe, you know, and the exemptions that we're talking about here is seasonal direct, you know, seasonal uh, decorative or display lighting. So this you know so what you're basically u um uh denying this um is based upon the words you know that this is we can't define what seasonal is. Is that correct? So is that that's that's the over and anything that's basically you know um an exemption then we can ignore all the standards below it because they're they're exempt from all the standards. That's correct. So, if they're if it's explicitly exempted, they are exempt from the standards. And I just want to clarify real quick, we didn't deny something.

Um, we evaluated a complaint and we made a determination that there was not a code violation that we were going to enfor pursue enforcement. Um, and so I believe the appeal is to an appeal of our inter my interpretation of that exemption language. Correct. Okay. Okay. There's not a formal denial that's being appealed. Okay. All right. And it it sounds like basically to that we would there is a desire, you know, in general to relook at the the lightning code and under and and clarify, you know, for the community what seasonal is. Is is that a fair statement? Yeah.

Um I think it's would be a fair statement to say that staff recognizes that there is not that the code the current code lacks some clarity and definition that we could probably all benefit from. Yes.

Okay. All right. Um what do we know what the what um there is also a lighting level that in in our code I I for you don't have exactly where that is in terms of in amount of luminous that you actually can you know put out is would that be also in the exempt you know if you're basically would that would that be an exemption under seasonal or is that an exemption over something is just too right across our landscape. I I'm thinking we understand your question.

Well, I know that our I know our signs um code actually has a a luminous sight standard, right? In terms of how many, you know, related to signage, correct? Yes. In design phase, is there anything associated with that for seasonal lighting? Like you can you can someone have too bright of a seasonal lighting per the code? Per the code.

Um I No. In my interpretation of the code, it states section 405B states that exterior lighting standards, those would be what you would find in I believe 405D, apply to all land uses and development in all zone districts unless specifically exempted by the CDC. And then the very next section, section C, lists four specific exemptions. So I interpret the code and I think the plain language of the code states that if you fall within one of those four exemptions, then the standards in section D do not apply. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep.

Anyone else? Yes. Is the commonality across section 405 C 307 A7 and 802 the temporary nature of the light like they all they all share the common feature of being temporary. Can you say that again? I've all those the exemption and then referencing the seasonal lighting by their nature they all are temporary like that's the other lighting that apply that the code applies to that's permanent lighting and the difference is that this is temporary

um yes but there are two other exemptions included in 405C that I didn't list here because they weren't applicable so I think there's like some Yes. And so for these two, I guess I should say for these two it's like inherently these are meant to be temporary and that's why they're exempted.

Um yeah, I think that's a that's a correct statement and I and if can I just add a little bit to that? I would say I understand you know something that's temporary or seasonal does not imply permanent and I would agree with that. I think we can all probably agree that there's a difference between 365 days a year and something that's less than that. But where that line is drawn is what I don't have any clear direction from our current code language to make that determination. So it's not necessarily just binary. You're either permanent or you're you're not. We have to be able to define what the or you're not is

to decide where that line is. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you, Rebecca. Mr. Wolf. Um, I think if you're going to look at this, you just state your name in. My name's Alvin Wolf. I've been a a seasonal uh resident of Steamboat for 25 years, if you all know what that means. Um, so if you're going to take a look at this, what's your address? Uh, I live in Dakota Ridge, 35940 Agot Creek Road. Thank you.

Been there for 25 years. Uh, somebody's glasses are here also. I don't know those are.

You know, I'm asking the council to give a common word, a common meaning. When I say the word holiday, you're going to have uh a notion of what a holiday is. For example, today, St. Patrick's Day. Happy St. Patrick's Day. If I came in here wearing my corgi Christmas jacket with candy canes and wreaths on it, you would think I was crazy and you'd also think that's a Christmas jacket. Now, the city uh ordinance doesn't define holiday, but it's very similar to a Supreme Court case that I had in law school 47 years ago, and that involved pornography. And Potter Stewart wrote, "I don't know what the meaning of pornography is, but I know it when I see it." So when you see Christmas lights up on a house 365 days a year, you know that's not holiday and you know that's not seasonal. That's permanent. And the the resolution that I saw yesterday in the in the packet, it's erroneous. If the city is conceding that this is a temporary light setup, Colorado has adopted the electric code. Steamboat Springs has adopted the electric code. And the electric code says that whenever lighting is up and it's temporary, it must be removed in 90 days. And that's simple that you don't have to get into what is holiday. You don't have to get into what is seasonal. But you do have to look at what the electric code says. And I did bring a copy of that for everybody to take a look at. If I can uh be so bold as to pass out a copy to everybody to look at. Is that okay?

