Steamboat Springs City Council Agenda

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
AGENDA
Regular Meeting NO. 2015-02
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
5:00 PM
MEETING LOCATION:
Citizens Meeting Room, Centennial Hall;

124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO
MEETING PROCEDURE: Comments from the Public are welcome at two different
times during the course of the meeting: 1) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes
on items not scheduled on the Agenda will be heard under Public Comment; and 2)
Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on all scheduled public hearing items will
be heard following the presentation by Staff or the Petitioner. Please wait until you are
recognized by the Council President.
With the exception of subjects brought up during Public Comment, on which no action
will be taken or a decision made, the City Council may take action on, and may make a
decision regarding, ANY item referred to in this agenda, including, without limitation, any
item referenced for review, update, report, or discussion. It is City Councils goal
to adjourn all meetings by 10:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at the end of
the meeting, (whichever comes first).
CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY
MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES
BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.
ROLL CALL (5:00 PM)

Liquor Licensing Authority Meeting after roll call the City Council will adjourn and reconvene in
their capacity as the Steamboat Springs Liquor Licensing Authority and follow the attached Liquor
Licensing Authority agenda.
At the conclusion of the Steamboat Springs Liquor License Authority Meeting, the City Council
will reconvene as the Steamboat Springs City Council and proceed with the following agenda:
COMMUNITY REPORTS/CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION TOPIC:

1. URA Discussion. (Earp/Gibbs)
2. Update and Direction on Affordable Housing. (Gibbs/Peasley)
3. Community Support Allocation Update. (Weber)
CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES FIRST
READINGS
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE COUNCIL
DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. ANY MEMBER OF THE
COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC MAY WITHDRAW ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO APPROVAL.
4. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance approving a

Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer that modifies City
rights in certain property owned by the Steamboat Health and
Recreation Association and providing an effective date. (DelliQuadri)
5. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance amending Article III of
Chapter 19 of the Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code relating
to wildlife resistant containers; providing an effective date; and
setting a hearing date. (Earp/Stabile)
6. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance vacating a portion of
the Spruce Street right of way in the Idlewild addition to the City of
Steamboat Springs; providing an effective date; and setting a hearing
date. (Anderson)
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE SECOND READINGS
THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT PRO-TEM WILL READ EACH ORDINANCE
TITLE INTO THE RECORD. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY
ORDINANCE.
There are no items scheduled for this portion of the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED AT 7 P.M., OR AT

THE END OF THE MEETING, (WHICHEVER COMES FIRST).
CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE
CITY MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY
THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE
MINUTES.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS:
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE OR NO COUNCIL
DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. A CITY COUNCIL
MEMBER MAY REQUEST AN ITEM(S) BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL ORDINANCES APPROVED BY CONSENT SHALL BE READ
INTO THE RECORD BY TITLE.
7. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance annexing Block 2,

Idlewild addition to the Town of Steamboat Springs as an enclave and
providing an effective date. Planning Commission voted to approve on
January 8, 2015; Vote: 6-0. (Keenan)
8. RESOLUTION: A resolution finding the change of the future land use
designation of the Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 and entress
subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 from Old Town Residential to Estate
Residential to be in compliance with the criteria for approval of a
minor amendment to the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan.
Planning Commission voted to approve on January 8, 2015; Vote: 6-0.
(Keenan)
9. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance providing zoning to
.72 acres of the property described as Idlewild Addition Block 2 and
the land described in the attached Exhbit A, to RE-2 (residential estate
two medium density; repealing all conflicting ordinances; providing
for severability; and providing an effective date. Planning Commission
voted to approve on January 8, 2015; Vote: 6-0. (Keenan)
10. PROJECT: Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13, PP-14-03.
PETITION: Preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision.
LOCATION: 11 and 15 Spruce Street.
APPLICANT: Steven K. Herron Revocable Trust; Phyllis Ganong, PO
Box 775743, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: Planning Commission voted to
approve on January 8, 2015; Vote: 6-0 (Keenan)
PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRALS
PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT:
Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner to state name and

residence address/location.
Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.
Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes). Individuals to state name and
residence address/location.
City staff to provide a response.
11. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance to amend Sections

26-92: Use Classifications, 26-145: Special Setback Standards, 26-402:
Definitions and Use Criteria; and add Section 26-140: Outdoor Display
and Storage. Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve with changes
on December 11, 2014. (Stauffer)
REPORTS
12. City Council
13. Reports
a. Agenda Review: (Franklin)
1. Regular meeting February 3, 2015.
2. Regular meeting February 24, 2015.
14. Staff Reports
a. City Attorneys Update/Report. (Lettunich)
b. City Managers Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)
ADJOURNMENT
BY:
JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC

CITY CLERK
AGENDA ITEM #1.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM
FROM:
Tyler Gibbs, Planning Director (Ext. 244)

Casey Earp, Assistant to the City Manager
THROUGH:
Deb Hinsvark, City Manager
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
Direction
Need direction from Council on how to proceed with
downtown investment plan.
NEXT STEP:
_x_
___
___
___
___
I.
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
REQUEST OR ISSUE:
This is a follow up to the previous Urban Renewal Discussion.
Staff is presenting projects that have been identified for the downtown
reinvestment plan.
Staff is also presenting available tools that can be used to finance these projects.
II.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff request direction from City Council on next steps.
III.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
To be determined. See attached presentation.
IV.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Council has seen two presentations on the proposed URA Plan Area in Downtown
Steamboat Springs. This presentation is to follow up with information requested
from Council on alternative financing tools, estimated costs of projects, examples of
other plan areas, and impacts to other taxing entities.
V.
LEGAL ISSUES:
To be determined
VI.
CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

To be determined
VII.
SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES:

See attached presentation
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Presentation Slides
URA School Finance Memo
URA Letters
Attachment 1
Steamboat Springs Downtown

Investment Plan
Vision Statement
The Downtown Investment Plan is about one
thing:
Making a Great Place Better
x
x
x
x
x
x
Making Downtown More Attractive

Making Downtown Safer
Making Downtown a Great Place to Invest
Making Downtown a Better Place to do Business
Making Downtown an Even Better Place to Visit
Making Downtown a Great Place to Live
Vision Statement
How this is accomplished in the most fiscally
effective manner:
x Acting while interest rates and construction
costs are low
x Acting while property values are low but rising
x Completing efficiently as one coordinated
project
x Completing with consistent design quality and
appearance throughout Downtown
Downtown Projects
OakPedestrianLighting
OakStreetSidewalks(3rd12th)
OakStreetCurb&Gutter
IntersectionsonYampa(Bulbouts)
IntersectionsonYampa(SpeedTables)
SideStreetSidewalks
SideStreetCurb&Gutter
Promenade
PromenadeCurb&Gutter
PromenadeCrusherFines
YampaPedestrianLighting
YampaStreetSidewalks(DTSide)
YampaStreetCurb&Gutter(DTSide)
Trash&Recycling(allareas)
9thStreetPark&RetrofitS&RBldg
375,000
400,155
90,125
1,210,420
689,025
718,725
161,875
271,560
91,980
24,850
370,000
238,227
53,655
316,000
620,000
EaglescoutParkRestroom
WestLincolnParkRestrooms
ProfessionalServices
UtiltyUndergrounding
Contingency
FloodwayandYampaBankImprovements
Asphalt/ConcreteCapitalRepairs
AmphitheaterAlongYampa(StoneTerracing)
RiverBank&FenceEnhancements(10th12th)
Benches/Seating(areawide)
BikeRacks(areawide)
FinancingCostsInterest(4%on9.36M15yrs)
FinancingCostsLoanFees
480,000
320,000
405,000
600,000
800,000
590,000
200,000
195,000
40,000
52,500
46,000
$9,360,097
2,973,747
200,000
12,533,844
Downtown Projects by location

