City Council - Regular Meeting

Oh, good. Okay. Do we have everybody? One, two, three, four. Yeah, that's it. Wow. This is it. All right, everyone. We're going to get started today. This is the city of Steamboat Springs, regular city council meeting number 202616, Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 at 5 p.m. Julie, would you honor us with roll call, please?

Steve Muntean.

Yeah.

Gail Gary. John Augusta is absent. Dave Barnes.

Here.

Michael Pacino.

Here.

Amy Dixon. Here. And Brian Swintek is absent.

Okay. Let's say the Pledge of Allegiance. There's a flag in the back, one up front. I pledge allegiance to the flag, United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

We have a very packed agenda tonight and we are going to move into and to our liquor license authority in a second here, but I just wanted to make a couple of announcements that we will have public comment tonight on items not on the agenda at around 6 p.m. or prior to that if we finish the city manager's report. And then we will also have public comment on items on the agenda as those items come up. So with that in mind, I would like to have a motion.

I don't see our liquor applicant. Do you want to do the SSRA?

Okay. We can do SSRA. I don't see. John's going to talk about SSRA. All right. Can we have a motion to adjourn from our regular meeting and reconvene for SSRA?

So moved.

Okay, we have motion from Councilor Gary, second by Councilor Barnes. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Okay, so we will now reconvene as the Steamboat Springs Redevelopment Authority. And John, you are on for... A resolution.

Yes, John Snyder, Public Works Director. The resolution under consideration tonight is to acknowledge appointments to the Urban Redevelopment Authority Advisory Committee. These were vetted by Council's interview team. So if there are questions about the interviews, I would encourage the questions to be directed towards those folks on the team. Otherwise, I will answer any other questions you might have.

Okay, everybody has a copy of the people who are up for appointment, as well as the others. Are there any questions for John on any of the candidates? Okay. If not, then I'll take a motion to approve the resolution appointing those five candidates to the URAC.

So moved.

Okay, we have a motion from Councillor Geary.

Second.

Second by Councillor Dixon. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion passes 5-0. Thank you, John. And we also have the minutes from our SSRA meeting to approve. You should have received those via email, correct, Julie? Yes. Does anybody have any questions on the minutes? And if not, if somebody would make a motion to approve those. Motion to approve. Okay, we've got a motion from Councilor Barnes.

Second.

Second by Councilor Dixon. All those in favor?

Sorry.

Let's try. Oh, it's working.

Okay, good.

So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, that motion passes 5-0. And that is the end of our SSRA meeting. So I'll ask for a motion to adjourn from our SSRA meeting and reconvene to our Liquor License Authority meeting.

So moved.

Okay, we have Council Gary, second by Councilor Pacino. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, we are now reconvene as the Liquor License Authority. Hello there. How's it going? We're doing well. Thanks for joining us tonight. Okay. Can we use our, I didn't say that for SSRA, but we're good on roll call. Okay, so this is a public hearing before the Liquor Licensing Authority, the City of Steamboat Springs to determine whether or not the application of Steamboat Southwest Inc. to be located at 1760 Central Park Drive, Steamboat Springs, Colorado for a hotel and restaurant liquor license should be granted or denied. The hearing is conducted in pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado and the rules of the local or the Liquor Licensing Authority of the City of Steamboat Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to receive information, data, and testimony by interested parties in order to enable the City Council to make findings and reach conclusions required to be made by state law as to whether or not the liquor license applied for should be issued. A record is being made of these proceedings so that those who desire to be heard must identify themselves by name and address. Interested parties are residents of the neighborhood under consideration or owners or managers of any business located in the neighborhood. The neighborhood has preliminarily been established as follows. The relevant neighborhood is Highway 40 corridor. Any challenges to members of council conducting this hearing must be stated at the onset of the hearing. The burden is upon the applicant to satisfy the council that the reasonable requirements of the relevant neighborhood for this kind of license applied for are not presently being adequately satisfied. The burden is also upon the applicant to show the council that he, she is a person of good moral character entitled to hold a liquor license. Okay, is the applicant ready to proceed? Okay, please come up and identify yourself for the record by giving your name and address.

I think I know most of you, Paul Underwood. This is my business partner, Ryan Fowler. You may be less familiar with him, but he's helping me in this endeavor.

Okay, thank you. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before the council is the truth?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Do you wish to make a statement regarding your liquor license application?

Just a very brief one. First of all, thank you for inviting us here tonight. Secondly, I feel blessed in a couple of respects as it relates to this, that I found my calling in life and I am able to pursue that calling in Steamboat Springs. So I'm here tonight to ask you respectfully. to give me the opportunity to continue that calling and be a mentor to the youngsters in our community to help them be restaurateurs as well.

Okay. Thank you, Paul. Julie, does the city have any exhibits to introduce?

Yes, we have exhibits A through G, documents required by the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division.

Okay. Is there any objection to the omission of the city's exhibits A through G? Okay. Nope. City exhibits A through G will be omitted. Julie, does the applicant have any exhibits to introduce?

Yes, they submitted a petition containing 37 signatures in support of the application, which is Exhibit D. Okay.

Are there any objections to the omission of applicants Exhibit D? Seeing none, Exhibit D shall be omitted. Are there any other interested parties who wish to be recognized? either in the room or online. I don't see anyone. Okay. So with that, at this time, the council may immediately make a decision, provide for public discussion of consideration of documents or testimony or table this matter. Any motion to approve or deny must contain findings and conclusions. The city attorney has prepared an outline of findings to assist in a motion to approve or deny. So with that, I will ask someone to make a motion either for the liquor license to be granted or denied.

Okay, I'll move approval of the liquor license.

Okay, we have a motion by Councillor Geary to approve the liquor license. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Councillor Barnes. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. We look forward to eating at your latest incarnation.

Steamboat Southwest is our corporate name. The restaurant is Alta Mesa Southwest Grill.

Well, good luck. And when is opening night?

Boy, that is a great question. As long as we're off the record, we're shooting for around the 1st of July.

Okay. Good luck to both of you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay.

Good. With that, we also need to approve the minutes from our last Liquor License Authority meeting on May 5th. Are there any questions? Comments? Motion to approve. Okay. We have a motion to approve the minutes from May 5th. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we'll motion from Councillor Barnes, second from Councillor Dixon. All those in favor of approving the minutes from May 5th, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, motion passes 5-0. With that, I will entertain one more motion to adjourn from our Licensed Authority and reconvene to our regular meeting tonight.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilor Barnes, second by Councilor Geary. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? All right, we're back to our regular meeting. And next on our agenda is we have a proclamation tonight. A proclamation recognizing June 2026 as LGBTQ Plus Pride Month in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. So, Councilor Dixon, and if you would like to come on down here, that would be great. And if you wouldn't mind, just stating your name and address for the record.

All right. My name is Kanan Hatfield, and I am a resident in Hayden, but I work for Queer Futures in Steamboat Springs.

Thank you.

We probably need to move that microphone a little bit.

So I was just saying how honored I am to be able to read this proclamation tonight. And this work is really year round work to champion the rights and dignity for all. So thank you for all that you do. So the proclamation, a proclamation recognizing June, 2026 as LGBTQ plus pride month in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Roughly one in 18 adults in the United States, including one in six people between 18 and 23 years old, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, aromantic, or other gender and sexual minorities, or LGBTQ+. And statistics show that LGBTQ plus people are substantially more likely to experience discrimination, violence, sexual assault, and poverty than their cisgender and heterosexual peers. And LGBTQ plus youth are particularly vulnerable to bullying, homelessness, suicide, and other social ills. And regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity, every person deserves to live openly, authentically, free from harm and discrimination, and the social stigma that continues to endanger the well-being of LGBTQ plus people must be eradicated to ensure that all members of our community can thrive together. And we pledge to celebrate all LGBTQ plus people and to foster a supportive environment that condemns any and all bias against the LGBTQ plus population. Therefore, be it proclaimed that the City of Steamboat Springs City Council joins with its partners to proclaim June 2026 as LGBTQ Plus Pride Month. Thank you.

Yay.

Is it typing in here? But if you want to...

Well, hello and good evening, Steamboat Springs City Council. Thank you so much for your consideration for this proclamation in recognition of June 2026 as LGBTQIA2S Plus Pride Month. As mentioned, my name is Kanan Hatfield. I go by he, him pronouns, and I am the program coordinator at Queer Futures, the LGBTQIA2S Plus Resource Center that serves community residents in Steamboat Springs and the Yampa Valley. I am also the chair of Volunteers and Entertainment Committee, which is a volunteer-led of Yampa Valley Pride, which is a volunteer-led organization that plans our local Pride festivities. Pride Month is an opportunity to recognize the contributions and existence of the LGBTQIA2S plus folks that reside in our community. It's a chance for our leaders to affirm that every resident of Steamboat Springs deserves to feel safe, welcomed, and valued where they live. As someone who has worked closely with and gotten to know the LGBTQIA2S plus community in Steamboat Springs over the past year, I have seen firsthand the difference that it makes, especially for young people. when local leaders send a clear message that they belong here. We are all stronger when we and our neighbors can participate fully and authentically in our civic life. Recognizing Pride Month is one way we can celebrate and nurture the diversity that makes this beautiful town vibrant and special. We hope you can make it to the Yampa Valley Pride Festival on June 13th from 12 to 4 in the historic Routt County Courthouse lawn, and we hope to see you there. Thank you so much for your consideration. Oh, well, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next on our agenda are city council reports. Who would like to go first?

I'll go. OK. I had the look, so. So the only update is we had a URAC meeting after our last SSRA meeting. And the conversation, they were updated on where SSRA was directing URAC how to move forward. So that was a big part of the conversation. We have a meeting on Thursday of this week. And so I think we can report out at our next city council meeting how that meeting goes um i i worry that we may have to provide more direction to your rec um i know councillor byron's you were present as well um there seems to be still a lot of swirl just around the outdoor snow melt when that's not the direction, Ski Corps or the city, like that's not even part of the conversation. So we'll see how Thursday goes, but I may come back and ask SS, well, I'd love to see how that works, the SSRA or council to help provide more direction for the group, so.

Okay, thank you.

That was it.

Okay, who else has a report?

Just a quick update that I think that we'll be meeting with Postmaster tomorrow morning to continue the conversation about cluster boxes in Old Town. So just kind of an announcement to everybody in Old Town that this is under kind of discussion and consideration moving forward. So we'll keep you posted on what progress is made.

Good, thank you. Councilor Barnes, anything from you? Councilor Pacino, anything from you?

Let's see. No, nothing major. I do want to apologize to our staff and Gail. I missed the Howelson Hill user group meeting yesterday. It came up on my screen at 4 o'clock. And I'm in the East Coast right now, and I thought it was 6 o'clock your time. Anyway, I'm going to forward you guys over the minutes from our conversation today that I got from Brad Sutter. But I did not make that meeting yesterday. But other than that, I have no reporting.

Okay, thank you. I just have a couple things to update everybody on. The first farmer's market is this Saturday, June 6th. Myself and right now, Councilor Bruchino, I believe, are going to be there. And we do have a nice board that was created by Mike, which is really nice, that we'll have, and some other stuff. So we look forward to that. We also had the Ute Bear Dance celebration and proclamation last week. Thank you, Kelly, for all your hard work on that. I don't know how many people were there. A couple hundred? Yeah, something like that. So learned a new dance step there. So that was that was fun. And we also had the ribbon cutting at Cottonwoods last week, the same day, just earlier in the day. And there was good attendance there as well as some people have already moved in there. So that's that's exciting. Yeah. also just update you on a couple things um... i i was at the main street steamboat meeting this morning and most of the business owners are saying may was a little light in terms of visitor volume They're not quite sure on the revenue side of things, but they said that the volume of visitors was a bit light. As far as the bid is concerned, you remember we authorized them to see if there was interest in that. They have four people who are interested in being on that board. They're trying to get – they need five. So if they get a fifth one, they'll be back to us with that. And – The final thing is on the winter parking program, you know, we had another meeting last week, and as most of you had a meeting with the Altera VP of Community Development, I believe most of you met with her. And so next week we have another meeting on this, and maybe it ties in a little bit with what you're talking about too. And it's hoped that this is our last meeting. This will be our fourth meeting next week. And so we hope to come to council after that with whatever options have been identified and agreed upon. So we'll see how that goes.

Was the VP of Altair at your meeting?

She had meetings with, I think, with Councilor Pacino, Councilor Barnes. We met with Tom with her. And I think Councilor Swintek also met, and I'm not sure, but I think Councilor Agosta did.

Sal, I have a meeting tomorrow.

With them?

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, John met with them as well.

Okay, so she's met with everyone then, except you at this point. But it was separate.

It was separate, okay.

Yeah. So with that, any questions from anyone on anything?

I think I only just wanted to comment, I guess, to Councilor Barnes and to Councilor Dixon regarding your comment about SSRA. And I mean, I would think, right, maybe if we could get Council's agreement that I would hate to waste another meeting of SSRA, right? So I would hope that you guys would come out strong in terms of the fact that SSRA needs to move on and that snow melt should not be part of the discussion any longer.

Yeah, we'll see how Thursday goes.

Okay, thank you for that.

Okay, we're going to move on, and we have two other items under here, 2A and 2B. 2A is City Council Housing Subcommittee Summary. You all should have received a copy of that from Brad. And I just want to draw your attention to one thing, because Councillor Swintek and I meet with – Brad and Tom and Kelly and Rebecca and whatnot and Gates on just kind of filtering through and vetting some things before they move on to the ad hoc committee. And one of the things that came up was this request that is for... If you'll look down here, it says, well, if you're on page 2A1, it'll say, should staff encourage Gorman and Company to submit a request for funds? And this is for a Project Prairie run in Hayden. in the past uh city council has previously directed staff that projects located in route county are eligible for str tax funds and however these locations are viewed as the lowest priority in other words we start with the city and the urban growth boundary go to the ybha service area and the rest of route county so before we get the ad hoc committee subcommittee working on this and spending too much energy on this we just want to make sure that everyone is okay with starting that discussion about utilizing str funds in hayden and obviously that also opens up to the rest of route county such as oak creek or yampa or whatever so just want to throw that out there counselor swintech and i um supported bringing this to you all because we think that um that's the way the um str language is read It's the region, right, Dan, the entire Yampa Valley.

The ballot question itself doesn't address any geographic constraints, but the recitals of the ordinance that referred to the ballot question do talk about regional impacts and talk about the Yampa Valley community. So I think it's safe to say that you can use the funds outside of the city limits.

So I just open it up to anybody's opinion on this.

I guess I have a question, right? I mean, to the extent that is there a way to tie it back or basically to say that the amount of, you know, that there does have to be some sort of requirement that anybody who lives there works in Steamboat?

Mm-hmm. Sure, I think you can attach any kind of reasonable condition that you want to a grant of funds, and that could include the terms of the deed restriction or use covenant that governs the units.

Yeah, I think that that gets into, I mean, obviously there's a number of people in Hayden who work in Steamboat, but they could also work in Craig for that matter. And so then you're into how do you determine the SDR allocation up front? with that in mind.

I believe it's a slippery slope to start giving STR funds, not just out of our city, but also to projects that have already been developed. I think, especially an affordable project, it just feels like there could be extenuating circumstances going on where we have an oversupply of product and people are looking to lower the rents. And it just seems like we have a whole lot of these requests coming in the pipeline. And I think we have to be super careful. While we do want to increase the supply of de-restricted houses, we don't want to bail out developers, nor looking like we bail out developers. I don't know any of the financial, of the capital stack that Gorman has in that project. I mean, could be worth looking at, but I think it's outside of our district, at least in my mind. And I think the voters would, would have a hard time looking outside of the city with city tax dollars that are collected.

Okay. I have a point. Um, thank you. And Dave, I kind of agree, but I kind of don't, I think that, um, You know, part of the impact of Steamboat Springs and the rentals that are created in the sales tax rental that's being created is directly corresponds to our need for workforce housing. And as much as I loved your comment saying we would have an overabundance of product, that hasn't happened for a few years. And so I want to encourage us to allow our ad hoc to look at this. We don't know what the deal is or the opportunity is for this prairie run, but I think we can at least look at it in that same hierarchy that you've already determined. I think that hierarchy is very justified, but we want to look at every project. It was brought up during the RTA formation committee that what would it take to help Craig get part of, you know, supporting the RTA as they were trying to build housing in Craig. It was brought up that, you know, they feel that Steamboat is their impact and because all their workforce does have to come this way. And it was brought up that, hey, what happens if we can help subsidize some of their housing to offset some of the impacts they're having? I don't know what it would look like in the future, but I think that we'd be remiss if we didn't include those impacts to our neighboring community and consider it all Yampa Valley.

Okay. Thank you, Councilor Pacino.

and i was just going to add i mean thank you counselor barnes for pointing that out i absolutely agree with you from the perspective of the developers coming back in terms of projects that are already completed in terms of looking for additional funding or subsidization and then um also concur that my you know my preference would be that we spend the money on housing here in steamboat um absolutely in the sense that That's, you know, I think what we want to do to the extent that, you know, one of the things we heard is people are concerned about our community character, our neighborhoods, making, you know, and we know that we have an exodus of the vital people, members of our community that we want to make sure that they stay here. And we don't want to contribute to the traffic problems on Highway 40. So in terms of prioritization, I mean, that's where I land. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, and I appreciate, Michael, your responses. I just feel like we should at least ask the voter whether they would want to go outside of city limits with those funds.

Okay. Councilor Dixon.

I agree with both. Councilor Barnes and Councilor Gary. We have actually had a developer who could not rent their units that access STR And I know that because I was watching their vacancy rates. So, yeah, I don't want any perception that we're somehow subsidizing developers. So I would prefer to make sure that we can meet all of our goals that we have for the city for housing. and then possibly look outside but uh counselor gary's point was caveat of working in steamboat because that's what we heard from folks is that people could not hire staff or workers because there's no place for them to live

Well, if we take out the notion that we're subsidizing developers here who can't sell their product and move away from that for a minute, then the real question is, do we evaluate these opportunities within Rowe County, outside of the city of Steamboat, understanding that we have a prioritization matrix, which would prioritize within the city limits, for example, first, And do we want to at least investigate or leave that open? Or do we want to say that under no circumstances would we want to go outside either the city limits or the UGB or whatever? So I think that's really because it's very hard to say, you know, is all the money allocated? Well, it might not be allocated today. It might be allocated two years from now. I don't know. I guess what I'm trying to is give some direction to Brad and whatnot around is should this still go forward, though, under those guidelines?

I would ask Brad if the staff has the bandwidth to look at all these projects and can they self-prioritize?

Well, Brad, and I think this is, we haven't gotten very many of these requests, so.

Evening, everyone. Brad Calvert in the Planning Department. In general, Council of Orange, yes, we've been... These things come in at a relatively reasonable pace. We are typically seeing one or two new applications that then sort of kicks off the evaluation process. So it's not like there tends to be a crunch where we're sitting on six applications and I've got to schedule three meetings. There's a relatively sort of smooth curve here in terms of when the applications flow in. So, and, you know, to the earlier conversation, you know, the general expectation is that if a worthwhile application walks in the door, we should review it. But obviously the question before you all is if you really sort of want to have, provide guidance that that third tier priority area outside of the housing authority's service district just simply isn't really a priority. To President Mateen's point, I want to save the applicant time. I want to save the ad hoc committee time because it seems like if it's going to find its way to you all, it may not result in an appropriation. I think everybody would prefer to have that answer versus the old long maybe, which no one likes. So that's the gist of it.

Thanks.

Okay. I'm not opposed to looking into it, but I have reservations, which I stated, but I don't oppose looking into it.

Well, are we saying that it's a tier three priority, but it's worth giving to the ad hoc committee and getting a recommendation on it or not? To Brad's point, I don't want to do it if we're going to say no automatically without having at least an open mind. We don't know how much it is or what the AMI is. I mean, we really don't have any information.

I think Gorman has a good track record for delivering affordable housing in our community, right?

Yes. Yes. Okay, so...

I mean, it's a bit of a chicken and an egg, right? I mean, in the sense of I totally respect not wanting anybody to spend resources on something that's a hard no. I think we're not hearing potentially that there's a hard no up here, but I do believe that given what we know is in the pipeline... with potentially the Slate Creek neighborhood, potentially Campbell, you know, in terms of the rainbow that came in of all the other projects that we're anticipating. I don't know that I see it. You know, it's definitely that third tier.

Okay. So, you know, since we haven't gotten, this is our really first discussion on this. I think that, What I would like to suggest, if you're all open to it, is that we consider this, send it to the ad hoc committee. We're very familiar with the developer and what a good job they've done in the community. And then once we get that information, maybe that can set us up for a better discussion about where we want to go in the future as well. Is that okay?

Yeah, I'm not opposed to that.

Michael? You okay with that? Sounds good. We good with that, everyone? Yes? Okay. All right. Second thing on here is, I believe, Gail or Dave, a little bit on the tentative upcoming agendas.

I'm sorry. Before we move off from the subcommittee, one request. Maybe this happens. I don't want to go into discussion about it, but I see we have some large... on the list, possibly inquiring. Do we require financials from these organizations when they're requesting STR funds? And if not, again, we don't have to answer it tonight, but if not, I think it'd be worth having a conversation. Any grant that organizations apply for, they have to submit financials, usually. So... I think that would be a worthwhile conversation to have at your subcommittee meeting. Like I see, you see health is on here. And if Ski Corps is ever to come back.