Just to Julie over there. The clerk.

Well, people juries and I've never been before city council before. So, excuse me for not being prepared for this. It's Colorado electric code. It's hard. It's Colorado electric code. The Colorado has adopted the electric code. Um, that's the national electric code that Steamboat Spring has adopted.

And it's pretty clear that the NAC article 590 says you can install temporary holiday displays for a maximum of 90 days. And you know, Mr. Putmper in his uh determination confirmed that the lights are temporary holiday lighting. And if it's temporary, the 90 days that I've been demonstrated in the package of of pictures taken during multiple season shows that the maximum has been uh exceeded. Um, if you can't give seasonal log logical construction, then the city council needs to redefine that to put some parameters on there because this problem will probably get worse. I know Steve uh Bloom lives off near this area and there was some complaints about his lighting and he turned it off. I mean, if if these people were being good neighbors and they were asked to turn the lights off at 10 p.m., which the neighborhood requires, but which the house is not part of that community, which they refuse to do, we wouldn't be here. Uh, I live in Dakota Ridge. We have a 10:00 uh turnout. People turn their lights off at 10 o'clock. So, it's really all I have to say about it. Thank you for your time. Hey,

thank you. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? I have yeah have a couple questions. Um so first is to Dan what do you what is I I I don't know know what this is at a legal level and whether we this is something we adhere to or

no I think that you should disregard that document. Um the appeal provisions of the code require the appellant to identify the grounds for the appeal in their notice. Uh this document and the electric code were not referenced in that. Uh it was just provided to the planning director tonight. Um the appeal provisions of the code also require the appellant identify a section of the CDC uh that the director has interpreted incorrectly and um the elector code is not part of the CDC. So I I would not make I would not recommend that you make a decision to overrule the director on the basis of this document. Okay. Okay. Um then Mr. Um, how many months has the lighting been been up? I mean, right. Right now,

how long? Yeah. For how long has that lighting been and since the people have been there? Uh, it's been over a year and it's been constant whenever they're in town and the lights are on all night. Okay. So the so lights are on the lights are on 365 days a year for when they are there when the people are there the lights are on 20 or from nighttime till sunrise and we've we provided you with pictures where the lights are on at 5 in the morning.

Okay. Yeah. The key was um you know this this has not been something that they put up last November and this is something they they've put that's been there for over 12 months. Oh yes sir. Okay. Thank you. Curious, is this a HOA? Uh, the house is next door to the HOA. It is not part of the HOA. Okay. Um, I I've You have another question. Yeah. Go ahead.

Okay. I didn't know if you had a question there. Um so I did some research about you what you know legally what what what what can seasonal mean and you know basically you know we need to hear adhere to the municipal courts you know in terms of um of our you know interpreting our code and so I you know did did some little investigation and you know and what I found is you know could seasonal it mean all year and what I'm finding is legally from a legal standpoint generally no that argument usually fails um from if something's up there at a 365 days it's you know seasonal implies temporary not continuous um Dan do I don't know if I can ask you to make a comment about that in terms of of definition of if something is up you know, permanently or so, you know, 365 days, you know, 365 days, could that be considered permanent? So, let me address that by saying um the fact that we don't have a definition for these terms doesn't doesn't mean that they don't have a meaning. I mean, these words all have a common meaning. Uh Mr. Wolf has alluded to that in his in his comments. And um we do have some ability to say, you know, a word has some sort of meaning. And I think that in that context, yes, it's safe to say that um seasonal or holiday does include the concept of it being temporary. So if the facts were that these lights are on 365 days a year, um then then I think that we would have a violation um and we could prosecute. And I I I want to point out that there are two things that have to happen in order for the city to take enforcement action um on something like this. And the first is that the planning director has to determine that there's a