YampaStreet
IntersectionsonYampa(Bulbouts)
IntersectionsonYampa(SpeedTables)
Promenade
PromenadeCurb&Gutter
PromenadeCrusherFines
YampaPedestrianLighting
YampaStreetCurb&Gutter(DTSide)
9thStreetPark&RetrofitS&RBldg
EaglescoutParkRestroom
UtiltyUndergrounding
RiverBank&FenceEnhancements(10th12th)
FloodwayandYampaBankImprovements
Total
OakStreet
OakPedestrianLighting
OakStreetCurb&Gutter
Total
$1,210,420.00
$689,025.00
$271,560.00
$91,980.00
$24,850.00
$370,000.00
$238,227.00
$53,655.00
$620,000.00
$480,000.00
$600,000.00
$40,000.00
$590,000.00
$5,279,717.00
SideStreets
SideStreetSidewalks
SideStreetCurb&Gutter
Total
$718,725.00
$161,875.00
$880,600.00
WestLincolnPark
AmphitheaterAlongYampa(StoneTerracing)
WestLincolnParkRestrooms
Total
$195,000.00
$320,000.00
$515,000.00
AreaWideProjects
Benches/Seating(areawide)
Trash&Recycling(allareas)
BikeRacks(areawide)
Asphalt/ConcreteCapitalRepairs
$375,000.00 Total
$400,155.00
$90,125.00
$865,280.00
$52,500.00
$316,000.00
$46,000.00
$200,000.00
$614,500.00
Goal #1
Make a Great Place Better Economic
Vitality Depends on a Quality Experience
Make Downtown the best possible place to visit,
live, work and invest
Build upon recent public and private investments
Goal #1- Required Investment

Prioritize support for quality public amenities
consistent design throughout downtown
Including gathering places, river access, public
restrooms, way-finding and public art
Be open to public/private partnerships
including parking solutions
Goal #1- Measures of Success

More feet on the street pedestrian counts
Improved business retention, attraction and
private investment; i.e. sales growth
Goal #2
Accelerate private investment:
Bolster private sector confidence in public sector
support for downtown
Remove basic infrastructure costs as a
disincentive to invest
Goal #2 Required Investment

Complete basic public infrastructure
Goal #2 Measures of Success

Increased depth and breadth of private
investment during current real estate cycle
Improved retention, profitability and growth of
existing downtown businesses
Increased use and excise taxes from new
construction
Goal #3
Be fiscally prudent:
Complete capital projects while cost of debt and
construction is low - realize economies of scale
Set tax baseline before property values rise and
non-taxed properties move to tax rolls.

Complete sidewalk and lighting master plan, and
utilities projects in single focused effort.

Reduced capital project costs
Earlier sales and property tax growth to benefit
all entities
See increased value of City asset
Goal #4
Reduce public safety hazards due to
incomplete sidewalks and poor lighting
on Oak, Yampa and some areas of
cross streets.
Reduce pedestrian, vehicle and bike conflicts
especially in winter.

Complete system of sidewalks and pedestrian
lighting throughout downtown interconnecting
Oak, Lincoln, Yampa and all cross-streets.

Improved access to and safe use of on-street
parking throughout business district.
Extend more pedestrian activity to underutilized
blocks ped counts
Goal #5
Reduce risks and liabilities
Remove core business locations from flood risk

Upgrade Butcherknife Creek culvert between
Oak Street and the Yampa River
Goal #5 Measure of Success

Reduced flood insurance premiums for private
property
Improve community flood rating
Tools - Pros & Cons
Capital Infrastructure Fund (CIP)

Certificates of Participation (COP)
Local Improvement District (LID)
General Obligation Bond (GO)
General Improvement District or Special
Improvement District (GID,SID)
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Continue Temporary Improvements
Use CIP
Pros
Cons
No Financing Costs
Large dollar amount
Broad scope
Compete with other CIP projects for

prioritization
Can complete 100% of projects
Delays other CIP projects

Unlikely to have a project completed
at one time - loss of design continuity
and single project cost savings
COP
Pros
Cons
Broad Scope
Need to locate $9M of Capital for

collateral
No extra cost associated with going to

an election
No new revenue
LID
Pros
Cons
Can complete capital improvements
Assessment of every adjacent property

owner
LocalImprovementDistrict
SideStreetSidewalks
Total
$400,155.00
$718,725.00
$238,227.00
$1,357,107.00
Bond
Pros
Cons
Can finance all or a portion of

redevelopment projects
Property tax would be needed to

service the debt ( property tax would
expire upon full bond repayment)
Debt is currently relatively cheap

Grow economic activity through public
investment
investment/property value enhanced
Single project cost savings
Requires election
Requires election
GID/SID
Pros
Cons

Property tax or assessment on a

limited group downtown properties
Scope of project can be flexible
Would require establishing new

district downtown
GID can finance maintenance

Requires vote of downtown electorate
Requires vote of downtown electorate
Seasonal Improvements
Pros
Cons
Affordable
Does not enhance experience
Creates safer pedestrian environment
Sends poor message to visitors

No improvement in infrastructure
One off expenses, not investments
TIF
Pros
Cons
Community Investment (81% of

project cost is City sales tax)
Perception of tax diversion
No new taxes
Estimated growth can be influenced by

multiple factors
Debt is currently relatively cheap

investment/property value enhanced
Single project cost savings
This TIF
URA would enter into an agreement with every

taxing district limiting the property tax increment to
$2.4 million
Once $2.4 million is reached, property tax would flow
back to the districts
$10.2M of incremental sales tax would flow to TIF

County and Education Fund Board sales tax would
not flow into TIF
Council has the ability to set parameters on the
projects and dollar amount spent using this tool
URA would enter into an agreement with the RE-2
School District to allow all property tax to flow if
State financing should change
Questions
Examples
Pueblo PURA reports a 4% increase in
property tax base in plan areas
Brighton 2002-2012 $1.8 Million revenue
increase to taxing districts
Examples
GURA Golden
Estimated Impacts
Attachment 2
Colorado
Legislative
Council
Staff
Room 029 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1784

