City Council - Regular Meeting

Am I on? Yes. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the City of Steamboat Springs regular meeting of City Council number 2026-20, Tuesday, July 14th, 2026, 5 p.m. Julie, could you give us roll call, please?

Steve Muntean.

Here.

Gail Geary.

Here.

John Agosta.

Here.

Dave Barnes.

Here.

Michael Pacino.

Here.

Amy Dixon. Here. And Brian Swintek.

Okay. We'll all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. flag in the back and a flag up front.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

OK, before we get started tonight, we're going to get an update from Tom around the fire situation. So I'm sure that's on everybody's mind, top of everybody's mind.

So, yeah, thank you, President Monti. And I just remind the community that, you know, we rely heavily on the Routt County Office of Emergency Management to get our updates ready. That information can certainly be found on the Route County website. Anytime we get a press release or update from them, we put it on our website. So you can go on the city's website, steamboatsprings.net. Remind the community to get Route County alerts. So any update from the county on the situation, you'll get updated through that alert system. So just remind folks to get information. Those are the best places to get that information. It is important. You know, it's hot and dry. It's going to stay hot and dry. We have this fire, and we hope this is limited to this fire, but it's going to be a long season. So important to get the information as things come out. The Fish Hook Fire, we have the most recent update that we have from that is it's about 260 acres. It is growing. It's primarily moving to the south and the east based on the prevailing winds right now. It remains about roughly a mile from Highway 40. There's about 100 personnel on the ground working on that. Both aerial and ground resources are engaged with that fire. So it remains highly active and moving. The county did, and the US Forest Service, I should put a closure on the forest. To the south, it's basically north of Highway 40, but to the south of the fire itself. This closure is not for the highway. It is only the forest lands to the north of the highway. And pre-evacuation notices are being issued for zones SS356 and SS376. The mapping can be found. Probably the best site to find the mapping of that is the WatchDuty app that gives a very good location of those. Both of those zones are entirely within the U.S. Forest Service land. There's no homes in that area, in either one of those pre-evacuation areas. And these notices are really intended just to overlap with the forest closure and do not indicate any increased threat to the ski area. Luckily, the fire does seem to be moving away from the ski area at this point and is really a notice to kind of close the forest to recreation uses for obvious reasons. So that's really the update. The Green Ridge fire is also remains active, although they hit that hard and seems to they seem to have created a very, very strong containment line between the fire and any of the residences in Stagecoach area. A lot of folks were evacuated. I don't think they've lifted those evacuation orders yet, but some folks have been moving in just to kind of check on their properties. We hope that those evacuation orders will be lifted soon, but again, that fire remains active and they're continuing to work that on the ground. So that's the update that I have.

Okay. Thank you, Tom. We appreciate that. And we wish everyone remains safe and that our firefighters and police and other public officials remain safe and in this trying time, so. Okay, tonight we have a work session. And the work session procedure is that council will give direction to staff at work sessions for the presentation of action items at future regular council meetings. No motions will be considered. Public comment will be taken and email comments are encouraged at citycouncilatsteamboatsprings.net or through the city's website at steamboatsprings.net. City council may also invite special guests and community partners to participate in the discussions. As I said tonight, we have three topics. The first one is the Retail Marijuana Code, Local Sourcing Requirement, Sunset. And Dan, turn it over to you. Thank you.

So this item is a work session on the city's local sourcing requirement, which applies to the city's retail marijuana licensees. This first slide is a little bit of a history of retail marijuana in Colorado. The sale of retail recreational marijuana was approved by the voters in 2012. The legislature followed up in 2013 with a statute that basically created the licensing scheme that we're still operating under today. There was some concern at the time about organized crime entering into this business. And it was explained to me back then that a couple of provisions that were in the statute intended to try to restrict who could enter into these businesses. And so those provisions were initially you could only apply for a recreational license if you already held a medical marijuana license. And then the other provision was a vertical integration requirement at the state level that meant that if you wanted to sell retail marijuana through a store, you had to produce it yourself. So vertical integration means you actually owned the Grove facility for a certain portion of your marijuana. The city in 2013 created its own local regulations and that's pursuant to an express grant of power in the constitutional amendment. The city's initial ordinance also included a vertical integration requirement. I don't really recall there being much discussion of that at the time. I think that we just sort of did that because the state was doing it. And if council members had other reasons for wanting to adopt it, I don't think that really got discussed. The other thing that the city did in 2013 was cap the number of licenses that the city would issue, and that number was three. That is why we have three licensees today. And at the time, the then police chief was a little bit concerned about this brave new world of recreational marijuana and I think this three license limit to a large extent was based on that police chief's belief that it would be easier to police a fewer number of larger operators than a lot of smaller ones and also there was a desire to ensure that we had sort of financially healthy businesses that could afford the costs of compliance you know all the security measures and you you know making sure that people are of age and so forth so there was definitely a an intention um that we intervene in this market and you know it's not i wouldn't call it a monopoly situation but competition is limited by the city's regulation So in 2019, the city engaged in a pretty substantial review of the city's marijuana regulations. One thing that prompted that was the state vertical integration requirement was going away and the city's was also scheduled to sunset at that time. So there was an ordinance that addressed that issue. There was another ordinance that addressed the city's licensing regulations. At the time, we had basically a lottery system if a license would become available. And in 2019, we ended up adopting regulations that allowed the council to review applications for merit and select someone who they thought would be a good licensee. And then the third ordinance that was considered back in 2019 was an ordinance that would have increased the three license limit to a six license limit. Now that ended up not passing. The council discussion made it clear that at least some council members thought that that might destabilize the local market. And there was definitely a degree of satisfaction with the way our industry was operating in 2019. And so there was, a desire if the license limit was increased to do something to make sure that didn't destabilize things. And so that was at least part of the justification for the local sourcing requirement that was adopted in 2019. And I think I want to make it clear that there is a difference between local sourcing and vertical integration. Vertical integration means that the licensee owns the means of production or cultivation, but it doesn't matter where the product is cultivated. Local sourcing is the opposite. The licensee doesn't have to own the cultivation facility, but there is a geographic restriction. And that's where we are today with a geographic restriction. on at least 50% of the marijuana produced by the retail or sold by the retail stores has to be produced in Steamboat Springs. So since 2019, a number of things have changed and obviously a lot has changed. I put in this slide some things that I think are relevant to should we or shouldn't we continue to have a local sourcing requirement. One thing is, I don't think there's been any public discussion since 2019 of increasing the number of licensees. And that was obviously a consideration in 2019. And I don't know any of your feelings on that, but if we're happy with the three license limit, then that justification kind of goes away, I think, for extending the local sourcing requirement. One major thing that has shifted since 2019 is that there is a lot more competition on a national level. There were in 2019, eight other states and the District of Columbia that allowed recreational marijuana sales. We're now up to 24 and perhaps not coincidentally, Overall industry revenues have fallen quite dramatically, and wholesale prices have dropped. Now, you know, correlation is not causation. I can't tell you that there's a connection between other states allowing recreational marijuana and the market impacts in Colorado. But for whatever reason, there is a lot of pressure now on the cultivation side because prices are down. And I know that this is causing concern at the state level at MED. They're not just concerned about quality issues and contaminants, but they're also concerned about black market marijuana coming into the regulated system. They're also concerned about regulated marijuana being diverted out of state. And so they definitely believe that the pressure that the cultivation side of this industry is under is causing a lot of noncompliance with state law. Another thing to consider is that federal policy on marijuana is gradually easing. And the details of that are too much to go into, but we are definitely in a time where it is possible at some point in the future that marijuana is no longer, the sale of recreational marijuana is no longer prohibited under federal law. If that were to be the case, we would have to repeal the local sourcing requirements. This local sourcing requirement would be unlawful in almost any other industry because the US Constitution does not permit states to discriminate against products from other states. And the reason that that does not apply here is because the sale of marijuana across state lines is currently illegal under federal law. And the last point here is I don't have a lot of information on environmental considerations. I think it's pretty clear and there doesn't seem to be just much disagreement that the environmental impact of growing marijuana inside is quite a bit more substantial. than the footprints of marijuana that's grown outdoor in greenhouses. And I think that principally has to do with the energy requirements of lighting inside. It does seem as though it's impractical to grow marijuana outside. Now, I can't tell you what would happen if local sourcing went away. Would that mean that we would be getting outdoor grown marijuana imported to Steamboat. We don't really know what that effect is, but I think it is safe to say that if you continue the local sourcing requirements, we would probably see a continuation of the current practice, which is, I believe, all of the locally produced marijuana is produced indoors, which has, as I said, a much higher energy impact or energy footprint. So the positive side or the pros of continuing the local sourcing requirement, one is economic benefits, and this is one of the One of the considerations the 2019 council looked at, it creates local employment and economic activity at the grow sites. It encourages our licensees to have ties to the community and to be a little bit more in touch with community character and values. I know that this was an issue that previous councils have been concerned about. Our marijuana industry operates in a relatively sort of low key way. They're not very visible compared to the situation in some other communities. And I know the previous councils, I think have thought that you know, having an industry that is more heavily located in Steamboat helps with that. And then also, we have a history of lawful operation. I mean, it's not perfect. There have been some violations, but we, by and large, receive very few complaints about marijuana businesses. So what we are doing now seems to be working. Really, the only issue that has been recurring has, there was a period of time when odor complaints were an issue out at Downhill where the, downhill drive where the growth facilities were mostly concentrated. And we don't hear those anymore. And I think in large part that's because the industry has figured out how to reduce the odor and contain it within their own facilities. And then the last point I have here on the pros of a local sourcing requirement is it does allow for some local accountability. It gives us insight into the cultivation market, and it requires us to be notified if a local licensee has to recall marijuana, or there's a health and safety advisory that's issued. So that my discussions with staff, we do think that that is an important consideration in that, especially given the situation that's going on at the statewide level with consolidation in the cultivation side of the industry. So I have a slide here that lists some potential disadvantages or cons to extending the local production requirement or the local sourcing requirement. It is very clear, I mean, everybody who's spoken to this point says that it's much more expensive to produce marijuana the way that our local licensees are doing it here. and basic economics tells us that that probably has an impact on prices. Like I said, we do not get many complaints about the marijuana industry. People do not complain to us about local pricing. We have in the past done a little bit of research to see if our prices are out of whack with other communities, and we don't really see a lot of evidence of that. So I'm not sure how substantial of a question this is, but I think that you should assume that having a local sourcing requirement will have an impact on pricing. There is also an ongoing debate as to the feasibility of compliance. We have one licensee that is not in compliance with this requirements and they claim that they cannot find a cultivation site. We have two licensees that are in compliance and I think you will have to sort of draw your own conclusions about whether or not it's feasible to do this. And then I think one thing to consider is the point that I made earlier, which is that the city's regulations are structured with limited competition and intended to give the licensees sort of the financial ability to cover these compliance costs. And so to the extent that we have objections about increasing the cost of production and difficulty of finding sites, I think you should consider that in the context of the fact that these licensees are operating in somewhat of a controlled and protected environment. And the last point I have on this slide is the environmental considerations that I mentioned earlier. You know, if you are looking at this from a purely sustainability perspective, you would want all the marijuana to be grown and that is unlikely to happen in Steamboat Springs. So that concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions?

Thank you, Dan. Do you have any questions, Council? Councillor Agosta.

I think that we're going to separate out this, as we discuss this, I get the feeling we're going to separate this out in terms of is local growing requirements something that we want to have going forward from how do we protect our businesses? And so one of my biggest concerns is if we did decide to make a change here, how do we do it in such a way that protects the current businesses in a way of, you know, I don't know what we can legally do to say, okay, if we're going to sunset this, can we, you know, start the sunset in 12 months and then next 12 months after that, you know, you can, you know, it's 50% of what it is today or something. Is, you know, what kind of, tools do we have to sort of help ease that in if we decided to go that route?

Sure, so I think you could decide that we don't really need a local sourcing requirement anymore, but we do have licensees that have made substantial investments in their local production capacity. And I think it would be reasonable for you to decide that you wanted to phase things out in some way or extend it for a short period of time to allow them an opportunity to adjust their operations. You could also do a phase out with the percentage. The percentage could reduce gradually over time. I mean, there are a variety of ways to approach that issue, but yeah, to the extent that you're talking about, you know, giving the existing licensees some runway to wind down their local production facilities, which I think is what would happen if we don't have a local sourcing requirement, that would be a valid consideration and you could do that.

Councillor Geary.

Dan, do you happen to have a sense of the economic benefit of the local sourcing to our community?

No. From a strictly tax collection perspective, there's little impact when you talk about sales tax. There is a wholesale tax that is imposed by the state when marijuana is transferred from cultivation to retail. and that's based on the value of the marijuana so i think that um if production were to move or to shift to lower cost uh locales that would probably have a like a small impact on the the piece of the wholesale tax that the city receives um but from a tax perspective staff does not expect this to be a substantial effect um if you talk about local employment and how that filters through the economy no i don't have any numbers for you on that Okay.

Just clarify, as of 2019, is the vertical integration requirement still part of it, or is it just local sourcing?

No, vertical integration went away both at the city and at the state level in 2019.

Other questions? In terms of the economic benefit, Kim did share with me some numbers. I think it showed that this year we'll get about $50,000 from the state for the wholesale production.

Councillor Dixon.

So at our last conversation, Roz, I think we possibly have some owners or folks that might come up and talk. For the growers, they can also sell outside of Steamboat, right?

Yeah, lawfully they can. Whether or not that's commercially practical, I don't know. But yes, lawfully they can. They can sell to other licensees in other parts of the state.

Second out of three questions. Second question, have we had any problems? I never hear of people say, this requirement is ridiculous.

And we, other than the ones that you're aware of, before that, no, there were no real issues. You know, we had the same licensees. Well, there's some changes of ownership, but basically these licensees all had cultivation facilities since 2013. And so when it shifted from vertical integration to local production or local sourcing, that wasn't a problem for them and they all supported it. So no, only the recent... of the recent issues we've had since 2025.

My last question, if I remember from our last conversation, we talked about possibly expanding the boundary of the cultivation, but could we though go outside of the city limits without involving the county?

Yes, you could say we're going to extend the local sourcing requirement, but that the geographic area is the county. Now, that depends on the county continuing to permit that use in the county. But my understanding is currently that use is permitted in the county. And I know that there has been an operation in Oak Creek recently. I don't know if it's still in operation, but there has been one. And I think that the bill of representatives can probably answer some of those questions too. But yeah, that's something that you could do. And we might want to coordinate with the county and make sure that this is not something that they're thinking about making changes on. Thank you.