I think most of these things, Brad, correct me if I'm wrong, Brad, but most of these come with financials attached to them.

That's correct. Again, we're at Calvert Planning Department and we are working with our financial services partner to stand up that standardized underwriting process. So all of those basic requirements in terms of expectations of information provided to us will be sort of hammered out over the next couple of months. But to President Mateen's point, typically we see.

you know project level pro forma details as well as um financial statements related to particularly sort of community partners that are applying for funds so i am i'm not asking for financials on the project and what like ami and the financials of that i'm asking for financials of the organization we we're typically requesting both okay okay thank you Thanks, Brad.

Okay, and then kind of one more question on this. Again, really appreciate the memos that we're getting now in terms of reporting out on the housing subcommittee. I think this is a great step in the right direction in terms of informing council about kind of what actions are being taken. It might be good in some instances, Brad, to have a little more detail. I mean, you know, for example, and again, we can follow up with this at a later date, but item four where we're talking about staff you know was directed not to introduce duration of retirement limitations for individuals that qualify as retired i'd love to understand that better so again i know we've got a busy full agenda for this evening but i'll maybe follow up on that one we will follow up on that one okay thank you the rationale on what that is okay perfect all right thank you for that um

Are you up next on the, or are you going to talk about the steering committee?

Oh, sure. Yeah, I think what we just want to call out is that in the packet is the agenda for the next Slate Creek Neighborhood meeting, which happens on, I think it's the 17th and the 18th. So take a look at the agenda. And we do have a meeting on the Tuesday night before that. so i think we can have a more detailed conversation at that point hopefully the materials will be out in advance of those meetings so everybody on council has the opportunity to look at the packet and then bring forth any sort of questions or comments that you have okay should we also ask community builders what their timeline is or

How far do they see this process going? Because I think we got a lot of that sort of comments wanting to know when this phase would be over. Do we ask them for that for next Tuesday's meeting?

I think the intent is that the June meetings are the last. So I think there is absolutely, to your point, a conversation about what's next, right? I mean, I think this sets a foundation for what's next, but how do we move forward?

I'm still talking about July as a possibility, having another set of meetings.

I believe the understanding is that the 17th and 18th are the last two meetings. And that's why we're developing the timeline and milestones for annexation to carry that forward some way. But this process in terms of identifying the next steps is concluded in June.

Okay. Any other questions? All right, we'll move on and quickly we'll go through agenda review here. The next meeting is June 9th. We do have a regular meeting scheduled up front of that, and we're going to adopt the 2026, 2027 city council goals, and we're going to get a strategic plan update at that point in time. And then we will also have city one-on-one participant recognition from that last class. So that'll happen at five o'clock. And then about an hour later, we'll move into our work session. You can see that we have three topics on there. Our housing needs assessment and housing action plan, the Steamboat Springs downtown plan review and community design standards update. Any questions on those? Okay, June 16th, it's a regular meeting. On June 16th, we'll also have a Liquor License Authority meeting to kick things off. And then under Community Reports, we're going to have both Senator Roberts and Representative Lukens here to give us a legislative update, a wrap-up of the session that was just completed. And so that should be... Interesting. And then we will get an update from Kelly on the Stockbridge Housing Project update, which just so we know that is the name of this now, Stockbridge. So we don't have to call it Campbell or CDOT or we'll just call it Stockbridge. And Steamboat for All is also going to come in and give us an update on what they're all about and what they're doing. And then you can see we are also going to have the Chief Theater Development Plan updated. on that night as well. And you can see a number of second readings. Any questions on that one? Okay. July 7th. I hate to go to July already when it's June 2nd, but anyway. Did you have something, Councillor Dixon? No. July 7th, if you look at that, you will see that again, we have a number of resolutions, some new stuff, including the Voodoo Water Ramp Jump Complex, which will be fun to talk about over at the mountain, and the Western Resilience Center is going to be also having a development plan, and you can see some other ones, some plat stuff and whatnot. The waste volume-based pricing is going to be pulled from that agenda. That's going to be later on. And you can see what else is on there. And then finally, on July 14th, we have a work session. We have three topics, multimodal transportation initiatives update, fiscal sustainability, and the marijuana local production requirement. Any questions on any of those?

okay with that in mind then i think we have enough time tom to go through the city manager report before public comment thank you president montine um city managers report um as a reminder to the community can be found on our website steamboat springs dot net um and just scroll down to city manager report tonight's report is on there as well as all the previous city managers report Also, just a reminder for folks that we have sort of reformatted this report to be consistent with our strategic plan in the outcome. So you will see that the report is organized by the outcome areas identified in our report. strategic plan. So starting off with thriving community, as Steve mentioned, Stockbridge project is moving forward. We did close on the Campbell property at the end of April, which really takes the first step in completing the land bank for this future campus development. Next, the city will work to complete due diligence on the remaining two CDOT parcels. Closing on the CDOT parcels should occur in the third or fourth quarter of this year. And in the meantime, the city issued a request for proposal for an overall development plan on May 12th. We have had, it says 150. I think the number is actually up to about 200 firms now that have downloaded that RFP from BidNet. And the proposals are due next week, June 11th. So we will be working on to formalize both an internal staff working group as well as an advisory committee to assist with the project over the next several months. And we are providing a detailed update to you on that on June 16th. City Council approved the fundraising agreement supporting the second sheet of ice at the house on Ice Reiner. This is a major milestone for this long-standing community priority. Following Council's action, the RFP for a design-build contractor was posted with targeted contract award at the end of June. So glad to see that project continue to move forward. Under connected and engaged community, there's a lot of information on all of our website in social media activity, as well as the city's new city connection newsletter, which is sort of an outcome of the city manager report. We're putting it into a newsletter that can be subscribed to, and it'll just go right to your email, whoever's interested, and you can sign up online as well for that. Steamboat Springs Police Department Sergeants Buccino, Shirley and Andrews, Detective Barnett and Chief Barn Beckett attended the annual Mothers Against Drunk Driving CDOT, which is the College Department of Transportation awards ceremony where Sergeant Buccino was awarded the Andrew Duarte Person of Impact Award for his combating DUIs and substance related crimes in the Yampa Valley. So a very good award for Mr. Buccino. So thank you for your efforts in that. And we're glad to see them get the kudos and accolades that he deserves. A lot of info on all of the Steamboat Springs Police Department outreach efforts. It also included the community service officers partnering with Route County Riders, participating in several street smart bike safety events at local schools. So we are continuing to try to educate folks about being safe on their bikes of all types. So glad to see that that is continuing. I know that that is a priority of this council is to kind of get the word out. In healthy environment, we did do a spring tree debris chipping event on Friday, May 15th. We had about 150 vehicles pass through the Meadows parking lot, bringing tree limbs, leaves, and twigs. And the Steamboat Springs Wildland Fire Crew, as well as Parks and Rec seasonal staff, assisted by chipping all the debris, creating about 90 cubic yards of wood chips to be used in local composting programs. So glad to see that effort. letting people kind of clear out their gardens and debris and turning that into a positive use. The first video in the city's WaterWise series launched highlighting how Parks and Rec uses smart irrigation technology to monitor and reduce water uses efficiently during ongoing stage two drought conditions. If you have not seen this, It's a short video, but it's very informative and it can be found on the city's YouTube site. So I recommend people go on and look at that. It's actually a great little video and is very telling on the efforts that we're using to conserve our water and our parks. Under high-performing government, facilities staff are advancing both short and long-term planning efforts to address citywide workspace, operational growth, and facility safety needs. This includes looking at the new public works building, the mountain fire station, the police department operational growth and future building needs, transit operations center needs tied to fleet expansion and staffing growth and ongoing evaluation of Parks and Rec. So I just note that because as the community continues to grow and expand, so does the city organization and kudos to facilities and staff for really being proactive and looking at all of our facilities needs. So appreciate that. The HR and risk team is excited to launch Steamboat Learning. It's internally later in June to provide training context across various topics. The Steamboat Springs employees training courses will span across compliance, leadership and development, safety, and even include an AI coach to equip employees with conversations. guidance in a variety of situations. So this has been a goal of ours for a while, really to advance some sort of training of employees and providing a large number, over a thousand of videos that can be watched, training modules that can be watched. So kudos to that team. That has been a big effort between IT and HR. So really, really good effort to see that move forward. So congratulations. Under safe community, the fire department received delivery of the 2023 Rosenbauer Type 1 engine. Some of you may have seen this driving around town. It's kind of a sleek looking, modern looking fire engine. It's pretty cool looking. The crews are working hard to get trained on the apparatus. as well as equip it with all the necessary equipment. The department expects to have an official ceremony sometime here soon to celebrate its arrival as well as the return of Ladder Truck 62. So we will let you know on that. They call it some sort of like pushing in. They actually push the thing into the apparatus bay and it's kind of a ceremony. So we will invite you to that. It's kind of a really cool looking truck. So keep your eyes open for that. You will not be able to miss it. It's very distinct looking. The procurement team worked with the fire department to renew the classic air care contract for ground ambulance services, including inter-facility transfers. Because of our remote location and mountain weather, often limit air medical transport, this contract ensures reliable ground transportation for critically ill or injured patients when air transport isn't possible. So kudos to the team for being proactive and making sure we have that ability since we are a long ways from any sort of major hospitals other than the Yampa Valley Medical Center. Under reliable and resilient infrastructure, the contract for vegetation removal and spillway maintenance at the Fish Creek Reservoir System is currently progressing through procurement. This work is essential to maintain dam safety and structural integrity. It includes removing woody vegetation from embankments, clearing spillways, and rebuilding the emergency spillway log structure at Long Lake. And they will be, crews will be disrupting natural water flow, will try to avoid disrupting natural water flow, and larger cheese will be carefully relocated within nearby forested areas. I bring that up because it's just an example of the extent of work that we do with the city, and it extends all the way up on top of our path for our water system. So I'm glad to see that moving forward. That concludes my report, other than the list of upcoming meetings and events for yours and the community's information, and I am happy to answer any questions. Okay.

Thank you, Tom. Any questions for Tom?

Yes, one question, Tom. I was not able to attend the meeting where Alicia presented the survey results, the Western Resilience Meeting. Sorry, let me find it. Yep. You know what I'm talking about. Is she able to send that out to council?

She being Michelle Stewart. Is that what you're asking?

Sorry, Alicia. Alicia for the- Hold on, let me find it.

Yes, I know what you're referring to. Yes. Yes, we can get the results from that and send that out to council.

Thank you. Sorry, that was really not clear, but you know what I'm talking about.

Yeah, and those weren't presented during that meeting.

Western Resilience Center.

Right, during the community report, or during the community meeting.

We'll get that out.

That would be good to have those survey results.

Okay, other questions? All right, thank you, Tom. And before we go to your other report, Tom, I'm going to open it up for public comment. And city council will make no decision or take any action except to direct the city manager. This public comment is open for all items that are not on the agenda for tonight. And those addressing city council are requested to identify themselves by name and address. And please take no longer than three minutes. So with that... Is there anybody?

Can I just ask for a point of clarification? Sure. I had received some inquiries, and I don't know if anybody will, but if there's anybody here to testify or provide public comment on the Slate Creek constraint analysis, Dan, you said now would be the time to do that, right?

Yes, public comment on staff report matters are taken at general public comment.

Yes. So if you're here to comment on the constraint analysis, which will be coming up next, now is the time. So with that, Bill, come on down.

Bill Pass, 1875 Hunters Drive. I'm here tonight to talk about the report that hasn't been discussed yet, will be discussed next. Regarding the drinking water, the 400 EQR amount that we've been using as the acceptable amount that we can provide to the west steamboat and that we're spending a considerable amount of money to improve infrastructure so that we can supply that amount of water to the west side of town. I want to talk about water in general for a moment. You know, currently we're under stage two drought restrictions. And, you know, we've done a lot. There was a report done back in December this past year that was presented to council about from the plumber organization. And, you know, In it, they said that the safe, conservative, risk-free amount of water that the city could plan for is the 2.8 million gallons per day that comes out of the wells in the event of a fire. And the amount that we had, the current amount being used in that same report was about 2.65 million. So we're about 150,000 gallons. gallons a day away from what would be considered the maximum amount of water we could use safely in the event of a fire in the Fish Creek area. So my question is, in that same report, they were like, years one through four and years five through 10 amount of allocation of water for commercial sites as well as affordable housing sites. And if you just look at the years one through four, we've already consumed that 150,000 gallons in current projects. You know, the Stockman is 300 EQR, 305 EQR. You're talking about 400 for the west side. So do we build the Stockman or do we build affordable housing? Do we, what is the absolute safe amount of water that we have to consume here in the city? Is it the 2.8 million gallons a day? And do we not exceed that? Does city council at some point put a halt to construction? And if it's gonna exceed that amount of water, or are they gonna go, well, you know, we'll be okay. So there's the questions I want council to ask themselves. I would like the city to really define what they consider to be a safe amount of water to consume for this city so that we know what to shoot for and we know when we've gone over. Thank you.

Thank you, Bill. And we will have more discussion on that, Bill, before the night is over, in fact, in a very short period of time. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to make a public comment tonight? John?

Good evening. I'm John Tomasini. I live on Mark Twain Lane. And it's a very interesting project. progression of being able to speak behind you because what you have to say is very important in the future of what I am trying to address. For those of the people behind me that don't know me, I was Mary Brown's husband until eight years ago, so I'm going to put that up in front. She served this community and never quit serving this community. I'm a little bit distressed as the community is from the feedback that I'm getting that after employing two consulting groups with taxpayers' money to try and develop Brown Ranch that you would possibly consider renaming it Slate Creek Ranch. And I might add Slate Creek, if I'm not mistaking, is the water that passes through the property. And I just want you all to know that when that property was sold, Steve Brown donated the water rights, which are the senior water rights of Slate Creek to the city. And if you put a valuation on that today, In the real estate market, water usually equals at least half the value of the property that's at stake. So I just want to put that out because you don't have that history. You don't know that history. But if you look into the archives of what the Browns did for this city, I think you should really reconsider keeping the Brown Ranch going forward. Plus, from a marketing standpoint, to abandon the brand Brown Ranch, you're going backwards 20 years now. in funding and in the progress of maybe breaking dirt on this someday. I think you should jettison both of your consulting groups and take the money that you're paying them for job security and put it into going back to Mr. Peter Patton's master plan and the people that worked with him. You can contact some of these people with a lot less of the budget that you're spending on consulting groups when you have a master plan that shows density up to well over 2000 units. And I suggest to you that and when you contact these people who were the developers of the master plan, that you cut this density back to 800 units total, and then bring in your mixed use development of commercial in fire departments and waters. What water is is huge.

And I think you verified that tonight.

Where are we going to get the water for 2,000 units? It isn't going to happen. So please consider reevaluating your budget and where that money is being spent because it's all of our money. Everybody in this room, everybody in this community, and everybody sitting in front of me, it's your tax dollars we're spending. And you know what? You're getting nowhere. You're going backwards 20 years. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Is there anyone else in the room, or is there anyone online? Please raise your hand or come on down. I see nobody in the audience. Nobody online. We will close public comment. There's a couple hands up. There is?

Yeah. Yeah, you know what? We're not seeing them on our screen, so.

Looks like Elliot Lawrence holds his hand up. Elliot, why don't you, can you... Unmute, Elliot. Sorry, we didn't see you on our screen here.

That's all right. Good evening. I just wanted to take a few minutes and talk a little bit about our ribbon-cutting ceremony last week at the Cottonwoods. I also would like to just say thank you to the city counselors that were there at the event and who attended it. Also, an invitation to anyone who hasn't seen the project yet, Cottonwoods, to... to reach out to us here at the Housing Authority. We'd be happy to set up a time and give a tour. I know Councilor Buccino has expressed interest in that, so we'd be happy to get that set up for him. It was just a really great event, getting to see owners move in as we were having the ribbon cutting ceremony there. And I just also wanted to highlight the relationship here again with the city and the housing authority and just how critical the $10 million in the STR grant that the city gave the Cottonwoods project was in allowing that to be a successful, affordable project for our workforce here in town. It's been tremendously rewarding and a really great pleasure to see all of these new owners moving into the Cottonwoods to just see that joy on their face and the excitement when we make a phone call after they've won a a unit in the lottery. And anyway, a lot of that has to do with the work that we've done kind of collaboratively here on this project. So I wanted to just highlight that as part of this public comment. And also that a lot of the people that are purchasing at the Cottonwoods are below the 100% AMI level. And a lot of that has to do with the STR grant that you folks there and city council gave to the project. Um, and just a couple little updates on sales. Um, we finished up our last lotteries, um, for the 130 and 140% AMI units last week. Um, so still sorting through some of that and, and, um, working with owner or new owners on picking out the unit that they'd like to, um, that they'd like to purchase. As of last Friday, we've had 19 closings. We have four more closings scheduled for this week. We currently have 24 units under contract with a total of $8.5 million in sales so far. And just a quick thing about the buyer pool, if you will. 99% of our buyers are first-time homebuyers. So this is truly a meaningful project and home ownership opportunity for our workforce here in Steamboat and Route County. And then just from a demographics perspective, you know, we have school district employees as first-time homebuyers, employees who work in the healthcare field, that work for the resort, that also work in retail, nonprofit, hospitality, work for the county. the city, work in finance and construction. So that gives you a little bit of an idea of the background of the people who are purchasing at the Cottonwoods. So anyway, I just wanted to jump on and again say thank you for the partnership and thanks for supporting this project with STR Dollars. And yeah, looking forward to working collaboratively in the future with the city on Slate Creek and any other project that may come our way. So just wanted to say thank you for that.

Thank you, Elliot. Appreciate that. Bill, can you unmute and state your name and address, please?

Bill Jamison, Verges Creek Road.

Can you hear me? I can hear you, Bill. We can't see you, but we can hear you.

Yeah, excellent. Good evening. Well, I'd like to talk about your water report and update. It should be no surprise. This number hasn't changed in the last few years. It's 400 EQRs. I don't know what the surprise is. It was... That number... On the last annexation, it was probably the last number before, all based on the additional infrastructure to be added to even supply that amount west of the Elk River Road. The real question is, is it really that number when you take into account the, what's it called, overlook or what used to be the overlook project? If those home sites are coming out of that 400 EQR, there's substantially less than 400. So I don't know why somebody would present a plan for 2,000 units of maybe 1,500 EQRs when there's no ability to service them with water. And the cost of... an Elk River treatment plant is only going up. As I recall, some months ago, the city manager and staff is supposed to be presenting a report as to what if the area west of Steamboat to be annexed isn't going to pay for that Elk River treatment plant, what the cost is to the current rate payers in the city, and if What portion of that is going to be put to the ratepayers of Mount Warner Water? This proposed annexation, if it ever comes, is just looking uglier and uglier from a financial point of view. So I think it's time to take a serious pause as to when the city can actually service anything West of their current boundaries.

Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Is there anyone else online? I don't, I don't think I see anyone, anybody in the audience. Okay, with that, we'll close public comment. And I just wanna summarize a couple of things. I know we're gonna move into the constraint analysis and that's gonna get into a lot of discussion on this water thing. But I think a couple of things here is that no one is advocating 2,000 units out at Brown Ranch or 1,500 units out at Brown Ranch. In fact, the discussion has been far smaller to see if we could possibly do something maybe in the 200, 300 type of range. There has been absolutely no discussion about that, and the discussion about 200 or 300 or whatever is all predicated off of this analysis that we're going to hear in a few minutes here because we can't have to – it's not just water. There's other things involved in this analysis too. So we will get to that. As far as the cost, John, of these consultants and whatnot, that was a grant. Okay, this money is not coming out of steamboat taxpayer dollars. It is grant money that we've been using for that. So I just wanted to clarify that as well. No, we cannot. Okay, with that in mind, Tom, I'm gonna turn it over to you for the municipal services analysis, AKA the constraints analysis, right?