violation and in this case uh she's determined that there is not and that is uh the question that you're being asked to review tonight. Um the second piece of it is um I or someone in my office needs to determine that we have good reason to think that we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That decision, you know, based on the information that I see right now, I don't I don't think we can make that determination. So, if you were to overrule the planning director, I just want to manage your expectations about whether or not there would be a prosecution. Now, that, you know, that decision depends on the evidence that's available to us. Um, you know, people can certainly develop evidence uh in the weeks or months going forward, but I just want you to understand that you're looking at the planning director's decision and not the prosecutorial decision that would have to ensue if you were to overrule the planning director.

Okay. Thank you. I have I have one question for you. You mentioned that these lights have been on for over a year 24/7. When the people are there, how often are they there? Would you 50% of the time, 20? I don't know that the answer to that question. Uh, okay. Are they there full-time? Uh, they are not. In fact, they are not there. The house is not. Nobody's there right now. Okay. So, when we say permanent, um, if you're not there part of the time, then that could be construed as temporary. Well, if the lights are up and and they're around the house, all the way around the house, and they're always on. Well, they're on even when nobody is in the house.

I misspoke. They're always up. They're always on the house. Okay. May not always be turned on, but they are attached to the house permanently. They're attached to the house, but they're only on when the people are in steamboat. Do you have a trail of correspondence with the people that own the house? Sorry. Is there a trail of correspondence with the people that own the house? In other words, has has the association reached out to the people that own the house? Yes, they have. And they have been told to mind their own business for the most part. Yes, sir. I have a question. I think more for Rebecca if it's is am I allowed to ask? Sure. None. Yeah,

Mr. Wolf questions. Um, just the inverse of that, if I was building a house and I was putting lights in the front of my house to illuminate next to my front doors, would I be allowed to put just a raw light bulb out there and say, "I'm never going to turn this on." No. I would have to conform to the standards and it would have to be shielded and diverted away. Right. Correct. Okay. Thanks. Yep.

Okay. Are there any other questions before we go to public comment? Okay, Mr. Wolf, you can have a seat if you like. Um, we're going to open up to public comment. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to make a public comment? Seeing none, we'll turn it over to our online. I see a couple hands up here. So, let's go to Debbie. Are you there, Debbie? I think you're There you go. Can you hear us? I I can hear you. Can you see me? Yeah, we can. I I don't You have three minutes, so please give us your name and address, please.

This is Debbie Majilleski of 1055 Angller's Drive, Steamboat Springs. Um, I don't know who Zoom participant number 11 is, and since they raised their hand, they may be the other parties who are involved in this complaint. So I I did file this complaint on behalf of the uh homeowners association that is next to this uh structure. I point out it is not a residence. It is specifically by code uh uh specified not to be a residential structure. So it is the owners but um it is not a decorative feature of somebody's home. And also from the uh I also want to point out that the neighbor who is most severely affected by this um uh has told me that it is the lights are on throughout the year regardless of whether or not the that structure is occupied, which it shouldn't be anyway. But that's another that's that's another complaint that we filed as well that it's not a it's not supposed to be a residential structure. So, I also want to go back to um something that councelor Augusta mentioned and that was that the CDC does not have any uh specifications about the the the luminescence about the brightness of the light. And one of the things that we would love to see if if the next step is to I don't know what the process is to to to um amend the code to address issues like this. Um would love to see a modernization a modernization of the code to to include for example the the foot candles u of light that can be put out by by seasonal lighting because it seems like these are LED lights and the CDC was was uh

written at a time when LED lights were not popular and so it it u uh it it specifies how far apart lights can be and and how what the wattage is for each and so it may uh the home sorry I shouldn't call it a home the structure may adhere to those um specifications but they they are outdated so uh I am just adding some information to the to to this u uh appeal of it of the u um of the resolution of this I understand that that seasonal lighting is part of steamboats um appeal, shall we say, but especially in commercial areas and in uh but not in residential areas. And if you looked at the pictures that were submitted with the original complaint, the the degree of lighting, not just the number, but the the brightness of the lighting is um very much not in keeping with a residential area. Thank you very much.