Other questions for Dan? All right, thank you, Dan. Then we'll open it up to public comment. Is there anybody in the room who'd like to make a public comment regarding this topic? Come on down. You have three minutes, and if you would state your name and address, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. Charlie Petty, 795 Conifer Circle, Sneakbutt Springs, Colorado. I am the chief operating officer of Billow. My family is one of the primary owners. Just to answer a quick question, as far as like economic impact and employment, uh currently we have 21 full-time employees at our cultivation facility and manufacturing facility on top of that one full-time sales wholesale sales representative as one as well as one full-time marketing representative um the aggregate payroll for that is about 1.1 million dollars a year so that's what we provide in economic uh impact to this community and as well as providing jobs um you know we're less focused on the monetary investment that we have put into this operation, more focused on the impact that it will have on our employees and our community. We have put a lot of effort into making sure that we're very involved in this community and we support our employees through more than just payroll. We provide health insurance, we provide ski pass benefits, We provide mental health assistance. We really kind of go above and beyond. And having the cultivation facility allows us to feed our store, which allows us to feed our customers, and it really creates kind of, you know, like a symbiotic relationship. If this were to sunset, we would definitely have to reassess that, and it would really pain us to even – it pains me to even think mention that possibility, but it would make it extremely difficult. To answer your question, we do wholesale around the state. The benefit to us having the vertical integration or local sourcing is that we control our pricing internally. So we actually sell the product to ourselves at a much higher rate than we are able to do around the rest of the state, which just generates us more income and allows us to kind of justify all the other costs that go along with operating the business. You know, we really love this community. I was born here, raised here, went to college, moved back to open this business. It's really important to me to be a part of this and to really provide opportunities for a lot of people who may not have the same opportunities in other just like regular jobs. We really push to make sure that we have internal opportunities. movement, uh, upward, sorry, blanking on the word I'm looking for. Um, but, uh, we really like to promote from within. We like to develop, we like to train, um, you know, anytime that we've had to hire new directors, we immediately come to our local community. We look to the people that we have here. Our goal is to keep everybody here in Steamboat. You know, this place is really special. Um, but you know, it is what it is for the working class as well as, you know, everybody else. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Charlie. Thank you. Come on down. Give us your name and address, please.

John Petty, 1065 Crawford, one of the three owners of Gatsby Holdings, which owns Billow. Just a couple of things to just kind of comment on what Dan said. Steamboat is not unique. I mean, only 10% to 15% of the product in the state is grown outdoors. And the product that's grown outdoors is not the same as the product that's grown indoors. And in Denver, most everything is indoor. I think Pueblo and South is kind of where everything is grown on an outdoor basis. An outdoor basis I don't know if a lot of it goes to gray market or black market, but indoors we have the ability to control pests. We have the ability to control things. The state checks us for pesticides. The state checks everything. On outdoor grows, just like anything else, lots of bugs outside. So different things are used outside, and it's just a different style, different product. Yeah. With respect to local sourcing, we sell, you know, if anybody in town wanted to buy a product, we buy our product, we sell it at the same price as anybody else we sell to wholesale. And we do wholesale to a lot, to Denver, because our product is really good. And the one thing that kind of makes... Gatsby special is they really do, our guys are, I'm not a weed person, our guys are weed people. They really understand what they're doing, they like what they're doing, and they win tons of awards throughout the state every year because the product is really good. If VI or local sourcing were to go away, I don't know that we would continue to maintain a grow. It just doesn't make economic sense. What we pay people to live and work in Steamboat is dramatically different than what the Front Range in Denver can pay. What we pay for utilities is less than what we pay. We have mortgages, but just rents in Steamboat, everything is more expensive because the cost of living here is more expensive, and it just kind of flows down that way. So we support the maintaining of the local sourcing. It just, for us, it's paramount. Our investment was hugely significant at the beginning, but our investment continues. Every year, utilities were getting to be real expensive. Just slowly change all our rooms to LED lights. Everything we do is constant investment, different types of watering systems, different types of managing the plants, utility. So we obviously support... the continuation of local sourcing. And we think it's great for the community and we think it's great for all of our employees. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to make public comment tonight? Okay, seeing none, we'll look online. Is there anybody online who would like to make public comment? Raise your hand. We have Emily Kelly, I believe. Emily, can you... State your name and address, please. And you have three minutes.

Hi there, everybody. Emily Kelly. I'm an attorney for Golden Leaf, one of the three licensees in Steamboat Springs. I'd like to echo a lot of the points that both John and Charlie made in terms of local investments. Obviously, Golden Leaf has been around since the very beginning when medical marijuana was legalized. I believe now it's the oldest licensee in Steamboat Springs that has operated continuously. More so than not, and we'd like to piggyback onto what the Petty said, but also we would like to highlight some of the good that the licensees bring to our community. I think you'd be far-fetched to try and find a nonprofit or good cause or charity that Billow and Golden Leaf are not in some way involved. Golden Leaf has over 40... full-time and part-time employees right now. We also provide insurance. We provide mental health benefits. These are really high paying, good jobs. And in the event that local sourcing goes away, I'm not sure that it would be economically viable for us to continue to have those arrangements for so many people in this town. In an era where people are hurting in Steamboat and more and more people are struggling financially, having these kinds of jobs available with flexible hours and allowing those kinds of benefits is becoming more and more difficult. And I would just caution and bring that to everyone's attention. that in the event that local sourcing is no longer required, I would foresee that a lot of people would be out of work, and that would be really, really unfortunate. Additionally, I'd also like to highlight that Golden Leaf also sells wholesale to various other licensees across the state. They've also won a whole slew of different awards. It's really, really important to them to do the best that they can to be a an integral part of the community, but the numbers have to work too. And so that's why we are also very much in support of keeping the current requirement, not allowing it to sunset. And that way we can continue to offer the benefits to this community that we currently do. So that's what I've got. But if anybody has any questions, feel free to ask. Open book. Unfortunately, I am still traveling. I got stuck in traffic today, hence why I'm in my car, but I am here and happy to answer any questions that

anybody may have so thanks so much thank you emily thanks okay i think we have one more person online madison can you unmute and state your name and address and you have three minutes yes madison2480perry

Denver, Colorado. I first want to say thank you for posting this and allowing for public comments. Starting just with the Pettys, I do respect everything that Billow has done. I'm actually a consumer of Billow products as well. I'm at a lot of the awards and They do produce a great product. To Charlie's point, he mentioned that this isn't necessarily for investments or investment related. It's more for the individuals that they're employing, where John is saying that it is more of the investment regardless. I don't understand or I don't really see where the employment would lack, considering that a majority of the product is already being pushed through. their own facilities. I believe Goldleaf stated previously that about 80 to 90% of their product is sourced from their own either cultivation or production facility, which is amazing. I don't think that there's a huge loss of employment or sales if we don't have local sourcing in place in the city of Steamboat. But aside from that, the local sourcing from the memo or the form that was sent out prior to this discussion was really focused on safety and public safety. So going into ordinance 2701, that doesn't create any independent tracking system, no additional testing requirements, no local contaminant standards. It's not superseding or providing any additional security or safety measures to the actual consumers that are in Steamboat or any tourists that are in Steamboat. The local accountability rationale, I don't think is just. The staff memo does defend that the requirement as giving the city insights and enforcement reach over locally grown product But that coincides with only 50% of the products that we would see or that is mandated on the shelves for the steamboat dispensaries. What about the other 50% of products? What is Steamboat doing to ensure that that safety is still followed through across the board? For other brands that maybe had recalls or voluntary recalls, are those products and brands still able to be purchased or sold through a dispensary in the city of Steamboat, where does that difference for the 50% of the consumer safety touch or is that covered for additional standards that the city of Steamboat requires that the MED is allegedly missing or not being complacent with Steamboat standards as to public safety?

Okay, thank you for your comments. All right, is there anybody else online who'd like to make a public comment? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, we'll check one more time in the audience. Anybody else who wants to make a public comment? Okay, with that, we will close public comment and bring it back to council for deliberations. And before we do that, I did want to mention that I don't think we have a slide that says this, but council's option for tonight, just so we're all grounded. One is we can take no action and let the local sourcing requirement expire on January 1st, 2027. Or number two, we can extend the local sourcing requirement either on a short-term or long-term basis. Or three, we couldn't extend the local sourcing requirement with modifications.

Mr. Swintek. Unconventional, but can I ask a question directly to the petties as a follow-up? I think it's a work session. Yeah, it's a work session, sure. I'm not trying to reopen public comment, but if you guys wouldn't mind, maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but my question was similar to Madison, correct? Why would removal of this require... not require, but have you guys reassess the local sourcing? In my mind, that seems like an asset that you've built up, a differentiator, a way for you to make product and make greater profit on it. Why would the loss of this incentive cause you to wind that down?

The reality is we heavily focus on making amazing products. We pride ourselves on making amazing products. Conversely, if this were to go away and any of our competitors were allowed to 100% source from other places in the state, their margins would grow by an insane amount and ours would stay at the same level and probably continue to shrink as our costs continue to rise. Rising costs are just a part of our life. So, yes, you know, we could go source product from other places. We could just be a retailer. We would maybe make more money. We'd maybe make less money. I don't really know that answer. But we would not be able to add to the community. We would not be able to provide jobs. And we would not be able to... pride ourselves as much because we may be met with that hard decision. If our competitors now have the ability to go purchase pounds of marijuana for 600 to $800 versus the 12 to 14 or 1500 that we're charging ourselves, they could then lower their prices, which it's basic economics from there, right? You could do the most amazing job. Yeah. You know, we can provide everything to the community. We can give back, we can support everybody at the end of the day, you know, people are going to price shop. And so that is the big concern, you know, right now we're all on a level playing field. we all have to operate with the same expenses, which allows us to, I wouldn't say control pricing by any means, but it allows us to all be competitive on the same level, which is what this whole thing started out to be. So if all of a sudden somebody could come in and shrink those costs and either keep the same prices or undercut us by 10 to 20%, they would then all of a sudden have an insane advantage over us. So, okay.

So I guess I kind of need to think of while you make a very unique and I'm sure wonderful product, I more need to think of it like a commodity than like an iPhone, like a unique, super unique product.

People are going to buy cannabis. Got it. No matter what. But are they going to get the quality? Maybe not.

Appreciate it. I have a question for Charlie also. So two of our three licensees today basically are doing their own growing. A third is not doing local. Obviously, you know, if we do not change that local requirement, that third is going to have to have a growing facility locally. Are you aware of locations in the city of Steamboat where a new local grower could start a business? Is that type of... commercial space available or if even if you wanted to expand your business?

Um, I don't necessarily have the answer on availability right now. I do know there are a number of places, um, you know, I'm sure it would take investment, um, but I'm sure it's possible if it was needed. Um, we are more than willing and capable to supply our competitors. We would honestly do it at what we consider market wholesale rate. So as mentioned earlier, I charge myself a higher value than I do my wholesale customers around the state. I would be more than happy to match wholesale pricing for wholesale pricing to our competitors and able to enable them to come into compliance while exploring that, or again, at the end of the day, it's local sourcing now, it's not necessarily vertical integration. So, you know, I think we could come to a happy agreement where both parties would be benefited and be able to move forward in a harmonious way.

Thank you. Thank you. Council?

Can I ask Dan a question?

Yes, you may.

Dan, is there any way for us to regulate what someone sells a product at? Because Charlie was implying that he's willing to sell at a wholesale rate consistent within the county and to match what he sells out of the county.

Could we impose price controls either at a retail or wholesale level?

Yeah.

Both either?

Yeah.

Well, we have broad authority. The Constitution tells us we can regulate the time, place, and manner in which these businesses operate. I would say that price controls in this country are going to, you know, there's going to be a lot of suspicion about that. And regardless of what the Constitution says, I would not want to promise you that that would hold up. We could try. There's no black letter law that says no, but that one is... I know that's kind of a third rail in this country.

I had kind of a thought that came through as we were going through this conversation of the workforce that we are currently employed with the regulation that we have right now. And if you think about this sourcing regulation, imagine for a moment that we required something like that for beer. That in order to sell beer in Route County or in Steamboat, you had to source it yourself. We would have different distilleries and breweries right here in town. And the benefit of that is that it would employ a heck of a lot of people. I mean, this is kind of a unicorn when it comes to this type of product that we actually are... You know, doing what I think the regulation wanted to do was create a local entity and workforce. But stop and think that if beer or distilleries, we have some now, that are, you know, they're employing people. But imagine if that was a requirement for them to do and to sell. Or electric cars or just about anything. We have made a regulation on this marijuana grow that seems to be working. And I really would encourage us to continue with this and not let it sunset, but just to continue on until, in my mind, the federal regulation forces us our hand to change it. But until that date, I think that I like the system the way it is.

And I guess I would just follow up on that. And where's John Bristol when you need him? What is it for every dollar? Is that like three or 10? I mean, back to the local employment, right? From the perspective of, right? If we've got the local employees and a dollar spent right here, I think it's three times, right? I mean, in terms of how many times it turns over in our community. Anybody, you guys want to correct me in terms of what John would say?

You know, it's significant.

Yeah, it's significant in terms of to the extent that we are concerned about our economic impact, the economy and the sustainability of this community. My perspective, too, is if this is working, I would support just continuing it.

I would chime in and say ditto to both of you. It's working. Why fix what's not broken? And also, I think it's kind of cool that we have this 50% sourcing. It doesn't require a retailer to be a grower. They just have to source from a local source.

That is correct.

Right. Thank you. You may be nervous with that pause. So others can, another retailer could come in, they just have to source 50%. And I, again, I think it's cool and I like it. It's not broken. Why try to fix something that's not broken? Extend it.

I agree with the sentiment, but I just want to put my own spin on it. The economist in me, I'm not a fan of protectionist policy, which is literally what this is. But the way I'm very comfortable with it is that this is an illegal substance nationwide. It already is restricted directly to Colorado. So I am very comfortable keeping it how it is. It already is a... oddly manipulated market to begin with. It's providing jobs. They're good stewards in the community. It only seems like negative effects if we remove this. So I'm on board to support it as well.

I was going to layer on to that because I didn't sense it was very free enterprise oriented. But the way we created it was to protect a new industry and also to regulate a new industry. And so we set it up this way and have forced people to invest in growing locally. So I agree with all that. I think that at some point in time, though, the federal government is going to come in and say, we're not going to regulate this anymore. but it's working now.

I agree. I agree and I reiterate Council Member Pacino's, which is let's wait till the feds change the policy and make this a longer term solution until then.

We have other bigger things to work on. This ain't broke.

Okay, so the question I have here is, Dan, do we need to put a date on that, a timeframe around extending it?

Well, we would want to get it done before the end of the year, which is, I think, plenty of time to get the ordinance together. I think it really would be more of a question of what's a convenient council meeting to schedule the first reading of the ordinance, unless you want to do another work session and talk about what the extension would look like.

Well, what I'm talking about is how long would we extend this?

Oh, well, that's... Do you need that for the ordinance? Yeah, but that's a blank that I fill in. Okay. So that...

yeah that i don't need to know that now does it have to sunset no you could extend it indefinitely like right most of our other regulations all right which would certainly be what i would support yeah could could we when when would be a time for a discussion as far as allowing it in all of route county not just limiting into the city of steamboat but a grow facility

Sure, so if the next step is for me to bring you an ordinance, one of the questions I would ask you is, do you want to make any changes? And that would be top of the list because that was discussed at length by the council in 2019. There was a lot of interest in maybe expanding it to Route County. So geographic scope would be one question I would ask if you wanted to change.

Okay, so you have direction then from us.

I think I have enough direction, and then I think I'd work with the city council presidents and President Pro Tem on scheduling it.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Dan. We'll move on. Matt, multimodal transportation initiatives update.