Yes. Thank you, President Muntean. And I just want to start off by saying that this report represents a moment of time. It is... a what we're calling a municipal services analysis because it does not include an analysis of other utilities like gas and electric. It is municipal services only. And it is intended to be for the Slate Creek neighborhood. And it is intended to be an introduction So I know we have roughly 30 minutes for this discussion tonight. We are fully aware, we being staff, that this will generate a lot of questions and we welcome the questions and we'll dive into it. I also want to say that there's a lot of background information. We wanted to present this information in a way that was easily digestible, clear to the city council, to the public. And there's a lot of information that has come from the disparate departments in their analysis that we will be trying to put into sort of a single voice. It came in a lot of different forms. And it came in a lot of different voices, if you will. So we are working to kind of put that into one consolidated and clearly legible document that will sort of provide a little bit of background information on the analysis that went through. This will be further discussed by the Slate Creek Steering Committee on June 17th and 18th at their last meetings, because this is really gonna help inform sort of the next steps for that potential annexation. It also represents the collective professional judgment of the city staff. And it is those departments that'll be primarily serving Slate Creek neighborhood. So in many respects, it is based on purely empirical data. And in some respects, it's based on professional opinion, based on their current operations. And it provides council with kind of what we're calling a current snapshot of our municipal service capacity, and really is intended to identify the point at which additional, significant additional investment, staffing, or infrastructure upgrades would be needed. This is the point at which we could accommodate development and essentially assimilate it into our current services. Above this, it's sort of a stair step, if you will. We can accommodate it. But at that point, there would be significant infrastructure upgrades. So that's why we're trying to present this as this is what we could do now at the point of time. It really represents kind of our operational conditions. It includes staffing levels, our infrastructure capacity, and does take into consideration recent development activities. And it's important to know the decisions about future growth and it's stated in here. It's not solely about how many homes can we build. It's about how that growth is phased, how it's financed, how it's serviced, and how it's integrated into the community over time. And There will be changing conditions. It was referenced that, for instance, the water is based on EQRs for west of Elk River Road. If we see further development between now and when we wanna annex at west of Steamboat, west of Elk River Road, it will lower this number. So the answer is yes, this is any development for the water. So that's why we say it's based on a point of time. In two months, three months, six months, and a year, we probably have to reevaluate it. So with that, the analysis that we did was given where we are today in our municipal services, we feel we could accommodate about 400 to 500 housing units. Again, the types of housing units will impact that number. The housing, the units, if they're all single family and have yards that we have to irrigate, that's gonna lower the number. If it's high density housing without irrigation, without yards, that'll increase the number. If we have commercial space out there, that will lower the number of units. So there's a lot of factors that are going to affect this number, and that's why we tried to provide you with a range of what we think is a reasonable number, given the assumption that we will have other uses and we don't quite know what the program of that project would be. So just very quickly, going through the various services, wastewater does not really have any significant constraints. You can see that we could accommodate 3,000 equivalent residential units or about 3,500 homes out there. Future development throughout sort of the broader service area, including Steamboat, Steamboat 2, Metro District, and Treehouse will affect that and will affect when a new water treatment plant will be needed. For all intents and purposes, wastewater is not a constraint. Drinking water is probably our biggest constraint, as was mentioned. That is based on what we say, think is a 400 additional equivalent residential units, minus anything that's developed west of Elk River Road, And that does depend on some several planned upgrades, which includes the Willett Heights pump station, upgrades to pressure reducing valves and the creation of a new pressure zone for the sunlight neighborhood. Those are planned projects and expected to occur within the next two to three years. I will have John Schneider answer Mr. Pass's questions about the water treatment. EMS fire, we continue to see significant growth with call levels for EMS and fire. They did an analysis of what we anticipate future growth to be based on current projections and when we would really need to develop a second project. or in this case, third fire station west steamboat. And their analysis was about 670 homes. So again, that's higher than the four to 500 units that we can see from water. So water being the primary constraint. Transportation, you've noticed it says one bus stop and traffic light. Transit is... We can accommodate transit, but it means developing probably a roundabout at the future Slate Creek Connector Road and Highway 40, a place where a bus can turn in and pick up folks and come out. We do not have the capacity at this point to bring service up into... the Brown Ranch neighborhood or Slate Creek neighborhood. So it would be, we could provide transit, but without, as we all know, we've talked about transit and the constraints with our transit system right now, that would require also additional funding. So at this point, we can accommodate it with one bus stop, one traffic light and a roundabout. Highway traffic, we do not think based on sort of projections and the number of, the amount of traffic that a modest development would occur is really gonna have a significant impact on traffic levels on Highway 40. So we do not feel at this point where we are that that's a major constraint. Police. is really a matter of trying to keep up with our goal of having 3.5 officers per 1,000. That is a goal. That is not where we are today, but that is what we're trying to achieve from a staffing level. That just means that for every about 200 homes that we develop, that we would need additional two police officers and a patrol car. So not a significant constraint, but it does, you know, it ratchets it up staffing that we will need for that. Finally, parks. Parks obviously was a big discussion during the original Brown Ranch. We have level of service standards for parks and new development. This is trying to address those level of service standards. So based on roughly 500 homes, a minimum of six and a half acres of neighborhood parkland would be needed across two to four locations, along with 21 acres of a community park land across one to three locations. Some of this could be land that's dedicated for development in the future. The parks could be developed, but we at least need the land dedicated, and some of those smaller parks would need to be part of it. Developers do have park requirements. We have requirements in our transit neighborhood development that will require parkland. This is city-owned, city-operated parkland that we're talking about. So that's in addition to what would be required of developers as part of the development process. The other significant constraint besides water is streets and fleet. The streets department, we know, and I mentioned earlier in my city manager report that we are looking at a new public works facility. And that is because we are bursting at the seams in our public works building. And we are, with significant improvements, increase in what we call lane miles or additional streets basically, that just takes more time for our plow routes. And so talking to our streets division, there's like, we can probably handle about another mile and a half of roadway, which is really three miles of lane miles before we're going beyond our capacity to be able to provide a level of service and plow the streets in a way that this community expects. So we can accommodate another mile and a half of streets. That's not a lot. When you think about that, that's a pretty small development. But I think between a mile and a half of streets and 400 to 500 units, that's probably a pretty small contained annexation adjacent to the existing city limits, adjacent to what would be the Slate Creek connector or where Gosford Park comes through the Glen. And that's kind of where we are today without, as I said before, additional significant infrastructure. Upgrades. We have staff that can answer questions. Again, I'm trying to emphasize that this is an introduction. We will have a lot of questions. We'll be able to provide more information. And this is the beginnings of a community conversation and will certainly be part of the conversation at the Slate Creek Neighborhood Steering Committee in terms of next steps and what we think we can accommodate. So that is it. And I might just have John. John, do you want to just come down and address the question? Because I know that council is going to be asking that. So we might as well just try to answer Mr. Pass's question ahead of time.

Good evening, John Snyder, Public Works Director. So to start with addressing water, let me first start with there are two water districts in Steamboat Springs. There's a Mount Werner district and there's the city district. We do not allocate any water that we anticipate Mount Werner to use over into our system and vice versa. So for instance, the Stockman is in the Mount Werner district. That... They're being fed from Mount Warner. They're being fed from Mount Warner's allocation. The development of the Stockman does not affect our ability to serve A WEST SIDE ANNEXATION. THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS AT MOUNT WARNER WE'RE PLANNING ON STRESS TESTING THE YAMPA WELLS TREATMENT PLANT LATER THIS YEAR. WE SUSPECT THAT THE FIRM YIELD OF THE YAMPA WELLS TREATMENT PLANT IS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN WAS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED. THAT WILL GIVE US MORE FLEXIBILITY TO SERVE MORE HOMES. AND THEN THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS Just so everybody understands, it's not like we're keeping a general ledger where if one unit gets built over here, we subtract one future unit over here. That's not how it works. We're instead measuring, you know, 30 to 40 different parameters throughout the system, and then we're backing into those numbers in order to present something that's a little bit more digestible. So if I see a house get built in the Glen, I'm not going to come over and say, okay, we're going to erase a potential house in Brown Ranch. what we're going to do instead is we're going to keep an eye on overall usage, peak day usage, things of that nature. Are there specific questions about water I can answer?

John, I had one that I kind of think we really need to address. Can you give the definition of an EQR. And then also when I got on council six years ago, we had 800 EQRs when we were doing that first one. And can we just take a moment to explain what that equivalent means?

great question i should have let off with that eqr stands for equivalent residential unit you can break down any usage of water into some form of equivalent equivalent residential unit as staff we call it 140 fixture unit points but uh for discussion we call it a 2500 square foot house with three bathrooms and a modest yard When we were going through the Brown Ranch discussions in 2023, we were using 800 EQR as our threshold. We have backed that down to 400, and it is mostly due to the Yampa Wells treatment capacity potentially not being able to perform as high as we would have liked it to, as well as some distribution system constraints that we see more on the west side of town.

Can you, John, talk a little bit about redundancy and risk?

Yes. So we have two water treatment plants in Steamboat Springs, which is great. There are towns all over America that only have one water treatment plant. We have two. And one of the great things about that is that if we ever were to get a forest fire in the Fish Creek drainage basin that would cause us to shut down the Fish Creek plant, we would have another problem. plant to draw off of. That is treatment capacity redundancy right there in a nutshell. So this 400 unit that we're proposing tonight is a relatively low risk number that we believe we could feed indoor use for the entire city off of the Yampa Wells plant in the event that there is a shutdown at the Fish Creek plant for a prolonged period of time. We have invested heavily in the Fish Creek plant over the last several years to try to minimize the chance that we have to shut down that plant after a fire, but it is still a possibility that we always have to be mindful of.

And is that redundancy the limiting factor on the EQRs? In other words, if we were just relying on a total water number from the Fish Creek, what would that be in EQRs?

It's north of a thousand. In fact, if we were to expand Fish Creek, I think we could feed all of it if we weren't worried about redundancy at all. So that 400 EQR is a combination of the Yampa Wells plant output and the distribution system that we have on the west side of town. Other questions?

Yep, I had a question. So you mentioned kind of distribution constraints. And I think, you know, when you talk about your four to 500 homes, it is dependent upon planned upgrades, right? Replacement of the Willett Heights pump station, upgrades to the pressure reducing valves and the new pressure zone for the sunlight neighborhood. So putting, you know, what could we do today without those upgrades?

We really shouldn't do any further West annexation without those upgrades. Now I'll also say though that we have to do those upgrades whether or not we annex or we don't. We need to do those even if we know we're never gonna annex.

Right, so that's I guess therein is my question, right? I mean, so to the extent that we know that we need to do these anyway, So that really isn't, as we say, the analysis isn't specific to Slate Creek. I mean, it's really should be taken into consideration in terms of anything on the west side.

We're comfortable with our existing city limits without those. But the problem with the Will Heights Pump Station and the pressure reducing valves is they are beyond their useful life. So we have to replace those. And then the Sunlight Booster Station, that is just so that that neighborhood doesn't ever get their pressure drawn down too much in the event that there is a fire or a major water break on the west side of town.

And why is that an issue today? Why wasn't that handled when Sunlight was built?

Staff advocated that that be handled when Sunlight was built. There were other pressures at the time. Pressure is the wrong word. There were other issues going on at the time and staff was overruled and we were told that no, they did not have to build their own pressure station at the time.

Okay, and so let's go back to your comment about there is kind of, you're not worried about any other development on the west side. But I think it goes back to the comment made by Bill Pass, right? I mean, in terms of as a council, I think there's decisions that need to be made up here in terms of where, if we want to see development, do we want, what development is acceptable to this community? So it kind of goes back to Are you saying that in terms of what's planned or to the extent that there might be future plans, not including Slate Creek, you're comfortable with that and you're only not comfortable with moving forward with Slate Creek?

Well, I'm comfortable moving forward to Slate Creek, and that 400 EQR number I gave you is 400 minus anything that might get developed at west of Elk River Road corridor between now and then. So if there are new subdivisions that come online, and I'll give you an example of a huge one that could come our way, West Acres Ranch, it's like an 80 some odd acre parcel southwest of the airport. If they come in with a development plan, that could wipe out a lot of our development potential for Slate Creek in and of itself.

Okay, thank you.

John, if you could just share what we talked about a little earlier today around, you know, all these fixes need to be done. before we have people move in, let's say, out at Slate Creek. So based on that, though, the timing around making all those upgrades is such that we're talking about moving in the earliest would be 2029.

Correct. We're open to be done with these three upgrades by the end of 2029.

Okay. So what we're really saying is where we stand today, which is somewhere around three years, which is kind of what it takes to go through that entire process of design, development, build, and everything else. So basically what we're talking about is that it's not like we have to delay our thinking or our strategies or our options today because it's going to run pretty much

in parallel with those things being done that yes that's accurate uh you could certainly start construction could certainly start building i wouldn't i just wouldn't want anybody moving in out there until we're done but i think we can be done with our stuff before there's any houses finished out there okay john i have a question for you um

If we were to move forward with an annexation and build four to 500 units and projects like West Acres didn't come through, but they came through in five or six or seven years from now, and we're in the same situation, what would be our circumstance then?

If we're in the same situation, then I think we would probably have to halt development. So what we are always doing is we're always keeping our eye on that dashboard. And if we get to a point where we think we're, starting to get in a precarious position, we're gonna come to you and we're gonna say, hey, we think you should enact some sort of legislation that slows or halts development. So if nothing changes, that's what we would do. But it's always changing. The dash lights are always changing. Assumptions are always changing. Outside factors are always changing. So I don't think we're always going to be in the same situation we are at this moment in time.

And if we were to annex and put four to 500 units out there before Westinghouse Ranch came in, would that affect in any way the development of the Stockbridge project?

No, no, that's far enough east. I don't think it would affect it.

So this is a distribution problem.

Yeah, distribution with treatment also involved. But when you're that far east, I don't think you're going to have the same issues. So let's ask the big question.

To totally unconstraint our system, looking 10, 20 years down the road, what has to happen?

To totally unconstrained your system, we need a third source that increases our redundant treatment capacity and solves our distribution system.

And that source should be on the west side of town. Ideally. Nearly near the Elk River somewhere.

Correct. Yeah. Ideally, it would be an Elk River water treatment plant. But again, that's at a significant cost. Significant cost and significant time frame. Yes. Five to seven years.

by the time you start sampling your raw water to the time you have a new building in place john can you clarify one more thing um you had stated that and he said this a couple of times really the 400 eqrs is from elk river road west so this does not have an effect truly on a lot of the infill development that's going on the rest of the city explain to me that capacity

That's where your distribution system starts to really matter. So in between, let's call it the 11th Street or maybe even 13th Street and Highway 40 intersection, and then the Highway 40 Elk River Road intersection, our distribution system gets pretty small because the topography kind of narrows. And then once you get out towards Elk River, the topography opens up, our distribution system opens up as well. And so that's where the distribution system pressures start to see more constraints with additional development. So I'm not worried at all about inflow in downtown or at the mountain or in the Willett Heights area.

And explain for the citizens, just the regulation, regulatory oversight on EQRs. Is there something that would trigger us, that would force us to get a third treatment facility?

No, no, the state doesn't really look into that. That's more based off of the comfort of the community.

I wanted to follow up on that a little. One question is, when should, ideally, money is no object, when should we be starting the process of designing and locating and everything else for a new water treatment plant?

Money, no object. I would say once we're maybe half to two-thirds built out of any future annexation of 400 EQRs. So once we start to maybe 300, if we think we're going to keep going past 400, I'd want to start then.

But if we also know we have West Acres in there, then even sooner.

potentially yeah but then also we got to consider are we able to drive our elk river or i'm sorry our yampa river plant harder and will that fill in some of that excess and if i think if i heard you correctly i mean that is not just specific to development on the west end right i mean the water treatment plant we're talking about is for redundancy for the entire city that's correct for the entire city Yeah, a third plant we would size so that it can help the entire city, including Mount Werner.

And just a follow-up question in terms of just clarification. So when you're talking about distribution constraints, I mean, is that incumbent in terms or inclusive of what we're talking about with the Willett Heights pump station upgrades to the pressure and the Sunlight neighborhood? Or is that more when I think about the actual pipes or this kind of the system that we currently have in place? It's all of that. It's all of that. Although we don't really talk about, right? I mean, we're focused on these three and not necessarily... kind of fixing, you know, for lack of a better sophisticated word, the pipes.

So that's one of the things Plummer looked into is, are there other distribution system improvements we can or should make that improve the distribution system performance above and beyond these three items here? And there are things that we could do, but the impact would be negligible to the point that it's really not worth funding.

OK, thanks. One question. With the 400 to 500 homes, there's lots of variables. We talk about commercial, lawns. So is this number, the 400 to 500, taking into consideration the parks?

Yes.

Okay. Yeah, sure. Okay, and I'll have the question for Angela on that, but okay.

Yeah, we anticipate, we plugged some assumptions into this, you know, for park land and for maybe 30,000 to 50,000 square feet of commercial. And that helped get us to the 400 to 500 homes number that we're presenting to you tonight.

Maybe you know this because we're talking about water. If not, I can ask Angela. But for our irrigation systems, are we using non-potable water? Wherever we can. That could potentially...

Help now there's not great opportunities to use non potable water at that particular location, we are using non potable and Angela can hit me if i'm lying too much, but we're using it at emerald at how else and at several of our larger parks and.

And then maybe just following up on, on counselor Dixon's question, really, as we look at this kind of in its totality, moving away from just the drinking water specifically, when we talk about transportation, when we talk about police and all these other needs, are we factoring that into kind of the today's developments proposals that are coming before us?

Yes, so those that affect sort of the community-wide, like the streets department, fleet department. Parks. Parks, fire, police, yes. We're looking at all of those as well.

So when we talk about the Glen or when we talk about base camp, they have made a contribution, like we're asking State Creek Neighborhood to do

Well, if the subdivision, if the standards apply to that type of development, yes. But the parkland, I believe the parkland requirement is a subdivision requirement, not a development requirement. So for a multifamily development, we don't require parkland. If they did a subdivision of some kind, we would require some sort of open spacer. So... Base camp was a development within an already existing subdivision. So they probably didn't have a parkland requirement, if that's your question.

That's my question, but what about police?

Well, police, you know, you've heard Mark Beckett, Chief Beckett, talk about how we're trying to achieve that 3.5 officers for 1,000. We're not there yet, but the more development that we have, and as we continue to grow as a community, we are trying to look at that, and that's why we get the staffing requests that we're getting. And that was really the point I tried to make in my third paragraph of this, is that this is a... This raises a larger question for this city than just Lake Creek in terms of municipal services and where we are. I mean, we are at the top. And so there are several areas that we need significant infrastructure improvements and upgrades and investment in order to achieve the levels of service we want just for the development that's occurring within the existing city limits.

Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's an important point that it's not, this is not just like Creek, right? That this is not, this is with any new development, with any sort of growth, right? These are the needs.

These are the needs. And this is why council is having the conversations about fiscal sustainability that you're having, because we are not able to achieve the levels of service or we're getting to the point where we're not able to meet the levels of service that the community expects as we continue to grow. And our revenue sources are not meeting our expenses.

Yeah. Any other questions for John?

Yeah, just one last one, Steve. Thank you. John, originally when we were doing the first annexation with... Well, the one that failed, the Brown Ranch. What I was curious on is that we passed this 9% sales tax for short-term rental license. And during that process, we were looking at a $200 million portion that the city of Steamboat would have to bill, pay for. And that's infrastructure roads and transportation, a lot of that. That's how we came up with the 9% and the roughly the 20 or $200 million over the course of the term of the ballot language. In that, if I'm not mistaken, included the anticipation of a new water treatment facility. As we're moving forward with a, and people see $30 million in the short-term rental fund, I just, isn't some of that money anticipated by 2029 could be used on a new water treatment facility?

Yeah, I think in the Brown Ranch agreement, two-thirds of the money for that treatment facility was included in that, but not the whole of the treatment facility. I'll defer to Dan, but if it is in direct support of affordable housing, then we can use STR money for any infrastructure upgrades.

That is correct.

Yeah, and I just bring it up. Thank you. And we'll have more of a discussion. But as we move forward with the need for a water treatment facility on Elk River, and we keep wanting to spend a lot of this money for affordable housing opportunities that are coming up with the ad hoc committee, we really have to start putting some of that money away. And I know business owners have talked about lowering that 4% sales tax, but don't you think it would be prudent to start socking some of that money away now for a 2029 build?

If we're confident we're going to annex, then I think that would be prudent.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Lots to think about, John. Do you have questions for Angela? Councilor Dixon?

No, I think, well, Angela, maybe, yeah, just if you want to talk about the irrigation, because we're talking about water and how you all evaluate using potable water for irrigation.

Sure. Angela Cosby, your Parks and Recreation Director. Wherever we have access to non-potable water, we do have water rights on the AMPA that we manage very closely. It is always our preference to use non-potable water first. We do have a few sites left within our existing inventory that we're still looking to convert to raw water. We have prioritized which locations we convert first based upon consumption and use. So some of our sites left are a bit smaller. Does that answer all your questions?

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, any other questions for Tom? Thank you for that. Okay, we are going to move on here. And next item on the agenda, and we will take a break after this item as the community reports. Items on the community report may be commented on in the same manner as consent calendar and public hearing items. So after we go through the community report, we will also ask if anybody has public comment about those. So we're going to start with the Educational Fund Board Annual Report. Adam, you want to come on down?