You Debbie, thank you. Okay, we have someone else online. Um, could you unmute and identify yourself, please? Yes. Uh, I'm unmuted. My name is Mike Walker and I am the owner of the Could I interrupt here for a second? And Mr. Walker needs to turn his video on, please. Yeah. Can you turn your video on and maybe get your audio up higher, your volume up? We can hardly hear you. Sure. We're we're in process of trying to get the video the video up. And we also need your volume up as well, please.

Okay. We're in the process of trying to get the video up. There we go. Yeah. Hello. Thank you for your time. My name is Mike. Could you uh give us your name and address, please? Yes. My name is Mike Walker, 10003 Angller's Drive. And Mike, is there a way you can get closer to the mic? Um, you're still coming across. Um, audio settings. I'm checking it. Um, is this not you not hearing me very well? Well, maybe if you could talk louder, that might be helpful.

Okay. Is this any better? Is this any better? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Um yeah, Mike Walker, 103 Angller's Drive. Um we are have the auxiliary building which uh we redid an old barn that was built in the 1920s down below it and were uh given an auxiliary building. Uh we did used to have three three buildings on the property, but anyway, the auxiliary building the lights have not been on all year. Um, just to reiterate the complaintants that 105 anglers sits 78 yards away from it and 1015 anglers sits 51 yards away. Both of them were the 55 was purchased in 24 with the building already there and 1015 was built in 2011. So, this auxiliary building does sit on our acorage in front of them and obviously they can see the seasonal holiday lights when they're up. But based on the distance uh they've planted many rows of trees um to to shield the building. Based on the distance alone, there's no possibility of a light trespass. Um, our auxiliary building is 636 square feet. Both their homes are well over 7,000 square feet. Um, we have we are in our third year with uh Steamboat Holiday Lighting, Dave Stevenson, who does all the lighting up at uh Angller's Drive, surrounding neighborhoods of Fox Lane and Angller's Court. He installs and and takes them down as appropriate. We have changed out bulbs at times for the Fourth of July to

have the red, white, and blue. Um, we can also point to the neighborhood lights from our neighbors lights from several viewpoints on our property and would argue that there are is a light trespass out of those larger homes. Um, we have one string around the 600 square foot property and it's on timers. Uh, if somehow maybe there was a power outage and the timers got off, but I spoke to Greg Potimber last year and I'm well aware of the holiday lighting requirements in regards to time on and time off and right now we are not there. And these lights have been shut off. I had them turned off on January 6th after the new year. And I know there were a lot of lights up around Fox Lane and other areas in our neighborhood that were on well past uh January 6. So, thank you for your time and I'm available if there's a question.

Okay. Thank you, Mike. You need to questions of Mike or No, ask questions of Mike. You good? Hold on a second. M. Is there anybody who has any questions for Mike? Yeah, I do. Mike, are you still there? Okay. So, Mike, um, think, you know, thank you for joining us. You, is there any times that you do not turn on the light when you're up up visiting your property?

Yes. not not around the holidays. I mean, they've been on for Thanksgiving when we've had the grandkids out. They've been on for Christmas through through a little bit of the new year and the Fourth of July. We like to celebrate a couple days with the Fourth of July, but there there's there has never been any intention and they certainly are not on 365 days of the year. So, so they are not always on when you're up when you're always up there. No.

So, if they're on a timer, then I I'm I'm I'm confused by you have a timer for when things come on and off, but it only you only turn the timer on when you're when you're there. No, the timer goes on when the holiday lights are on. Otherwise, it's unplugged. So, there's no lights. So the the timers for my understanding is through city code is is 11 p.m. So they shut off before 11 p.m. or must be off at 11 p.m.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your time. Oh, good. Just for reference, I have never received any communication from the HOA. And you know, again, if somebody wanted to reach out and discuss it, I'd be glad to. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else online, please raise your hand. Okay. Seeing none, we will close public comment and bring it back to council for discussion. I'd like to make a motion to to uphold the um planning director's decision. Say that again. I'd like to make a proposal to uphold the the decision as we want to make a motion to uphold uphold Rebecca's planning department's decision not to overturn to not enforce

the appeal take enforcement action. Right. Okay. We have a motion from councelor Barnes. So, uh, you know, while we're waiting for someone to second or not second, um, you know, one thing, doesn't it? Isn't the process like it dies and then you can discuss? Yeah, we should call it. If nobody seconds the motion, then Yes. I guess I would like to Yeah. discuss a little bit, but Yeah. Well, the motion's dead.