(303) 866-3521 FAX: 866-3855 TDD: 866-3472
MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to section 24-72-202(6.5)(b), research memoranda and other final products of Legislative Council
Staff research are considered public records and subject to public inspection unless: a) the research is
related to proposed or pending legislation; and b) the Legislator requesting the research specifically asks
that the research be permanently considered "work product" and not subject to public inspection. While you
have identified this memorandum as pertaining to pending or proposed legislation, we have no record that
you have requested that it permanently remain "work product" and not subject to public inspection. If you
would like to designate this memorandum to be permanently considered "work product" not subject to public
inspection, or if you think additional research is required and this is not a final product, please contact the
Legislative Council Librarian at (303) 866-4011 by January 15, 2008.
January 8, 2008
TO:
Interested Persons
FROM:
Ron Kirk, Research Associate, 303-866-4785
SUBJECT:
Property Tax Accruing to Tax Increment Financing Districts
This memorandum provides information on property tax revenue accruing to tax increment
financing (TIF) districts. This research begins by providing background information on Colorado
law that authorizes urban renewal authorities (URAs) and downtown development authorities
(DDAs) to use TIF for urban renewal projects and concludes with information on TIF in other states.
Summary
Tax increment financing (TIF) is a mechanism for funding redevelopment projects in
Colorado exclusively targeted at improving blighted areas. Property taxes accruing for TIF were
$74.5 million in tax year 2006, of which the Denver Urban Renewal Authority's redevelopment
projects totaled $31.7 million or about 42.5 percent of total TIF revenue. Under the Public School
Finance Act of 1994, state aid to school districts is based on the assessed value of a district excluding
the increase in the value of property in an urban renewal area or downtown development authority.
State aid is estimated by calculating what the increase in the value of property in an urban renewal
area would generate in school operating property taxes and for FY 2007-08, the increase is estimated
at $29.9 million. State aid offsets this increase on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
With the exception of Arizona, all states and the District of Columbia use some form of TIF.
TIF as a funding mechanism was initially used to offset reductions in federal funding to states for
Summary (continued)
urban redevelopment and as a tool that facilitated economic growth through public-private
partnerships. Some states authorize towns, cities, counties, and other local government entities to
use TIF for development purposes. A few states require their revenue departments to have oversight
over TIF districts and mandate that these departments issue periodic reports to state legislators and
the executive branch of government. Similar to Colorado, in other states, the school district portion
of property taxes accruing for TIF in relation to other government entities makes up a large part of
statewide TIF revenue. Many school districts in other states are often compensated for the loss in
local tax revenue through increases in state appropriations for school aid, like Colorado. In lieu of
state aid increases, some states shift the property tax burden to other property tax owners.
Tax Increment Financing

Tax increment financing (TIF) is a mechanism for funding development and redevelopment
projects. With the exception of Arizona, all states and the District of Columbia use some form of
TIF. The concept of TIF has been around since the early 1940s, but California was the first state to
adopt a TIF law in 1952. The widespread use of TIF did not occur in most states until the 1970s.
The drive for some states to use TIF in the 1970s was primarily related to economic factors.
For example, in 1975 when Wisconsin enacted its TIF law, the state was seeing less federal funding
for redevelopment projects that likely resulted from the national recession in 1974 and 1975. TIF
was used as a financing mechanism to offset the reduced level of federal funding and allow cities
and other jurisdictions to work with the private sector to stimulate economic growth and employment
through urban redevelopment projects. Colorado enacted its urban renewal law in 1975. TIF was
first used in Colorado by the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority for the initial development of the
Crossroads Urban Renewal Project in 1979.
Background. State law in Colorado authorizes urban renewal authorities (URAs) and
downtown development authorities (DDAs) to use TIF for projects that improve blighted areas. TIF
allows an authority to issue and repay redevelopment bonds by using the "increment" of increased
taxes collected within the TIF district after improvements are made (Section 31-25-101 et seq.,
C.R.S.). Tax increment revenue may be generated from property or sales taxes.
For TIF purposes, to determine the increment amount of property tax revenue, the base
valuation must first be determined. The base valuation is certified by the county and is equal to the
total assessed valuation within the TIF district prior to the approval of the redevelopment plan. As
phases of redevelopment are completed, the county reassesses the properties in the TIF district. Over
time, improvements add to the property tax base. The revenue that is attributed to the growing tax
base becomes the incremental revenue that is used by the authority for debt service on the bonds that
are used to finance the redevelopment project.
All property taxes attributable to the base valuation are paid to each taxing entity in the TIF
district. For these taxing jurisdictions, tax revenue remains the same until the incremental revenue
pays off the redevelopment bonds. Thus, local taxing jurisdictions are unable to receive any of the
additional revenue from improvements until the TIF bonds are paid off. In 1980, state law extended
TIF to municipal sales taxes (Section 31-25-807 (3) (a), C.R.S.).
Property tax impacts. The following tables summarize the property tax impacts that result
from the use of TIF by counties, municipalities, schools, and special districts. The data summarized
in the tables were taken from the Division of Property Taxation's 2006 Annual Report. Statewide,
property taxes accruing for TIF were $74.5 million for tax year 2006, of which, the Denver Urban
Renewal Authority's redevelopment projects totaled $31.7 million or about 42.5 percent of total TIF
revenue. Table 1 shows property taxes accruing for TIF by project in the City and County of Denver.
For additional information, Appendix A provides information on property taxes accruing for TIF by
project on a county-by-county basis.
Table 1: Property Taxes Accruing for TIF in the City and County of Denver
(2006 property tax year)
DURA Project
Property Taxes Accruing For TIF
Alameda Square
$75,257
American National
124,742
California Street Parking Garage
41,158
Cherokee
12,643
City Park South
126,879
Downtown
4,170,389
Elitch's
1,146,133
Guaranty Bank
89,599
Highlands Gardens
276,990
Lowenstein Theater
40,605
Lowry
6,918,040
Mercantile Square
122,084
Northeast Park Hill
343,049
Pepsi Center
2,207,478
Point Urban
61,094
South Broadway
896,979
St. Luke's #1
590,043
St. Luke's #2
469,902
Stapleton
13,341,439
Westwood
315,671
York Street
304,592
Total Property Taxes Accruing for TIF
$31,674,766
Source: Thirty-Sixth Annual Report Division of Property Taxation 2006
Table 2 shows the property tax impacts by government entity type counties, municipalities,
school districts, and special districts. The TIF impact for school districts at $40.1 million makes up
the largest share of TIF revenue at nearly 54 percent of total revenue.
Table 2: Property Taxes Accruing for TIF by Government Entity
Government Entity
Property Taxes Accruing for TIF
County
Percent of Total
$21,931,912
29.43%
4,955,409
6.65%
School Districts*
40,132,727
53.85%
Special Districts
7,511,040
10.08%
$74,531,088
100.00%
Municipality
Grand Total
Source: Thirty-Sixth Annual Report Division of Property Taxation 2006

*Includes all possible property tax losses to school districts in addition to school operating property taxes.
Interpreting the Impacts of Property Taxes Accruing for TIF

An important point should be made in order to correctly interpret the data presented in the
above and attached tables. The property taxes accruing for TIF are not always losses to local
governments; they represent a maximum potential impact. In instances where a local government
is not at its property tax revenue limit, all taxpayers in the jurisdiction will pay higher taxes than they
would have if the TIF was not in place, assuming the development would have otherwise occurred.
For those districts at their property tax revenue limit, the additional assessed value from the new
development would only serve to lower the mill levy, not increase property tax collections. This
happens due to the interaction between TIFs and mill levies. If a TIF was not in place and similar
development occurred, then mill levies would fall in these districts and taxpayers would pay less.
Presence of the TIF causes the mill levies to remain the same or not fall as far as they would have
without the TIF to finance the projects. In situations where governments have been exempted from
the limit or are collecting revenue below the limit, the government forgoes the revenue from the TIF.
State Aid To School Districts