Yeah, thanks, everyone. Adam Alspaugh, current acting president of the Education Fund Board. Just here to give the state of the fund report for you, a little lighter than the previous conversation, hopefully. So did try to put it up there for everyone to see, but see if I can do that now. Perfect. So there's our mission to enhance academic accomplishments in Route County through student-facing investment in staff, facilities, infrastructure, technologies, curriculum made available through our public schools. Governed documents, we are incorporated in 1994. The agreement between the fund board and the city of Steamboat was readopted in March of 2024. It was actually negotiated a little bit before that, but we got it signed in 2024. Bylaws, we do the bylaws and policies and procedures every other year, review those. Last year we did the bylaws, which were updated in September. This year we'll do the policies and procedures, so those will be updated in 26, or this summer most of the time. Recent changes, those top two we've really gone over. That last one's going to be the big change here pretty quick. We're hiring a new accountant. We're in that process right now of going through that. We have a group that is interviewing new accountants. Linda Thompson was our current accountant. She was actually brought on by my predecessor, Sam Jones. When she was brought on, we actually hadn't filed tax returns for three years, so she had a pretty heavy lift as soon as she came on. And she's been fantastic, but she is retiring. So if you do see her around, tell her that she did a wonderful job for the Ed Fund. Education Fund Board, we're made up of 11 voting members, three-year terms. We're appointed by the board. We have four officer positions. Right there's our rules. Review and vet all grants. Set the annual budget. Manage the legitimacy of potential recipients. Board governance, accountability of spending and cash flows. coordinate the annual audits and the tax filings, and then liaison between the districts, community, and the city. There's our current board members. As you can see there, we are adding three new members this summer. All three of those people have accepted. We did have, I think, eight applicants this year, which was fantastic. You interview all those and weed through all those and get the best people. So it was a good change of pace in the last couple of years. District advisors pretty much advise the Ed Fund board on kind of communication, set expectations on where they see funds that they want to use or any changes that they want to the Ed Fund, and kind of we'll work those out together, as well as they're involved in our grant review process and provide us with any details that we need. How we're funded, this is more for people of the city instead of the council here, but City of the Steamboat collects the sales and use tax, the half percent is paid to the Ed Fund monthly as approved by the voters. And then the City of Steamboat Springs assesses a 1% fee against those payments for the administration of the fee. And then Steamboat Education Fund sets a final budget in May for the following school year based on projected revenues through the end of the fiscal year, which is June for us. A big part of what we do is review and receive and vet all grants based on district school needs and priorities. All grants requests must align with the mission of the fund. Community grants must be non-profit organizations and provide school-based programming. And school districts including, our school districts include the Steamboat School District, North Route Charter, South Route, Hayden, and Steamboat Montessori. There's a granting history, as you can see there. We are projecting a drop in the money that we're giving out this year, that we budgeted this year for 2026, 2027. We did follow the city's guidelines as far as the 2, 2.5% drop. Some of that, as Kim's probably calculating right behind me, is that that is a little bit more than 2.5%, but we actually, this year, looks like we're not meeting all our funding requirements. obligations. And so we had to dip into what we're calling our cash flow cushion. We can't call it a reserve account because there's accounting implications for that. And so we'll have to put money into that for our cash flow purposes. And so that number is a little bit lower than we have seen in the past. Oops, jumped a little bit there, but that's exactly what we fund. Most of our money that we do fund still goes to student-facing staff. The next is technology, and then 6% there goes to programming. Community grants, we do fund community grants, mostly non-profit organizations or all non-profit organizations, I should say. This is kind of what they do, provide experimental learning and broaden scope of student knowledge based on life skills, support students and families outside of the school environment. Community grants need collaboration and buy-in from the districts, which is a part of our grant application process. And then below there you can see kind of some of the organizations that we do fund. Community buy-in, a lot of what the fund board does, and especially coming up here as we get closer, the voting cycle is community buy-in, just letting people know that this is their money and where it goes and how it's being spent. And so everybody gets behind that. As everybody knows, last time I was approved at 85% approval rate. It's been renewed now for 25 years. Next one, next time it'll come up is 2029. So we'll probably start that process in 2028. Here's just a ballot language on the last election cycle. I'm not going to read that, but it will look very similar the next time through. And then, here's all the resources that we have to provide you per our agreement. Those last three are the big ones. Obviously, the Cannon Builder Reports. If you guys ever get bored and need to read something or want to know more about the fund, that is, that's the meat and potatoes of what we do and what we fund. And so, go ahead and read through those. And then, obviously, if you need some sleeping material, the audit reports. And then, the grant writer reports are the best money that the fund spends. So, I will go ahead and open it up for questions.

Okay.

Thanks, Adam. Anyone have any questions for Adam?

Thanks, Adam. I have a quick question. When we look at the pie chart on the distribution of grants, so SEMO Springs, 78%. How do you determine the percentage for distribution for the different school districts? Is it just based on what comes in, or do you all say up to a certain percentage?

So for a long time, the Ed Fund funded what came in. So we had essentially a 20 some years worth of data of where we were funding grants that came in. What we found out during that process was that was a lot of additional work for our teachers and our administration within the school district. And it got to the point where that actually dropped off quite a bit as far as the the grants that were coming in. So we actually had money left over at the end of the year, which is not what we want, and it's not the idea behind the fund. And so we went to a categorical granting model based off of what was historically funded to each district. Got it. Now, obviously, that had to change when Steamboat Montessori came on, but we kind of worked it in there loosely. kind of works into a peer-to-peer pupil basis. But as we know, those numbers change year to year.

Perfect. Thank you.

Yeah.

Hey, Adam, I have a question. Go ahead, Michael. Explain to me and the group the... The URA fund, the TIF that's being used at the base of the ski mountain, how is that going to affect this budget and your budget when that sunsets?

I don't know how that's, as far as the, you're going to have to explain a little bit more on the TIF fund.

Adam, I might have Kim Weber, our finance director, she probably can answer that question for Councilman Pacino.

Yeah, just keep it in context that even though you're under right now with some of the future money that's coming in, we know coming down the pipe could be some additional funds for the school.

Kim Weber, Finance Director.

Go ahead, Kim. From the Education Fund Board perspective, it's not subject to the TIF. There's no TIF for sales tax. Now, for the school district on the property tax side, that's a different story. But the half percent school tax is not subject to the TIF. So there will be no change for the Education Fund Board.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Adam? Okay. Thanks for everything you do, Adam, and your team. Yeah. Appreciate it. Yeah. We will open it up. Thank you, Adam. Yeah, we will open up a public comment. Does anybody have a public comment addressing this in the room or online? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. It's about five of seven. I think what we'll do is take a quick 10 minute break. We'll come back and handle the chamber update from Laura, and then we'll move into our consent calendar, which is why I believe most of the rest of you are here. So we'll see you in 10 minutes. minute so okay we're all back all right we're going to move on to our second community report 2026 chamber destination stewardship update laura come on down You have to tell everybody else how you made that change so quickly. I mean, you were down here eight seconds and it came up.

Practice. Okay. Good evening, Council. I am Laura Sword, the Senior Director of Marketing and Communications for the Steamboat Springs Chamber. And I am excited to share with you some of our efforts and give you a preview of the work that we're doing in our destination stewardship work for 2026. So I always like to start with why we are doing what we do. So tourism is a large economic driver for our area. We know that the numbers on the right are from our Dean Runyon report from 2024. We should be getting those new 2025 numbers soon. But for right now we have 2024 and we can see over 5,000 jobs in Routt County year round and direct earnings, tax receipts. These are all critical numbers for our community. And we know that because of our tourism economy, our businesses thrive. But beyond that, our downtown is vibrant. Arts and cultures flourish. Public services, schools, and outdoor spaces receives funding. We've been hearing a lot about that tonight. And our community is energized with a diverse dining scene, sustainable jobs and flexibility, and a high quality of life. And at the end of the day, the goal of a healthy tourism economy is a net benefit. Tourism is a net benefit for our community. And that's what we're looking to do. So we are in our second year of our Destination Stewardship Action Plan, and that is a three-year roadmap we established to really guide all of our efforts as the destination organization for the area. And within that plan, we have three kind of pillars, heritage, environment, and economy. And all of these things together need to work in harmony to have this really healthy tourism economy in place. Based on the community needs and our requests from council and direction, we have focused on some of these pillars more than others at certain times, but ideally they all need to work in harmony for this all to be that net benefit. So the three goals we have, and again, these are three-year goals, one for each of those pillars. So first economic goal is to leverage tourism to support this economy, the environmental goal to encourage responsible and respectful use, and finally the cultural goal to protect and enhance steamboats brings cultural identity. And all of these things, everything I'm going to show you, all the work that we're doing ladders up to these efforts. So going into what is new for 2026, I'm excited to share that we have gone through a Visit Steamboat Springs rebrand. And this is something I showed to council last fall, kind of proposed that this is something that we felt was really important. The brand that we have as a destination is how we tell our story to the entire world. And these stories need to evolve as things change like traveler behaviors, and I mean the entire world has changed dramatically since we developed this branding back in 2018. So it's really time to evolve this, how we give our message to the world. And it is a collaborative process, lots of research, lots of surveys and interviews that we did with people to come to this really creative new approach. So I'm really pleased to present to you Steamboat Springs Genuine West. This is our new branding that we are moving forward with in 2026. So I like to set the stage a little bit because it gives me goosebumps kind of to just read our brand manifesto. And before we go into anything, we have to set the groundwork for what we want this brand to look like and sound like and how it comes to life. So I'm going to read this to you real quickly. The West. You read about it in books. You watch it in movies. You picture it in your mind. And some of it is what you'd expect. Wandering rivers, golden meadows, clear mountain lakes, cowboys working the hills. We've got all of that in Steamboat Springs. It's who we are. But here, the West is genuine beyond expectation. You find it talking with people you just met. You admire it in the art across town. You hear it in the music drifting down Main Street on a summer night, or rodeo announcers drifting throughout town. Always something happening, never out of reach. The way we see it, there's nowhere better. We'll let you see for yourself. Steamboat Springs, Genuine West. So that's what we sound like. How do we bring this to life? Oh, I think I got booted. I got kicked off the zoom. So just bear with me here a minute. Any questions so far? It'll be just a minute here as I get back on the internet. This always seems to happen to me.

I got kicked off too.

Did anyone else get kicked off?

Okay.

Now I'm back on.

Do you need some help in the back room there?

No, I've got the Zoom opening. Okay.

Okay.

Okay, there we go. Thank you. Sorry about that. All right. So we are bringing the brand to life and what this looks like. And, you know, we talked about what it sounds like. So what it looks like is a new color palette that we've worked with. We also are looking at our brand personality. So the four squares that I have here, well, I had here. Okay, we'll just do that. Grounded, quietly confident, unhurried and inviting. It looks like typical headlines with just a little bit of a genuine West wink to them. For example, hustle and bustle, not included. This has been one of our more popular headlines that we've been testing out recently. Okay, so when we look at our overall marketing plan based on all of that branding, when we look at our plan for 2026, there are a lot of elements that we look at, a lot of indicators and some headwinds and some tailwinds. So I'm just gonna touch on a few real quickly. So headwinds, consumer confidence, as we all know, changes a lot, but it's at a low point right now. Snowpack, as we know, this is very impactful on not just our winter, Visitation, but all throughout the summer and fall as well. We're going to feel this all year. Geopolitical, price volatility, things we have no control over, but we need to be aware of and respond to appropriately. So tailwinds, things that are really working in our favor are domestic travel. Americans are traveling, especially internally, not as much international travel. So especially with a lot of the celebrations we have this year with America 250, Colorado 150, that kind of thing. I call out luxury travel because it is still a really important element for us as far as that higher income bracket traveler goes. But we also are seeing not your traditional high income bracket travelers, but some other lower income travel bracket travelers. Travelers that are really prioritizing spending their resources on travel. And so there's definitely a lot of opportunity there for us to bring up a new consumer. Of course, established destinations, Steamboat is well known. Established events I mentioned as well because they definitely drive predictable visitation. We know when an event is happening, especially when it's ticketed, that is predictable visitation. And finally, visiting friends and relatives is a huge part of our Visitor economy and really those are our repeat visitors are coming from and some really valuable guests So in terms of our paid media campaign really what we're looking to do is to drive visitation across these markets Which I'll show you in a minute The travel journey right now is very fragmented. It's a completely different landscape than we even saw like a year ago or even a month ago. There are so many new tools and ways people are searching for these things that we're looking to create that full funnel using lots of different channels to find these visitors and using those channels together to both generate and capture the demand. Okay, so what we're looking to accomplish with this paid media campaign is to increase the visitor spending of the people that are already here. And this is based on the percentage of visa spending by visitors, that information we get from Zardico. So that's the same as we have done before. Increase August and September lodging tax collection. So increasing that late summer and fall visitor tax. I mentioned stabilize average length of stay because we've seen that decline over the past couple of years and we want to get that back into a place where we can grow that. We have a lot of opportunity with do Steamboat Springs right and that stewardship message. Our visitor center is a very important part of our efforts. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. And then as I mentioned, the 250-150 activations, there are a lot of opportunities there that we have. The drone show we had at Winter Carnival was a great example of that. We work with the state to bring that to the area. So we really want to highlight the unique character of our area. So the target audiences we have identified, we've got two main audiences, our empty nesters, and that's more of our fall visitor, and then our families, that's going to be more of our summer visitor. And the four basic markets we're looking at, Chicago, and then within Colorado, Front Range from Fort Collins down to Colorado Springs, and then in Texas, Houston, and Dallas, Fort Worth. And these are all established markets for us. With the resources that we have, we are not going to spread it too far, so we need to be really concentrated in where our efforts are going. So that's why we've chosen these markets. They're fly markets, and can also be drive markets in the summer some. And how that looks across the calendar, paid search is going on now and will go on through September, that's your Google search. We're going to focus on the families in May and June, so that has already started. And then the empty nesters, that's going to layer in in the fall. So I'll show just a few creative slides with you. And this is an example of a social media ad. And the idea is that's a carousel that you scroll through. And the first frame is just a nice town shot with a headline. And then the middle is that kind of grounding picture that shows that this is an actual place. And we identify what the place is. In this case, it's Lincoln Avenue. And then the payoff at the end with that genuine West tag. This is an Instagram ad and the headline here says, even kids these days love it. Steamboat Springs identifies the place and then the tag. This one has been our highest performers so far in the first month of our campaign. First rodeoers, welcome, identifies the rodeo and then that last frame. So this one has been performing very well across all markets. So in addition to our paid campaign, we have what I'm considering kind of our always-on channels. And these are our Visit Steamboat Springs social channels, Instagram, Facebook, our website, of course, and the emails that we send out. We have a visitor's guide that comes out twice a year. We just got the newer version out. I have some if anyone wants to see one. We just distributed those out to the community. The visitor's center. The visitor center is a critical piece of the work that we do, and it's so interesting the trends that we see in travel. There are so many tools out there, especially digital tools, and we're not attempting to replace those. We really want our visitor center to augment some of those and really be that source of local knowledge for people. And then we always have a presence on colorado.com, and that is the state's tourism website. And then the messaging that we have year-round, this is mostly our stewardship messaging. So the Do Steamboat Springs right, support local, adventure responsibly, and then celebrate the culture. And again, these all ladder up to what is in our destination stewardship action plan. So in terms of the different campaigns we have, so as I mentioned, the national campaign, that is the Genuine West, and that's going to be in those several national markets. Regional campaigns, we have Genuine West, and then we layer back in at that Deuce-Steamboat Springs right, which is the This is the second full year we've been doing that one in partnership with the State Tourism Office. And then our local market, and those are for people who are already here in the area, we serve the Do Steamboat Springs Right message as well as layering in some Care for Colorado. That is kind of a separate component of stewardship messaging. Okay, so I'm gonna share a bit of data information. We use some data and research. And on the left, those are some of the platforms that we use. Some are forward-looking and some are historic data serving really different purposes. And the distribution channel for that data is that's what's in those images there. The tourism data dashboard lives on our website, and I just saw the April tax information come in today, so I'll add that in and we'll have that live on our site soon. And then the local link is our local newsletter that shares events and happenings and really what locals should be aware of so that they can make informed decisions and know what's going on in the community as well as our efforts and what we're doing. So how does spring, summer, fall look so far? I ran these numbers last week. And this is information from KeyData, which is our lodging occupancy platform that we use. So these numbers are June 1st through September 21st. And I guess overall, I would say things look okay. They don't look great, but they also don't look dismal. So it's kind of steady year over year at this point. When we look at paid occupancy, it's pretty much flat. That's that first square on the left. But we see guest nights are down and nights available are down. And that tells me that there are fewer units left. fewer properties to rent this summer. So that's either because of renovations at properties or individual property owners have taken their properties off the market this summer. So while the percentage is flat, the actual number of units being booked is down a little bit. Rev par, that's what really lodgers look to for as far as revenue goes, and that's up just a little bit. When we look at... The adjusted paid and owner occupancy, that's the one I have kind of highlighted at the bottom. That's up just slightly, and that's for the entire season. If we want to look at a monthly kind of outlook, this starts with June. That's on the left. So the darker is the current year. The one in the middle is last year bookings at the same time. And the bar on the right, that is actuals from last year. So as you can see, we're kind of on par with the bookings from last year. But we do have some room to grow as far as where we landed last year, and that top bar is at 40%. So just for perspective, there's a lot of room there in terms of people still to book in before we reach a uncomfortable capacity. So lastly, I'll just mention some of the destination stewardship work we've been partnering with the state of Colorado on. And I've mentioned to this group for the past couple of years, I've been a part of this stewardship council and we've been working on ways to create a statewide understanding of destination stewardship and then how to measure it, which has proved extremely complex. So as you can see, there are four categories there, and this is how we're going to identify destination stewardship, and then beneath it, these are all the measurements that we can have. So choosing KPIs based on the topics at the top. So we have a lot of work to do in this, but excited to be a part of that process and how it can trickle down into our area. And the state also just released their year in review, and that is on the state's website. That is all I have. I apologize. I should have booted myself from the internet before it booted me, but appreciate your patience and time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Laura. Who has a question? I have one. Mm-hmm. How is our mountain competitive resorts? What are they doing differently because of the downturn this winter and even spring? Do you notice any differences in terms of what they're doing spending-wise or anything like that?

Yeah, I mean, for the most part, they're spending more money. So one of our challenges is our budget is much smaller than our competitive set, which means they can respond with bigger buys, more, you know, just more assets. So they're out in the market more than we are. So I would say that's the biggest difference. Some other differences could be just in terms of international promotions. That's one thing that we're just doing a little bit of. The skier does a great job at that, but we are not... Nearly at that level so a lot of our competitors are doing that I think we're seeing the international market as really that important thing That's that we need to be on now and get in front of so those would be two of the big differences I think what our competitors are doing so we're falling behind you would say Yes, I mean in terms of yes what we can be doing to attract these different demographics.

Yes Thank you Other questions Anyone?

For summer lodging, do you find that folks are more willing to book more short notice? Because there's been a few articles out there saying, I think actually Seamup Pilot had one a couple months ago about summer tourism possibly going to pick up based on not a great snow year. And I saw even a national report out. But will you, do you expect these, I'm looking at the

summer lodging outlets do you expect these to fluctuate and people possibly booking short notice yes and that's definitely a trend in the summer our winter visitors book further out in advance our summer visitors tend to book a shorter booking window for sure so that is something that we expect and anticipate that's why it's helpful to look at those charts that compare our bookings reservations on the books now versus where they were last year at this point. So that's a good comparison point for us. We are finding a slight uptick in the length of a booking window. So people are booking slightly further in advance, which is why we started our media campaign a little bit earlier. Yes, and we did see in May actually some occupancy was pretty good. It was stronger than we expected. So we did maybe see that up front in May and then June not as much and then we're looking to fill those other months as well. So yes, I do think that's going to happen. I don't think it's going to be exponentially bigger than what we have seen before.

Yeah, and one of the articles actually hit on what you talked about where that folks are looking to travel for summer and have a slower type of vacation, meaning they wanna go one place, stay for longer and really explore that one area.

Yes, and that was one of the reasons we felt we needed to update the branding. That concept of more didn't resonate as much anymore and didn't feel quite right. So that was a big piece of that. Also, we have a great... destination for people who are looking for that wellness vacation. And in fact, a lot of the public relations work we're doing is on that wellness front. So hot springs, going hiking, being outside. The last really nice press hit that we had was in the AAA magazine, and it was called The Road to Well. And it was all about hot springs, and it had a nice feature on steamboats. So yeah, that is definitely a strength for us right now that we are working on promoting.

Great. Thank you.

Any other questions for Laura? Okay. Thank you, Laura. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Laura. Thank you. Okay.

We're going to move on to item G, our consent calendar, motions, resolutions, ordinances. Oh, that's right. Thank you. Public comment first. Anybody want to make a public comment related to what you just heard? Anybody online? I see no one, so we will close public comment. Thank you. So let's move on to our items on the consent calendar, which may be reviewed and commented upon in the same manner as other agenda items. Any member of the 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. So I'm going to read through items number seven all the way up through number 12, and then we'll come back and we'll see which ones we want to pull and which ones we want to leave on the agenda. consent agenda. The first one is item 7, a resolution approving a development plan, major variance PL20250339, 12th and Yampa residences. Number 8 is an ordinance rezoning a portion of land as described in Exhibit A, depicted in Exhibit B, and located on 1021 Merritt Street from Residential Neighborhood 1, RN1 Zone District to Residential Neighborhood 2, RN2 Zone District. Item nine, first reading of an ordinance PL20250260 Riverview PUD sub zone D amendment. Item 10, a resolution approving the air program contribution agreement for 2026 between the Steamboat Springs Local Marketing District and Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. Item 11, a resolution approving the amendment of the 2017 IGA between the City of Steamboat Springs and the Steamboat Springs Local Marketing District. Item 12 is a first reading of an ordinance approving a deed of conservation easements Lake Creek property between the City of Steamboat Springs and Colorado Open Resort. lands i will say we will be pulling item number nine because that's going to be postponed indefinitely so we will be pulling item number nine and i would ask council of the other items on there which ones would you like to pull um i would like to pull seven resolution for the development plan for okay item number seven ten and eleven ten and eleven Anything else? Councilor Pacino, are you okay? Okay. Look like it. Okay, so we're pulling, Amy wants to pull seven, we're gonna pull nine and 10 and 11, is that right? So that leaves, we will leave on the consent agenda number eight and number 12. Is that correct?

Unless there's anybody in the audience or online.

That's what we're left, 8 and 12. Anybody want to pull 8 or 12? Anybody online? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to approve consent agenda items 8 and 12. So moved. We got a motion by Councilor Gary. Second. Second by Councilor Dixon. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Items 8 and 12 remain on the consent calendar. Okay. We're going back to number 7, a resolution approving a development plan, major variance PL 20250339, 12th and Yampa. Toby, so we've heard from you before on this. We remanded it back to the Planning Commission. They heard it again. So, Council, would you like to hear a short presentation? Would you like to hear changes from the last time? What would you like to hear?