Motion's dead. Okay. All right. Um, so I've been, you know, for a number of different cases, you know, people know I've been looking at, you know, around the city and and and it's and I think planning recognizes this. A number of people recognizes that we, you know, we have a code that's outdated right right now. Um there was a challenge in in updating that code because you know because if we said hey no no lighting of on on Christmas trees you know across you know across the city you know after you know February 1st or something like that I mean we'd have our chambers just full. So what we really need is a commu, you know, a community engagement. And this is what Rebecca's been saying, a community engagement to really help us understand what that, you know, what what our uh code should be. Um, and I'm just, you know, saying this in terms of it's not a it wouldn't be there's no quick fix, you know, hey, let's just define what seasonal, you know, what seasonal means for for us. Um I think we need a you know clear uh clear plan for you know what do we you know what what is our dark skies plan um essentially in terms of like because we can't even see you know um uh you know stars you know out of steam mode any anymore. So, but it is going to be a long I think involved process um um because we definitely want to engage the community on what you know what do they want you know long term associated with this. Um coming back to this particular case um I think m you know Mr. Walker you know just you know basically just told us that you know these are lights been on up there for three years. I mean it's not they are not up temporary. I mean, they're they're they're up there permanently. Um, and he just turns, you know, and and he whenever he's up there,

he turns on the lights. Um, and so I don't see anything temporary about these. And I see them there, you know, 365 days a year and they're on whenever they're up there. Um, and so I, you know, have to agree that, you know, this this is not a seasonal set of lights. Okay. Other comments? Um, sorry. Oh, no.

Let's go back to Dan's comments and say if we don't uphold that, we have a we have to manage our expectations that nothing's going to come from this. Um, other than spending a lot of time and energy on it, I would love Rebecca to come up if you have a comment. Well, hey, go ahead. I do have something I would like to share if Yeah.

you'll allow me. When I read the s the sorry when I read the lighting code that exemption about temporary or seasonal lighting or any of the exempt lighting from the standards that talks about the standards talk about brightness and shielding and you know all the things. I don't think there's anything in our lighting code or in our CDC that says you can't put holiday lighting up and not turn it on. So, like if we're going to say I'm I'm a little bit concerned that if the lights are not on that we're saying they're still they're now permanent lights because there are no standards for lights that are not turned on. Does that make sense? Mhm.

Like I don't think it's uncommon for people to leave lighting like this up year round and only turn it on parts of the year.

So I just am a little bit concerned if we're going to go down a path where we're looking at the lighting even when it's off as being in violation of the code. that makes me nervous about I mean I I have some concerns about all of the lighting around town that fits into this category and then if we're going to broaden that to even be when it's not turned on that is something I had not even considered before walking into this room. So I just wanted to raise that concern

that becomes very problematic. I have lights on my house 24/7 uh for Christmas. I only turn them on with a timer during Christmas. Why? Because my wife won't let me get on the ladder to take them down every year because it's very unsafe. Smart woman. So, I just keep them up year round and after the third year, they start to get kind of white and sun bleached. So, then I throw them away and finally get up on the ladder. But yes, I totally agree with you. They are up there all the time, but they're holiday lights only used for the holiday season. There's lots of lights that are strung I mean people in the back in people's backing for Temper Lincoln have right.

It shouldn't be and and I think in in many cases the lights um are are managed through HOA bylaws around which stipulate things and um there's no HOAs downtown. I know, but I think for in this town, there's a lot of HOAs that that um manage that that very effectively. Um Okay. So, so I was gonna Yeah, go ahead.