Under the Public School Finance Act of 1994, state aid to school districts is based on the
assessed value of a district excluding the increase in the value of property in an urban renewal area
or downtown development authority. Because those increased values are excluded, the state pays
more to school districts than would otherwise be the case. As a result, the question arises as to how
much the state spends to "backfill" the loss in property tax revenue from TIF. However, identifying
today's actual state cost would require a database of information that both spans the period of time
that the backfill has been in effect and is capable of calculating school district property taxes
annually under various school finance laws. Since compiling such a database is not feasible, the
amount the state spends is estimated by calculating what the increase in the value of property in an
urban renewal area would generate in property taxes. State aid to school districts offsets the increase
in school operating property taxes on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Table 3 includes the school districts
that are impacted by TIF showing TIF assessed valuations for FY 2007-08, respective school finance
levies, and the school finance impact for each district which is estimated at $29.9 million for FY
2007-08.
Table 3: Property Taxes Accruing for TIF in School Districts
(FY 2007-08)
School District
Northglenn
2007 TIF Assessed

Value
FY 2007-08 School
Finance Mill Levy
Property Taxes
Accruing For School
Districts
$68,956,290
0.027
$1,861,820
18,309,090
0.02626
480,797
Westminster
5,374,580
0.027
145,114
Littleton
5,931,070
0.02535
150,353
Aurora
6,202,670
0.02601
161,331
St. Vrain
11,940,730
0.025
298,518
Steamboat Springs
13,105,320
0.01397
183,081
Boulder
62,277,530
0.02502
1,558,184
Denver
635,601,651
0.02554
16,233,266
Colorado Springs
5,735,520
0.02383
136,677
Roaring Fork
3,334,390
0.02176
72,556
Greeley
3,230,580
0.027
87,226
Gunnison
12,202,630
0.01477
180,233
Jefferson
123,977,690
0.02625
3,254,414
Poudre
65,399,425
0.027
1,765,784
Thompson
71,959,900
0.02236
1,609,023
Estes Park
13,884,853
0.02055
285,334
Valley
12,838,560
0.02665
342,148
Mesa Valley
22,828,540
0.02421
552,679
Eagle
31,169,620
0.01162
362,191
0.02442
Pueblo City
4,670,822
0.027
126,112
Woodland Park
2,371,459
0.02255
53,476
507,500
0.02771
14,063
Brighton
East Otero**
Cherry Creek 5 School District*

Pueblo SD 70*
1,078,226
Sheridan School District*
1,245,540
Totals
$1,204,134,186
N/A
$29,914,381
* New districts for 2007.

** The old TIF district was dissolved, a new TIF district has been formed in its place but the increment for 2006 is zero.
Passage of the mill levy stabilization. Given the passage of the mill levy stabilization in the
school finance act during the 2007 session (Senate Bill 07-199), local school mill levies are no
longer required to decrease when assessed values increase faster than enrollment growth plus
population. This will have an effect on the impact that tax increment financing has on the local share
of public school finance.
Prior to the passage of the mill levy stabilization, the impact of TIF was muted by the fact that
most school districts, particularly in reassessment years, were already reducing their operating mill
levies. By adding the TIF assessed value to a district's tax base, the mill levy simply would have
been lowered further, but no additional revenue would be generated. As a result, in reassessment
years the school finance impact of removing the assessed value attributable to TIF was as low as
$112,248 (FY 2001-02). Meanwhile, in non-reassessment years, the impact could reach as high as
$18.5 million (FY 2004-05). With the passage of the mill levy stabilization, all of the value
attributable to TIF would generate additional local property tax revenue for schools, thus reducing
the state share. This assumes that the project would have been built without TIF.
Tax Increment Financing In Other States

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia allow some form of TIF. For additional
information, Appendix B provides a state-by-state summary showing the duration for each states' TIF
district and enabling legislation.
TIF in other states is a mechanism for funding development and redevelopment projects. In
Colorado, the use of TIF is restricted to urban renewal projects but in other states, TIF is used by
various government entities for urban renewal and other mixed-use development such as low- to
moderate- income housing (Iowa). The TIF concept is similar in other states TIF allows local
government entities to work with the private sector to stimulate economic growth and urban
redevelopment projects with the theme that all local governments should share in the costs of
redevelopment. Unlike Colorado, some states authorize towns, cities, counties, and other local
government entities to use TIF for development purposes. Some states have even extended TIF laws
to allow the respective state to have oversight of TIF districts by a state's taxing agency, such as an
agency similar to the Colorado Department of Revenue. In some states, these agencies are required
to issue periodic reports on TIF districts to state legislators and the executive branch of government.
Generally, the concept of the incremental base value is first determined in other states like
Colorado prior to development, the base value for all of the taxable property is determined within
the TIF district and assessed until the project/bonds are terminated. The "tax increment" equals the
general property taxes levied on the value of the TIF district in excess of its base value and can only
be generated by an increase in the value of taxable property within the TIF district.
Similar to Colorado, the school district portion (mill levy) of property taxes accruing for TIF
in relation to other government entities makes up a large part of statewide TIF revenue. Many school
districts in other states are often compensated for the loss in local tax revenue through increases in
state aid, like Colorado. Table 4 provides general information for a small sample of the 49 states that
have TIF legislation. Some statistics on TIF districts are older data but used for illustrative purposes.
Table 4: Tax Increment Financing In Colorado and Other States

State/TIF
Law Enacted
Government
Entities Using TIF
Colorado
1979
31-25-101 et
seq.
TIF Districts
District Statistics
Urban renewal
authorities (URAs);
and downtown
development
authorities (DDAs).
TIF districts are exclusively authorized for

projects that improve blighted areas.
In property tax year 2006, total TIF

revenue was a maximum of $74.5
million.
Wisconsin
1975
66.1105 et seq.
Cities; village
governments; towns;
and counties.
TIF districts may be created if 50 percent of

more of the proposed district is "blighted" in
need of rehabilitation or conservation work,
or suitable for industrial sites or mixed-use
development (combination of industrial,
commercial, and residential use). Fees are
assessed by the state for TIF district
creation and the Wisconsin Department of
Commerce must issue a biennial report to
the Governor and the legislature as to the
social, economic, and financial impacts of
TIF projects.
Between 1976 and 2005: of the 1,428

TIF districts created, 516 (36.1
percent) have been terminated and
912 (63.9 percent) remain in
existence. Total TIF revenue for
villages and cities was $243.6 million
in 2005 or about 4.3 percent of the
total mill levy revenue.
Nebraska
1978
NRS 18-2100
et seq.
Local governments.
TIF districts may be created only in

redeveloping substandard and blighted
areas within a community. TIF projects
may be commercial, residential, industrial,
or mixed use. On or before December 1st
of each year, cities having TIF projects
must file with the State Property Tax
Administrator a report on the property tax
levy and taxes in the redevelopment
project.
In 2006 there were 443 TIF projects

statewide that generated $30.4 million
in property tax revenue.
Iowa
1958
403.1 et seq.
Cities; counties; and

community colleges
for job training
projects.
TIF districts in the 1980 were created for

redevelopment purposes of blighted areas
but evolved in the 1990s to other allowable
uses such as the development of low- and
moderate-income housing.
In FY 1997, there were 1,453 TIF

areas statewide that generated about
$72.1 million for TIF projects.
Appendix A
Property Taxes Accruing for TIF by County
County
ADAMS
TIF Area/Project
Aurora
Vail Reinvestment
Authority
Federal Heights URA
$1,242,414
EL PASO
$406,663
$1,787,790
Thornton Economic
Development Authority
$9,470,467
EL PASO Total
Thornton North
Washington
$2,067,506
GARFIELD
$13,006
$342,370
$16,520,919
Aurora URA
Englewood URA
Littleton Riverfront
Authority
ARAPAHOE Total
BURA 9th & Canyon
$340,343
$1,800,394
$496,052
$2,311
$178,527
$178,527
Mt. Crested Butte
DDA
$406,368
$406,368
Arvada URA
JEFFERSON Total
$2,432,825
$2,432,825
Block 41-Finleys Add

URA
$7,916
$858,839
$512,469
Fort Collins DDA
$3,962,251
North College Ave.