Good evening. Good evening, President and Council. Good evening. I'm Matt Phillips, your city engineer, and happy to be here tonight, not only just because I get to spend a couple extra hours in an air-conditioned space, but also because I get to provide you with an update tonight on the city's multimodal transportation initiatives. and discuss how staff is implementing the transportation vision established through the strategic plan, through the transportation and mobility plan, through the sidewalk master plan, the engineering standards, and the community development code. I'll provide an overview of our planning and prioritization process, highlight recent accomplishments and projects currently underway, discuss future priorities, and conclude with several questions where we'd appreciate your feedback. Rather than waiting, saving these questions until the end of the presentation, I want to share them with you now and encourage you to think about these questions as they're the feedback we're hoping to get back from you tonight. So does our current approach continue to reflect community priorities? Should staff continue using the adopted project prioritization framework? Are there implementation strategies or funding opportunities we should explore? And do you have feedback on the proposed six-year transportation priorities? So before discussing the specific projects, I'd like to take a step back and explain why the city continues to invest in multimodal transportation. Multimodal transportation is about providing transportation systems that safely serve everyone, whether they're walking, bicycling, using transit, driving, or using other mobility devices. These investments provide improved safety, strengthen connections between neighborhoods and destinations, provide people with more travel options, and support the economic vitality and quality of life that makes Steamboat Springs a great place to live and to visit. The projects we'll discuss today are all intended to advance those broader community goals. So how do we decide which projects to pursue? Transportation improvement projects don't begin with, or improvements don't begin with individual projects. They begin with adopted policy. The strategic plan establishes the city's overall direction, while the transportation and mobility plan and sidewalk master plan identify transportation priorities throughout the community. Those priorities are considered during the development of the annual capital improvement program, which determines when projects move forward into design and construction. The engineering standards and community development code establish how those improvements are designed and implemented. This framework helps to ensure that our transportation investments are consistent, transparent, and aligned with Council's adopted vision. I'd like to spend just a moment on the engineering standards piece because they're an important part of implementing the city's transportation vision. These standards establish the city's minimum design requirements for streets impacted by public projects and by adjacent private development projects. As you can see in these two typical roadway sections, sidewalks are incorporated into most street classifications and bicycle facilities are incorporated where appropriate based on the roadway classification and our adopted standards. These aren't decisions that are made on a project by project basis. They're requirements established through the city's adopted engineering standards and are consistently applied through design review and development review. So with these standards and the framework in place, the next question becomes how do we decide which projects rise to the top? That's one of the questions we receive the most is how projects are selected. The answer is that projects are evaluated using objective criteria established in our adopted transportation plans. Safety is always our number one priority, but we also look at how our project improves connectivity and accessibility, serves community destinations, coordinates with other planned infrastructure projects, and whether the projects are ready to move forward. We receive far more requests than available funding could ever support. So this framework really helps to ensure that we make consistent and transparent decisions that provide the greatest long-term benefit to the community. So how do these projects actually get built? There isn't a single way that multimodal transportation improvements get built. Some improvements are incorporated into larger multidisciplinary capital improvement program projects, such as roadway reconstructions or intersection improvements. These projects allow us to add sidewalks, bicycle facilities, transit improvements, and pedestrian crossings while improving other public infrastructure at the same time. Other improvements are advanced as standalone multimodal projects when they address important safety concerns or close gaps in the transportation network. And then finally, private development plays a significant role. Through the development review process, developers are required to construct sidewalks, trails, and other transportation improvements that are consistent with the community development code and with the engineering standards. So together, these three delivery methods allow the city to make steady progress towards implementing the Transportation and Mobility Plan. So now that we've discussed how projects are delivered, I'd like to show you what we've accomplished over the past several years. Since adoption of the transportation mobility plan, the city has completed several significant multimodal improved transportation projects. Pine Grove phase one continued multimodal improvements along one of the city's primary transportation corridors through the construction of new sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossing, and enhanced transit stops. Ski Time Square complete streets improvement enhanced both vehicle circulation and the pedestrian environment by improving crossings and adding streetscape amenities. US 40 and downhill drive intersection improvements signalized the intersection and provided protected pedestrian and bicycle crossings, improved transit service, and provided new sidewalk connections. And the Mount Warner Road Steamboat Boulevard improved traffic operations while incorporating new sidewalks and bicycle lanes to better serve all users. So collectively these projects illustrate how multimodal improvements are incorporated into multidisciplinary transportation projects. These projects demonstrate steady implementation of the city's adopted transportation vision. I'd also like to take a step back and look at our progress on implementing the sidewalk master plan since it was adopted 10 years ago. While we've discussed several recent transportation projects, it's important to recognize that they are part of a broader effort to systematically improve the city's pedestrian network. Since adoption of the plan, the city has completed approximately 34 sidewalk segments from the plan. Rather than constructing sidewalks in isolation, we focused on closing gaps and improving pedestrian safety. And this map here illustrates several of the more significant improvements of those 34 completed over the past several years and demonstrates the steady progress being made towards implementing the sidewalk master plan. And although much work remains, each completed segment strengthens the overall pedestrian network and moves us closer to the vision established in the plan. So what are we working on today? In addition to recently completed projects, the city currently has several significant multimodal transportation improvements underway. The most well-known right now is the West Steamboat Trail. It extends the core trail westward and includes construction of a grade separated pedestrian underpass underneath US Highway 40, improving both regional connectivity and pedestrian safety. The Mount Warner Circle Complete Streets Project is enhancing the pedestrian environment with new sidewalks, lighting, and accessibility improvements. And then looking towards next year, Pine Grove Road Phase 2 will continue multimodal improvements along the corridor with new sidewalks and bicycle facilities. Looking beyond projects currently underway, we've identified several multimodal transportation priorities over the next six years. These projects continue to focus on improving safety, closing gaps in the transportation network, and coordinating multimodal improvements with other planned infrastructure improvements. As with all capital projects, the timing of these improvements will depend on council priorities, available funding, grant opportunities, and ultimately the annual capital improvement program decisions. As we've discussed, the city has made significant progress, steady progress implementing multimodal transportation improvements. However, every project requires significant work before construction begins. Funding must be identified and coordinated through the capital improvement program and staff actively pursues grant opportunities whenever possible. Over the past several years, staff has implemented many of the lower cost multimodal improvements available. We've striped We strike bicycle lanes on every collector roadway that has sufficient pavement width to support them and added shared lane markings or sharrows where dedicated bike lanes cannot be accommodated. As a result, the remaining projects generally require roadway widening, new sidewalks, drainage improvements, structures, or right of way acquisition, making them significantly more complex and costly. Most projects also require easements from private property owners, the acquisition of which is often the single greatest source of schedule and uncertainty during project delivery. Projects also require coordination with utility providers and with partner agencies, along with careful engineering design to address drainage and accessibility and existing infrastructure in place. These factors influence both project schedules and costs and are considered throughout the implementation process. One implementation consideration that's especially important in Steamboat Springs is the role of private development. So private development is an important partner in expanding the city's multimodal transportation network. Through the development review process, developers construct sidewalks, trails, bicycle facilities, and related improvements that are consistent with the community development code and engineering standards. While the code does allow for alternative compliance in certain circumstances, our preferred approach is always construction of the required improvement. Construction of offsite facilities as a form of alternative compliance is considered only when it provides greater overall public benefit. While a fee in lieu option of alternative compliance remains the least preferred option. So before we conclude, I'd like to leave you with four key messages from today's presentation. First, the city has a clear and consistent framework for implementing multimodal transportation improvements. Second, we're making meaningful progress through completed projects, projects under construction and future priorities. Third, implementation will continue to be guided by Council's adopted plans, available funding, and project readiness. And lastly, we're looking for your feedback to help shape future transportation investments and implementation strategies. So with that, I'd like to return back to the questions we shared at the beginning of the presentation. Thank you for your attention this evening. Staff would appreciate your feedback as we continue implementing this vision. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. What questions does council have for Matt?

My struggle with this, this has been a topic of conversation on council for the past few years. And the tough thing I always have is what does this look like? Based on this presentation, I would summarize it as crosswalks, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Is that correct?

For multimodal transportation? Yeah, and transit elements.

Transit elements as in like bus stops? Bus stops, yeah, shelters.

Okay. And I mean, technically all connected to the vehicle, late travel, travel lanes for cars. This is a multimodal. So it builds on that.

Okay. Thanks. Yep. So Augusta, Augusta, go ahead and demo.

So yeah, thank you for putting, putting this together. This is really helpful. And, and because there are critical areas that are recognized there that are not multimodal safe. And so I know we're striving for that. I would say that the community does not want sidewalks everywhere, but they certainly want sidewalks and safe crossings everywhere. I mean, safe crossings everywhere. And since I represent District 3, I'm gonna make a request or something to look forward from District 3 and does not have to do with Whistler Park or Stone Lane. Actually, away from there, if you actually, on slide 16, if you kind of zoom, I don't know if you're able to zoom in on slide 16 into the Whistler Road area, the, I'll wait for, is it John doing that or? Yeah, John's driving for me tonight. Are you able to zoom in on your slide or on your screen?

I have a touchscreen so I can just go boom.

Well, okay, so that little bottom corner three there, if you're able to zoom in there, you'll be able to see that SST is coming through this most southern part there, the transit. It hops on the Skyview Lane, and then it makes a 140, 160 degree curve around that corner. And right at that corner is where the core trail ends. or begins, and then the bus is kind of coming around that corner. And every year in the winter, there's cars in the ditches there. So as you're looking at Whistler Park and things in 3, that one corner is something that I would love to have you guys look at. There's space there, but I suspect there's engineering to do because it's next to Walden Creek. So that was just my- Yeah, I appreciate that.

And we appreciate hearing feedback from the community on all these things. They don't fall upon deaf ears. We do look at each instance when we hear about it and evaluate it. And if it rises high enough- So how do I get that?

Because you probably have 200 priorities in there. So I don't know how you get those priorities in there, but get those prioritized.

Yeah, I mean, that one may be in there. In that list of 200, it may not be. Of course, this was also developed five years ago, so things changed. I'm not familiar with what the routes were back then. Maybe they've been altered. But yeah, the... Like I mentioned, we get a lot of requests, but we've got this framework where we can help prioritize what we should be working on. And we don't go down at one, two, three in order. We do move them around as needed. But there's always opportunities to add new things, too, because things change. Especially if there's a safety issue there, we would certainly look at it. But you're right. A lot of times, what you see on the surface at the end of a project is just the tip of the iceberg of what went on.

yeah and and look at those other items and and number three you know they're they're important items too so you know i'd be i by myself i'd be hard pressed to say hey don't fix village drive when when you you know over hit because you have this one And that's the challenge.

These are all big priorities and ranking 200 of them is a difficult task. I wasn't part of this effort. This was before I joined the city. But I know if you ever have an opportunity to look through this report, there was quite a deep dive into how to prioritize things, how to rank things based on safety, based on convenience and all sorts of factors. But yeah, I think the rankings were well-founded in this.

So offline, just is there a way I can look at what that list is?

Yeah, yeah. The document's not posted online right now, but I can send it to you. It was posted before the remediation rules hit.

All right. Yeah. Okay. Other questions, comments?

But I had a couple of general and a couple of specific questions. So so there's a lot of work, I think, being done in this community on multimodal, right? You've got that, right? The route county built, what is it called? The built environment coalition. I mean, certainly you've got the climate action plan, transportation sector, and I understand they're specifically working on a plan in terms of reducing the vehicle miles traveled. We're as a city plugged into those initiatives, right?

Yeah, I mean, I've been involved with the Built Environment Coalition to some extent.

I don't know if there's anybody.

Yeah, so as part of the Public Health Department, there's an effort to, I guess, for the pedestrian network to improve safety, inclusivity, accessibility, and connectivity. And so I've been part of two organizations assessments that they've done where we walk a section of an area of town with a few sections of sidewalk and kind of assess the condition of the existing network with a diverse group of users. So we had wheelchair users, people with strollers, maybe some vision impaired. And so going through those networks and identifying what works, what doesn't, what feels good, what doesn't feel good, is kind of one of the efforts that was to come out of there to kind of help identify problems. And it wasn't necessarily to help problems to deliver those issues to the city so that we could focus on those. It was more, I think, to get a collective feel for the general condition of the network. They've also undergone another effort to go out and allow people to, do self surveys of different areas around the city here and other areas of the county and do something similar, but on their own is to just to rate things, how, how safe they feel, how loud it is, how, you know, whether there was any connectivity or gaps in the sidewalk and all in an effort. I think that piece there is really where they're starting to get into a little bit more data. And I think that ultimately I think there, they would, I don't know if they're going to be able to advocate for grants on their own to help support these things, but I think we could use that data to help support our applications for grant opportunities when we're looking to, you know, help fund some of these projects.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely the value there, right, is making sure that we're plugged into these various different groups, and we can talk about it when we get to the kind of the discussion point. The other question I had is specific to the... a slide you had regarding developers and development partners. And I was curious about the language that talks about the fee in lieu. And I know, you know, right now, I think that's specific to parking, right? Or how broad is that? But I was also, I didn't realize that the language said, hmm, If you could pull that slide back up. It's development partners.

17, I think.

Yeah. They'll keep going down, I think.

It takes us a minute to get there.

Right there, that one.

Yeah, I didn't realize the language doesn't seem to be very flexible, right? Oops, go back.

You were there. It's like 16th.

Fee-in-lieu is considered only when construction is impractical and an alternative better supports the city's long-term transportation objectives. I mean, that seems pretty strict.

It is, it is. And I think in the, I don't recall any time since I've been employed at the city that we have collected any fee-in-lieu for sidewalks. Because like I said, our preferred option is for the improvements to be built on the site that is required because you have immediate, A fee in lieu option would allow them to put money in a pot and then that shifts the responsibility and risk onto the city because now we have to be responsible for that. We have to grow it to a certain size so that we can go out and manage a project and we can go out and acquire easements and we can oversee the construction. And it takes a much longer time than implementing improvements immediately.

Right, but it's not just sidewalks, right? It's parking.

From an engineering perspective, it's sidewalks only. Maybe there's a plan. Okay, more from a CDC.

I mean, I guess that's what I want to bring back to council when we have our discussion, right, is how we maybe think more broadly about that, particularly as we're thinking about multimodal, right, transportation. Can I chime in, though?

Walter's come and talked to us about that. The cost is extremely high. Well, yeah, it's just $50,000 a parking spot. No, but for sidewalks, too. Like, the way to incentivize that is to reduce the cost.

Well, yeah, let's bring it back when we have our discussion. I mean, I would go back, and I guess the one other question following up on John's, I think that... but kind of following up on the sidewalks too is just, and I think this is probably more of a comment. It seems like, right, when you do that, it has to be like, to your point, right? It has to be on that property, even though you may have sidewalks going a mile one way, you've got this segment, so you've got a gap, so people have to walk across the street, right? I mean, is that a fair interpretation? yeah so just make sure i understand what you're saying you may have a development that builds over here builds their sidewalk there's other existing sidewalk here and there's a gap between and you may have to traverse do that right either a gap or it crosses the street yeah i mean there's a lot over on the mountain where you've got contiguous sidewalk and then you've got a big gap and it just is a segment and then you have to cross the street to go to get back on the sidewalk. So you've got restrictions or limitations in that regard.