Well, I think a short presentation would be appropriate because that would incorporate what we're voting on tonight, which includes changes.

Okay.

Okay, I'll provide, Toby Stauffer, senior planner, I'll provide a short presentation about sort of the process of the project and then the applicant is here and they can tell you more detail about the project, the variances, the changes that happened between this hearing and the last one. So this slot is at the corner of 12th and Yampa. It's zone CY2. It's in the STR green zone and it's within the 100-year floodplain of the Yampa River. There have been public comments provided in support and in opposition. Project was heard by Planning Commission on March 12th. It received no recommendation and had a vote of 2-2. It came to City Council on April 7th and was remanded back to Planning Commission with direction to provide more discussion and consideration for each of the variances and to review the cumulative impact of the variances together. The second Planning Commission hearing was on May 14th, where the Planning Commission recommended approval 3.2. For staff, we relied on some of the plans to address criteria for approval to recommend support of the project, but our recommendation is based on the development meeting standards and acceptable alternatives to the standards that allow the project to meet criteria for approval. The project does include variances that altogether lead to a larger building in mass and scale. However, we find that the project is consistent with future plans for the area. It meets development plan criteria for approval, and it has characteristics that are similar to other downtown urban development. So I'll let the applicant describe their project.

Thanks, Abby.

Okay. Come on up and name and address, please.

No, I'm applicant. Oh, you want, I have to do that too. Colin Kelly applicant, um, two 35th street. Um, so I just wanted to thank you. I'm gonna let the experts, you know, do their presentation, but I wanted to thank you guys, uh, as a body for remanding us and giving us the opportunity to come back through. Um, because simply, but, and I wish counselor Augusta was here because, uh, it was at this podium last time we were here that I realized we made a giant mistake on something and it gave us the opportunity to fix that. And, uh, I'm confident that I can stand before you today and say we're back with a significantly better project that accomplishes everything we were asked both at Council and at Planning Commission. And I just thank you for for affording us that that opportunity.

So let's hear it. Thank you.

I'm just logged in under Chandler's name. If I can share my screen, then I can present to everyone. All right, who should you look for? Yes, I'm going to share and then let me get this up and then I will introduce myself. I am Sarah Teedekin. I am with Vertical Arts Architecture. I'm going to present to you today. Let me just see how to get this.

Here. Sorry. Sorry.

Okay, I'm just gonna give you guys a brief overview. Obviously, you know where the project site is, just next to Waterside at the important junction of 12th and Yampa. And just to reorient everyone, I think it's relevant to the discussion. The restaurant wraps the Yampa Street facade as well as about 30% of the 12th Street facade. The restaurant entrance is right off Yampa, and then there in the middle is the entry to the residential units. You can also get into the restaurant that way. And then, you know, 50%-ish of that 12th Street, maybe 40% is the parking garage at the back, just to kind of reorient everyone. We talked a lot about this last time, other similar developments that are on Yampa Street currently under construction or have been built for however long, 20 years or so. But I didn't talk about this piece in our design process that I think is really important. When we were thinking about the massing, materials, details, we really did try to look to that surrounding context of historic steamboat and what were some pieces pivotal detailing moments, materials, to try to make this building authentic in a new way on Yampa Street. So just to point out a few of the things that we're trying to achieve before I get into the changes, we really wanted to follow some of these guidelines from the CDC to complement that traditional character of the district while encouraging this contemporary uses and architecture. The beam ends on our covered decks are referencing some of those old corbelling elements in downtown. We've got this like heavy masonry with the true timber headers. Masonry is a huge part of Steamboat's history and really like encouraging the Western motif with timber screens and specialty kind of Western motif designs. And I think we're trying to really activate that street facade in different ways. I don't think this was totally clear in our last presentation, but that whole middle section of the Yampa Street facade is an outdoor patio that has these kind of opening windows and a railing. That's all kind of open air. So we're inviting kind of people in on the street level there while still kind of creating these mass elements that can cap off Yampa Street in a really important way. As we know, this junction is critical to kind of the end of that streetscape. And these are some of those material palettes that I was mentioning, really authentic to that Western character while obviously being applied to a new building. But we're really trying to be sensitive to call back that heritage and motif of downtown Steamboat. So here's just a few other perspectives. Obviously it's showing this corner element that I'm gonna highlight in a second and what the changes we made there. And then kind of looking back towards the parking off the alley, off the Little Toots Park. So just to kind of also, I wanted to just clarify something. Although the community plan and downtown plan are one item of the variance criteria, you have to, you know, for approval, prove that your project's compatible with the preferred direction, but you also have to not adversely impact conforming usance and also prove an acceptable alternative. So I just want to clarify that each of our variances individually meet all three of those things. So although we talked a lot about those other plans last time, that's just one component of getting staff's approval to meet the CDC 719.D criteria for approval. So what we're asking for these variances has been supported by staff per this exact section in the CDC. But we heard you, like there were things that, you know, I think the building's mass and how it addressed the corner as Colin referenced, Councilman Augusta, the glazing and the setbacks. Obviously we discussed all these last time. So we made some significant changes to especially this kind of front corner of the building of 12th and Yampa. We really increased the glazing, as you can see, not only on the corner massing here, but we also pulled it around kind of where the ADA ramp comes up and took down, we kind of had a screen element there to allow the visibility to open up at that corner. That actually allowed us to totally remove the glazing variance at the west facade. And then we are also able to reduce the building by 9% FAR, We eliminated the lot coverage variance and the plate height variance by lowering the building 18 inches. And then we also increased the setback at the corner by about 18 inches to help alleviate a little bit of that mass at the corner in addition to just how it feels massy. So getting back to the lot coverage, we went from 95% to 84%, no variance needed anymore, and really kind of gave some breath to that alley facade and really are activating it with a secondary entrance there, allowing some permeability into that piece of the building, which is also part of the CDC's recommendations relative to the alley designs. The FAR, we almost reduced it 10%, 9.6%. Although we are still asking for that variance related specifically to parking, we're even further under the 200% FAR when you take out the parking. So we did our best to really reduce the mass as much as we could at this stage and think it made a big impact. Additionally, this slide kind of details what we did at the corner more. I think one thing that makes it feel more inviting is just taking down that parapet mass. So we really were cognizant about how the public's gonna interact with that corner. I know Councilman Augusta noted kind of the rendering with the people's heads and how there wasn't that permeability. So we lowered the windowsill all the way down to the floor at the corner. We also added these awnings that wrap all the way around and all the way over to the ADA entrance. That's really going to add to that pedestrian scale and like reach out and grab the public at that sidewalk. And then with the height, we were able to lower the 18 inches. So now our proposed height ranges from 37 and a half to 39 and a half essentially, because it's all measured from existing grade. So without the floodplain requirement, we would be able to lower the building like four feet. And so we would be well under the height limit if that wasn't a restriction on that lowest corner. So that red wedge there, depicts our main level and kind of where the height limit or sorry, where the floodplain pushes our main floor level. But I think what's imperative to note here is that we're not taller than Waterside. If anything, we're a little bit lower. And I know that height is a four letter word like, that we're not trying to be not sensitive to the surroundings, but we feel like the ask, although is, you know, we're still asking for 18 inches, essentially, we really are, you know, relating to the context. And so you can kind of see this even more, that little wedge, the public experiences is, you know, less than 36 feet from the floodplain. It's just that corner where we can't push down the building anymore. due to those, you know, flash flood kind of risks that are really, you know, we're being sensitive to. And then with the setbacks, this is something that, you know, remained the same from the last time except for that corner. But I think something, again, that wasn't clear is that almost 44% of the Yampa Street is set back over the 10 feet because of our main level patio. So what we're really trying to do is align with Waterside to keep you know that nice street frontage give that relief in the middle of the building activate the ground level with that outdoor patio and then create that corner element to really you know give that kind of end to yampa street and there's some you know language in the community or i mean in the cdc that talks about corner tower forms and those being considered And here's some street perspectives. You can see how we align right with the Waterside facade. And the Yampa Street sidewalk at that point is 18 feet wide, so it's very generous, which makes it feel like Waterside is set back when you walk over there, right? Because their whole outside patio area is in the public right-of-way. And so we feel like that generous sidewalk... that our building will feel similar in scale and mass to a lot of buildings that sit on these narrower lots that didn't have as wide of a right-of-way on Yampa because of where our property line is relative to that 18-foot sidewalk there. And then as you wrap around 12th, you can see we've stepped back that 10 feet where we've got our ramp and another 17 feet at our entrance to really welcome people in. But that full like north area is the parking garage. So that was the area we weren't able to step back at the main level. But we really took that to heart and did, you know, generous patios. the timber screening to help lighten it, the latticing in the windows to try and lighten that and activate the facade with some architectural elements as best as we could while still meeting our parking requirement that is so critical. And so we really did try to activate the facade in different ways, not just like a strict application of kind of like that wedding cake form. But we think that this was a good improvement with the lightening of the corner and the additional setback at the corner. So really what we're asking for is the FAR, two setback variances, and the height. But we think that it was great that we removed three variances, two that specifically related to the mass of the building, the lot coverage, and the plate height, along with the west glazing. We are still asking for the east glazing, which is just because we're adjacent to a building. And then the 25 foot increments, just because our lot width is like 125 feet, that can't be followed to the letter of the code. So we kind of feel like those are a little bit more technical relative to the primary variances, which is why I separated them. So ultimately we still feel that like our ask for the variances is fully justified by the existing code. It's in line with the future community plans and think this would be a really excellent project to cap off Yampa Street. So that's kind of the quick, but I'm here to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you for your presentation. We appreciate it. Who would like to go first?

Councillor Dixon. Thank you for that presentation. We talked about the floodplain last time. My understanding, it's really not the floodplain, it's the design. And I believe the architect last time conceded and say, yes, we could actually lower the ceilings and come into compliance.

Which we know that was related to the plate height. So we were able to lower 18 inches, but because we're still that excess over the ceiling, floodplain you know with the requirements of the ground story level you know getting underneath the full uh height limit was not uh achievable with just lowering the ceiling heights relative to i remember differently okay that's fair yeah agree to disagree on that one um and then the second question is around um

Let me pull it real quick here. First go around, you had the variance with the plot coverage. So you've covered it here that you went down from the originally proposed 95% and you're at 84% now. Right. And I heard you say that you were able to achieve that on the alleyway of I think 12th and the alley. Right. It's off the alley, correct. Okay. Is that the only place or is there somewhere else in the design that you were able to... Also the front, as we increased some of those setbacks, that also reduced our lot coverage. And the front, was that part of the restaurant and the outdoor dining or any related to that?

It was just part of this restaurant corner here. is where we were able to reduce the lot coverage, correct? Yes. Okay, so the outdoor space was always there before. I think it was just not called out where, you know, as being truly outdoors relative to the setback discussion.

Okay, so what specifically did you change for the restaurant to achieve the reduction in lot coverage?

I'm just going to go back to the corner because I think that, you know... Oh, here. The reduction in, as you can see previously, like the stone masses in corner came all the way out. So we were able to reduce lot coverage in that corner by increasing those setbacks here. The outdoor patio and everything is consistent with the previous proposal.

Okay. I think those are my two main questions for you. Thank you.

Okay. Other questions? Councillor Geary?

No, I don't have any questions.

Councillor Barnes? Councillor Pacino?

I'm good.

Okay. I am too. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Okay. Let's open it up for public comment. Is there anybody in the room who would like to make a public comment? You're welcome to come down, state your name and address, and you have up to three minutes. Okay. Here comes someone.

Hi, Kim Haggerty, 74 Park Place. I don't know if you guys know, but I am very, very passionate about Yampa Street. I own 811 Yampa, which is the arm building. I'm also part owners with Phil Armstrong. I was on the URA that we tried to get the sidewalks and street lamps put in. The city just funded us the money for it and we were able to do that project. I was also on another committee where we got part of the lodging tax dollars and built the park right next to Boathouse and developed that entire park. So Yampa is very, very, very special to me. And I think what Colin and Emily are doing is absolutely amazing. When I first did Orem, Well, it was Sweetwater. That was like a project where people were like, what are you doing? Then all of a sudden E3 shows up, and then Carl shows up, and then Boathouse, and then Icehouse. This project is just going to add to the ongoing amazing, which I think it's so like eclectic and different and amazing Yampa. And I just think this is going to add to that entire feel of what we've been creating for so many years on Yampa. I'm a hundred percent behind this project. I think they've jumped through so many hoops to do this amazing thing. And I think that you guys should approve it. Thanks. Thanks, Kim.

Thank you, Kim. Anyone else in the audience want to make a public comment? Okay. Is there anybody online? Please raise your hand. There's one, who is that?

John Sanders.

John. John, you want to unmute yourself and state your name and address, please? You have up to three minutes. You need to unmute yourself, John. We still can't hear you. No, still don't have any audio.

okay well up try again now it shows that you're muted no we still don't hear you

okay okay i think i think we got that okay well thank you john okay is there anybody else online see no one we will close public comment and bring it back to council for the deliberations and or emotion i i actually still had some questions for toby okay

If that's okay, Toby. I want to just go back to the setbacks. I know we talked about this last time, but I think it's important for you to expand or describe why we have setbacks in our code.

Yeah. So the gist of the setbacks, we believe the purpose of the tenant. We can let him talk. I can come back and answer.

I got it figured out. Okay, John, state your name and address. Did you have up to three minutes?

Go ahead.

Sorry to say we don't hear you, John. Almost figured out. John, we're gonna have to let you go. Because we still don't hear you. Sorry. But we got your message, I think. OK. Toby.

And Toby, when you talk about the setbacks, since we have two variances regarding setbacks, maybe address each one.

Yeah, so the purpose and the intent of the setbacks, at least on the ground floor, to start, so that's zero feet up to 28 feet, so that's usually about two stories. Purpose of those setbacks, they're 10 foot off of the front setback, and there's a front setback on Yampa and 12th. Those are both front setbacks. We believe that purpose is to provide vitality, pedestrian interest, activity on Yampa Street, as we've We've discussed and we know Yampa Street is our retail, restaurant, entertainment district. So the purpose is to have those buildings and those uses be interacting with the people on the street, contributing to an overall atmosphere on Yampa Street. So that's why we have some buildings set back, or why we have a 10-foot setback on Yampa Street. On Yampa Street, in actuality, there's been a variety of projects that have been approved over the years. The only reason I mention that is because there's not a lot of consistent character. There are some buildings that are zero foot setback, some buildings that are 10 foot setback, some buildings that have activity within their building, like this one is proposing, like the... The building at fifth and yampa it has some activity within the building so there's like this building, there are some walls that are at zero feet, but some patio areas. And then there's other buildings like house in place that are set back 10 feet and have an open air patio so there is a variety and that's just sort of on the north side. I'm sorry if that's not the lower side, but the non-river side of Yampa. The river side of Yampa has different zoning, different requirements. So not looking at that side, but looking at the non-river side for character comparison. So all of that contributes to the character of Yampa. So on this building, we found, our analysis found that on the ground floors on Yampa and on 12th, there was some some distinctions, some breaking up of the architecture, some articulation on both those frontages that met the intent of those standards that allowed us to support those variances with acceptable alternatives by providing some of that activity and meeting the purpose of those standards. On the upper stories, again, the upper stories on the front setback only, again, so we're still just talking about 12th and Yampa, not on the other sides, the alley or the waterside side. from the property line up to 25 feet. So if a building had been set back 10 feet, the rest of the building would have to be set back 15 additional feet. So a total of 25 from the property building If we wanted to bring the building up and move it to zero like this building is proposed, you're sort of then going to be looking for about a 15-foot setback, if that makes sense, from the building frontage on the upper stories. For this building, again, the intention of that standard is to provide some articulation some interest to reduce the mass and scale of those buildings as you're looking up you're not feeling like you're in a large city or that those buildings are to imposing or towering over you. So this building on the upper stories does move in and out. There's some 10 to 25 foot distances among all of the building features. So there's some walls at 10 feet from the property line and 10 foot from the front of the building line and other features that are 25 feet or more back so again we felt that that was an acceptable alternative to that variance because it's providing some articulation minimizing the mass and scale on those upper levels and then architecturally they did make some changes to some of those to that corner as they mentioned in particular and i think on At least on the 12th side, they would have to tell you on the Yampa side, but there's some glass railings for those patios, which does add some interest, some articulation. It sort of visually reduces some mass, even though there is still a railing there, but a glass railing does have a different feel than a solid railing. So those aspects of this project allowed us to find that it meets the criteria for approval.

Okay. And then my other question is around, did I want to talk about the massing? So my understanding is massing is essentially how much building you feel. When you're standing on the sidewalk, looking at it, it's not so much about how the building looks in terms of style or materials. It's more about size, shape, and bulk. So let's talk about that variance request number six, the building massing variance request.

So that's for the mass of the building to have 20 foot. 25 foot increments. So typically a downtown lot would be about 25 feet wide and would have a building mass. And you see that breakup of different buildings in some 25 foot increments sometimes on Lincoln. That particular standard does carry over into Yampa. We don't have that same type of development that has historically happened on that side of Yampa. And we don't have the same... property widths on that side of Yampa. So while our standard says a building increment needs to be 25 feet wide, it is pretty challenging to provide that because if you have a lot that is 130 feet, let's say, you couldn't provide exactly 25 feet. You'd end up with a five foot section or a couple 17 foot sections. And with that very specific standard, It's really difficult to achieve the letter of that standard. So what the purpose of that standard is, again, the intent is to sort of break up the feel of that building from a pedestrian scale and as it relates to other buildings. So, again, our analysis of the massing and increments on both sides, 12th and Yepa, again, that's where it's going to be worked. where we're talking about those massing impacts. The building does have some articulation and some design within the building. There are elements that show that it's broken up. It's not one big, large, repeating face. This is not a perfect example, but something like the jail where it's one big face and very repeating windows. That is a type of architecture, but not the desired character downtown. So this building does provide some increments within the building, some breaking up of the feel of that building, some design elements and some articulation that reduce the impact of mass and scale. Design standards, like anything else, are subjective, but this one has a very specific numeric value that this project doesn't meet, but we believe that their design meets the intent of this standard and provides an acceptable alternative to that variance.

Okay, one last question and then I'm done. Okay, I'm being hard on the problem, not on the people or you. Why don't we just change our code? I have a hard time comparing, well, this property did this 10 years ago. This one did this. This one meets code. Why are we not changing our code then?

They're working on it, so we have recognized that we have problems and concerns on our side from the development side with our design standards, they are challenging to apply, they can have some impacts on. the development, but they also have some impacts on the character. So while some design standards, you know, bring us some more inspiration and curiosity of the buildings, they do provide some constraints and some limitations and they are hard to achieve all of those standards and really achieve maybe some density and some mass that we're also trying to get towards. Because I think one thing that we're always on the lookout for is, um, not underdeveloping a lot. We have very few downtown lots or Yampa lots left for development or redevelopment. So we also wanna sort of maximize and make sure that we're achieving a good potential for our downtown. So not really letting go of all of those standards too much, but we are trying to work towards some changes in our design standards. We know that they're challenging to achieve, We're working through a process right now to see if there is a better way to envision our downtown and our buildings so that we can balance character, economics, you know, enjoyment, all of those things that we need to balance. But it is always a trade-off. But we are working on it. It's always sometimes our wheels of government don't move as fast as we want.

I know. And if we were to change it, that would require, not require, well, it would enable public comment, though. Of course. Like all code changes, yeah. Yes, yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? If not, let's bring it back to council.

Where are we, gang? I'd like to thank the applicant for going back to the drawing table and coming with your best foot forward. Project definitely feels and looks different than when you were here a month ago. Appreciate the effort. I'm in favor of approving the project. Okay.

Yeah, I just want to add in, Colin, thank you. And thank you for working with Toby and, you know, taking the time as a developer to go back and relook at some of these issues. And a lot of times we get developers up here. who have their opinion and bring the project to us. And I just, you know, really appreciate you and the community at large that has really supported this project. But more importantly, you guys, we have to recognize that you took it back, made some positive changes and, you know, hopefully it'll get past it. It's going to get my support tonight. But I just want to make a point of saying that, you know, going back to the drawing board, isn't always a, And taking the extra money, thank you, to go through that is gonna be beneficial for the whole community. And I do think it's a better building because of it.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Gary or Dixon?

Yep, let me see. Easy for me to say. I mean, I do appreciate all the changes that you have made. I do think that what's come back before us is a better project. I do still feel like it is pretty big in size and mass, but probably not enough to say that I won't support the project. Said another way, I am supportive of the project as it's come back. So thank you.