URA
$1,360,869
Longmont DDA
$871,871
Timath URA
US34 URA
$1,469,167
$1,611,613
Interlocken URA
$989,718
Wadsworth
Interchange URA
$35,065
West 120th Avenue

URA
$226,139
Estes Park URA
$84,827
Hunter Douglas URA
Glenwood Springs
DDA
GUNNISON Total
LARIMER
$17,499
$245,949
GARFIELD Total
JEFFERSON
$707,707
$2,636,789
Lafayette URA
BOULDER Total
North Arvada URA
Southwest Downtown
URA
GUNNISON
Property Taxes
Accruing for TIF
$707,707
South Central
Downtown URA
Northglenn URA
ADAMS Total
BROOMFIELD Total
EAGLE
EAGLE Total
Westminster
Economic
Development Authority
BROOMFIELD
TIF Area/Project
$1,122,424
Westminster Center
BOULDER
$68,279
County
Brighton URA
North Huron
ARAPAHOE
Property Taxes
Accruing for TIF
LARIMER Total
LOGAN
MESA
$4,336,816
MESA Total
$4,361,290
$10,805,252
Sterling URA
LOGAN Total
$1,700,420
$254,087
$924,737
$924,737
Downtown
Development
Association
$1,114,765
$1,114,765
Appendix A
Property Taxes Accruing for TIF by County (continued)
County
DENVER
TIF Area/Project
DURA Alameda
Square
$75,257
DURA American
National
$124,742
County
TIF Area/Project
OTERO
Central Business
Project - Urban
OTERO Total
DURA California
Street Parking Garage
$41,158
PUEBLO
DURA Cherokee
$12,643
PUEBLO Total
DURA City Park South
$126,879
ROUTT
DURA Downtown
$4,170,389
ROUTT Total
DURA Elitch's
$1,146,133
TELLER
DURA Guaranty Bank

DURA Highlands
Gardens
DURA Lowenstein
Theater
DURA Lowry
$89,599
$276,990
$6,918,040
$122,084
DURA Northeast Park

Hill
$343,049
DURA Point Urban
$2,207,478
$896,979
DURA St. Luke's #1
$590,043
DURA St. Luke's #2
$469,902
$315,671
DURA York Street
$304,592
$79,236
$201,756
$201,756
Steamboat URA
$274,108
$274,108
Woodland Park DDA
$199,619
$199,619
10th St. GURA
$22,771
Greeley DDA
$45,449
$253,562
WELD Total
$321,782
Grand Total
$74,531,088
$13,341,439
DURA Westwood
Pueblo URA
GURA
$61,094
DURA South
Broadway
DURA Stapleton
WELD
Property Taxes
Accruing for TIF
$79,236
TELLER Total
$40,605
DURA Mercantile
Square
DURA Pepsi Center
DENVER Total
Property Taxes
Accruing for TIF
$31,674,766
Appendix B
State TIF Enabling Legislation
State
Duration
Legislation
Alabam a
30 years per TIF district
ARS 11-99.1 et seq
Alaska
None specified Im provem ent Area Projects
AS 29.47.460
Arizona
None
Arkansas
25 years per district Com m unity

Redevelopm ent
AR Code 14-168-301 et seq
California
30 years (plus up to 15 year

extension)Com m unity Redevelopm ent Law
California Code 33000 et seq
Colorado
25 years per project to fund bonds Urban

Renewal Law
CRS 31-25-101 et seq
Connecticut
As determ ined by CT Developm ent

Authority Tax Increm ental Financing
Program
Title 8 Chapter 130 Sec 8-124 et seq
Delaware
30-year bond issuance Municipal Tax

Increm ent Financing Act
22-1701 et seq
District of Colum bia
Per project area Tax Increm ent Financing
2-1217.01 et seq.
Georgia
Dissolve by resolution of council and no

debt
Redevelopm ent Powers Law

36-44-1 et seq
Hawaii
Dissolve as established by ordinance
Tax Increm ent Financing Act

46-101 et seq
Florida
40 years from adoption of redevelopm ent

plan
Com m unity Redevelopm ent Act

163.330 et seq
Idaho
24 years
Local Econom ic Developm ent Act

50-2901 et seq.
Illinois
23 years per district
Tax Increm ent Allocation Redevelopm ent Act

65ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et seq
Indiana
30 Years
IC 36-7-14 et seq;
IAC50-8-1
Iowa
Urban Renewal Law

403.1 et seq.
Kansas
20 years
KRS 12-1770 et seq
Kentucky
20 years
Increm ent Financing Act

KRS65-680 - 699
Louisiana
30 years
Tax Increm ent Developm ent Act

Title 47, Subtitle 9, Chapter 1
Massachusetts
30 years
District Im provem ent Financing

Ch 40Q, Sec 1-4
10
Appendix B
State TIF Enabling Legislation (continued)
State
Duration
Legislation
Maine
Title 30-A, 5227
Maryland
Per developm ent district agreem ent

14-201 et seq. (2001)
Michigan
Active until purpose has been

accom plished
Tax Increm ent Finance Authority Act

125.1801 et seq.
Minnesota
25-years per district (30 for pre-1979)

Minn Statutes 469.174-469.179
Mississippi
Per individual financing plans

21-45-1 et seq. (2001)
Missouri
Real Property Tax Increm ent Allocation

Redevelopm ent Act
99.800 RSMo et seq
Montana
15 years
Urban Renewal Law

7-15-4201 et seq.
Nebraska
15 Year per districts; no lim it of num ber

per city
Com m unity Developm ent Law

NRS 18-2100 et seq
Nevada
Up to 45 years
Com m unity Redevelopm ent Law

279.382 et seq.
New Ham pshire
30 years Municipal Econom ic Developm ent

and Revitalization Districts
162-K et seq
New Jersey
Until obligations for any project in the

district cease to be outstanding
Revenue Allocation District Financing Act

C.52:27D-459 et seq
New Mexico
5 years
Urban Developm ent Law

3-46-1 et seq.
New York
Per redevelopm ent plan
Municipal Redevelopm ent Law

970-a et seq.
North Carolina
30 years
Project Developm ent Financing Act

Chapter 159, Article 6
North Dakota
By local ordinance
Urban Renewal Law

40-58-01 et seq.
Ohio
30 years
Municipal Tax Increm ent Financing Act

5709.40 et seq.
Oklahom a
25 years
Local Developm ent Act

850 et seq.
Oregon
30 years
Urban Renewal Law

457.010 et seq.
Pennsylvania
20 years

tit. 53. 6930.1 et seq.
11
Appendix B
State TIF Enabling Legislation (continued)
State
Duration
Legislation
Rhode Island
By project plan

45-33.2-1 et seq.
South Carolina
Tax Increm ent Financing Law

31-6-10 et seq.
South Dakota
15 years
Tax Increm ental Districts

11-9-1 et seq.
Tennessee
Redevelopm ent 13-20-201 et seq.
Texas
By local ordinance or when all project

costs, tax increm ent bonds, and
interest are paid.