Yes, and we have a lot of obviously terrain issues that we have to contend with, but we also try to minimize the amount of times we force people to cross the road because every time we do that, we obviously introduce an opportunity for conflict with other vehicles. So we try to minimize that, but it's also like this, you have looking long-term as development occurs and redevelopment occurs over the long-term, those gaps would hopefully be filled in And where they're not, that's an opportunity for us to come in at some point with a capital project and start filling in some of those gaps.

So just to be clear, that would be how you would have to address it, right? You couldn't say to that developer on the one side, you need to put the sidewalk in on the other side.

Not the way our rules are currently written. I think they have to be, they're responsible for their direct impact, which is on their frontage. Now, Shifting, if we talk about traffic vehicles, we do require a lot of most developments to do a traffic study, which then identifies how much impact they're going to have on certain intersections. And we have a list of intersections and roadway segments that we know are going to need to be improved in the future. And so they have to basically pay into the pot a prorated portion of what the construction cost of that future improvement would be. And that's all based on traffic expectations. Now, we don't do a similar thing for pedestrians or bicyclists, and I don't honestly know how you would do that, to do something similar where you'd say, well, we have a known improvement we want to do over here, and so you have to pay your portion of that. We don't have that in place. I'm not sure how that would be structured. I don't know if we'd probably have to get a legal opinion on that as well. But yeah, that's not... Today they go, right. Now there's also an opportunity to enter into development agreements with them to say, hey, can you build this extra piece that's off your property? And in exchange for it, we'll do something or we'll put something in the pot or reduce some fees or something to a deal point in there to make it. Okay.

And again, I'll just put a pin in that. I'd like, again, for us to have that conversation, right?

I mean, in the sense that from a policy perspective. How is that possible?

I don't think we can.

Yeah, okay. So that is impossible. We would not be able to say, oh, yeah, you're across the street, but you have to build a sidewalk across the street. We simply can't do that.

Right, but sometimes a lot of improvements don't have to happen on private property. They can happen within the right-of-way if there's sufficient right-of-way there. So then they're in public right-of-way.

And I think this might be a question for Dan, right, in terms of is there flexibility so that we don't have the sidewalks to nowhere? Got it.

Thank you. Other comments, questions?

I'd just like to say thank you. And it's amazing to watch all these complete streets come together from living here for 30 years and watching the transformation of this key Times Square and Mount Warner Circle. It's awesome to see the trail going in west of town. So I think you guys are doing a great job.

Thanks. This is the stuff we love to do.

Okay, Matt, hi. When I look at your recent accomplishments, two, three, let me see here, how many do you have, four? Three out of the four. Actually, two out of four. We're funded by URA dollars, correct? So it looks like Speed Time Drive, URA. Mount Warner Road, Seamont Boulevard, Roundabout, URA. And then for our current projects, we've got the Mount Warner Circle Complete Streets, URA. The Pine Grove Road Phase 2, I don't recall if this has come up at URAC. Why is URA not covering... improvements in that intersection.

That's a rehabilitation project, really. That's the core of that project is to rehab the subgrade beneath the roadway, the foundation of it.

That's a terrible intersection. You know we've talked about that at UREC.

Yeah, so the actual intersection is a project that is being proposed. It's been proposed for multiple years. It's just not been chosen as a priority.

From UREC?

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a terrible intersection.

And from the city's perspective.

I don't think... Ever go through with GTC and what Ski Corps wants to do with Mount Warner Road and how that will be the primary intersection, right? Unless people want to zip through the neighborhood, which that would be terrible. So, you know, like for planning, this is where URAC, we have to be really... aware of decisions that they're making um because this is a big intersection when we talk about development but yet it's not on their radar or their list of priorities and we have money are you sure phase two is in the urec it absolutely is that the whole road is all of pine grove road yeah it goes down to highway 40.

I think it comes down Mount Warner and then it expands to Highway 40, but doesn't include Pine Grove. Now, it includes the Pine Grove-Mount Warner intersection. Yeah. Not Pine Grove itself, yeah.

Oh, no, I'm sorry. No, the intersection, yes. Yeah, that's all I'm talking about is the intersection.

This project, this exhibit that's displayed is not the intersection project. This is the continuation of the rehabilitation.

I know, but I just look at this and I think, we're doing Pine Grove Road, why wouldn't we incorporate an intersection? I don't know, but okay, I'm not an engineer, so. Okay, my last question. So when I talk about multimodal, right now I am actually talking about bicycle and pedestrian safety. That's honestly right now all I care about. I care about a lot of stuff. That was a bit much. But a lot of these projects I see are, they're great, love them. But when I'm talking about it, I'm talking about bicycle and pedestrian safety, full stop. And when I look, when I drive around or ride my bike on the roads and I see the little, the white painted bicyclists, I know you have a formula on how far apart they are. What is that? Is that like a national standard?

I honestly don't know.

Ah. I don't know. Okay, sorry. Okay. I'm guessing it probably is because I did some, like, dangerous research. And a lot of them are only... The white bicycle people are only by the intersections. So... It's a missed opportunity that...

So like take Steamboat Boulevard, for example. That's one that has the smaller size, what we call sharrows, and they're scooted off to the side. And what that's to do, we could put a big one right in the middle of the lane, just like Yampa Street has. But we put those smaller ones off to the side to help guide bicyclists to the side because there's a little bit heavier traffic on that road so that... Yeah. Maybe there's a potential reduction in conflicts. Yeah. So it's just to help direct them into part of the lane rather than the entire thing. Okay. But they're entitled to use the entire lane too if they- Well, I know.

So I'm gonna be hard on the process, not the people, that it shouldn't be about directing bicyclists, because the bicycles are like, for the most part, hugging the white line, like on Whistler Road, and cars are zipping by. We have to have a way for, it's more for the cars to be like, oh, no, the bicycles have the side of the road. And Yampa Street, could we do that on other streets? Like, what does that take to make a street say the whole lane is for bicycles? Like, is that a city thing that we could do?

By law, they're entitled to use the entire lane, whether there's a shared lane symbol out there or not.

Okay, so it's just a matter of us putting...

The shared lane symbol, all it does is draw extra attention to the drivers that there's... a more probable instance that you'll have another user on the road.

Yep, okay. And then what about, sorry, John, green bike lanes? I did some research where there are studies that show those are actually safer because they're more identifiable for vehicles. So like Oak Street, whoever rides their bike on Oak Street, Do you have your bike on? That's actually kind of terrifying. Because cars, they just see a white line. And then the white bicycle person is by the stop sign. And people are opening their car doors. They're whipping in and out. But if you had a green bicycle lane, So I'm not trying to solve the problem. I'm just trying to say I think there are low-hanging fruit that we can look at that doesn't require building sidewalks. I'm channeling Brian from a cost perspective, and I get that this does have costs. And then what is your schedule for repainting the white bicyclists?

So I believe our streets department just finished doing all of their pavement markings for this year. And so they may have left some, they may have left some, if you will. Sorry.

Yeah, John Snyder, Public Works Director. So our streets crew paints all those in-house. They're just now finishing up, and they started in late March. So all the striping around town is pretty significant. And we are constrained because you have to have 40 degrees or rising in temperatures. And then just to go back to your Oak Street deal, we could do that. We looked into doing that, but it's between $15,000 and $23,000 per year to do that.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Not a criticism, but the white bicyclists have not been painted. On the mountain, coming to town on Highway 40, the big bike lane that says bikes and buses only, that hasn't been painted. So I'm like, it's July 14th. So there is that... And I would love for our plans, which we can talk about as council, to really engage the community. I feel terrible for the folks that live in Brooklyn. And I actually stopped and talked to a woman who was out front, and shuttles were whipping by, dump trucks, this is a discussion, sorry, question. Could we do an ordinance, so damn, perk your ears up, an ordinance for a particular street where, this is a city ordinance where you can't drive your shuttle down a certain road, I don't know, or you have a weight limit for freight. I have seen a semi come through Brooklyn.

can you do something like that is that possible to have ordinances and i get no one tell me that that then becomes a county road because i know um but like it's difficult to say that a public road can't be used by the public okay weight limits usually that's connected with the ability of the road to handle weight and not the impacts of the traffic on the neighborhood so i'm not going to say absolutely not but maybe we should talk about it in a little more detail okay okay

last question how about dixon i would add that that doesn't mean we couldn't do mitigation measures to make it sort of uncomfortable for people to drive that i mean you could get speed bumps you could use other things that would you know they call them traffic calming measures um so i mean that's not in some cases ideal um for other reasons but there are other ways to sort of discourage traffic from going places or slowing traffic down yeah

Yeah, thanks. But I'll bring it up when we talk about it. My last question is, roughly, how much does it cost to put... So I think about, in my streets, Oak and, I don't know, I want to say 8th, where it's the one way. Is that 8th? Yeah. Okay. Again, vehicles are zipping down Oak. How much does it cost to put in one of the pedestrian, to push the button, flashes?

About $75,000. Okay, okay.

And do you evaluate where in the city we should be having these?

We take a bit of a reactive approach where it's based on requests or concerns that we receive. We don't assess the whole city for it because each one does require an engineering evaluation where we go and count pedestrians during certain times of day, and we want to make sure that they're put in the right place and not overused because if they're overused, they become ignored.

Yeah, okay. Okay, one more question and then I'm done. I don't promise. Stop signs. Is there some standard with how far apart they have to be? And with that question, I think about Whistler Road and Skyview Lane. And the city bus actually turns left, and that is a three-way but no stop sign except for coming off of Skyview onto Whistler. That would slow folks down if you had a three-way stop sign. But, like, I don't know from an engineering perspective...

So as far as sidewalk spacing, I don't think there's necessarily a requirement there, but there is very firm guidance on when a intersection can be signed as an all-way stop or even a partial-way stop. And that's very dependent on the volume of traffic, the amount of traffic that's going through the intersection during different times in different directions, as well as pedestrians. And there's some other warrants in there that would trigger it. And then the catch-all phrase at the end is engineering decisions. So we can apply some engineering expertise to say, well, even though we don't meet this, we can justify it for other reasons if we agree with that. But there is, again, there's an engineering process that has to go through before you just start throwing signs.

Throwing up stop signs. I get it. I get that. It's just that road speed limit is 25. And people are zipping down, and we've got bicyclists. And one thing, bicycles should be able to ride on the street, full stop. I will push back for anyone that says build a sidewalk and make people ride their bikes on sidewalks. No, people who are walking sidewalks, but anyone on a bike should be able to be in the street safely. So, okay, I'm done. All right. Okay, thanks.

Thank you. Is there any other questions for Matt?

I have one question. In terms of traffic calming, we have discussions in the past about speed bumps. And the feedback has been, well, we can't plow snow with speed bumps. I've seen other mountain communities with it. I think definitely Eagle has speed bumps. So why can other mountain towns have speed bumps and we not? Because that's certainly what Councilor Dixon was saying there is you're trying to slow down traffic and it's not just visitors, it's locals too. So.

There are a lot of very strong opinions about speed bumps in the roadway. Every, we can do them. We can absolutely do them. But they pose their challenges. Yes, snowplowing becomes a challenge. Emergency response becomes a challenge because they're slowing down. A lot of communities end up removing those speed bumps after there, because what happens is it impacts the people who wanted them there the most. and it's an inconvenience, or it's noisy. People slow down, and then when they speed up again, they floor it and make loud noise. So there are a lot of pros and cons, and I'd love to share something with you that I saved for this specific question from a couple years ago from an old colleague of mine. But there's a lot of good information in it, but... When we talk about traffic calming, that is definitely a traffic calming technique, but there are others too. Like if you look, like on some of our numbered side streets where you've got the parallel parking and then when you get near the end of the street, the sidewalk kind of bulbs out a little bit and become, the lane, the traffic lane is the same width, but it just feels narrower. So if you get a feeling, if you have a long, straight, wide road, people are going to generally go faster. If it's narrower or the things that break up that or you have some pinch points that don't necessarily prohibit you from traversing the area, the feeling of it makes you want to go slower and that's how you control some of those speeds.

And I'll add, you know, I agree with everything Matt just said, but the straw that broke the camel's back for us maybe nine or ten years ago was bicycle safety on the speed bumps. We had several bicyclists get injured, and then we had the gentleman on Trafalgar who died hitting a speed bump. And so at that point, we said, enough, we're getting rid of all speed bumps.

All right, one more question? I think so. Okay. No promises. Looking at the community canvas, one of the things that was talked about was bicycle parking and looking at utilizing like the public right away for bicycle parking. Have you guys contemplated that or talked about that at all? I mean, I know we have bike racks all over downtown, but... PB, Sarah Silver, You know, again right in terms of pedestrian and bicycle safety that that's something that would probably fall within your without fall within your jurisdiction that's where I think i've. PB, Sarah Silver, gotten probably over the line, a little bit in terms of when I think about multimodal I know a lot of what we're talking about is kind of beyond potentially beyond you know kind of engineering.

Yeah, I have not been part of any of those conversations. We do have like street furniture and bike racks to be put in with some developments. A lot of those are planning requirements that we don't get too involved with, but I have not been part of any of those conversations.

But it is something, would that go through engineering? Would that be more?

I think ultimately, yes, because we do also manage the right-of-way. And so if it's going to be on the right-of-way, we'll want to participate in that.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Let me ask one more about roundabouts. Sorry, roundabouts. You know my favorite. Guess what I'm going to ask about? Not more than Highway 40. Okay. That's in the URA, correct? That's correct. Okay, so everyone's clear. And roundabouts are not only a benefit to vehicles for traffic flow, they're also for increased safety. as well, from what I understand, for pedestrian, bicyclists. It actually just slows everyone down, and it has vehicles stop before the crosswalks to actually see people, where right now at that intersection, as you probably know, you can't stop for the crosswalk because then you can't see if there are cars coming. And I can't tell you how many times people are trying to go across that intersection to hit the bike path or come up from the bike path, and people are not paying attention. So there are other benefits to the roundabout for safety, correct?

Absolutely. There's other benefits for roundabouts for other users, for safety for other users. I will say, though, in my experience, experience i've never seen a roundabout put in for a purpose for pedestrian only reasons like there was a bigger traffic issue there than just pedestrian safety because there's a lot of other measures you could look at and implement that are incremental before you get to the like the big expensive project.

Okay, so we could do something else there. Oh, for sure. To address that without having to do a massive infrastructure.

Yeah, I think so. And I think even if we don't land there, I think we need to explore those before we get to the roundabout. Because there are certainly, there are lots of different ways we can improve things like that. Yeah, and so, but yes, to your point, I mean, a roundabout, You generally have, as you get closer to the circle, there's what we call a splitter island. It's like a race median. It looks kind of like a triangle. And as a pedestrian crosses that, they'll usually have a refuge area in there. When they're crossing a roundabout, they only have to look at one direction of traffic. They can get to the refuge, and then they look at the other direction of traffic. They're not having to monitor both at the same time. And so the crossing distance is shorter, and they're only looking at one oncoming vehicle made of traffic. Okay.