So, I never had a problem with the glazing. I get that that's just part of where the building's located, what's next to the building. That was never a concern of mine. I never raised it at the last meeting either. The one variance that I raised last time that is no longer is lot coverage. which was achieved really by reconfiguring the alleyway and just a part of a corner of the building. But my other big concerns at the last meeting were the variances, which are now variances, one, overall height, two, the principal building front setback, variance three, the other setback, variance four again, glazing fine, no problem. And then variance five and six, five being the floor area ratio and six being the building massing. I do appreciate going back and listening to what we said and trying to find ways to modify it. And you did so with a lot of coverage, but still did not address my other concerns with the other variances. We have zero setbacks on two streets. When we talk about vitality of a community, setbacks are really important. Our code is really important. The floor area ratio is still, I think, if I remember correctly, 37% above the standard. It starts at the sidewalk edge. The setback standards exist to give pedestrians breathing room when they're walking down Yampa and to prevent upper floors from looming over the streets, which I appreciate the work on the... setbacks that we're talking about, but they're still requesting a setback. And the massing standard exists to ensure large buildings break up visually into human scale that respects the historic rhythm of downtown Steamboat. So those only one variance that I had concerns with last time has been removed. And there are still four variances I'm very concerned about. I think it's too big for that size, that lot. So I'm still a no tonight.

Okay. Thank you. And I would just say that I appreciate what you've done here in making the changes. I think this is consistent with the character of Yampa. I appreciate what you've done with the corner of 12th and Yampa to soften that up and make take maybe the harshness off of there a little bit and setback and whatnot. And I think it adds a lot to the restaurant and entertainment area of that road. So I am also supportive of this project. So given where we are here as a council, I would ask for someone to make a motion.

Make a motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion to approve.

from Councilor Barnes, a second by Councilor Pacino. Any more discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay, motion passes 4-1. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we're on to number nine. And Dan, I would just ask you, since this is being postponed indefinitely, what is the motion that's appropriate for number nine? Motion to postpone it indefinitely. Thank you. Would somebody like to make a motion?

Definitely.

So moved. So Councillor Guerin makes a motion to postpone indefinitely. Second by Councillor Barnes. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Number nine passes 5-0. Number 10, a resolution approving the air program contribution agreement 2026 between a local marketing district and Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. Mr. Milne, you're going to come down. Okay, let's see. And you have a presentation for us? I believe I do. Okay.

I think Sarah has it here as well.

Great.

I think we're good.

Please give us your name and address, please.

Yes, this is Bob Milne, 2350 Clubhouse Drive. I'm currently here as the chairman of the local marketing district. So, Mr. Chairman and council members, thank you for having us here. I'll try to keep my comments relatively brief, but I think there's enough here for probably to give us some... idea of exactly what we're gonna ask tonight. So the real ask tonight is that you approve two agreements. And I know they're both in one after the other here, but they kind of are tied together. So my presentation will probably kind of go a little bit in between both here as we kind of look to get approval of the agreement between the LMD and the Steamboat Ski Resort Corporation, as well as a new agreement and IGA with the city of Steamboat Springs. Before I get into it, I do want to make sure that, you know, we have a minute to kind of acknowledge some of the folks here that have contributed. Our LMD board, we're very lucky to have an LMD board that's got so much experience. So Chuck Porter, who's here, Jack McEncroe, Stephen Birch, who's also on the Yampa Valley Airport Committee. Michael Phan is also on our committee. and a board member, and also Tom Sharp, who's been our counsel for, I think, since the beginning, 21 years ago. Also, we're very lucky to have the Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. So Janet Fisher has been, you know, guiding this program since its inception. Katie Brown is the vice president of marketing. She's been instrumental in the marketing and the success of this program. And I think all of you know Dave Hunter. He stepped in when Rob got promoted, and he's been really doing a great job working with us as well.

Thank you.

You know, we're partners with the Chamber. We're going to probably strengthen that partnership if this all goes through. But Sarah Leonard and Catherine Barnes have been so helpful in terms of just the administration. A lot goes into this. This is a big program. And then, of course, you know, the city. During this process, you know, Steve's given us a lot of time. Michael's given us a lot of time. Dan Foote's given us a lot of time. Tom Leeson's given us a lot of time. Kim Weber is always available. And so is Sarah Briones. So... I think it's a great thing. And I really want to also, again, the county and with Tenniel Gerber, I mean, you wouldn't see them putting $86 million into a new facility if they didn't have the support of all of us that are here. So I think it's a classic example of a team effort here. And I'll get into some of the successes here. But if you think back 21 years ago, when the local marketing district was formed, we've accumulated, you know, $6.1 million in reserves, which I think is probably why I'm standing here to kind of understand, people understand why that is. But it comes at about $290,000 a year that we've been able to manage. And this reflects the two decades of disciplined budgeting, conservative financial management, and careful oversight of the air program by not just the Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, not just the LMD, but as you know, we present an operating plan to the city every single year that you hold us to. And so I think it's really kind of that partnership between the ski company, the LMD, and the city that has made this so successful. I really do think that we probably could be considered the envy of the airports in the mountains right now, and probably there's a reason that we could refer to ourselves as the gem here. The reserve exists today because this program has historically remained below maximum contractual exposure and because both organizations have consistently prioritized long-term financial sustainability. The proposed agreements are a strategic decision to utilize a portion of the accumulated financial strength to support expanded year-round destination development initiatives while preserving a meaningful reserve for future years. The reserve should not be viewed as only a financial asset, but as evidence that long-term stewardship and partnership that have supported a highly successful destination air service program and contributed significantly to the growth of Steamboat Springs and in the economy here. So some things that I think are nice to see here as we kind of celebrate this, Is Steamboat right now, we have the second number, second greatest number of non-stop destinations out of our ski, out of our pier ski market. So only Bozeman has more destination non-stops than Steamboat Springs and Hayden. That's pretty impressive when you look at the combo. More than Eagle, more than Jackson, more than Montrose, more than Aspen, more than Sun Valley, and more than Gunnison. Not too shabby. Let me go backwards here, Sarah. Thank you. And also, I think what's really important is you look at this. We have the second highest number of airlines in pier skier markets, too. So you think about it. We have right now, we have six of the, there's really eight airlines left in the United States. We have six of them flying in here, right? Again, pretty impressive. And so part of the reason that we're here tonight is also not to just realign some of the funding to make sure that we have this program continue, but also to celebrate a little bit of the successes that have happened here. Got it. So the other thing that I want to point out is that, you know, that with the stewardship of the ski company and all the hard work of Janet and her team, you look at the available seats and passengers that are coming into Hayden. And what's interesting about this is if you look at when, you know, all of the seats, we were kind of, you know, pretty stable. And then all of a sudden, guess what? Southwest decides to fly in here. And Southwest decided to fly in here without any MRG. And again, in typical competition, that drove down and it caused the other airlines to wake up a little bit. We started to see them be a little bit more flexible in terms of some of their revenue guarantees. And also they were willing to fly in some flights without a guarantee. So that's why you see when you go look at 2021, you start to see the seats come up and the guarantee come down. So that's been also contributing to our success. But competition is a good thing. So before I get into the actual financial analysis, which is up here, I do want to say, so there's two agreements that are kind of intertwined here. There's the agreement with the Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. And what I want to talk about here, and then I'll go through some of these numbers. Under the new agreement, so there's some changes under the new agreement. So in the past, the LMD and the ski company have shared all of the costs or for the revenue guarantees. So whether it's summer or winter, which we call non-winter now, in the split of two thirds, one third. So the LMD paid two thirds, the ski company paid one third. And as we started to look at this and we started to say, okay, well, here's some things. The ski company said, hey, maybe we should start to look at, is this really the right formula? Maybe it should be 80-20, maybe it should be, you know, maybe only 90-10. We stopped that discussion. We said, look, maybe we should start really thinking about this in two chunks, winter and summer. The ski company continued to take on their responsibility for the winter. And then the LMD could start to take on more responsibility this summer, which would also play into how we might be able to contribute to the city some additional funds here to be able to kind of support the summer and also free up a little bit of the annual operating budget for the city. So when we looked at that, we said, okay, so how about, so here's what's new under the proposed agreement. SSRC will continue to pay 33.33% of the actual winter program costs. The LMD will pay 66.7% of the actual winter costs. So the winter stays the same. The big difference is the LMD will bear the responsibility for 100% of non-winter air programs. So, and then tied to this in the agreement, the LMD will also assume responsibility for reimbursement to the city for 75% of the prior year non-winter city chamber marketing expenses. And that was a, came out of some work sessions with members of the city council and the ski company and the LMD. And we think that this is a fair arrangement. I'll get into the numbers in a second. The LMD will also remain responsible for all administrative costs and management fees. And those are kind of the key components of what has changed here. So when you think about that, what does it actually do? So if you look, this is it. I wish I had my little pointer thing here, my red little... light highlighter, because if you look at here, so if you look back to 2024, and hopefully everyone can see this, so if you look at that first line in 2024, the total cap, and we always budget to cap, and the word cap, you know, again, has different meanings, but cap is the actual, what the airlines say is that you can't pay a nickel more than that. So that's what we budget for, and it's part of our operating plan. I think it was really wise back when we first created the LMD, the city made sure that And I believe, Tommy, it's by statute that you have to budget for your maximum exposure. And that's been interesting. That's how we've been able to build the reserve. So in 2024, total cap was 4.2. Actual was 3.57. It was about 84% of the cap was spent. Winter was 94%. So winter, of course, is our biggest, biggest exposure. Summer was 44%. 2025, the cap went up a little bit. We actually had a great year. We only spent $3.15 million, which is 62%. Winter was 68. Summer was 38. Go to 2026, which we're in right now. So we still have to forecast. The cap is $4.9 million. We're forecasting $3.9 million. That's 80% utilization. Again, 94% winter, 32% summer. And then 2027 is, again, forecast. This is just, again, we're trying to give everybody an opportunity to kind of look at the numbers to understand how these agreements dovetail and how they're ultimately going to impact the reserve. So 2027, if you say, okay, we're going to look at a $4.98 million cap, look at kind of an 86%, you know, utilization, 94% winter, 44% summer. So at a four-year average, on a four-year average, the actual, you know, is the utilization is about 78%, 88% winter, 40% summer. So if you now look over to the next column to the right, you'll be able to see. So if you look at now, the air cost split actuals versus forecast. So you can see up until 2027, which is when this new agreement starts, it's 66, 33, all the way down. That's what the agreement says. Now, when you shift to the new agreement, you say the ski company is gonna still pay 1 3rd of winter, LMD is going to pay two thirds of winter plus 100% of summer. That changes the effective split. If you go to the column that says on the right hand side, the first column after the date shows the LMD, that's the actual cap. So if we had to pay the full cap, then the actual split would be 72% for the LMD and 28% for the ski companies. If you only pay, you know, what we've historically done is under cap, the number goes to 69.4 to 30.6. So it's not a huge adjustment from 66 to 33. It's just more of a shift of how that's happening from the focus on the ski company being winter and the LMD taking more on the responsibilities of the summer. This is just another way to look at it. And we went back a little bit farther. Janet was kind enough to pull some of this data all the way back. But you can see here the green line is winter, summer total cap. The blue is how much the ski company is historically paid. And the red is how much the LMD is paid, which, again, by definition would be more because the agreement is that we would pay 2 thirds and the ski company would pay 1 third. Just another way to look at that. So then, how does this actually kind of impact the reserve, which I think is the most important thing right, so when you think about what's happening right now, and with the with the city agreement as well. The LMDE accumulates approximately 6.1 over 21 years, as I pointed out. So the beginning reserve balance for starting in 2027 is for successful will be 6.1 million. Here's the difference, the operating change is gonna be $1.4 million difference in terms of our operating budget. So because of the contribution to the chamber, because of the shift in the funding, because of some additional increases in our operating expenses, which I'll touch on at the very end, We're going to have about another $1.4 million in expenses in 27 that we did not have in 26. Some of it's related to just operating costs that have gone up. Some of it's related to us forecasting a little bit of a higher revenue guarantee, a higher cap. With everything that's going on with fuel, et cetera, we don't think the airlines are going to just walk in and not have any increases. And then half a million dollars of it is related to the contribution to the city for the chamber. So when you take that into consideration, our ending reserve balance at the end of 27 would be $4.7 million. We put in there, we've had discussions both with our working group, with the city, as well as with the ski area, we put in a floor for the reserve of $4.5 million because we wanted to kind of protect as much as we could this ability to be able to negotiate with the airlines a year in advance. So if you look at the scenario for 2027 on full budget, if we had to go straight to the full cap, and our prognostication and forecasting was good, we'd end at 27 with $4.7 million, $200,000 above the agreed upon floor. You move to 2027 forecast, that's saying, okay, if we actually beat, you know, come in under the cap, which historically we do, you apply that same roughly percentage. And it says, okay, well, so we'll only be spending $821,000 more than 26. And that'll leave our reserve at $5.3 million. Now forecast out one more year. forecast out one more year. It's a three-year agreement only. Go to 28. You say, okay, 28. We're going to forecast the 5.3 million. And then if we say that, you know, with everything else that happens, we're going to have an operational change of $844,000. Again, the biggest chunk of that being the contribution to the city. Our reserve comes in at 4.481 million. So we're right at that 4.5 level floor that we put in. Okay, so here's where, again, Steve told me, watch out for the slides with all the numbers on them. So I had to put one in here. So here's, if you look at the last column on the right, and that's where I can show you some things in the highlight. So you're probably asking, okay, so what is the difference? Like, so before we were able to put away on average $290,000 a year into the reserve. But with this new change, with this new change, because we've heard enough from people like, oh my gosh, that reserve is so big. What are we doing with it? We need to do something with it. We've come in with a program that will give the city back contribution for summer marketing, but it does impact the amount of dollars in the reserve. So if you look at the yellow, what I highlighted in yellow, are these are the changes that are in either the agreement with the city or the agreement with the Steamboat Scheme Resort Corporation. So the first one is the LMD air service costs. So that goes from two thirds to 100%. So if you forecast all the way over to 27 and 28, that's roughly $352,000 more of what we'll have to have in our budget. The next thing that's in the agreement with the ski company is the air service management agreement. We're not coming to you tonight with an operating plan, we will, but in the agreement, we've agreed that we will pay the ski company $150,000 for the air service management agreement instead of $100,000. That number has been $100,000 for seven years. I think we get an unbelievable deal with the ski company, with Janet's time, how much time she and Katie and, you know, the ski company put into this. I mean, that's a good deal. So $150,000, $50,000 increase over seven years, you know, we agree to that. The next item is one that's got a little bit of flexibility into it. The ski company asked us if they could hire an air consultant company to help with some of the strategic planning, some of the things that we think are going to be important as we move forward. And they asked us to put in $100,000. So in the agreement, We agreed that we would look at hiring a consultant, but it would have to be agreed upon by both the LMD board and the ski company. And of course, then come to the city in our operating plan for approval. So that's $100,000 that's in there. And then the last thing that's in the yellow is the $525,000, which is the contribution, which is based off of 75%. of the Chamber's contribution to the Chamber for the prior year. So this was based off of $650,000 contribution in 2026, and the $525,000 would be paid in 2027. So those are the key expenses that cause us to go from a $6.1 million reserve at the end of 26 to forecasting a $4.4 million reserve at the end of 2028. That concludes my overall narrative and would be happy to answer any questions. Okay.

Thank you, Bob. Anyone have questions for Bob? No question.

Well, I do.

It's really unfortunate because this is the first time I'm seeing it. We have a standard where we don't get rainbow items the afternoon of our council meetings because many of us don't have time. We have other jobs. And so we're trying to digest this really important information. on the go as they're talking about it. So it's really unfortunate. But Gail, if you have, or Councillor Geary, if you have questions, you can start.

Oh, sure. I mean, again, kind of just echoing Councillor Dixon's comments, because I was trying to, thank you for the red line. Again, I was trying to kind of compare in terms of what the differences are. And so I think, again, you've put a lot of that in the presentation that you have. I think maybe a general question that I had is what else could have the reserves been spent on? I'm sorry. What could the reserves have been spent on within the parameters and the operating agreement of LMD, i.e. transportation? I know that's one of the things that we've talked a lot about.

Tom, can you kind of address all the things that it can be spent on and it can't be spent on?

So Tom, hopefully that was clear, right? I mean, in terms of kind of the parameters of LMD, what else could the reserves have been spent on? I.e. transportation, right? One of the things we talk about is the need for transportation between kind of the city and the airport.

Tom Sharp, 60 Highland Circle Steamboat. Thank you for your question. The district is limited by two factors on what it can spend its money on. One of them is the statutory provisions that existed in 2004, and they described that the purposes of the LMD, of a local market district, include organization, promotion, marketing, and management of public events, Number one. Number two, activities in support of business recruitment, management, and development. And then the city added in its creation ordinance the words, including the current and future direct air program at the Yampa Valley Regional Airport. The third one was coordinating tourism promotion activities. Those were the provisions that were both in the statute in 2004 and in the original resolution. In 2022, the state legislature amended the statute to provide two additional provisions, one of which was housing and one of which was, I don't remember the exact wording, was very broad wording. But in that legislation, they made it clear that you can't spend money under a prior ballot issue for a tax for these new activities unless you resubmit it. to your constituents for that. So the LMD board has always taken the position we're still restricted by what was permitted by the statute in 2004 and what the city council included in its creation ordinance, which would not include housing, which would not include transportation, and which does not include capital expenses for things like a building, for example, those are not permitted. So both agreements that you're looking at this evening, those are called the permitted activities or permitted authorities. I forgot an exact word. And both agreements say that's what we're limited to. And in fact, in the reimbursement of the city intergovernmental agreement, it says that you need to certify before we authorize you to take from the money that you control from the LMD into the general fund, that what you've given to the chamber fits this definition. So we don't have anybody coming back and saying, you are now spending our accommodation tax monies on purposes that are not permitted. So the answer to your question is, We can't contribute reserves to housing. We can't contribute reserves to transportation because they aren't permitted under our authorities.

But so in working with the committee, the working committee, what we began, because that's come up, we said, but we can, by giving this contribution to the city, it frees up other funds that you have that you could use for other things. And that was kind of how we worked around that kind of legislative, you know, ordinance.

And I guess I would be interested also just to follow up in terms of, you know, and again, I mean, I think one of the things, you know, that was in the original, one of the original agreements was that there was some reference to Ski Corps committing like 2.68 million. I mean, there's, you know, a lot of changes right in here. And so trying to understand potentially too what the impact is to Ski Corps, right? I mean, especially as we talk about this percentage change,

Yeah, so the monetary change for this ski company, if you were to look at just looking at the exact monetary change forecasting out for 20, you know, for 27, in terms of their actual, you know, change here, it's really not that big of a dollar amount. They're shifting from, in 26, the total contribution from the ski company was $1.324 million. And in 27, under the new arrangement, it will be one point, you know, again, this is forecasting or, and I do, again, I go back to, we've been doing this for a while with a pretty good discipline and the forecast for 27, they would, they would contribute 1.315 million. So a difference of $9,000 roughly, as far as their actual total contribution for the, for the airline program.

Is that on that slide? I'm trying to find it.

No, it's not. I mean, I think I can find it. The numbers are there. Just give me a second, Councillor Kerry, and I will find where they are, which sheet they are on here, because...

Because we've also got the change from 100 to 150,000, right? And also the consultant, we're hiring for an additional 100,000. So I assume that's not potentially new work, maybe new work, but a shift of work.

So yeah. So I don't know if I have it actually. I'm just trying to look on the sheet that I prepared here. I don't think that this sheet shows the exact numbers that I just referenced here, but that's the difference, Counselor Carey, is that in 2026, because you just take their total expenses that they paid for the... the guarantee, it was, you know, 1.324 and the forecast is 1.315. Again, because their contribution is still the same for winter and winter historically is, you know, 80 to 90% of the total carry, right? So the numbers, it doesn't translate into big dollars, And if we didn't change a thing, if we didn't change a thing with the revenue split, we'd still be coming with the air service management agreement change of $50,000. We'd still be coming with the change in the consultant, and we'd still be coming with the chamber marketing. Those are the big heavy lifts of what's changing in the agreement here. The heavy lift in terms of actual dollars isn't in the change in terms of the split. just because the volume and the winner carries so much of the weight of the entire spend.

Okay. But I think, as you did say, it's $100,000 to $150,000, and then you've got, I don't know, what's, you know, again, the additional $100,000 for the consultant.

So they've proposed, and I think Katie can... speak a little bit more about exactly what they wanna do, which I think it makes a lot of sense. But again, we agreed to put it in the agreement with the language that's in the agreement. It says, we'll put it in there, but on the condition that the LMD board and the ski company have to approve who the consultant is, what the scope of work is, And then we'll put it in our operating plan and come to you. So there's no kind of guarantee that that's going to happen. If anything, it's still a discussion item. But we put in there that we would consider having a consultant, and this would be the price.

Hi, Katie Brown, 420 Short Street. Yeah, so this consultant seems really important to us because as we look at the long-term success of this program, we are bringing in this consultant to give us deeper expertise, better tools, and stronger airline connections so that we can execute this model at an even higher level. Other mountain resorts are currently using this model. As a matter of fact, most other communities are. And the combinations of those resources from the ski area LMD and the consultant can give us a competitive edge That the consultant can help with right now. We almost have a single point of failure managing this program with one person at antiquated Excel sheets. We need to evolve. We need to be able to touch into maybe potential AI technologies. These consultants do this for a living. They look out for new flights, new opportunities to come in. So it would do nothing but enhance the program itself and probably even keep a better eye on it for any cost management. So we feel strongly that is really a good spend and it's the future of this program because right now having it on Truly, almost a single point of failure at this area is probably not the smartest structure. Thank you.