311.001 et seq.
Utah
25 years
Redevelopm ent Agencies Act

17 B-4-101 et seq.
Verm ont
On project basis
Tax Increm ent Financing

title 24,
1891 et seq.
Virginia
For so long as any obligations or

developm ent project costs are unpaid
Tax Increm ent Financing

58.1-3245 et seq.
W ashington
30 years
Com m unity Revitalization Financing

39.89.010 et seq.
W est Virginia
30 Year district; no lim it of num ber per

m unicipality
W est Virginia Tax Increm ent Financing Act

W V code 7-11B-1 et seq
W isconsin
27 years (raised from 23 in 2003)
Tax Increm ent Law

66.1105 et seq.
W yom ing
25 years
W yom ing Urban Renewal Code

15-9-101 et seq.
Source: Council of Development Finance Agencies (CDFA); http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/pages/tifstatestatutes.html
12
S:\LCS\MEMOS\2007\Tax Increment Financing1029078926.wpd
Attachment 3
n'.f
Upper Yampa Water

Cpnservancy District
December 18, 2014
^FtV^b
Bart Kounovsky, City Council President
^[^1-
(^ooa^ ^
Members of the City Council

137 10th Street
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
c^>eju\
Re: Downtown Urban Renewal Authority

Dear President Kounovsky and Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District ("District") Board of
Directors ("Board") in reference to the proposed Downtown Steamboat Springs Urban Renewal
Authority. This new Authority would utilize tax increment financing to make sidewalk, lighting
and other infrastructure improvements in the Downtown commercial area. The Board opposes
the creation of the Authority as presently proposed.
The District is a statutory Colorado water conservancy district located in Routt County and a
portion ofMoffat County. The District is governed by a volunteer Board whose members are
John Redmond, Doug Monger, Ken Brenner, Steve Colby, Samuel Haslem, Greg HeiTnann,
Webster Jones, Ron Murphy, and Tom Sharp. The District owns and operates Stagecoach and
Yamcolo Reservoir in the Upper Yampa Basin. These facilities make the District the leading
supplier of raw water for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses in Northwest Colorado. The
City of Steamboat Springs holds contracts with the District for 550 acre-feet of stored water in
Stagecoach Reservoir. In recent years, Stagecoach water was critical in maintaining Yampa
River recreational and environmental flows during drought conditions on the Yampa River
through Steamboat Springs, although the water contracted to the City was kept in storage.
The District is currently engaged in a comprehensive master planning process to address future
water needs in the Upper Yampa Basin, including the evaluation of new projects to firm up water
supplies in the Upper Yampa basin to protect Routt County and its citizens from drought and to
address the need for new water sources well into the future. During extreme drought, these
projects could make water available for municipal and industrial uses which are essential for the
economic health of this area and to protect the Yampa River from very low flow conditions
which could severely impact Yampa River environment and recreational uses and Downtown
tourism.
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 775529
Steamboat Springs, CO 80477-5529
Location
Fish Creek Filtration Plant

3310 Clear Water Trail
Telephone
(970) 871-1035
Fax (970) 879-8169
Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District
District revenues come from the sale of water and power and a fixed property tax mill levy of
1.82 mills. Any property tax increment paid to the new Urban Renewal Authority would be a
direct dollar per dollar loss of property tax which the District would otherwise have received.
Water projects have been becoming increasingly harder to permit and finance. If this community
expects the District to continue to develop stored water for consumptive and non-consumptive
uses in the Upper Yampa Basin and to protect the local economy against drought, it is imperative
that the City Council carefully scrutinize and reject any proposal which threatens to erode the
District's property tax base and its ability to finance water projects.
Sincerely,
^ '! ^ ^'
John Redmond
-President
Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District
P.O. Box 775529

Cc: Deb Hinsvark, City Manger
Julie Franklin, City Clerk
Mailing Address Location Telephone

P.O. Box 775529 Fish Creek Filtratton Plant (970) 871-1035
Steamboat Springs, CO 80477-5529 3310 Clear Water Trail Fax (970t 879-8169
Jessica Koenig
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jessica Koenig
Friday, January 16, 2015 11:37 AM
Tracy Barnett; City Council; Jon Sanders; Jim Cook; Joan Ihrig; Kathy Stokes; Sally
TeStrake; Sue Krall; Tracy Barnett
Tyler Gibbs; Casey Earp
RE: Support for creation of a URA plan area downtown
ThankyouforyourcommentTracy.Councilandtheappropriatestaffmembershavereceivedit.
JessicaKoenig
StaffAssistant
CityClerksOffice
CityofSteamboatSprings
jkoenig@steamboatsprings.net
(970)8718225
From: Tracy Barnett

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:35 AM
To: City Council; Jon Sanders; Jim Cook; Joan Ihrig; Kathy Stokes; Sally TeStrake; Sue Krall; Tracy Barnett
Subject: Support for creation of a URA plan area downtown
Dear City Council members,

At the annual meeting of MainStreet Steamboat Springs on Thursday, members of the board present (10
pressent of 13 on the board) voted to unanimously support the creation of a URA plan area for the downtown
area. Attendees at the same meeting also supported the vote.
The need for complete sidewalks, lighting and other safety measures, including Butcherknife Creek flood
mitigation, is more than apparent, and a necessity to making our downtown more attractive and safe, both for
locals and visitors. With construction and lending costs low, now is the time to get these projects done. These
safety measures will also enhance the visitor experience.
With the promise of a specific list of projects to be completed and capping the expenditures to those projects,
the URA could be closed out sooner than 25 years once the projects are paid off. This should be more
appealing to the other taxing entities affected.
Please move the URA forward now. There is no better time than the present for projects that should have been
done long ago.
Tracy Barnett
Program Manager
MainStreet Steamboat Springs
"A designated Colorado Main Street graduate community"
970-846-1800
tracy@mainstreetsteamboat.com
1
AGENDA ITEM #2.

FROM:
Tyler Gibbs, Director of Planning and Community

Development (Ext. 244)
Jason Peasley, Executive Director, Yampa Valley Housing
Authority
THROUGH:
Deb Hinsvark, City Manager (Ext. 240)
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
Housing Update and Request for Direction
NEXT STEP:
Draft Housing Policy Options for Council Consideration
_X_
_X_
___
___
___
___
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
PROCLAMATION
I.
REQUEST OR ISSUE:
City Council has requested staff to present options for policy direction and tools
to address housing affordability issues in Steamboat Springs by summer 2015.
Housing affordability issues take many forms, with varying impacts on our
citizens and with many options for potentially improving the ability of individuals
and families to access appropriate housing. Staff is requesting Council guidance
on the issues and tools they would direct staff to consider in formulating those
options.
II.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction for further staff research, policy recommendations and
possible legislative actions.
III.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
To be Determined
IV.
In July 2013 City Council suspended the Community Housing (Inclusionary
Housing) Ordinance for a period of two years. That ordinance required all new
residential development to include a component of affordable housing or pay a
fee-in-lieu. Residential units created through this program were deed restricted
for purchase by qualified buyers meeting residency and income limits.
Suspension of the Community Housing Ordinance included release of affordable
housing requirements for any previously designated units that remained unsold
by the original developer. Council has also released individual deed restrictions
on some units that were purchased under the program. However, individual
requests for release of deed restrictions are not currently being considered at
the request of council.
V.
LEGAL ISSUES:
To Be Determined
VI.