All right. You're a popular man tonight, Matt. Glad I was prepared. I'll throw in one other thing while we're talking about it, because the one sidewalk I hear about putting in a sidewalk more than any other from people is Tamarack. I'm just going to leave it there. But I hear and I even got Paul Boney to laugh over it. I'll just leave it at that. With that, if there are no more questions, we'll open it up to public comment. Anybody in the room would like to come down and make a public comment? You have three minutes, Mr. Paul Bonney. And state your name. I already did. And your address. Thank you.

Good evening. It's a pleasure to be before you all. It's been a long time. I'm Paul Boney, the Energy and Transportation Director at the Western Resilient Center. And first, I want to compliment staff and council for addressing this very important topic. One thing I didn't hear in today's presentation, it's not a criticism of staff, but in your planning, your strategic planning, your thought process, add the words vehicle mile traveled or VMT to your thoughts and your discussions. That was the single thumb that stuck up in the carbon update for the cap. And VMT is basically how many people are in a vehicle traveling one mile. So if you get more people in one vehicle or fewer vehicles with one person, you'll reduce that VMT number. And everything you've talked about today is important. Safety, sidewalks, bike lanes, and basically creating a culture where people feel safe not jumping in 5,000 pounds of steel to go to dinner. The other thing, sidewalks, when I went to City 101, I think sidewalks were 150 bucks a linear foot. Yeah, I saw it's 200 now. So maybe another thought is a steamboat has great sidewalks where it has sidewalks and it has great trails where it has trails. And maybe we should do a little less concrete and a little more compacted decomposed granite so that we can stretch that sidewalk budget. And then lastly, don't forget enforcement. So when we do our community walks with the built environment, with the county health and human services, I think there's three folks that really annoy me. Red light runners, which are horrible in this town, and I've never seen anybody pulled over for running a red light. Two, I don't know, I'll call them the crosswalk oblivious. I personally have probably been Well, I had the last time, like a month ago, I had a pickup truck about this far from my sidewalk, just here from my body here on Oak Street. And they just don't pay attention to the crosswalk. So now I have a sore neck because whenever I cross the street, even coming here today, I'm looking every which way. And then the speeders. So there is definitely a culture of folks who speed here. But I just want to commend you for your work. And I would also encourage that the city, the county, the CAP Transportation Working Group stay in a coordinated effort to address vehicle miles traveled. So thank you.

Thank you, Paul. Is there anybody else in the audience who'd like to come down? Come on down, Luke. State your name and address, please.

Luke Phillips, 619 Mountain Vista Circle. I also live off of Tamarack. It was an excellent place that could really use a sidewalk, but that's not exactly what I was talking about here. I'd love sidewalks everywhere. But thank you again, Matt Phillips, excellent name, for a great presentation today. and appreciate all the work that we have completed, all the projects that have been worked on, Mount Warner, all the complete streets work, things like that. Something that stuck out to me was how this was very much like a project by project approach, many good projects being delivered when the opportunities of the funds allowed. Kind of what I haven't heard is maybe a layer above that is kind of what is a citywide safety goal, a clear prioritization and timeline that ties this all together, some kind of deadline. If improving safety is the city's highest transportation priority, how would I know that? What metrics, how would I start to see that happening? Are there metrics like safety targets, a completion timeline, a dedicated funding source? Luckily, I think Kim's here to answer that next for all funding solutions. But as we see with the current progress, something maybe I don't understand and what I saw here was 34 of the 207 segments were completed in the last 10 years. If I draw that out, does that mean we complete all 207 segments by the 2070s, the 2080s? When do we actually get this completed and whose lifetime? So with that, public safety, again, starts with sidewalks. A street with a sidewalk is a safer street, a healthier neighborhood, how everyone can walk, ride, and roll to access our community. Thank you again for all the great work here tonight.

Thank you, Luke.

Thanks, Luke.

Is there anybody else in the audience who'd like to come down? Okay. Sarah Jones online, would you like to unmute and make a public comment? Go ahead if you're ready.

Thank you. Yeah, I just had to be allowed to unmute. Well, thank you so much. And I agree with Luke and with Paul, all of the work that has been done and great success. And would also reiterate, both Paul and Councillor Geary spoke to Community Canvas, the Building Environment Coalition, the CAP Transportation Working Group, specifically the current work on VMT, reducing VMT. And I know the focus here is on engineering and specifically kind of infrastructure to support pedestrian transportation. and bikes. I'm not an engineer, so I get to think more broadly. And I think when I think about multimodal, I think of not only capital, but also projects and policies that support alternatives to vehicles and traffic. So that doesn't necessarily have to be so capital heavy. So could we, when we think about both the criteria that are used for choosing projects and as we identify community priorities, could we use, in addition to the plans that Matt discussed, could we also think about these other plans that I just mentioned to really identify criteria that are not maybe so capital focused and community priorities that abide in those plans to really maybe expand the criteria that we use on what projects we do in the next one, three, five years. So thank you again for the time. And thank you, Matt, for your presentation.

Thanks, Sarah. Sarah. Okay. Is there anybody else online? Please raise your hand if you are. Okay. Seeing none and no more in attendance who would like to make a public comment, we'll close public comment, bring it back to council. And we have John, if you want to pull up those council discussion questions. Can I follow up with a question? Sure.

I want to follow up on Paul's comment about more compact street, more compact sidewalks. I'd like to get, you know, John and Matt's, you know, thoughts on that. Because typically what we think about when we put in, you know, we build out sidewalks, we're talking about sidewalks, a lot of times curbs and a lot of, you know, concrete and asphalt. But the concept of you know, just getting safe travel or ability to safely travel between point A and point B doesn't always need to have, you know, you know, flat, sidewalks, you know, in a mountain community, it seems like we could have a mode of those that could just be crushed rock that you don't have to worry about it, you know, kind of moving and, you know, through settlements, it's because it's just dirt. Is there, do we have a, you know, a classification of that type of, you know,

I think that would be more like a social trail. It's something that would maybe be seasonal. If you're using gravel or crushed granite, that's something you're typically not going to be maintaining very well in the winter. But also, whenever we build sidewalk infrastructure, it has to be ADA compliant. And to ensure it's ADA compliant, it has to meet certain cross-slope requirements. and widths and things like that, and that's much harder to maintain on different types of hard surfaces, and certainly almost impossible to maintain on a soft surface that's movable and flexible.

I'm wondering if there's a different category of product that we could provide so that we can get more coverage across the city quicker? versus what we have today, which is a very, what did you say, $80 a foot or something like that? $200. It would be ADA compliant. That's what he's saying. It would be ADA compliant.

Yeah.

But I would look at our sidewalk network as a transportation element, just like a roadway, as opposed to a soft surface trail, which is, although you may use it for transportation, more recreational in nature. I kind of see a little bit of a difference there.

Okay, shall we go through Matt's questions here? Question one, does our current approach continue to reflect community priorities? Who'd like to address that?

I mean, I'll address none of these questions. Okay. Basically, yeah, like, yes, it reflects it. Yes, staff should continue doing what they're doing. I don't see this as a staff problem. I... I agree with, I'll say counselors Dixon and Gary, but I see it as what we're doing right now is because there's no money. We're putting lipsticks on a pig. Like we have bikes and cars in the same roadway and we keep talking about like paint and stuff. Like even if we painted, where does that money come from? Like we have no money. And if you look at slide four, this planning framework, the second thing is the capital improvement program. Like there's a huge hole in this program in this multimodal transportation program. And that's the fact that our CIP is woefully underfunded. So like I dream of a day when like Yampa is going east and Oak only goes west. And the one lane is only for cars. And one lane is only for bikes on both in their one way. and like a dedicated separated bike lane and stuff. But the only way we can actually implement this multimodal transportation is to find actual funding for this. So that's like, yes, I'm on board. I think this reflects the community's priorities given the constraints that like until we find dedicated funding for this, we're never going to get any better.

I'll just follow up on that. I mean, I think there's a tension that I see, right? And certainly, again, very much appreciate the presentation, but it's focused on kind of hard infrastructure, right? And so, you know, when you look at the various different plans and, you know, all the way back to 2019, the community priorities are broader than this. I mean, in the sense of, yes, it's, you know, it's about safety. But when we talk about multimodal, you know, it does include transit. It does include, you know, the soft trails. And that's where, and I think that's what I wanted to explore as a group is from a policy perspective, how can we start to try to address that? And I, you know, we'll go back to a recent example we had where we had a development, right? And You know, I'm back to kind of why I focused in on the fee in lieu and really trying to understand that is from the perspective of what flexibility do we have that allows us to, you know, continue with kind of a nexus, but how do we, okay, let's just say there isn't space to have parking places. Why could that money not go into transit or into a bus stop or into bike parking to address those issues, right? And maybe we need to readjust it and it's not the $28,000 because you're not building a concrete parking spot, but it's, okay, we anticipate this many customers and this is the money that needs to go into transit. to support more transportation options, right? So that, or we need a bus stop in front of, at this location to serve this area. So I think, I mean, does that make sense? I mean, that's why I'm looking, I guess, kind of looking at this more broader or more broadly. And so, when we look at the, I think it's the planning framework, we've got the CDC. I mean, it's more kind of back to what are our, in terms of our planning framework, I think we need to look at it a little more broadly. So outside of the box of engineering,

I get what you're saying, but in a way it goes to what Luke's public comment was. More policy around development, this won't happen until like 2070, 2080. Eventually we will have sidewalks throughout all of town because everything will have gone through development and needed to implement a sidewalk. Well, I'm more coming at it from like, are we trying to get this done faster? Or are we trying to get this done naturally over time? That policy, those policy changes, it'll take time. Yes, divert parking spots too. You can fund a bus stop or something else, but it won't happen in a substantial amount of time.

Well, I don't know. I mean, we've had a lot of development, right? I mean, we've had recent development where money could have gone into, you know, a transit fund. And I would say, you know, again, just walking around on...

I'm going to push back on that. How on earth would all the development that we have right now create dedicated with, like, a solid concrete line... for bikes to bike from that side of town to this side of town. Like it wouldn't. That development in replacement of parking spots and stuff, we might have some bike racks and like a couple painted roads, but it's still more of the same. The amount of development we have would not transform our transportation in town.

No, but it would start inching away at it, right? I mean, in the sense of, you know, I'm just going to go back, right? Are we better served by having private shuttles that are coming into town or by supplementing our transportation system?

To go back to my point, I'm coming at it from a transformation point. Inching away at it is complete streets and the policy point. So I hear what you're saying, but inching away at it is the complete streets approach, which is what Luke had mentioned, that eventually it'll happen by 2070, 2080. But if we want to actually transform this so that when Amy can still bike, she can enjoy the product of what we are doing here. That's what I'm really saying.

He bikes on the road.

really my bell well and i would again back to what the i mean i think paul said this boney said i mean our when we looked at the emissions um the recent emissions inventory was that vehicle miles traveled increased 26 percent so i mean there's funding out there right so again that's why i would say to the extent that we can think more broadly about this and and partner i think there was a recent grant where there might have been some competition where we partner regionally or with the county, with the CAP, various different things like that, I think there are funding mechanisms out there. So that can help us move away. I mean, I'd love to have major transformation. And I think, I know there's been a, back to the sidewalks. I mean, you walk over on the mountain and it is to me, just drives me crazy.

that you have these huge, huge gaps, right?

Where you're walking on one side of the street, there's, you know, and then there's a sidewalk on the other side of the street. And then, you know, and again, it's our policy. So we can address, I would think, Dan, things like that.

Yes, to a certain extent. So. So Dan, could you explain to me, how could we tell somebody to build a sidewalk on not their property?

so you have there has to be a demonstrated impact um and then whatever off-site improvement that you're asking uh the developer to build has to be connected to that impact usually We can't make a connection that's robust enough to require the developer to construct the whole thing. Usually what happens is we ask for a contribution. So I don't wanna say that in every case we could do that. I think it would be more what was suggested earlier tonight, which is it could be like, there's always a little bit of a negotiation as to what the impacts are and what the developer's gonna do. So I would see you getting there more often that way than actually just being able to impose it on an unwilling developer.

Don't you, I think Brian, what you're getting at too is that there's more cars than ever. There's more bikes than ever. There's more e-bikes, faster bikes than ever. There's probably more pedestrians and walkers than ever. And our city just isn't, it wasn't designed for what we have. So it is a transformational effort, which is gonna cost a tremendous amount of resources. to pull off if we wanted to do that. And in order to do that, we would have to prioritize this at a very high level within the community. And right now it's more just, you know, pick and choose every year, whatever 10 or 15 sidewalks we can do or 10 or 15, whatever we can do. So it requires a whole rethink about, I think, how we prioritize this whole piece if we're really going to make progress. I think it is one of our goals, is it not, Tom? Well, transportation is.

No, I think multimodal is one of our goals.

It's a council goal.

It's a council goal, but it's not set up in a way that says we are going, I mean, when we talk about future development, yeah, maybe we can get a sidewalk in future development, but we're talking about all the development that already exists. I don't think we have the funding mechanism in place for that.

I think I appreciate the approach, like what Sarah had said and Councilor Gary was saying of policy. I think my belief in policy to transform this has died. Like looking at the complete streets, it's excellent as a way if we don't have a dedicated funding, but I will say it for the fourth time, like we will not have sidewalks until... for decades. And so I just don't believe that any policy we implement can actually make the changes we all want to see. I think that's what I'm saying. Like, yes, I'm not saying we shouldn't implement some of these policies, but it's not going, I don't believe it'll actually move the needle.

Well, maybe we'll stop a few gaps, right? I mean, I don't know if we, in the sense of particularly focused on sidewalks, that we'll maybe get some more complete sidewalks along a block as opposed to having gaps with the sidewalk, you know. Have you seen those?

Yes, are you hearing me say we should not make any policy changes? Yes. Yeah. So let me repeat what I said. We can still implement policy changes. I think that it's worth implementing policy changes. I do not believe that policy changes alone will make the transformative changes that we all want to see and need to see in our lifetimes. That's what I'm saying.

And I think what you're saying, to me what you're saying is that if we really wanted to put together the plan to have sidewalks and bike lanes throughout this town, really put together that plan, that that would require a tremendous amount of funding. to put that together.

Not insurmountable. Not insurmountable, just reprioritize. We would need to find and come together and find a dedicated source to fund transportation.

Right, and I guess that's where I'm going back to rethinking how we look at development downtown. Whether it's downtown or whether it's in various different areas that we're very focused on hard infrastructure as opposed to thinking about, okay, as opposed to saying this person needs 20 parking spaces, they can put money into the transit system, right? And so kind of a different take on fee and lieu, right? So that... instead of paying $28,000 for a parking spot, there's some equivalent amount that goes into transit or goes into, you know, if we wanna put some sort of bicycle corral parking infrastructure downtown. And that would be policy driven.

Okay.