I wanted just to, since I used to be with the LMD, I just wanted to share in context here. We are kind of mixing things here because item number 11 is really the IGA. And the IGA is for us to get over half a million dollars more in our general fund that we can use how we want to use it. And that's using some of the excess money that is in the reserve for the LMD. So that is that by itself. This other one, number 10, is really the changes between the LMD and SSRC and their agreements. I know that as I look back on council, I think we've approved their budgets many times on just consent. I don't know. I think we did a couple in the last couple. But so this agreement changes every three years. I think what's happened is that there's the changes in there you saw is who's paying for summer. And the situation has evolved into they're saying that the LMD is going to pay for summer. The administrative fee with Ski Corps was the same for seven years. So you add it up and it's probably a 3% or 4% increase a year type of thing. And then that leaves the consultant at $100,000 a year, which is the other change. So those are kind of like all the... all the shifts in that. So I just wanted to make sure that we didn't convolute the IGA piece with the agreement between SCECOR and the LMD piece.

Right, okay. Well, I think for item 10 does have the agreements. So looking at the red line version, What has been removed is that SSRC will provide a value of a minimum $2.8 million of its funds on marketing of the winter air program, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So that's been redlined. So why?

So, so that is, it's basically redundant. That's in the operating plan. So when we bring the operating plan every year, they put in, you know, the, what the dollar amount is going to be the range. So for example, in 2026, the operating plan included a range of 2.5 to $3 million. So, and there was more detail in there. So, I mean, we could certainly put that back in. I'm sure there'd be no, but it was just more of redundancy. It's in the operating plan. It spells that out.

Okay.

And also then in the operating plan, we spell out what, because if you see in this budget right here, there's $600,000 for air service marketing winter and summer for the LMD. That's discretionary on our part too. And that's what we come to you with in the fall with our operating plan saying, okay, this ski company is going to commit X and we're going to commit X. Okay. So.

I'd like to address that in a brief moment. That was a statement three years ago that we didn't independently verify. This was just a representation made by the ski company. But it had some impact in so far as the winter air program included both the MRGs and marketing. So with that being taken out because it may fluctuate and obviously the ski corp is going to pay for winter marketing, whatever it chooses to pay, we can't tell them what that is. We put in a provision in section 1B that says in terms of our contribution from the LMD towards winter marketing, not MRGs, is subject to what we as a board decide to put in our budget and what you'll see in the budget. So it could be anywhere from part of 600,000 to zero. So that's now clear since they aren't representing anymore what they're going to spend in winter marketing. We aren't representing anymore how much we'll contribute to winter marketing. So it'll be whatever. It'll be whatever. And it's put in the operating agreement and you approve.

Yeah, it'll be whatever we come to with in the fall for, and we do the operating plan one year in advance. So we'll have that discussion when we bring the budget.

Okay. I always feel like, and this is a Dan question, where when we have an actual formal agreement, that to me is more of a legal document versus, what are you calling it, an operating plan? Or I'm sorry, what do you call it? Their budget, operating budget.

An operating plan, yeah.

Yeah, like to me, I see a formal agreement as more of a legal document

And so in what context are you asking me that question?

Oh, for the $2.8 million. Because I guess Ski Corps could technically come back when you try to negotiate the operating plan. And if it's not in an agreement, we don't have any guarantees. Like when I read that, I thought...

So you know, if you read that last sentence, as Tom pointed out, there's no real guarantee in there that they'll spend $2.8 million.

I think the last thing it says is that the last sentence

L&D neither confirms nor denies that that amount of money is spent. So the reason why it's in the operating plan is that's where the budget is and that's where you approve it. So, I mean, again, I think I can't speak for the ski company.

Bob, try to stay in front of the microphone if you can. Yeah.

And that's just, yeah. Let me help explain a little bit what that 2.8 is. It's a value. So it's not like we're writing a check necessarily for that. For the value that you get from the ski area of what we're doing, everything we do together is to get people on those planes and get them here. So that takes quite a bit of marketing around it. So there's a donation or, you know... They give in whatever that is, $500, $600, $400, whatever. But the rest of all the marketing for the airline program is on the Skyria. And that does come to a value of at least $2.8. You consider our database. You consider this huge event we do for our airline partners. We pay for everything, the lodging, the... activities that all the food i mean it just adds up really quickly so really it could be pretty conservative but in a way it kind of feels like in kind but it's not it's our responsibility and it's in our best interest along with the lmd to make sure this program is successful yeah that makes sense yeah it totally does thanks yeah is your is your question answered thank you

The question, thanks, yeah.

Yes, I'm sorry, my last, the last thing. It's fine. I'm being hard on the problem or the issue. Please don't take it, I'm being hard on you. Not a problem. I'm just trying to understand.

Totally, yeah, it's a lot of numbers, but again, I think the thing that, For historical, I mean, it's been a successful program because of, I think, the way it's set up. I mean, you've got the ski company, the LMD, and then ultimately the city's got the oversight and approval over the budget every year.

Yeah, okay.

And the reason, to Steve's point, the only reason I'm mingling them both is because the ski company wanted to make sure that in their agreement we documented that we were going to have this contribution to the city. Okay.

Okay, one last question. Sorry. Why the change for the 100% of non-winter to LMG? That's a change, right?

Yeah, that's the change, right? So the thought process is the ski company is going to continue. Their focus is on the winter, of course. They're very interested in the summer as well. Their primary focus is winter. And then based on what we see is that there's a need, because this isn't just the visitors that take advantage of this, it's the locals as well. And we've heard many times that the locals want to see us have a more expanded summer program. And so we felt this was a great opportunity to kind of make that shift right now with the contribution to the city as well for summer. So that was the tie-in.

Okay, thank you.

in that yellow line there uh lmd air service cost summer two-thirds is that the hundred percent number the 2025 actual the 2025 that in the yellow line air service management yeah is that the hundred percent or is that the two no that's a that's a hundred percent yeah any other questions

Not right now, but I guess I think this comes back to us again, right? So I would love to be able to spend a little bit more time with kind of the red lines.

I mean, the only thing is the agreement expires June 30. So, yeah.

TikTok.

What's that?

I said TikTok.

Yeah. Welcome back. What is your understanding that this is coming back?

Isn't it coming back?

She means tonight.

No, no, no. I thought it doesn't come back for a second reading.

This is a resolution. It's a resolution. Thank you. I missed that. This won't come back.

Thank you for clarifying.

It's not that I don't want to come back.

Not that you're right, exactly.

Do you agree with the interpretation?

I mean, because I got a little confused, right? I mean, in terms of what this can or can't be spent on from the perspective of not certainly proposing housing, but from the transportation, because I know you talked about kind of the statutory authority, but you also talked about ordinances.

So the question that you asked and that Mr. Sharp answered earlier, yes, I agree with his answer. Okay, so- I mean, that could be changed, but it would require some process and it can't be changed tonight. Okay.

But a vote of the people or an ordinance?

I would need to get back to you on that.

Okay.

It would take some doing.

I mean, Councillor, one of the things that, again, the working group has talked with and the LMD has talked about is, I mean, ultimately... the win here is to try to expand the district, right? That's ultimately the win and that will generate more money. It'll generate more money for the reserves. This three-year agreement I think is a win-win for now, for now, because it's three years. It gives us a chance to kind of see how this new funding arrangement works out. gives you all a chance to see, you know, is this contribution to the city is the right amount? And it gives us time to work as a group on how we would go about potentially expanding the district. As Dan said, it requires some, there's some political navigation that has to happen. But I think that's why a three year kind of window here gives us time to do that. So that in three years, By then, we'll either know that yes, we can expand the district and maybe we have, right? That'll change the funding, you know, quite a bit because it'll give us more money to collect. And then if not, if that doesn't work, we'll know whether this is the right split and if everything's working.

Right. No, and I appreciate that. And I guess my issue more is as we look at this holistically in terms of the other potential issues that are created that need to be addressed. Right. So, you know, whether that's housing or, you know, specifically from my perspective, you know, it's transportation. We know in terms of getting people back and forth to the airport. Right. That that's, I guess, the lens from which I was looking at this in terms of. and, you know, in terms of what the opportunities were there and really understanding, you know, the Ski Corps contribution and the impact on that.

Yeah, I mean, look, I think that everyone has their own kind of thoughts on this, but the ski company does so much, and they've been such a great partner with us in terms of just everything that we do together. They really have. And I think we're fortunate that we have a leadership team that does that. But getting back to kind of the expansion of the LMD, if we were to do that, I think that in the working group with the two attorneys present, I think we said, okay, if we did that, we would then... get the new, expand the district under the new provisions, which would then allow some of these broader uses of the funds. So that would be kind of like, but that's, again, if I had my vision, we would say, okay, let's try to get to where we expand the district under the new terms, we get more money coming in, and then we have a more flexibility on what we can do that with transportation, be it the rail, the bus, whatever, but that would give us more flexibility.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Yeah, and that is the goal.

I would add to that that because this contribution will be reimbursing the city for chamber funding that the city is already spending, that is effectively bringing up money in the general fund that could be used for these other purposes. So it indirectly gets to that result of changing the permitted purposes of the LMD.

Right. I totally understand that right from the potential, but there's probably going to be a lot of other asks for that 500,000.

There could be, but the expansion piece of this is, is worth at least a million dollars a year, roughly. And so that changes, that's a new LMD. So that changes the rules too. So that would be another discussion at that point. But for right now, we're getting an extra five, $600,000. And you're right. Council will decide where it goes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Where are we, gang? Probably public comment. Yeah. Are you done with questions? We done? Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the room who would like to make a public comment on this? Please come down. Is there anybody online? Raise your hand. Would you like to make a public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, we will close public comment. Bring it back to council for a motion or further discussion. Councilor Pacino, I see you've lit up over there. Would you like to make a comment?

No, no. I just, yeah, I mean, I just wanted to follow up with where we are in this. Yeah, I've been pulled into these conversations with the LMD board probably the last six months. And this move was a very good gesture. And I think it really helps out getting us focused on the chamber funding, which we've been kind of working with them on. And so these minor changes, we did talk about the three-year as a good pilot program so we can evaluate it for both sides. And so I'm in approval of this project going through.

Thank you. Do we have to do both separately? Probably.

Yes, please. They're separate resolutions. Yes. Yes.

Okay. So it makes sense to me. It's unfortunate that you all had to suffer through some frustration trying to understand it. So I just ask counsel and Tom, to please make the commitment to get the material before Tuesday so we have a chance to review it. And the redlined version, based on the summary sheet, I had no idea that there were those other changes in the agreement. I'm fine with them, but it's not fair to them to have me have to sit here and work through it.

up here where i should have been you know about that earlier so that's you make a you make a relevant point and a good one thank you by support okay would somebody like to make a motion motion to approve agenda item 10. okay we have a motion from councillor dixon do we have a second second by councillor barnes all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion passes five zero Okay, next one, number 11, a resolution approving the amendment of the 2017 IGA between the City of Steamboat Springs. Was that? Did I hear something?

You did.

You're hearing voices.

Oh, okay. A resolution approving the, I don't doubt it, a resolution approving the amendment of the 2017 IGA between the City of Steamboat Springs and the Steamboat Springs Local Marketing District. Is there any more to say from you Dan or Kim about this one?

I don't have anything to add to that discussion, but of course I'm here for questions.

Okay. So this is the three-year pilot around 75% of the previous year's chamber funds will be generated and by the LMD. Do we have any questions? Anybody in the room want to make public comment regarding this one? Anybody online? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Bring it back to council for a motion or deliberations. Motion to approve. Okay, we got a motion from Councillor Barnes.

Second.

Second from Councillor Dixon. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. Thanks all. Okay, we're moving on to item 13, a resolution of polling the planning director's decision of legal nonconforming use abandonment related to PL202-20343 and denying the associate appeal. Rebecca.

Good evening, Rebecca Bassey, planning director. I'm just gonna share my screen. Okay, I have a short presentation. This pill is a little bit different than some of the others that you've heard in the past. And then I believe that there's someone here representing the property owner either online and or in person. Okay, so this property is located in Overlay Zone B3. That's one of the restricted or yellow zones. And so to be eligible and to maintain eligibility for a short-term rental license, The property has to have been lawfully used as a vacation rental prior to June 15th, 2022. And that legal non-conforming use status has to be maintained over time and must not be abandoned. And we use the STR license and renewal process to request information from the applicant to demonstrate that that status has been maintained and that their eligibility for an STR license continues. So this section of code 103D2, this is what you're pretty familiar with. This is the section of code that states that illegal non-conforming use shall be terminated immediately upon certain circumstances. So all prior appeals have come before you per this section 103D2 in which the short-term rental use was abandoned or discontinued for a period of 12 consecutive months regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use. This section of the code is applicable in this case. There's also a second section of code that is applicable in this case and you have not seen an appeal per this section prior to this evening. So Section 103D is the portion of the CDC that speaks to termination of legal nonconforming use status. There are five circumstances by which legal nonconforming status terminates. One is that abandonment clause that you saw on the prior slide. The second that applies to this evening's case is 103D5, which speaks to damage to the structure that houses the legal nonconforming use. So I'll go through this language and how it does or doesn't apply to this situation in a couple of slides. The relevant dates that pertain to this case are summarized here. So the property was registered as legally non-conforming in December of 22. STR license was issued in 2023 and renewed in 2024 and 2025. Noted in red are the last documented STR stay that occurred in 2024 that ended on October 27th. And then you'll see the first, the next documented stay or first documented stay that occurred in 2025 didn't occur until December 13th of 25. So that obviously exceeds that 12 month period. So that's the first criteria by which we determined that the legal nonconforming use status terminated was that abandonment clause of over 12 consecutive months. Noted in orange are the dates that are relevant to that second criteria that we've applied to this case. Per the property owner, the property suffered some water damage on November 15th of 2024. And the repair of that damage was not completed until December of 2025. And that time period also exceeds 12 months. And I'll walk you through that in a little more detail. So again, that first section that you're pretty familiar with, there was a 12 consecutive month gap in short-term rental occurrences. And so per section 103D2, we have determined that the use was abandoned because of that gap in use. Our finding is also based on this second criteria, that 105, I'm sorry, 103D5, and I'll walk you through this. So that's the section that speaks to damage to the structure that houses illegal nonconforming use. there are two parts to this section. So there's two criteria and these are or statements. So they don't both have to be met, only one has to be met for this section to apply. So the first is that, the first would say that the legal nonconforming status terminates if the structure housing that use is damaged and that damage exceeds 50% of the current reconstruction costs. Per the information that we received from the property owner, the repair costs totaled about $130,000 and so staff does not believe that that amount exceeds the 50% of the current reconstruction costs of that property. So that first part of this, that first test is not met. And so we do not believe that the legal nonconforming use would terminate under that first test. The second test is that second bullet on the bottom of the slide, which states that the damage to the structure is not restored within 12 months. So this is not in addition to the 50% test, this is a separate test. The repair was completed 13 months after the damage. And so per section 103 D five, we have determined that the legal nonconforming use terminated as the structure was damaged and not restored within that 12 month reconstruction time period. The code does include a provision that would authorize the planning director to grant an extension to that 12 month restoration time period. This is also a two-part test, and these are and statements. So both of these have to be true for this to apply. So the code states that we can grant an extension to the 12-month restoration time period if we find that the structure is of a large scale. and requires changes to comply with the building code. It goes on to state that a building permit application has to be applied for, a permit has to be obtained within 12 months, and the only changes that can be made to the structure are those that are needed to comply with the building code. This particular property, the structure that was damaged is about 1,500 square feet. And the only building permit that was issued for this property in this time period was to install an electric vehicle charger in the garage. So based on that, I don't believe that they meet the qualifications for an extension of that 12-month restoration time period. And so based on those two sections of Code 103D1 and 5, we have determined that the status of the legal nonconforming use has terminated. And I am happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you. And is, go ahead.

Sorry, I just thought of one other thing. You all did receive some public comment late today. I did reply to council to provide some context of that comment. I'm happy to speak to that. I know that probably came out to you all pretty late in the day. I think it was after three o'clock. So happy to answer any questions that you have with regard to that comment.

And are you saying, is the appellant here in the room?

I believe there's a representative. Meredith was intending to be online. I don't know. She's in a different time zone. I know it was going to be really late for her, but I think she also said somebody would be here in person to represent. I am online, if you can hear me. Oh, great. Okay.

Would you like to hear from the appellant now before asking questions? Okay. Can you unmute and share your name and address? And you have 15, up to 15 minutes, so.

Okay. Are you able to hear me? Yes. Okay. I'm Meredith from Z. You said address is 33625 Sky Valley Drive in Steamboat 80487. So let me go ahead and just kind of I wanted to, the owner was not able to be here for this. She's on the East Coast and this is way past her bedtime. So she's having me read a letter for you all that was from her to sort of introduce her as a person and kind of give you a little bit of, you know, her person, her involvement in Steamboat. First of all, this is so, I'm starting to read hers. First of all, thank you for your service to the community. I've done time on the school board and also know how important and difficult the work can be. I would like to tell you how and why we chose Steamboat as a second home and perhaps one day our residence. In 1962, my parents took our family on a cross-country driving trip to see national parks, natural wonders, and the Seattle World's Fair. We spent a night at the Ravid Ears Motel and ventured across the street to the Hot Springs Hotel. I left town with a bandana skirt from FM Light and a town map now framed on the wall of 1160 Nature's Lane. I had found memories as well. In 2010, when our niece was married on the Front Range, family gathered. We then invited our young adult children and our daughter's boyfriend, now our son-in-law, to steamboat for a week. We biked to the Yampa, visited both Hot Springs, shopped, dined out, and generally loved being in the town again. In 2017, when it became clear that our Vermont-raised children were permanently settled on the Front Range, Both married to Coloradoans. We wanted a place where the family could gather to ski, visit, and be together. We bought 1160 Nature's Lane. Why did we choose Steamboat? It made us think of our community in Vermont. Yes, there was skiing, but also a town rich with robust culture, nonprofits, the incredible library, and a rich history. I've served on boards including Hunger Free Vermont and Burlington's Community Mental Health Agency. John, her husband, is a devoted Rotarian. We get it. Community works when people contribute. We saw and see Steamboat as a similar place. We support financially the number of nonprofits in town. Those are our values. Meanwhile, my husband was still working part time in 2017 and we immersed in our Vermont lives. It made sense to rent Nature's Lane as we would only be there a few months each year, at least for a while. We figured out one day we might migrate to Steamboat where we thought we would fit in. In recent years, despite our two children and four grandchildren in Colorado, my mother in her late 90s lived independently in Vermont with a fair amount of support from her two children. There was no way John and I were leaving Vermont and my mother behind. On November 15th, the same day that this water damage occurred, after a week in hospice care, my mother breathed her last at 9 a.m. We were with her, of course. At 12.05 p.m. that day, I received an urgent email from Retreedia Basically, I won't read that whole message, but alerting them as to what had happened, which was a fridge line or a freezer line had been hooked up despite the fact that the owner had specifically told the property management company to never hook up that line. It was hooked up. And then basically two weeks later, they came back and there was water flooding out the front door. So that was kind of the way, and at that point, service master was called to do the initial mitigation. So they were at that service master was at the house through December. The final billing dated January 2nd, 2025. It was only at this point that we had our document of destruction to present to our insurance company. More weeks elapsed before the HOA insurance agreed to fund at least some of the reconstruction. Meredith Rumsey has sent you a copy of the service master report, which was in the original reports with scores of photographs. The invoice only part of which was covered by insurance was more than forty six thousand dollars. I believe that that invoice was sent also, which it was. Meredith also provided the city with a list of bookings for the house from the date of the November flood into at least March of 2025. But of course, there was no house to rent. The lapse in renters was due to the fact that there was no habitable house, not because we chose to renovate our home. In January of 2025, we hired Robin Higginbotham as a general contractor. Robin will attend the hearing tonight. She will be able to tell you about the rebuilding process at our house. My understanding is that if we are being penalized due to the lack of permits, if Robin, who has a business in Steamboat for some years, was the one aware of the requirement, it seems inappropriate that we should be victims of this lapse. We certainly hope that our STR license will be restored. We are now spending more time in Steamboat where we have not migrated full time. The family has been living in Vermont since 1770. It's not a small thing to consider leaving here. Thank you again for your time. That's the introduction of Elizabeth. Sort of my main points in this are really that the issue before city council is whether this owner abandoned her legal non-conforming STR use. The non-conforming use was never abandoned, nor was there an intent to abandon it in the first place. This was a temporary interruption caused by circumstances outside of the owner's control when the property was becoming physically uninhabitable due to catastrophic water damage caused by a third party. The evidence shows she spent approximately $130,000 restoring the property, maintained insurance and ownership, canceled existing reservations because the home was uninhabitable, and relisted the property as soon as it could be occupied. Those actions demonstrate continuous effort to preserve the use, not abandon it. I went ahead and put together a timeline of what I saw were kind of the most important dates off the bat here. And basically talking about the purchase in 2017 that you all do have a copy of that timeline also. And so it was basically 1030 is when the October 30th, 2024 is when that line was hooked up. November 15th is when it was reported to the owner that there was a flood due to that hooking up of the line that shouldn't have been hooked up. There was a guest booking from the 15th of November to the 24th that had to be canceled, obviously, because the home was not habitable. And at that point, the company, the property manager went ahead and canceled all the bookings for the rest of the entire winter. At that, I was under the impression that last booking was 12-31-2024 based on Retreedia's list that they gave me. But the owner just told me that there were also ones in March that were canceled in addition. So on January 2nd, ServiceMaster completed their estimate. And then on the 17th, of january is when the contract starts between robin with rh homes for the remediation process robin has outlined a detailed timeline also that we submitted earlier today um for the actual like how long the process took in in the previous meeting with the planning commission they very much questioned why the process took so long and so robin's gone ahead and laid that out in terms of much of that once again being outside of the owner's control outside of our control with just how contractors and shipping, et cetera, mail works to Steamboat. On January 22nd, that was the unsalvageable contents report submitted by ServiceMaster. On February 12th was after the insurance approval delays. That's a rough date. Robin with RH Homes was able to start the remediation process. So even just right there from November 15th to February 12th, It was all just red tape and trying to get the process going as quickly as possible, being held up by insurance, etc. So in June, Robin signed on with my company. I'm the owner of Vacation Rental Co. in Steamboat, stating that she wanted to get the property going as soon as it was ready. So we started getting the ball rolling on our end there. On 8-28, it was finally ready for photos. So we got in there right away, took photos and had it listed within a little over a week. of that point in time. We had our first booking came in just a week after that on September 15th. The booking was made. The stay dates were not until February, but what we did knowing that we wanted to get it booked as soon as possible was we offered a 20% discount for the first six guests. But it's out of our control as to when the guests are going to come stay. So the first one was booked on 9-15. On 10-31 was when the project closing date was with Robin. And then on 12-13 was when the first guest was in-house. But that one was booked back on November 7th. So number one had the Original reservations that were planned in-house not have had to have been canceled because of the flood. There would have never been a year-long gap. In addition, even with the canceled bookings, we still had our first booking booked on September 15th. So once again, our argument is that it was not abandoned at all for a 12-month time period. I'd like to give I know that the the time here is dwindling down. So I would like to give Robin an opportunity to kind of talk through quickly the process or the her timeline there to say like some of the things that were hold ups and Robin is there in house.