To Be Determined
VII.

Options to be considered will vary depending on the population to be served
and acceptable tools to be considered.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
PowerPoint Slides
Attachment 1
Housing
Background
Current Conditions
Options
Direction?
Background
Recent
programs and
Regulatory
Requirements
Current
Conditions
Supply and Demand
Tools
Low Income Housing Tax Credits

Direct Subsidies Land, Infrastructure, Cash
Regulatory Incentives Density Bonus, Infrastructure
Phasing, Fee Waivers
Regulatory Requirements Inclusionary Zoning, Linkage
Expand Outlying Transportation Options
Requested
Direction
What issues should be addressed?

What tools should be considered?
AGENDA ITEM #3.

FROM:
Kim Weber, Finance Director (Ext. 250)
THROUGH:
Deb Hinsvark, City Manager (Ext. 240)
DATE:
January 20, 2015
RE:
Community
Support
Recommendations
Steering
Committee
___ DIRECTION
_X_
INFORMATION
___ ORDINANCE
_X_ MOTION
___ RESOLUTION
I.
REQUEST OR ISSUE:
Attached are the Community Support Steering Committees recommendations for
allocation of the 2015 budgeted funds.
II.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None.
III.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None noted.
IV.
The City Council budgeted $388,320 for community support funding for the Arts
and Culture Coalition, the Environmental Coalition, and the Human Resources
Coalition.
In accordance with the Community Support Structure and Granting Procedures put
in place by the Finance Director and City Manager with approval from City Council,
the Community Support Steering Committee, including a member from each
coalition along with the Executive Director of the Yampa Valley Community
Foundation, met to allocate the funds to each coalition. Each Coalition Chair
recruited and selected members for their allocation committee. The allocation
committees collected applications and interviewed non-profit groups. They used
score sheets provided by the City of Steamboat Springs to help determine the
funding amount for each applicant.
Attached is a breakdown of the recommendations from the allocation committees
through the Community Support Steering Committee.
V.
LEGAL ISSUES:
None.
VI.

None.
VII.

Motion to approve the recommendations, approve with changes, or not approve.
VIII.
Attachments:
Community Support 2015 Allocation Recommendations.
Attachment 1
CommunitySupport
2015FundingRecommendations
Organization
2012 Funding
2013 Funding
2014 Funding
2015 Request
2015 Funding
Human Resources Coalition

Advocates
Boys & Girls Club of Steamboat Springs
Court Appointed Special Advocates Routt County
Comunidad Integrada/Integrated Community
Family Development Center
12,500
12,500
14,500
12,500
13,000
6,500
6,000
4,000
5,000
4,000
500
6,500
6,500
10,000
9,000
9,500
7,250
7,250
7,500
10,000
10,000
54,500
54,500
58,000
70,000
60,000
2,500
2,500
2,750
3,500
4,000
STARS- Humble Ranch Education & Therapy Center
1,500
2,000
1,000
2,500
1,500
NW CO Center for Independence (Independent Life Center)
1,250
1,250
7,500
4,500
NW CO Dental Center
2,500
1,250
3,000
First Impressions
Grand Futures
NW CO Legal Services
2,000
1,250
750
4,000
1,500
37,500
35,000
40,000
40,000
37,500
Partners in Routt County
3,000
3,000
4,000
6,250
5,000
Planned Parenthood
1,500
1,500
1,000
2,500
1,500
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps
5,250
6,500
8,250
10,000
9,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
25,000
22,500
NW CO VNA
Routt County Council on Aging

Routt County Habitat for Humanity
1,000
Routt County United Way
4,250
4,250
4,250
6,750
8,500
7,000
25,000
25,000
26,500
25,000
27,000
South Routt Community Center

Mindpring Health (Steamboat Mental Health)
Lift Up of Routt County
Yampa Valley Autism Program
REPS - Reaching Everyone Preventing Suicide
Routt County Youth Services Coalition
TOTAL HRC
4,000
1,000
2,000
2,500
2,750
3,000
2,750
1,250
1,250
2,500
1,000
197,500
193,000
210,500
257,250
225,000
CommunitySupport
2015FundingRecommendations
Organization
2012 Funding
2013 Funding
2014 Funding
2015 Request
2015 Funding
Arts and Culture Coalition

Friends of the Chief
2,000
5,700
25,000
15,000
Steamboat Dance Theater
4,000
4,000
4,575
5,000
5,000
Great American Laughing Stock Company
3,500
5,000
5,000
7,000
5,000
Center for Visual Arts
7,000
9,000
9,000
10,000
5,000
Emerald City Opera
9,000
7,500
12,200
15,000
12,320
Steamboat Art Museum
16,000
18,000
20,000
30,000
20,000
Seminars at Steamboat
1,000
2,000
2,500
4,000
3,000
Steamboat Springs Arts Council
5,000
5,000
5,000
30,000
26,000
23,000
30,000
15,000
5,000
7,000
10,000
8,000
16,500
16,500
16,500
30,000
10,000
3,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
13,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
102,000
112,475
190,000
120,320
Steamboat Springs Free Summer Concert Series

Steamboat Symphony Orchestra
Strings Music Festival
Perry Mansfield School and Camp
Yampa Valley Choral Society
TOTAL ARTS AND CULTURE
Organization
100,000
2012 Funding
2013 Funding
2014 Funding
2015 Request
2015 Funding
Environmental Coalition
Yampatika
6,750
6,000
8,750
8,500
Yampa Valley Recycles
3,750
(with YVSC)
(with YVSC)
Community Agriculture Alliance
8,500
9,500
8,000
9,000
8,500
9,000
Yampa Valley Land Trust
4,000
5,000
9,000
8,000
8,000
Yampa Valley Sustainability Council
9,500
10,000
10,250
12,500
12,500
4,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
32,500
34,500
40,000
43,000
43,000
Routt County Conservation District

TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM #4.

FROM:
Winnie DelliQuadri, Asst. to the City Mgr. (Ext. 257)
THROUGH:
Debra Hinsvark, City Manager (Ext. 240)
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
An ordinance approving a Declaration of Restrictive

Covenant and Disclaimer that modifies City rights in certain
property owned by the Steamboat Health and Recreation
Association and providing an effective date.
NEXT STEP:
Motion to approve an ordinance approving a Declaration of

Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer that modifies City rights
in Certain Property Owned by the Steamboat Health and
Recreation Association and Providing an Effective Date.
___
_
_X
_X_
___
I.
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
REQUEST OR ISSUE:
In 1969, the City conveyed a parcel of land to the Steamboat Springs Health and
Recreation Association (SSHRA) subject to the condition that it be maintained and used as
a tennis court, with reversion of the property to the City if the tennis courts were
removed. SSHRA converted the property to a parking lot in September 2002. The
attached covenant ratifies SSHRAs conversion of the property to parking uses in exchange
for SSHRAs agreement that the property be open to use by the public.
II.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council make a motion to approve an Ordinance