Any other comments from others? So I agree with Councillor Geary. But what we all are focusing on is policy and capital, which I appreciate. I want to focus on more of the low hanging fruit and looking at innovation. Other communities are doing some of this work without investing in massive infrastructure. So I am not coming today saying we must build every single sidewalk in the city of Steamboat Springs. I am coming today saying we need to have revised approach where we look at things like I brought up the white bicyclists. How far are they spaced out? It wouldn't take much because there are guidelines that you could bring them closer together and it will cost money, yes, but what would that cost us? I don't know. And I can't talk to the people who live in Brooklyn whose pets have been hit and killed by cars. And I do not take the philosophy of, oh, well, they should watch their pet. You know what? And so to tell them, well, we don't have any money, it's just not acceptable. And I think there are ways to... We might not solve it, but we could... lessen the impact. And there are clearly some roads that we need to focus on, Oak Street. And yeah, 75,000 for Green Lane, those are proven to be effective. So I'm not asking to come in for cap, that's not capital. That's yearly operating. So I think there's low-hanging fruit that can meet these goals, that we can show the community that we truly are committed.

That's where I'm coming from.

So to get ahead of our goal setting thing, I still have yet to hear concrete things other than like painting green bike lanes.

But okay, I have a list. Do you want me to go through it?

I'd love to hear examples. Yeah.

This is where like, this is not my job. I would love for us to say, okay, Tom. We would like staff to look at high volume roadways, Broken Neighborhood being one of them. What can we do to mitigate the impact of cars speeding down? Tom, we would like to look at the impact of Whistler Road. Could we have more speed limit signs? There's literally two. When you first turn down Walton, Whistler, And when you're coming back the other direction. Tom, what would it look like to put stop signs on Whistler Road? Would that help mitigate, not mitigate is the wrong word, help reduce the conflict? Tom? Should we have a priority to get all of our bike lanes marked before the white or the yellow lines, or at the same time, that we shouldn't be mid-July and the bike lanes haven't been painted yet? Tom, what would it look like to have a crosswalk at Oak and 8th Street, where I push a button and it goes bup, bup, bup? And then we have, like that's what I'm asking for, innovative thinking about not capital, what else can we do in these high traffic areas?

Okay. I think that's somebody else's job.

What?

to come up with those, evaluate those, and recommend them.

You do this to me all the time.

I understand.

Seriously.

I understand.

I try not to go in the weeds, and then when I don't, well, you know.

That was my takeaway from today, though, is that, like, these... My understanding from today is that like we have an inherent problem. Like, yes, those things may help, but they are not going to fix it. And so we're spending a little bit, we could spend a little money doing that and time and staff energy doing that, but it's not going to fix the problem. So my, what I hear from staff saying is, is like, this is the best for what we're going to do for what we have. And this is our approach right now. Like, I guess I don't,

I disagree with that.

There is proven research that there are other things you can do to lessen the impact. Will it 100% mitigate it? No. Will a sidewalk 100% mitigate having a car not hit someone? No. Like there is an inherent risk in all of it. So I'm not satisfied with just what we're doing right now today. I'm not. I think there are other ways we can promote a more bicycle and pedestrian safer environment that does not cost capital.

So, and on, you know, Councilor Routine, I think you put it right in terms of when this town was developed over time, it wasn't developed with the thought of multimodal. And so we are at where we're at today. And a lot of cities are at that, you know, today. So as you guys are talking, I was trying to think through that. It's like, what other things can we do is, what other cities have done is like, okay, you know you allow bikes and other you know types across all your roads but here are recommended paths here are recommended roads um so you you know you don't you know maybe you avoid taking you know mount warner road and with with a with a you know um with a bike and instead you're taking I don't know, Chinook and, but I think looking at the city map and the city streets from the perspective of where are these recommended roads given the current infrastructure and then highlighting those with, you know, with better signage and better, you know, both street and high, maybe that's an option. But, you know, basically, so kind of remapping the city based upon the thought process of, okay, now people are walking to point A to point B and people are riding, what are the recommended paths that we could have there?

okay we're coming up with a number of ideas specific to either neighborhoods that we're familiar with or areas that we've driven or biked a lot or whatever there's a lot of other areas obviously in town and i think we're really getting into a level here that is probably beyond our pay grade, so to speak. And so how can we move forward here in a way that satisfies, I understand what you're saying about we can make more of an impact. And so how can we move forward here in a way that starts that process but at the same token understands the limitations that we face with, okay, we have X amount of funding, we can do X amount of sidewalks, we can do X amount of blinking lights, we can do X amount of this, that, and the other thing. And I'm not so sure you're not, in fact, I'm pretty sure you're doing the best you can do given the resources that you currently have. So that's a part that hits me, too, is that we're talking about all this stuff, but we don't have any idea about the resource requirement for any of this. And I understand what you say about capital, but there is money involved in all of this stuff.

Well, that's where I go back to the tension, right? I mean, I think that this, again, I came into this, and I guess when I was looking at the presentation, thinking that this was addressing our goal of multimodal transportation, which again, when I look at that, I look at it from a much broader perspective. And so again, appreciate all that engineering is doing from kind of the streets and the infrastructure perspective. And I do, I guess I kick it over to you, Tom, from the perspective of what criteria would we need to add to again, compartmentalizing this one in terms of from an engineering perspective and to the extent that we need to address question one, does this reflect community priorities? And in terms of project prioritization, I mean, to me, I think what I'm hearing is there needs to be a change to one and two, right? Or maybe there needs to be additional criteria added to get at maybe some of the things that Councilor Dixon was talking about. And then secondly, it's probably a whole nother conversation, maybe we can talk about it council retreat on Friday when we talk about multimodal transportation and SST, how I think that's a broader conversation than what we're having here tonight and way out of the scope, right, of what we're talking about tonight. So I guess I would kick it back to, and maybe, you know, John or Matt, you guys have the suggestion in terms of what you're hearing. What do we need to add in terms of direction?

Councilor, I think I'd address this as what I'm hearing are three different elements. I'm hearing that at least from Councilor Dixon, and I'm assuming others, that there is a desire for staff to look at really trying to focus more on making an impact on some of the existing infrastructure we have in improving bicycle and pedestrian safety, particularly in those high volume areas. Staff is very well aware of where those areas are. And I think that they probably have ideas on how they could address that. That will require increase to primarily the streets budget. We can certainly look at that and present that as part of the 2027 budget process. Adding the green paint, adding signs, adding bumps, speed bumps, all of that will add to the existing streets budget. We've talked about the green paint. It was a bit of a pain because with the snow removal, it doesn't last as long as the white paint. But if that's a priority, we can certainly look at that. So that's one element. The second element is to look at certain policies related to engineering and planning and see if there's a way that we can perhaps look at some of our policies that might address transit and transportation. parking fee in lieu might be an example of that. There might be some others where we can sort of evaluate some policy implications and really see how that could affect or evaluate or impact the transportation or multimodal efforts. And then the third is to continue with our CIP and our CIP process, it's been outlined by Matt. So I'm hearing three different elements with primarily a focus on number one and number two. And if that's the direction, we can certainly move in that direction, particularly for the 2027 budget.

What came to my mind on your third element is the CIP. If we really want to make a difference in multimodal, then we can increase the multiplier And as you're looking at the criteria for every project that's on there, if it has a multimodal characteristic, then maybe it gets an additional multiplier. Not that it would change the outcome, but at least as a counselor saying, give it a little bit more heavier weight, go through the CIP process so we can still fund things, and maybe looking at that component, giving it another one or two multiplier could make a difference, then we would start doing it. But it comes down to us here tonight at the work session trying to decide, is that what we want? Is that the level of policy that we can implement today? I'm trying to be creative in what we can do right now that would make a difference of why we're listening to this on a work session. And if you're asking for creative, innovative things, and if we're committing to multimodal, fine. Let's say make a multiplier change. And if things fall where they are, they fall where they are. And then the rest of the departments looking for funding, like, man, if I could just tie this to a multimodal, we'll get an extra point. Again, it doesn't guarantee funding, but it's a priority that we as a council are putting forward. Priority to and that's the level of which I think we have to say outside of in all the details Yeah, that's I'd say above my pay grade Because I really like the sidewalk master plan the multimodal transportation plan these things are in place I know that there's I was like a hundred and forty million dollars in in money that we could use if we were do all the sidewalks and everything that was on it and 2070, 2080. Possibly we could do it by then, but I think that there are some things that we can do to see if the chips fall in the favor of multimodal. To me, that's the limit to what we can do today.

Yep. And I would like to say, while I am very passionate about this, you didn't know that, huh?

No, not at all.

I am not the expert. And so, yeah, I love to, like, do research. So I throw out these ideas. But I look to staff. I look to Paul. You know, I look to Route County Riders. There are national organizations. I look to other communities. Durango's doing some cool stuff without, like, investing in capital and infrastructure. Please don't tell me it's a different climate. I know. But, like, there are others out there. And so that's all I'm asking. Because we're going to have some real angry Brooklyn folks showing up here. And I don't blame them.

encourage them um it's bad so thank you and matt thank you i i appreciate you and john all the work yeah okay council do we feel uh these questions we've kind of danced around them all do we feel we've given um and tom with the way you summarize those three points do you feel with michael's input at the end there do you feel we have enough information matt and john i think

I think so. And with Tom's summary that he provided too, I think.

Okay. All right. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Thank you.

With that, we'll take a 10 minute break and come back and do our third topic.

Touche. All right, Mundine. 10 seconds. It's been 10 minutes? I think it's been 10 minutes, hasn't it?

Yeah. Okay, everyone, we're going to get started. With that, we'll go to our third topic for tonight, and that will be our discussion of fiscal sustainability funding strategy with Kim. Kim. Thank you, Kim.

Sporting event.

It's finances, man. It's supposed to be fun and exciting.

all right uh kim weber finance director uh tonight i'm here to talk about fiscal sustainability and um we're going to talk about a potential funding strategy this is in alignment with your goal that's listed here on the screen work to identify a problem statement which we've done we've talked about municipal finances We've talked about additional revenue. We've talked about dedicated funding, specific items. So now we're going to evaluate some solutions based on your problem statement. Not only does tonight's presentation address the city council goal, it also, the strategy that we're proposing actually addresses three of the strategic initiatives. So we'll talk about that. So we're going to talk, go over again a little bit about general fund revenue, about some of the funding challenges. Those two will be reviews and then we'll talk about overall funding strategy. To address your problem statement of our current level of services have outpaced our revenue. So looking at the general fund pie, you'll see a big blue section, which is sales tax. So the majority of our general fund, as you know, 60 to 67%, depending on the year, is funded by sales tax. That makes us very vulnerable to any changes. Over the past four years, our sales tax has only increased by 2% or 3%, and this year it is projected to actually go down. Inflation is much higher than that. So all of the things that you've been talking about on funding, those are all new things. They're really difficult to fund when the cost of the services that we're already providing is going up faster than our revenue, hence the problem statement. Also, intergovernmental revenue grants, 7% of the general fund budget, that also increases. then that's operational. That is not the capital, the one-time projects. That's operational. That is also not increasing and often decreasing year over year. So some revenue challenges for sure. When we look at the funding challenges also associated with revenue, but on, we have two different sides of, I'm gonna focus tonight on two different sides. We have the capital side and we have the operating side and we have challenges on both sides. So on the capital side, the construction costs way outpacing just regular inflation. So the construction costs are skyrocketing. We also, because we have inflationary issues, because we have general fund issues, we don't always have the project management staff to manage projects if we do maybe get a large grant or maybe have funding to do a project. We don't always have the resources that can actually get that done. We also have growing infrastructure needs without corresponding revenue. And then our deferred maintenance on the capital side, so big items like roofs and facility replacements, those are growing. On the general fund side, more of our operating side, inflation's outpacing our revenue, as we talked about. We have regulatory changes that happen, whether it's local regulations or state regulations or national regulations that change. that we have to implement without additional funding typically. We also have increased services to the community as we talked about during the last presentation. Community growth impacts our operational costs as well. the changes in the community landscape maybe some expectations changes also impacts our operations budget and then the deferred maintenance just deferred maintenance on a smaller level like maybe it is and maybe it's not necessarily deferred maybe it's just maintenance that we're not always able to fund maybe it's parks maintenance or road maintenance or sidewalk maintenance or vehicle maintenance, whatever that may be, building maintenance is growing and outpacing our revenue. So as we've talked about, I think we need to, we think we need to address this from a multi-tiered approach. And there's not going to be a one size fits all. There's not going to be a silver bullet that a single solution that fixes everything. And even these three items aren't, shouldn't be the only thing we address but um if we put these three items together i do think we can make a dent so we're going to talk a little bit tonight about the stormwater utility about sales tax from the ssra tiff after expiration and we're gonna talk a little bit about the fire district consolidation. You've talked about all three of these items in different venues and at different times, but we're gonna kind of bring them all together tonight. So talking about the stormwater utility first. So you've received presentations and you've given direction to staff to move forward with investigating the stormwater utility. When you received that presentation, it was based on a rate model that was recommended by the advisory committee that would bring in about $3.5 million in the first year. So that's where I based my numbers off of. So let's just start on the left-hand side under operating. Currently, of the $3.5 million that this could potentially generate in the first year, currently we're spending about $800,000 in, out of the operating, out of the general fund. That is actual projects, and then that's internal support, things such as finance, billing, et cetera. This proposal, this tier two proposal that was brought to you would have about $600,000 more in operating that would go to stormwater utilities. So that's a new layer with a total of $1.4 million of that $3.5 million going to the operating side. Switching over to the capital side, we spend roughly, and it's different year to year, but roughly a million dollars in our existing capital program. And this expanded program would put an additional $600,000 to that. So 1.8 million is existing that then would be covered by a new fee, a stormwater utility fee. We would expand the services, expand the program by $1.2 million. And the first year, the plan would be to put some money into reserves. So that comes up with a three and a half million. So that's a stormwater utility. Um, so talking about this, uh, Steamboat Springs redevelopment authority TIF back in 2004, the SSRA was established with a 25 year funding program. And the city sales tax, the 4% city sales tax is subject to the TIF. So anything over our 2004 baseline that is brought in in that area, in that base area, goes into the URA. So it goes into the general fund right now and we transfer it to the SSRA fund. This year, it's about 2.8 million. In 2029 will be the last year that we transfer that money to the SSRA fund. That money will just go into the general fund then after that, because there won't be that transfer to the URA fund. So that's about $2.8 million more in the general fund that is currently being transferred to the URA that will remain in the general fund starting in 2030. The next one is the fire district consolidation. So you've also talked about this and tonight's presentation isn't meant to get ahead of this. It isn't meant to really go into detail about the fire district consolidation. It's just to remind you that this is, being worked on and there's one part of it. There's a lot of benefits that this could bring to the community, bring to the city, but one part of it is based on the 2026 budget, there's about $4 million of general fund subsidy, or you can think of it as $4 million of our sales tax goes to the fire district. As you'll recall, the fire chief has told you, based on their strategic plan, this is going to grow substantially. It needs to grow substantially in order for them to operate the fire department. The general fund is not going to be able to support what the fire department needs into the future. We're gonna need an additional funding source regardless of if the fire district consolidation goes through or not. So tonight I'd like to focus on what happens if the fire district consolidation does occur or the fire district inclusion does occur with those funds that we're currently providing to the fire district. So that's about $4 million based on the 2026 budget. So when we bring that all together, Here is potential years. These are all estimates. If the stormwater utility is established in 2027 and we start collecting fees in 2028, there's $1.8 million of both general and capital funds that would be freed up essentially based on our current numbers. for stormwater utility. In 2030, after the TIF expires for the SSRA, 2.8 million, that number will be likely bigger, but using today's dollars, 2.8 million. If the fire district consolidation occurs, it's gonna take a few years to work through moving all of that over to the district. So just for tonight's presentation, we'll say $4 million in 2031 could be freed up. So what do we do with those funds? So here's... the funding strategy proposal from staff. So looking at the operating side, remember we have kind of two sides of the house. We have the operating side. The first item to come on board could be the stormwater utility. So about $800,000 of current funds that we spend out of the general fund would be then covered with a stormwater utility fee. That we could address the inflationary pressures to just to maintain our services and to pay for things that you guys have talked about like painting crosswalks, painting the roads, additional transit, just the things that we're currently bumping up against that we're struggling to fund with our current budget. So next in 2030, the sales tax TIF. So about $1.1 million, we could remember that's 2.8 million, but the proposal would be bring about $1.1 million into the general fund and address those high priority levels that need to grow. We've talked about all of these. We've talked about transit. We've talked about parks and rec. We've talked about police. We've talked about public works. So that's like more of a, okay, we need to increase services. And what that would look like would depend on what city council wants, what the community needs. It would be more of a public process. So fire district consolidation. The proposal is to split that. Remember that was the $4 million. And so $2 million in general fund. And this again would be expansion of services, a public process that we would prioritize. I think one thing that's really important about this fire district consolidation or fire district inclusion is city council, city staff, we need a clear understanding of what we're going to do with those funds before, we take that to an election. So we need a public process. We need to identify what the community wants. We need a clear expectation established on that. That would be the proposal on the operating side. On the capital side, we have about a million dollars that we're currently spending on stormwater utility projects. That goes back to our six-year CIP and those prioritized projects. As you will recall, we have well over 60 unfunded identified capital projects that are on our parked project list with over $170 million of funding needs. Million dollars isn't going to go far, but it's something. It can maybe get that next sidewalk built. And paint. No, that's over here. That's the $800,000. So the other part of the $2.8 million from the SSRA TIF expiration, we could issue revenue bonds. And by issuing revenue bonds, It would be a ballot issue, but it would be a ballot issue without additional taxes. So we could issue revenue bonds to fund public works and facilities building. So we could do a $25 million sales tax revenue bond. That would be about a $1.7 million annual debt service payment. In reality, that would be funded in the general fund because it would be debt service, but it would be taking care of a known capital need that we have. Then the other, for the fire district consolidation, the other $2 million, I think this is something other communities that have done that I think could be really successful in Steamboat Springs. And that would be bundle, another revenue bond that we bundle capital projects. So we could issue about $30 million in sales tax revenue bonds. We could go through a public process and identify what needs does the community have that we could knock out quickly? I wouldn't suggest doing a $30 million project. It would be here are 15 projects that we just have not been able to get funded and we're going to issue revenue bonds and we're going to get them all completed in a year. five-year period, 10-year period, whatever that is. And you go through that unfunded project list and you could do a $2 million a year debt service payment. And other communities have done that. Most of the time, there's an additional revenue source that comes with that, like a penny sales tax or a property tax. But we could identify this as additional revenue to support that instead of going to the voters with... a new tax. So to summarize that, this says the same thing, just in a, you know, people learn differently, just in a different format. So of the stormwater utility, the proposal would be $800,000 in operating, a million dollars in capital that that would free up. With the TIF expiration, $1.1 million in operating, $1.7 million for that debt service payment in capital. Then fire district consolidation, two million and two million. I think the point I need to make is that we are struggling both in operating and in capital. So finding a solution that tries to address both of them was the point of this. Also, these are big round numbers, and of course it would change over time. It's just an illustration of how it could work. So staff recommendation would be to move forward with the stormwater utility, utilize those funds to reduce some of the inflationary pressure that you're definitely going to see that first meeting in October when we present a balanced budget. It will be very obvious the pressures that the general fund is under. utilize the expired TIF in 2030 to address capital needs by issuing revenue bonds, and then move forward, continue to encourage the staff and the fire consolidation board to investigate the fire district consolidation or the inclusion of the city into the fire district and utilize half of those funds for operating half for capital. So that was a high level summary and just a illustration of what these funds could be used for. And I look forward to questions and comments. Julie Baxter and John Snyder are here if you have questions about the stormwater utility. I believe Randall Hannaway is online if you have questions about the fire district consolidation. But I'm happy to answer any questions you have as well.