Hi, how are you? Good. Robin Higginbotham, 1350 Blue Sage Drive, Steamboat. I was the project manager on this project. I would like to say that I typically do not have to pull any permits from the building department for the scope of work that I had performed. Kitchen, it was mostly cosmetic. The flood was from an appliance being, the freezer being turned on and causing damage. Several factors came in as we've heard time and time over again this evening. how long construction takes and, you know, budgets and dealing with insurance and getting approvals and whatnot. So when I entered into the project in November, service master, I'm sorry, in December, service master had already come in and performed mitigation of the water and the drywall, you know, things that, you know, to get the property so it's not continually molding. The damage did extend from the top of the home into the garage, being its three levels. So I'm not sure the 1,500 square feet includes the garage level or not. They did have some stuff going into the attic. It was, as things developed, it just got more and more, you know, insurance from personal and then the HOA insurance. So we had a variety of issues to deal with. On my end, I... don't, like I said, usually have to pull a permit. And I did speak with Todd, who did confirm that the scope of work was not, what I did was not required to pull a permit. I did see that in your legal non-conforming in the building code, just kind of completely separate. I've never seen it in the STR. I don't deal with the STR, so I don't really know about it. And I don't even think I knew that it was legal nonconforming. It's so on the mountain. So really anything, any permits that should have been pulled, I don't usually pull them on this scope of work that we had to perform. So don't know if that's super fair to uphold that to this property as it wasn't required to for building code.

Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. Of course.

Do you have any questions for me?

Well, I want to ask, who do we have questions for at this point in time? Do you have any questions? Does anybody have any questions for Rebecca or for either one of these two ladies?

I do for Rebecca.

Okay.

So is there a process for somebody who's got a damaged STR that they can go to the city and ask for an extension to the 12 months?

Do we have a process?

Yeah.

I mean, or is there, I mean, has that, I mean, there's not like a formal application. No.

Okay. I'm just, I was just curious if they hadn't, if that was ever come up before, whether you had a damaged property and somebody asked for an extension of the 12 months.

This is the first time that we've seen this type of a scenario. And if I can clarify one thing that was just stated, it was confirmed to me from Todd Carr, the building official, that the work that was performed did require a permit per the building code, because we have a code enforcement case where they are now getting the permit for the work that's already been performed. So that's just a little bit different than what I heard from the building official.

Can I clarify something with you? Let's say this property, I think it was October, it had to be rented by, let's say, end of October or middle of October, whatever the date was, something like that, right?

November 15th, yeah.

November 15th?

The last documented date was October 27, 2024.

When did it need to be rented by in order to be within the one-year stipulation?

So it would have needed to have been rented by October 27th of 2025 to avoid the abandonment through the 12-month clause.

Okay. So my question is, let's say that they get this property done before 12 months. Let's say it's done by September. Let's say they take pictures and put it on the market, but nobody rents anything in October in Steamboat. And so what happens if, although it's available to rent, if nobody rents it, and let's say you only have that one month there because you're not sure when it's gonna be available to be rented, you're not sure when the work is going to be done. So if somebody has that property and it's October or early November, And the rentals aren't very popular then. So basically it's just bad luck that your 12 month period ended then instead of ending in like January or February where there's tremendous amount of rentals. Would that be a fair statement?

You're asking me if that's bad luck?

Well, I'm trying to understand what it is.

So the code section talks about discontinuance for a period of 12 consecutive months, regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use.

Okay.

So we can't really control how people are advertising. I mean, you could have somebody, for example, advertising for a ridiculous price and never rent.

What happens, though, if somebody is doing everything right, but it's just that nobody wants to rent the place in October?

That would be relative.

Because, yeah, I'm looking at this as we talk about use. I mean, they could take a deposit for outside of the 12-month period, but we don't want to call that use. And I understand that. That's a very strict interpretation because marketing, commercial marketing, one could argue is use of the property. But we take a much more strict view, and I understand why we do. I'm just trying to understand, though, why is it fair if somebody just happens to be – at a time of year when rentals aren't popular and that's when their year is up, or more importantly, that's when their remodel is going to be finished. And let's say the remodel was finished a week before, you know, the end of their 12-month period. If it just happened, it seems like it's pretty bad luck based on what we're saying by not having any way to address that.

And that's why we did offer that discount off the bat was to try to get the bookings as quickly as possible. Cause we knew we needed to get this going and wanted to get it going for the owner after they'd had such a long time period without rentals. So that was our goal. I mean, we had it, like I said, we took pictures on eight 28 and then had it listed the next week and then had a booking within a week, but the booking was for popular dates, you know, in February and, And with the snow that came so late this year, usually we would see more if we had early snow.

Did you understand that you needed a booking by the middle of October to be within the window of a year?

No, no, not at that point. It was just more thinking this owner had been without funds for so long and had been dealing with these problems. When we came on board kind of towards the end of all of what had happened- We were just thinking, let's get her some bookings on the books. She's ready to get back to making some money here when she's been hurt so bad from a year of expected income that she did not get, in addition to having to pay a bunch of money on top of what insurance paid to have her house fixed for something that she was not in control of in the first place.

So basically what we're saying is that a deposit or a contract is an intent to use the property in the future, but it is not... an active physical use of the property. It's an intent to you, a deposit, if you take a deposit within the 12 months for outside the 12 months, that's an intended use, but it's not an active physical use. So you would argue that if it's not a physical use, an intent to use by having a deposit wouldn't meet your criteria.

I would agree that that speaks to intent, but the criteria that I am bound to make decisions based upon is the code, and the code says regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use.

When was the last reservation on the books floor that got canceled? Sorry.

I don't have that right immediately in front of me. So I would, I think if Meredith has that available, I'd ask that she answer.

Yep. So the last one that I had on record from Retreedia, when they sent me the reports that you all have in your files, that one, the last one that was canceled was for the last date was 1231 of 2025. The owner today said that she just, told me that there was one that was supposed to be in March that was canceled that those people went to Retreedia and they ended up getting moved over to Trapper's Crossing that one was not on my report from Retreedia but that was just brought to my attention today so the only one that we actually have physically recorded is the last one was canceled that ended on that December 31st so I'm assuming maybe they just gave me that year versus the next year when they gave me that report

And that document that Meredith is referring to is attachment three in your packet.

Thank you. Rebecca, I feel like we're, maybe talking about issues that don't pertain to what we are looking at tonight. Can you just go back to the slide that talks about the dates? Because I'm looking at it right now, and I want to make sure I'm fully tracking. And the few really important dates to me is that The repair, the last documents say was October 27th, 2024. And then the property is damaged. The next important date is a repair was completed December of 25. And they actually had an STR stay in December. Is that right?

That's correct. So as I was trying to describe, there are two criteria by which the code says that the legal non-conforming use has terminated. So one are the dates noted in red, that's that greater than 12 consecutive month gap in use. The second one is the criteria that speaks to damage to the structure. And so they're both relevant and they are both independent of each other in terms of terminating the status of the use.

So really, the repairs were completed in December and they had a booking in December. Per what I'm looking at, yeah. Okay.

And based on the information that I was provided. Yeah, okay.

And can you maybe go back, you know, again, since... I think really it's just Councilor Pacino and I that were on council when these rules were adopted. So can you go back to, and I think there's discussion somewhere about the intent of legal non-conforming and the fact that this is in a yellow zone with the number of legal non-conforming STRs were limited, right? And the whole kind of, you know, maybe the rationale behind this and the language that's in the ordinance specific to the basis for the decision.

So the legal non-conforming use language applies to all types of uses. When we adopted the short-term rental code, we did amend section 103D which is the language, a portion of that language is on this slide. So I've omitted the first sentence of 103D2, that sentence talks about when a legal non-conforming use has been abandoned or discontinued for a period of 12 consecutive months. We added the second sentence, which is what you see here on this slide that speaks to what we called intermittent legal non-conforming uses. And we extended that typical six month abandonment period to 12 months. And we did that because council had a lot of discussion and we were very well aware that short-term rentals I don't know that there could possibly be a short-term rental that exists that's rented 365 days a year. They're often used by the owner, owner's guests, the stays, they're dependent on who books the use and when. And we also recognize, I think council recognized at that time when the code was written, that there are some property owners that only rent during certain time periods, for example, the holidays when it's the peak time or something like that. And so they wanted to, so we extended the typical timeframe from six months to 12 to accommodate for that sort of variation in use. Did I answer your question?

Yes, but I think it goes beyond that, right? And this may be more of probably a discussion point when we get to it in terms of the intent, again, in response to the community and the proliferation of the short-term rentals. And so... you know, that was kind of specifically why there's the requirement for the usage, right, within the 12 months and not the intent, right, to use it as a short-term rental. And so that's where I think I was going more to, and it came out in the discussion at the planning commission

Yeah, so this property is located in the yellow zone. It's not prohibited. We call that the restricted zone because as you're well aware, there's six different yellow zones or B overlay zones. And each of those zones has a specific cap of the number of licenses that we will issue. Because this is part of the zoning code and we changed the rules of the use, we did grant legal non-conforming status to any property that was used lawfully prior to the effective date of that code. So we have issued more licenses than the caps in all of the zones at some point or another, because if you maintain that legal non-conforming status, you maintain eligibility for a license. But the intention of the CDC is pretty clear. I think there is a purpose statement that I've probably included in your staff report or in the planning commission report that speaks to the intention of the CDC is to eliminate legal nonconforming uses over time. And I think that's why the code includes the language about intent. That intent does not come into play when we're looking at termination of that status.

And I'm trying to remember too, from the discussion, I mean, we talk about the 12 months and the intermittent use, but I think we also had the conversation, right, about if like somebody wants to do any sort of improvements or repairs, right, on their STR, that was also factored in.

Yes, that was talked about. And in fact, there was a time where there was some discussion about whether renovations should be exempted from that. And I think that was not where council landed. That is not included in the code. And I think the reason for that is that the legal nonconforming status is intended to sort of protect or allow the continued lawful use of a use that was established prior to the code change. It's not intended to or expansion of the use in the future. And so I think there could be an argument made that a remodel just for the sake of a remodel. I mean, I don't think that's what occurred here. So I wanna be clear about that, but like just an upgrade and a remodel to make it more up to date more attractive as a short-term rental would not be something that we would want to um accommodate unless it could be done within that you know unless it could be done and still avoid the abandonment under the 12-month clause um i i just heard from robin as i made a statement earlier that something that i said was inaccurate and i feel like i we I mean, my presentation was based on the information that I was provided by the appellant, but certainly if some of it's incorrect, I would feel like we should provide you the opportunity to correct that. Would that, if that's appropriate?

Yeah.

Sure.

I'm on up.

Actually, I was going to ask Meredith, because my remodel was not, it was completed prior to December. I believe that the when you were asking if December 13th, if the remodel was completed in December and then rented on the 13th, Meredith had taken her first reservation in, I believe she said September. Correct me if I'm incorrect. But I feel like the, as far as intent goes, like it wasn't an intention to rent the, she did take a reservation. So that is an active, I feel like it's an active reservation. You take somebody's money, they commit to their family having a vacation, they come out, they book their tickets, they plan things. I don't feel like that's an intention. Obviously it's interpretation of law, but I don't see that as an intent. I see that as active participation in the rental program. And as far as the open permit that I just alerted Greg and Todd to, I'm having a little bit of an argument with Service Master who removed the drywall and who was supposed to pull out the permit. I have till the 5th to get that settled. And Greg said once I file for that, it would be passed and everything would move on. Just a little disagreement with Service Master. But intent. She wasn't intending on doing it. She was actively doing it and participating in the process.

Okay.

I'm super disappointed in this process. Okay.

Rebecca, I have one more question for Rebecca. Attachment 3, Rebecca, which I think came from the appellant. Correct. Page 2 on it has booking numbers, has a status, guest, listing site, arrival date, departure date. Is that info that you all... Because I'm reading this, that people were, I'm reading it that the owner actually stayed there in November. And then there were people staying there in December and January. The people were there. That's correct.

So that's page two. So you're saying people, yes, that's 2025 and 2026. So it looks like the owner, there was an owner stay November 8th, 19th. Yeah. I can't. I know 19th. November 19th through the 26th. And then there was the first day, which was what I had noted on my slide, began on December 13th of 2025.

But yes, that's the more recent booking report.

I believe that Meredith submitted to demonstrate that there's been active use of the property since it was renovated.

Okay, thanks, Rebecca.

And that is pretty typical information that we receive, although we don't require this exact format. It often depends on what platform they advertise on or whether they do it themselves. And so we get various forms of these reports.

Okay.

Thanks. If they hadn't stayed, if they hadn't had the damage or the last booking that was on the books that we see is the 1231 of 24, then... that got canceled, they would have been within their 12 months, even at this timeline, had they rented on that December, with the December 13th rental. They would have been within that 12 months.

Yes, they would have because that last booking that was canceled in 2024 ended. It was scheduled for a checkout of 12-31-2024. But I mean, I would have to imagine if there wasn't water damage, there would have been additional rentals in 2025. It wouldn't have taken until December 13th to have the next rental. But that's just assumptions based on their prior rental activity.

All right, I'm just saying that there was evidence that that was booked within that. I mean, the timeframe was less than a 12. That's the only thing.

Yeah, I think that that's an accurate statement.

Steve, I got a question.

Go ahead, Michael.

Rebecca, in 103.D.2 and .4 on your slide, 103 is the one you've referenced a couple times regarding the termination, legal non-conforming status use. And then you talk about it being abandoned and discontinued. You also then added one in, I think, 103D5, talking about the structural housing being 12 months getting restored. This verbiage that's in the CDC document, That was approved by city council, correct? After the meeting, after the passing of the short-term rental licensing?

Section 103D existed in the code prior to the STR license. The only section that we amended when we adopted the STR overlay zone was 103D2, which is what I described earlier where we extended the abandonment period from six to 12 months. But section 103D5 has been unchanged. that existed prior to STR code and has not been amended?

So, first of all, this is kind of unfortunate because I would never want to say to a citizen in my town, bad luck. That's just not right. Right now, we have another situation with short-term rental licensing. that I think goes back to the way the code was presented to council and approved by council to make the changes to reflect the short-term rental licensing. In doing that, your department came up with those code changes. And in a lot of those things, especially in the minutes, there's times where it's referenced, where you stated to Rich Levy that you did not have the authority to make that change, and yet a minute or two later, You're stating that you do have that authority to make that determination whether they should get an extension from the 12 or 13 months. And so I'm looking at a little bit of a conflicting in your statement when you do have the authority. And then it got me to really look at the code that we adopted. And really put in question, with all due respect, Rebecca, your department wrote the code, but you actually have the authority to agree or extend or change that code. And yet we continually are having problems with citizens bringing appeals to us that were related directly to the process of the policy that we put together. And I really do think that this appeal is one of the worst examples that we have of trying to screw a neighbor out of their short-term rental license when the quote unquote intent, the intent of the code is to let people rent their unit. But yet clearly there's a faction you have stated that the intent is to stop having rentals in this property in the yellow zones completely. So I'm really concerned at this point, looking for your guidance on your direction of a code that you codified. We had to approve it. But there's been some discrepancies that we really need to stop. And we need to look at a lot of these consistent issues. And what's really frustrating for me is when we sit there and throw out, well, 2,700 people got it right. One or two people didn't get it right. That's so disingenuous. I hope we stop using that. But I really think that this appeal just gave me, I'm almost done. I've been sitting here a long time waiting to talk about this because I was trying to wait and listen to hear what's going on. And consistently, this is a problem with the way you have implemented our code. And this appealant has a right. to appeal this because there's nothing that their intent has proven that they couldn't rent the place. I'm in the business of remodel and I'm sorry, things do take that long. But the circumstances of saying this was bad luck is just disingenuous from a city council perspective. And I think we need to look at the code that you gave to us that we need to read and approve it and make some changes.

So, Mike, Council Pacino, I just want to say, I don't think Rebecca ever said tough luck, bad luck.

No, Steve said that.

Right, but the way you're coming after Rebecca, when this is a city council issue...

This is part of our staff giving us documentation that we had approved to put in the code. Now I'm looking at the code and so is our citizens and the code has some discrepancies that we need to change. Councillor Dixon, there are areas that are not fair and we continually are hitting these things.

Could we just agree? Let's make sure that we stick to the present case tonight. I mean, we can have a broader discussion on this. We've had instances, Councillor Pacino, you're correct, we've had instances, one-offs like this before. Different circumstances, of course, but we've had these one offs and and we discuss and make decisions about them. I think the code overall, though, has, you know, functioned well. And so but there's always exceptions to the rules. So let's.

And I'm going to just let me respond, right? I mean, from the perspective of Councilor Pacino and I have longstanding disagreed on kind of the short-term rental ordinances. And, you know, quite frankly, you know, I was part of those discussions. You were not part of those discussions, right? Let's not go into that. That was kind of ridiculous that you guys did that. So from the perspective of I just want to make sure that everybody here in council and that the appellant understands that staff is – is basically adhering to council's direction at the time. And so, you know, so, and again, I'll stop there because we're getting more into discussion.

I know what you're saying is that the council gave us the policy, the process of what, how they implemented that is what I have in question, Gail.

okay well but we we need to finish up the questions here if we have any more questions on this we have to go to public comment and then we'll come back and deliberate on this so is there any other questions for anyone hearing none

I'm only gonna go back to the fact that I don't think, I mean, we're getting hung up on the building permit, but that doesn't really apply, right? I mean, to the extent that that was an and criteria, right? You know, that it's a building permit if in fact one is required and the structure is large enough. So I think the first criteria doesn't work. I mean, right, in terms of, sorry,

so the one with an and that includes the building permit so i don't think that that's relevant here although you know i mean i think my determination was that the structure was did not meet the criteria for an extension um that was that is an and criteria the criteria are it says the structure is of a large scale. There is no definition of that in the code. Right. So that was my interpretation of that criteria. And then the second was that, and it requires changes to comply with the building code. So, I would say that based on the information that I had when I reviewed this, there were no building permits applied for. We have since learned that a building permit would have been required. So, you know, I don't know. The code goes on to say that in that circumstance, permit has to be applied for and the only changes needed are those that the only changes made are those that are needed to comply with the building code I don't have I didn't have a means to evaluate that because no permit was applied for there was no permit of record at that time so I don't know if council of Bruchino was I don't quite know the references you're speaking to from the planning commission minutes if there were contradictions, but I don't have the authority to change the code. In this particular section of code, it does explicitly grant the planning director authority to grant an extension. Based on my review of the information that was provided to me, I did not think that they met the criteria for an extension. Certainly, that's all before you tonight. You all could feel differently.

Because you feel... that they should have applied for a building permit, correct? Correct. So the fact that they didn't, what is the penalty for that?

Sometimes I believe the building department will charge a double permit fee if it's egregious. I don't know that they do it all the time. In this case, I don't think it's that unusual for a company like ServiceMaster where they come in to remediate. This is what I've heard from the building official. I'm just restating what he told me. It's not that unusual for those companies to come in in their remediation of water damage. They will start ripping out drywall. Unfortunately, there's a threshold on how much drywall you can remove before it triggers a building permit. So, I mean, I think the applicants have been working in good faith with the building department. We only opened the code enforcement case because that's just the way we operate. Todd asked us to do that, to document that there was work without a permit, but we're not aggressively pursuing enforcement. We understand that the permit will eventually be issued and that the work will be done in compliance with the building code.

But the lack of permit wasn't a reason to terminate the license?

No, my decision was not because there wasn't the fact that they did unpermitted work. It was that I had no permit to reference to make the findings that the extension was warranted.

So you're saying if they had applied for a permit, you may have given them an extension? You don't know though, because you don't.