Um so, um I I agree with um Rebecca um and her assessment of the code and it I think we have we've talked about this. Sean, you've brought up the hotel. Um, so I think this is a larger issue that we need to address via code. Um, I'm Rebecca said it. I'm real concerned if we start picking out and and um kind of applying our opinion um not based on code to properties, that's a slippery slope. Um, and so I think Tom, we need to really figure out a way to really prioritize this and work on it because I think this is going to continue to become a problem. Um, and looking at the pictures, my heart goes out to the neighbors. I mean, I hope Mr. Walker, um, if you're still on, that you truly are committed to working with your neighbors. Um, because we have pictures and the lights are really bright. Um, and so I I hope that you truly can reach out and find a better solution because it's it's unfair to the neighbors. Um, but as we sit up here today, we have to go off of our code. Um, and right now I support um Rebecca's opinion.

Oh, I I don't agree. Like although it's very vague, like this isn't seasonal. There's images here of it being on at 6:00 a.m. It's just not this. I mean, it's to the point of you know it when you see it. This isn't seasonal lighting. And I'm extrapolating to installing a light bulb and not turning it on because there's a complaint here. Yes, there's lights all over the city there. You don't have this conflict. Like this is clearly a problem and it's created an issue. And then I look at this and I think this isn't seasonal. If it was during It just isn't like I don't follow the seasonal nature of this other than just calling it seasonal. It in theory it would be temporary. You if to put it in a different perspective, if I was an annoyed neighbor, I'd say I hate this, but it'll be over in X amount of time. There is no reasonable expectation that this would ever be over at any any amount of time. That says to me that it's not temporary. It's permanent.

So, I don't I don't really agree. I I I apologies. I pre like you're an expert. I am not an expert, but I don't I don't support upholding this. It just does not feel seasonal or temporary in any way.

So, I have I I totally agree with you. This this is there's nothing seasonal about this. Um I'm I really wish that the Walkers were, you know, I I I see this as, you know, you're not cooperating with your neighbors for some what for whatever reason. I have a question for Dan, though. I mean, this is not the only violation in this town. I mean, if you look across this, there's thousands of Christmas trees that are strung up with lights around this town. And and so, at what point do we, you know, we we say that, you know, try to enforce it for one when there's thousands out there? Um we from my perspective as you know a person who might potentially be prosecuting one of these um every one of those cases is different because they all will depend on what evidence is available to us

and um with some cases maybe you know it's possible that somebody could spend enough time to put together enough evidence that one of these could be prosecuted under the current u under the current code. So, I I I'm caution you against saying we we can't prosecute one without prosecuting a thousand. I don't think that's accurate. But you also said that there the evidence here was not overwhelming.

That's what I've seen so far. I mean, Mr. Wolf um has stated that uh these lights are on most of the time, if not all the time. uh you know that statement is somewhat conclusory and there's a lot not a lot of details and that's I don't think enough to go to court because we have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt but that that doesn't mean the neighborhood can't monitor this home for a period of time and and come back to us. So if I understand um what we're here tonight for is to make a decision on the planning director's decision to deny the complaint. The appeal.

The appeal. Is that correct? All right. And so with that, I want to um you know, there there is a deeper issue. Right now, I'm also approving Rebecca's because I want to move on. This is seriously a first world problem and it needs to be stated for what it really is. Fair even though it's lady to say this is important respect. So, and what I'm saying is wait, but that's disrespectful. This is interrupt one of our constituents. You keep interrupting me. Wait, because it's one of our constituents. You can't diminish someone's listen. Can you context of what I'm saying?

Swintech led. Councelor Pino something that someone really cares about a first world problem and you want to wrap it up. I mean, have some respect. We're in a leadership position. We can't speak like that. Thanks for your scolding. You're welcome. It is well. Come on. Let's Let's make your point. Please be respectful. Let him make his point.