Thank you, Kim. What questions do we have for Kim, Julie, John, or Randall?

Well, I want to start off by saying thank you, Kim. And this is a different presentation than past. Switched it up. You switched it up, and I appreciate it. Plus, there's things that have been on... the horizon, like stormwater utility, we've talked about it for six years, but also the TIF and the fire district are just new components. But looking forward ahead in the next couple of years, I think that has some viability with growing this. And so my question is, is that when you guys put this together, especially the fire consolidation and inclusion, Did you, you're not, we're not throwing in any discussion on a mill levy property tax to help with the fire district consolidation and that. So we don't want to have that conversation here because we want to keep it limited.

That'll be part of the fire district consolidation. So I wanted to keep this as, let those groups do their job. You gave them direction and I don't want to get out ahead of them. So let them do what they're doing and have those discussions and bring those back. There'll likely be a component in there. And I think they're looking at those numbers. So I'm not proposing anything, but something will come along with that. Does that answer your question?

No, it really does. I mean, it's a component of the consolidation and how we get that money and use it. But yeah, I just wanted, this is a nice presentation change from Issues in the past. And what I like most is that we're really projecting out the next four or five years in these revenue streams coming in. But I like the use of those funds for bonding because that's really how we can solve some of these things. So that was much better for all you guys that have been here new. This is very refreshing. I think it's something we can do.

Good. Thank you. Yes, sir.

So Kim, slide 11, back a couple slides. Basically, this is your two pyramids. The top of the, I'll wait for you to be there. Back one slide.

It just takes a while for it to think.

Back, well, slide 11, wherever that is. There you go. All right. Okay, so I just wanted a big picture look at this top of the pyramid. Basically, that's stormwater user fee. Basically, it's a fee paid by use kind of structure. Middle there is the TIF. That's basically, right now it's tax dollars that the community is spending and is being pulled off for basically the redevelopment of the base area, the biofuel tax area. So that's not a new tax. The top is a fee. That's not a new tax. It's just reallocation of done. And then the bottom is really is... As part of the fire district consolidation, they're going to be asking for mills, but that basically what it's doing is we're no longer supporting the fire. They're off supporting with their own funds. In theory, 4 million of that, we would then reallocate for us. When I look at that, That means the bottom two tiers is sales tax based. We are not doing any diversification. The fire district is doing diversification because they're gonna be, they're shooting or in the direction of a mill levy, but as city funding going forward, we would not be diversified. We would not be protected against a economic downturn that will move people away from it. Am I reading that correctly?

You are reading that correctly. One part, though, is our public safety of fire services won't be subject to that. So we will be taking a very large portion of city services and protecting it from the sales tax. So as a city, it wouldn't, it's not diversifying, but if you look as a community and our services that we currently provide, it is diversifying because it would make our fire department more proper based on property tax. So our city budget takes the fire department out, and we still maintain that that we're supported by sales tax. But a very crucial part of our city services will now be would then be funded by property tax. And then you have the stormwater that is user fees versus sales tax. And I think this council specifically asked for diversification, not to be in the problem statement, but it needed to be part of the decision-making, so. Okay.

All right, then the only smaller question. Under the stormwater, first slide, you had done a breakdown of the current revenue, the stormwater fee, and then you threw in a 500K reserve. I didn't quite follow the 500K reserve.

It's going to be its own enterprise fund. And so you want it to have a reserve that the following year will then be spent on either operating or capital. And it'll be part of, so at the bottom, you can see it's just the rough budget for the stormwater utility in the first year, estimated bringing in three and a half million dollars, $1.8 million were services that we were already providing $1.2 million expanding those services, and then the first year they'd build up reserves, and then that $500,000 in future years would go to projects.

Okay, so we're pulling money off and putting $500,000 into reserves. Right. Thank you. All right, that's all I have.

Okay.

Why is the fire district listed as...

Yeah, we're not going to hand it over on day one to a fire district. There will be years of them contracting back with the city. There will be years of building up revenue. So it was just an estimate. I don't know what the proposal is. Yeah, the fire chief in his presentation to you said it'll likely take four or five years to transition. So that was why that was there.

Other questions?

I have, oh no, you go.

Thanks, Kim. I like tiers two and three. I just want to present the the feeling that that 1.8 million jeopardizes that 4 million at the bottom. And I think it's important for council to understand that no matter whether you look at it as a fee or you look at it as a tax, we're gonna be asking the community, the fire district is gonna be asking the community for a property tax. The community is gonna see that as the city is asking for a property tax. I don't think they'll look at it as a separate entity because it still just comes out of pocket. installing that stormwater utility fund ahead of that, I think jeopardizes that 4 million at the bottom, but more importantly, the 30 million in bonds that would be able to come from that. And I think it's worth looking at that and wondering if this is the right order to do it in. And I don't think it is. I think if we install that stormwater utility tax, people are going to remember that when it comes around for the fire consolidation tax.

Be more specific. Yeah, I was in it. That is not going to be, that it would affect it that bad because the community is not going to support.

Before we start this, are we doing questions and then discussion?

That's a work session.

Right now, we're really in the questioning phase, but you've taken it a little further, and now Michael's taking it down there even further. You're in charge. So why don't we stick with questions right now, and then we'll move to that. Any other questions?

Well, the question I would ask then, Kim, is what would that capital stack look like if we were to remove the stormwater, and how would that affect your projections? I guess that would be the question.

Then we wouldn't have any relief of the inflationary pressures until 2030. So there would be no immediate or even stormwater is not immediate, but it would be 2030 before we had any additional revenue.

When are we looking at revenue from stormwater if it was to move ahead on schedule?

What are we looking at?

When would we be looking at?

Oh, 2028. Yeah, 2028 would likely be.

the first year that we'd see the revenue.

What is the repayment over what term, 20 years?

What I calculated that is 25 years.

25 years?

For both revenue bonds, I calculated it over 25 years at a 5% interest. So that can be moved.

You could do shorter bond terms, couldn't you? Absolutely.

You do shorter. It would likely be lower interest, hopefully, and so the payment could stay around the same.

Okay. So basically, the incremental on the capital side is about $30 million of projects over 25 years. Would that be fair?

No, it's actually 55 million if you take both the- Oh yeah, the building too, but the other just- The other one was 30.

30 million over 25. And if you add the other, you get 55 million over 25 years of incremental spending that we wouldn't be able to do without doing that. So I think it's a good way to frame that. That's an incremental $55 million.

That's correct.

Spending. Good.

Any other questions? I have a question about the stormwater utility. I'm just really confused because I was going back to my notes from when we talked about this in November and then January. I do not recall any discussion about there being funds to free up general and capital. But I remember hearing was we had three levels, and I'm sure John or Julie can come down. We had three levels of service that we were looking at. And I remember that none of them would free up any general or capital, that it was kind of a menu of, if we did the first one, we would continue with everything we're currently doing, plus update our stormwater master plan. If we did two, we would do everything and, and we named off several. So am I not remembering correctly? Are we redoing the math to where we will actually see a relief in operating our general and capital?

I can have John and Julie chime in as well, but I took those directly from what was presented to city council.

Okay.

And it is doing, it was like tier two, we can then do this, this, this, and what we're currently doing. And the fee would cover what we're currently doing and the new items, which then essentially would free up the general fund. And the goal of the stormwater utility is part of fiscal sustainability. Yeah. So- it's kind of multi-pronged, but that was the understanding that I had.

Okay. That's fine. That's right. So it covers what we're currently paying out in capital and operating and covering the additional areas. Right. So that's how it's freeing up.

Okay. Thanks. Okay. Is that it for questions? We'll open it up to public comment. Anybody in the room? Want to come down and make a public comment? Seeing none, we'll look online. Is there anyone online? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, we'll close public comment, bring it back to council. And Mr. Barnes, do you agree with the funding strategy was the question and you were starting to answer that and Michael was asking you a question. So why don't you guys finish that conversation?

Well, no, I just, I, I, You have a concern whether the stormwater utility is going to affect a consolidation down the road. Sell me on it. I don't understand where you're going with them.

Well, the burden is going to fall on commercial property owners. And commercial property owners are going to pay the burden on the fire consolidation tax. So I would think that they're going to mobilize against one or the other. And I think the city would be well served to look at which one is going to be the most beneficial. you know, quite honestly, I think the stormwater utility is a revenue diversification. It is not about stormwater or at least, oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. That's too casual. Sorry. I mean, it's about revenue diversification. It's not about stormwater. We've all said it in these meetings that it is about diversification. And I think that's, you know, it's a tax, it's a fee and it's a tax. And that's the way I look at it. I think that's the way the community will look at it. And if we're serious about the fire consolidation, that's gonna be a hard sell and it's gonna be a big sell.

Don't you agree that the stormwater utility is equal across the whole board for every property owner versus, because- The property owners are gonna pay the burden because- On the stormwater utility, do the commercial property owners have to pay more fee for their stormwater?

It's not on a percentage, but they have bigger areas of impervious service.

But when it's almost six times because of property tax, it's a big difference.

Julie Baxter, Water Resources Manager. So the residential was set up, single family residential has three different tiers. And so you paid more based on how much of impervious surface you had. The commercial, multifamily, industrial, everything else is based on impervious surface area. So the larger, and so if you think about in our community, who are the really large commercial property areas that have a lot of impervious surface, Central Park Plaza, Meadows lot. So those would be the ones that would be getting the highest bill.

So that's how you're anticipating the impact would be greater because of their impervious services of commercial properties

versus guys that are going to mount the fight against the fire and if you're going to have one or the other fight yeah okay go for it they are also that they are the ones that are contributing most to the most impact stormwater impacts to our community so what i what i don't understand is this is a

pure pay for use. I mean, in terms of people complain about paying taxes because they're, you know, they were paying a tax for a set of services. Here, it is directly you as a consumer using that resource. And that resource is the fact that we need to maintain our ditches and our wastewater traffic or else that piece of property is going to potentially flood out. And this is, so basically I'm really confused why, you would not support a use fee for direct use.

People love money. I mean, it's a tax. People want money and the river is someone else's.

But we have to maintain their, I guess, services.

Councillor Barnes, I'm going to ask this just bluntly. So you're saying don't pursue the utility fee at all and pursue the fire district consolidation. So are you saying that overall the funding need is not as high as we think it needs to be?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying from the standpoint of the community, are they going to look at it?

Yes, I hear that. So then my question is how do we fill that gap?

Well, you have to look at if the fire consolidation gets defeated, you've defeated yourself.

No, how do we fill that gap? So if we follow your approach, we don't do the stormwater utility and we pursue the...

The consolidation fire taxes or the consolidation is implemented, then you can put the stormwater utility tax in.