Please let me finish my point. Okay, I apologize. It's that easy. Okay, this is an issue with some neighbors. What we have is we have a code that's not correct. Okay, tonight we're not going to solve this. No matter what we do or make a decision on, the decision we have to make is whether we approve the denial or deny the denial. Okay, it's that simple. We now recognize that we have a lighting code issue that has talked about lumens and length of time with neighbors. So that is an issue we must address some other time, not tonight. Okay. So, as far as tonight's go, I would like to move to approve this denial by our planning director and then hopefully we can have a further discussion later on when we do code changes in the CDC, which we do all year long. We can then update this with the proper channels. But for tonight, I do not want to continue beating this dead horse because this is not a decision we need to make whether it's temporary or permanent in based of the lumens of this one example. We have one decision.

So you're making a motion to approve the denial of the appeal. Absolutely. We have a motion from councelor Pacino. We have a second from councelor Barnes. All those in favor? No. Let's have some We need to have some discussion. Yeah. I mean, well, we've been discussing for half an hour backwards. Robert's rules. I mean, we keep on doing this over and over again of like make a motion and then immediately jump to No, we didn't. We canceled the motion 25 minutes ago. He just made a motion and they need a second. I know. I'm saying 25 minutes ago, we had a motion from councelor Barnes and and and we did not. So, we had a second motion, but you know, Robert says you give you have time for

you have time. So let let us but now you can go because because I'm I get frustrated because every week we seem to get in the situation where we make a motion and we don't have and don't we don't pause for Gary speak.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Um I just I guess I just have been certainly listening to the conversation and I mean I absolutely also um sympathize with the people that are being impacted by this. Um, and you know, I concur that this is, you know, I mean, it's it's seasonal. I mean, but it's not permanent, right? I mean, so where kind of where is the line and absolutely agree that we do need to address this? Um, my concern is that we have lots of this, you know, a lot of kind of the, as we say, the um, strings of lights in people's backyard. I mean, typically people turn them off and they're not quite as bright. Um, but, you know, I think that we do need to probably I mean, I support upholding the decision not to um uphold the complaint, but I I would hope that the um the walkers would realize maybe that they are having impact on people's lives and would shut them off at a decent time. and you know um and be more you know kind of neighborly about that. But again concur that we do need to address this because we've got a lot of instances in the community where this is beginning to happen more and more. So clarity is needed.

So my my ask to the walkers is basically can you please turn off your lights and be a good neighbor. Um I I'm sensitive to using, you know, to um spending tens of thousands of dollars on a potential litigation versus spending tens of thousands of dollars on updating our lighting code. Um I I really want to spend our money you so that we fix this problem across the city and not just one location. So, I apologize as much as I agree to um that this I I kind of feel like they're in violation here. Um I do look at the the aspect of it. You know, can we win it in court? It sounds like there's a good chance we won't. Um so, I'd rather spend our resources on fixing the problem.

Okay. Any other comments? Then we had a motion from councelor Pacino to uphold the denial of the appeal. We had a second from councelor Barnes. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed?

Okay. Motion passes 61. And I guess Tom, at some point um in the near future, we should really um have a further discussion on the lighting code and somehow work its way into our plans for the year. We can have that discussion, but we'll have to take something off the list. So that'll be part of the discussion. Okay. Contractor. Contractor. the contractor. The contractor. Okay. Development dimensional code city attorney's report. Dan, do you have a update report?

I do have a uh brief report for you um and it relates to an issue that uh we've discussed briefly and that is there is a trail um at the Steamboat Barn Village and I'm pulling up a map for you right now. Um, see if I can zoom in on this.

So, there is a trail um in the steamboat Martin Village. It's a public trail. It runs along Fish Creek generally uh west um along the creek and around Secluded Court and terminates at Angel's View Way. Um the uh property owner uh at 1380 Secluded Court uh which is the property identified with the red arrow has has blocked the trail. And this is the item that I brought to your attention a couple of months ago. Um staff uh is of the opinion that this is an important trail and that we need to do what we can to reopen it. And I got some general direction to that effect from council. Um we have been working with the HOA uh to potentially solve the problem which is that the trail was constructed um on this property outside of the recorded trail easement. Um you know we believe that that the construction of the trail and the public use created an easement in its current location, but that's a disputed legal issue and um at some point we may need to go to district court um to uh get a judge to confirm that. Um in the meantime, we're working with the HOA. Uh I am in conversations with the property owner's attorney and uh uh am hopeful that maybe we could uh we may be able to resolve this issue. Um the reason I'm bringing this up tonight is that we did get a demand letter from the property owner's attorney uh threatening litigation. And so um I just want to let you know that at some point in the near future we may need to make a decision about litigating this. So uh we will continue down the paths that we're operating on now and um continue to work on uh you know this legal theory regarding the uh the public use of the trail creating an easement and hopefully we'll be prepared to make a decision if if we need to uh if we need to go to district court. So uh I'm not asking for any direction from you tonight. Um I if you know if we end up in a situation