Got it. So you're saying pursue the consolidation first, then do the stormwater utility?

I'm saying weigh the options. It's the risk. Weigh the risk. And, you know, the stormwater is an easy one, right? Because it's non-tabor. We can do it with a boat. We've already started the implementation of it. And I think that's the workaround that I hear and I see in the community that says this is a tax. You call it a fee, people will look at it, they're going to open their envelopes and they're going to say, okay, it's a fee, it's a tax. What's the difference?

Got it. Well, I would say as an elected official, it's your job to combat misinformation and disinformation. It's not a tax.

I'm just saying weigh the options. Weigh the options. If you want to be serious about the fire consolidation, is the risk of putting the stormwater utility in first. for that 2 million or 1.8 million, is it worth jeopardizing the fire consolidation? Don't forget, if the fire consolidation doesn't pass, we still have to find a funding source for that by itself.

I have a question for you. I know we're talking about this like we're about deciding on which tax is coming when or which fee is coming when. I corrected myself. When we're a long way from that right now, fire district consolidation has just started discussions. I think there's probably going to be a need to look at what other things are going on and particular ballots. There's gonna be need for polling on certain things. So I think what Kim is asking tonight, I believe, and maybe I just lost the Kim, but you were asking, a simple question. Do you agree with the funding strategy? Are you asking the order of these things? Are you asking the timing of these things? Are you asking about the strategy of being able to use bonds to fund projects that we couldn't fund otherwise without those additional cash flow that we're going to use? I mean, what are you really asking for tonight?

I am asking for confirmation that we're moving forward with those three things. I'm also asking if you're supportive of that philosophy of using a portion of it for operating and a portion of it for capital. I think we need to be strategic about how we're going to spend these funds. The TIF is going to expire regardless of what you do. And we need to be strategic about how we're going to spend those funds. And that can be part of this. And so I guess what I'm looking for is making sure that we're all on the same page with these three items. And if we can start working towards a process to identify how we're going to spend those funds.

And we are not trying to answer tonight what the timeframe is around a fire district consolidation ballot or the timeframe is a stormwater utility fee. That's not what we're asking for tonight.

Correct, other than are we still moving forward with those, which I think you've already given direction on that. So it's making sure that we're still on the right path. And if there's other revenue diversification or fiscal sustainability items that you want to look at,

on top of these would also be my my question and then whatever i don't know if tom has something else to add in information wanted out of this session well because i wanted to ask the other question and that's about inclusionary zoning which could generate upwards of four million dollars a year which if we use that same strategy for those funds that could generate an additional 55 million dollars over the next 25 years too to be allocated towards affordable housing So that's another 55 million potentially that we could use for landfill, land banking, lots of different things.

And that's moving, coming back to council as well.

Okay. Yes.

Yes.

based on where we left it, right? We said, yes, move forward with the stormwater utility, come up with a plan and come back, right? And the same thing we did with the buyer consolidation, right? Is, okay, ask the experts to come forth with a plan that will then come back to council again for approval in terms of how to move forward. So just in terms of the projects, not separated from the allocation of the monies that you're talking about.

Mm-hmm. And a key piece of all this is the bonding model. I mean, the fact that we are, that's a great model. Something we have not done in the past.

But what that takes is we need to not spend that money 15 other ways before it happens. So that's why I would like, I think it's important for you guys to have more of a strategy because over the years, as things come up, sometimes it's, well, we can buy this, well, we can buy this, well, we can spend, and then we spend it 15 ways. And then, so having a strategy around it would be good.

Well, yes, and you've already got the strategy for the 25 million. It's a new public works building, right? That's the proposal from CIP. That's the proposal. And what we need to do is spend quality time, if we agree with this, on figuring out what on the CIP we want to take $30 million on, because we got to convince the community that that's a good use of $30 million.

Absolutely.

It's a really important part. And stick to that. It doesn't go anywhere else.

I would like to just point out one more thing on the fire consolidation and the stormwater is that fire consolidation, as far as I know, is aimed for the 2027 ballot. Yes, it is. So they're much closer in implementation than looking at the 2030 revenue model. So it's not like it's going to do the stormwater tax fee. now and it'll be out of people's mind in three years. They're going to be very close together in time.

So my only question, maybe not so much for Kim, maybe for council and Tom, if you want to chime in as well. My only issue is that we're now being asked to weigh in on these three. I support all of them, honestly, but I feel like I'm being pigeonholed again into saying yes on fire district. Where I get is coming back. I know there's a lot of work, but there is, we've heard, I mean, we've heard from Parks and Rec folks, they were supposed to actually take this on, but that just kind of died. My frustration is that either as council, we need to say, Amy, none of us support a Parks and Rec policy. any type of sales tax, mill levy, whatever that would look like. Because Parks and Rec people, the commission, and people in our community are looking to us wondering, are y'all gonna propose that? And so we just need to say it. I support it, but I'm tired of the energy I'm putting out. And I get, I love your presentation. I get the presentations and it completely disregards conversations we've had. So that's how I'm feeling.

I would add to that, I don't know that it completely disregards it because if council moves forward or gives direction to move forward with the fire district consolidation and it's successful, that does free up that $4 million. Part of that... strategy is to identify and be very clear how we're gonna spend that money. And that could be decided to spend that on parks and rec improvements, whether it's capital projects or operating projects. And I think that's really an important element of this is that not only are you potentially successful with the fire district, but you're also potentially successful with identifying other community priorities, either through the bonding or spending money to the revenue. And I think that's why it's really critical that we spend the time talking about that strategy and how that $4 million could be used. Not necessarily gonna answer that tonight, but the voters are gonna certainly wanna know how you spend that. And if Parks and Rec is highlighted as one of the top priorities, then council can direct that, that money be directed in that for Parks and Rec or whatever the other priorities are, so.

And I appreciate that. And I am fully aware that it frees up funds and we can use it, but so we have to have that conversation.

It's a philosophical difference, right? I mean, I hear what you're saying, right? In terms of some of the monies could be directed, right? Versus what I'm hearing, right? In terms of particularly coming from parks and rec is do we wanna pursue some sort of, I'm just gonna say park and rec district or something like that. So some sort of dedicated funding to parks and rec, right? So I think there's a bit of a difference. And so we do need to have that conversation. I mean, and again, I think it goes back to your question, Kim, in terms of is there something else we want to pursue? So do we want to have that conversation about specific park and rec dedicated funding, whatever that looks like, or some other mechanism?

Yeah, I mean, truly, thank you, because that is one of the options for fiscal diversification for our community. It's not what we brought to us tonight, but we kind of keep lingering, wondering when is that gonna happen? And frankly, I think I'm glad we didn't, we're not having that conversation right now, because I think that the other issues before parks and rec district or something was in a property tax, We've got to get past the things in the near future with the RTA. And, you know, these items here are low fruit on the tree in my sense because we're going to get some TIF money back. That's money that we're just allocating to improving the base area, right? Eventually that's going to end and we now are going to get that money in our coffers. That's a huge, we don't realize what $2.8 million will do. but it's going to make a big difference. And so that, and these other things in as much as we do need to have a conversation for a consulate or a parks and rec division, for example, but right now I'm not supportive of even having that conversation until we get past the RTA and some of these other things that we've been talking about potentially a sales tax increase, you know, because it, It's just, it's very convoluted. And I think it would, we have to keep these things simple and actually more concise for our community. Because if we have too many discussions talking about all these taxing mechanisms, all we look at is that we're just money grabbing city council as fast as we can. And that's really not what we're doing. We're trying to solve some of these issues that most of our constituents don't understand. And we're trying to look at our books and try to have something that's not so sales tax dependent. And this is one of those options that we have right now. I think that for me, it comes to where we're seeing an increase in revenue. And I'd love the conversation of just taking this in this moment of time to using some of that potential funds for a bond to solve a much bigger deficit in our deferred maintenance and projects. And then we can get those things done quicker. I look at the same thing with the schools getting $90 million in their property tax to be able to replace all the roofs in all our schools. That could never have done piecemeal, piecemeal, piecemeal. They just had to do one big bond, solved a bunch of projects. It's now funded for the next few years. It's not a bad way to go to get where we are, but That's how I feel.

This whole discussion, I mean, we need several discussions on this because one is even, you know, do we want to take, for example, that TIF money and build a public works building or use that money for the capital projects and use the other money for the other because of a timeframe? and we really want to get those maintenance projects and some other things done quicker, or do we really need the building? Is that more of a priority short term? But the other question I would have, and I'm just throwing it out there, is I don't see how we can talk about a fire district consolidation district and a parks and rec district, both of them, they are mutually, I mean, it is one or the other. I'm not proposing both. No, I'm just saying it is one or the other. And I think if we have a strong, I mean, feeling, we're already moving forward on fire district consolidation discussions. And even in the community, it's come out at some level. But if we feel strongly that parks and rec is the way we want to go versus fire district, then we need to...

make a u-turn pretty quickly here okay i just want to correct something we were actually i had been bringing up some type of parks and rec and you all could have shot it down you could have but you let me continue going down that road and i did we all agreed i think all enough that the parks and rec commission would help us look at what's the community want we all agreed on that and then one more and then we were the fire district was brought up after we had talked about parks and rec so there is a timing i am not saying to go for both i just need this council to say we are not pursuing any type of parks and rec, childcare, anything. We're only going for fire district. And we're going to talk about sometime down the road where that $4 million will then be put. And if we do a bond, what that would look like. But that's what I'm asking of this council. That's all. Fair enough.

That's fair. It's not $4 million, though. We've got to think of it as, well, we've got to think of it as it's $30 million.

Of course.

Okay. It's 4 million if you just took it and spent it.

Yeah.

So I'll give you what you want. I don't want to continue pursuing a Parks and Rec thing. And I also said we could pursue both because at the end of the day, I... I'll say this and I'm hoping the rest of the council won't listen. These conversations die by council. My goal is to just increase the freaking pot. So whether that's parks and rec or fire district consolidation, I don't care. And so now that we're talking about fire district and people are on board, I want to stop talking about everything else and focus on this because when we are given too many options, that's when these things die. So to me, I'd say, I don't want to talk about a parks and rec district. I want to pursue this. We sound like people like this, and I would love for staff to continue to pitch just this so that we don't do what we do best, which is have this end in flames.

And to be fair, community members have come to me wanting me to bring up some type of Parks and Rec. So that's why. So I'm hearing a no. So yeah, that's what I need. Can we just keep people to state how they feel on this on the record? So I can go back to people and say, this is the direction we're going. So thank you, Brian. I appreciate that. I really do.

Considering where we are with fire consolidation, the need for a new mountain station or new apparatus for increased staff, I think Parks and Rec is going to have to work.

Back burner? Yeah, it's lower on the totem pole.

Okay.

Yes, I agree with that. But I also agree that if we pull this off, that we are going to fund some of that significant some of that 30 million against some of those projects. Yes.

Yeah.

Fine, fine. Well, no, I mean, again, I mean, I think I somewhat share, I think I share the frustration, right? We've been talking about fiscal sustainability for how many years, right? And we seem to do circles and circles and circles, right? I mean, I was all hungo in terms of how we were going last year. Would I like us to take a step back and have done some more community engagement in terms of what is acceptable? Yes. But if in fact we're moving toward, I mean, fire district consolidation. I've said that I certainly support that if that's what our staff and fire folks believe that we need to do.

At this stage, I have to say, you know, fire consolidation is my top priority, though there are targeted, you know, projects that we need to identify in Parks and Rec and get those done. And so I'm looking at the $30 million bond that we're proposing to do a number of those projects. Because the community... is looking for additional services under the Parks and Rec area. And we need to listen to them and deliver. But I don't think this is the right time for a Parks and Rec district. But I do want to look at those funds for that.

And I think it will determine, I mean, part of this is we're being asked to kind of weigh in on this when we haven't gotten the fire district consolidation plan. We don't know what that's gonna look like, right? So I would say that this is, nor have we gotten the stormwater utility plan. So agree conceptually with this, but I think part of this is gonna be getting the actual details of those two things in terms of how they move forward. and making sure that we as, you know, so they're hoping that we as a council can get behind, that we can support those.

I am not asking for approval of the actual items. It was like, these are the things that are going on behind the scenes or not during the fiscal sustainability discussions. And I think we need to bring it all together before we go into too many other different directions.

Did you get what you wanted, Amy?

You know what? I did. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not happy, but I appreciate all of you for stating that. And so now I can move on. I mean, I support the fire district. It's never about not supporting that.

Can you state one more time what you would like to see happen?

No, no, no.

Wow, he's already trying to reopen the wound.

Right off.

District three, I don't know.

But it's like the parks and recs, is that what you're saying? Is that not clear?

Kim, so what is the next step here?

So I'm hearing support of this as a philosophy. I think the next step would be to identify a plan on how we would prioritize the projects, the programs, go back to with Tom, maybe we do that, or we would do that community outreach. So I think we need to come back with this. discuss a strategy that seems like that would be the next step is we've identified potential revenue sources in the future. What would we do? What projects would we do? And so then bringing that back to council on not the specific projects, but the process on how we would identify those. So any other addition, Tom?

No, I think that's exactly right. Because I think that's going to be a big part of the process sort of the messaging and socializing the fire district consolidation is that, you know, by itself, there may or may not be support for it, but if we can clearly demonstrate some public benefit coming out of the freeing up of the operating funds to projects that go beyond just the fire district, then I think that opens up a lot more support and potential for that. And I think that's why Kim and I feel pretty strongly that this is a pretty good, strong strategy. So I think it's really important that we go through a community process, whether it's polling, whether it's public forums or whatever it might be, to help really clarify how that money can be spent. Now, we also have to be careful not to say, well, these monies will be therefore earmarked for the next 20 years. So there's going to be a balancing act of how we identify that and how we target those funds to specific projects. But I think that's the next step. And we will continue to work with the Fire Oversight Committee in that process as well, because I think that's a big part of their messaging for the approval of the consolidation.

How strongly can we target funds out over time? I'm not saying 20 years, but if we have $30 million and we just say, for example, $8 million is going to this park over the course of the next, 10 years, can we put meat into that?

Yes, I would hope that as part of any kind of revenue bonds, we are very specific in terms of the projects, the project costs and the timeline.

And future councils can't change that?

Future councils cannot change that because it would actually be part of the ballot language, okay?

When are we going to see, remind me, when's the next reporting out on the consolidation plan?

I believe it's in August. I think we have one in August. We have a work session or something coming up with an update. And I can just tell you right now, what we've done is we've done an RFP for a consultant, similar to the consultant we used for RTA, that type of project manager that would oversee the process. And we are reviewing those proposals. I think the deadline was last week. So we're reviewing those proposals.

All right. So these are really two parallel paths.

They're parallel paths. Okay.

All right. Any other questions for Kim or Kim? Any other questions for us?

No, I think I have what I need.

I specifically love the creative approach and the new approach, and I think it could do us a lot of good.

Thank you for all the feedback.

Okay.

Thank you, John.

Any other business for tonight?

Sure.

Move to adjourn by Councilor Swintek.

Second.

Second by Council Gary. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Don't forget Friday, 8.30.