where we need to litigate I would come back to you and discuss it with you. Um, that being said, uh, we do have an executive session scheduled. If you want to discuss this, uh, ask me questions, talk about the strategy, um, that is available to you tonight, but I am not asking for direction at this point. Okay. Can you just clarify the trail that is outside of the easement that was recorded for the trail? That's correct. So, the easement was recorded um, in March of 2008. That's when the plat was um, was filed for record. The trail wasn't constructed until about a year and a half later by the developer in um 2010. How far out is it in Oh, I don't know. Not far. 10, 20, 30 feet, something like that.

It's cost the cost is to move it. Uh so, um the HOA did make an offer in February, March of 2025 to pay the cost of relocating the trail into the recorded easement and received no response from the property owner. and they could they just do it? Um there is a little bit of an issue in that the trail is outside of the recorded easement on the adjacent property as well. So there would have to be a short connection along the property line uh in an area where there is no easement. So um the answer to that is no. We would need some degree of cooperation from the property owner at 1380 secluded in order to to do that.

Okay. Is there a way of using eminent domain with people using this trail for the past 15 years? That's more or less um the the city's position um the concept is not imminent domain. It's implied dedication. And and basically what that means is that you don't have to have a written document to create a public easement if there is evidence that the property owner, the developer built the trail with the intention that the public use it and that the public subsequently does use it. And you know, we believe that we could prove that in court if we had to.

So even if the uh property was purchased after the foreclosure, um which kind of abandoned a lot of things in those properties back in the day, when someone bought the property with that implied dedication of the easements on their property, um that's the issue. We be able to successfully maybe win a case. I I I believe it's a strong argument. U the property owner would have been on notice if the trail existed because it you know it's an improved trail. Um in addition there is a recorded subdivision improvements agreement that references the public trail. So in either way the trail should stay for the public because that was part of the uh standard uh the was developed as part of yeah the subdivision agreement.

Yes it was part of the uh it was part of the subdivision approval. Um and yes we believe it's important. It's a public asset. We have received u some complaints from members of the public about the closure. Uh so yes, we do we do believe it's, you know, important that we continue. Um and I will say that staff doesn't really have any strong feelings about whether or not the trail is in its existing location. Um but uh actually the property owner has removed all the crusher fines, so it doesn't really exist now. Staff isn't particularly concerned about the location. We would accept either. Um but uh yes, we think that we should uh do what is necessary to to preserve a trail in this location. Absolutely. Thank you.

Any other questions for Dan? It it it seems, Dan, that um we don't have that um big a reason to have an executive session on this tonight. We may in the future, but it would appear we don't need one tonight. Is that fair? It's fair. Yes. So, I just put that on as a precaution in case you wanted to have a a deeper discussion. Um, last point though before we move on. Um, you know, if it comes down to having to go to court, we will need people to talk about public use of the trail. So, if you hear any complaints from from trail users, would you forward them to me, please? Sure. We'd love to hear from the users of that trail and how they've been inconvenienced. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

I don't know. It's there if it's not there. It was. Well, it's okay. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Dan. Okay. Old business. Uh, we have minutes from the regular meeting on February 10th and February 17th. Does anybody have any revisions or changes to those minutes? And if not, I'll take a motion to approve those. So, I'll move to approve the minutes from our regular meeting February 10th and our regular meeting February 17, both in 2026. Okay. We have a motion by councelor Gary, second by councelor Pino. All those in favor say I. Opposed?

Move to minutes are approved. 70. Move to adjurnn. Move to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor? All right.