Approving A Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer that Modifies
City Rights in Certain Property Owned by the Steamboat Health and Recreation
Association and Providing An Effective Date.
III.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The cost of implementing the attached Restrictive Covenant is minimal and consists of the
cost of recording the document.
Staff has not conducted additional fiscal analysis and thus does not have detailed
information to provide to council at this time. Other potential avenues of impact include:
The economic impact to SSHRA operations should the City not ratify the existing use of
the property for parking and instead confirm that the property has reverted to the City.
The cost to the City should it decide to own and maintain the property as a public
parking lot. (Note that access is currently through SSHRA owned property.)
The cost to the City of converting the property to some other use.
The impact to parking in the downtown area should the property not continue to be
utilized for parking.
The impact to parking in the downtown area should public parking not be required
through the Covenant.
The market value of the property should city council desire to sell it to SSHRA or to sell
it for a different use.
IV.
This past spring, city staff discovered the original deed for the property (see attached)
while doing research on city owned property and property transfers from the city in this
section of the community. Upon discovery, staff met with Pat Carney to provide SSHRA a
copy of the deed in order to alert the SSHRA board to the unique nature of the original
transaction and to the fact that the conditions for the original transaction were no longer
being met. It should be noted that neither the City Planning Department nor SSHRA
realized that the deed language was in place when SSHRA moved the tennis courts and
expanded their facility in 2002.
The property in question is the western portion of the upper parking lot at the Old Town
Hot Springs (OTHS) see the attached map. The property provides access to the upper
parking lot and provides for vehicle parking, which is currently available to the public and
which is critical to the successful ongoing operation of the Old Town Hot Springs. It is
staffs understanding that while the majority of the parking on the property is utilized by
OTHS users, members of the public do regularly park on the property to access the Lower
Spring Creek Trail.
In July 2014, SSHRA submitted a pre-application for a future addition to the OTHS facility
to the City Planning Department. The OTHS proposal would involve constructing an
addition to the existing facility on the lower parking lot, but would not develop the
property in question. Planning review found that SSHRA does not currently meet code
requirements for parking for their current use, and further, that any future expansion
would require additional parking. Parking on the subject property is currently a critical
component of overall parking for SSHRA operations and of public parking downtown. The
City planning department has requested that SSHRA resolve ownership issues on the
subject property before moving forward with any future submittals for their facility.
Since this issue came to light, the City Manager has been in discussion with the Executive
Director of SSHRA regarding how to move forward. That the property was given to
SSHRA using a deed with restrictive language indicates that at the time the property was
transferred, city council wanted the opportunity to ensure that use of the property met
community goals. The proposed Restrictive Covenant preserves the status quo both of
giving city council a future opportunity to ensure that use of the property meets
community goals, and also of preserving the existing use of parking which is available to
the public. It does this utilizing a legal tool a Restrictive Covenant - which will be visible
in a property records search and thus more visible to future decision makers.
V.
LEGAL ISSUES:
No additional legal issues.
VI.
No additional conflicts or environmental issues.
VII.
Staff propose to resolve property ownership issues and preserve the status quo of the
property in question through a Restrictive Covenant. As was intended by the city council
that make the original property transfer, this option will give future city councils the
opportunity to ensure that future uses of the property meet community goals. The
proposed option also meets community and SSHRA needs for parking.
Other alternatives include:
Sale of the property to SSHRA or a different buyer.
City ownership and maintenance of the property for parking. Access through
SSHRA property would need to be secured for this to be an option.
Modification or elimination of all restrictions from the property. This option was
considered by staff but is not being proposed as the desired solution as it did not
follow the original intent of the city council that originally transferred the property
to SSHRA.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Property Map
Original Deed
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO

ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT AND DISCLAIMER THAT MODIFIES CITY RIGHTS IN
CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE STEAMBOAT HEALTH AND
RECREATION ASSOCIATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, on July 11, 1969 the City by a deed recorded in the records of the
Routt County Clerk and Recorder at Book 338 Page 86 (hereafter the Deed) conveyed
to SSHRA a parcel of real property subject to the condition that the property be
maintained and used as a tennis court and that upon the failure of the condition the
property would revert to the City; and
WHEREAS, SSHRA maintained and used property described in the Deed
(hereafter the Property) as a tennis court until September, 2002, at which time
SSHRA relocated its tennis courts and converted the Property to a parking lot; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary and appropriate to the public
health, safety, and welfare to enter into an agreement with SSHRA that ratifies SSHRAs
conversion of the Property to parking uses in exchange for SSHRAs agreement that
SSHRA maintain and use the Property as a parking lot and hold the Property open to
use by the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS THAT:
SECTION 1. Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer attached hereto
as Exhibit A is hereby approved and the City Council President or President Pro-Tem is
authorized sign any documents necessary to execute said Easement Agreement.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and
safety.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the expiration of
thirty (30) days from and after its publication following final passage, as provided in
Section 13.6 of the Steamboat Springs Home Rule Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published, as provided by law, by the City

Council of the City of Steamboat Springs, at its regular meeting held on the 20th day of
January, 2015.
Bart Kounovsky, President

Steamboat Springs City Council
ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk
FINALLY READ, PASSED AND APPROVED this ___ day of _____________, 2015.

ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk
Exhibit A
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DISCLAIMER
This Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer is made and entered into this __ day of
_____________, 2014 by and between the City of Steamboat Springs, a Colorado home rule
municipal corporation (hereafter City) and the Steamboat Health and Recreation Association,
Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation (hereafter SSHRA)
WHEREAS, on July 11, 1969 the City by a deed recorded in the records of the Routt County
Clerk and Recorder at Book 338 Page 86 (hereafter the Deed) conveyed to SSHRA a parcel of
real property subject to the condition that the property be maintained and used as a tennis court
and that upon the failure of the condition the property would revert to the City; and
WHEREAS, SSHRA maintained and used property described in the Deed (hereafter the
Property) as a tennis court until September, 2002, at which time SSHRA relocated its tennis
courts and converted the Property to a parking lot; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ratify SSHRAs conversion of the Property to parking uses in
exchange for SSHRAs agreement that SSHRA maintain and use the Property as a parking lot
and hold the Property open to use by the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and promises, the
parties agree as follows:
1. DECLARATION. SSHRA agrees that SSHRA shall maintain and use the Property in
perpetuity as a parking lot for vehicles and motor vehicles. SSHRA further agrees to permit
public use of the parking lot. SSHRA may impose such regulations on the time and manner
of public use of the parking lot as it imposes on its members. SSHRA shall not be required
to post signs or otherwise publish or advertise the public right to use the Property as a
parking lot. City agrees that City shall not post signs, publish maps, or otherwise advertise
the public right to use the Property as a parking lot or as a trailhead to the Lower Spring
Creek Trail.
2. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY. SSHRA, for itself, its
successors, and assigns, hereby declares that the Property shall be owned, held, transferred,
conveyed, sold, leased, used, and occupied subject to the covenants set forth herein. The
provisions of this Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer are intended to and shall run with the
land, shall inure to the benefit of the City, and shall be held by the City in gross.
3.
REVERTER. In the event of a breach by SSHRA of the covenant set forth herein, title to
the Property shall revert to the City without the requirement of judicial action on the part of
the City.
4. DISCLAIMER. The City hereby disclaims any interest in the Property other than as set
forth herein, whether arising out of the Deed or otherwise.
5. BREACH/REMEDIES. In the event of a breach of any term of this declaration, the parties
may resort to any and all remedies available at law or equity, including suit for specific
performance.
6. MODIFICATION/TERMINATION. This declaration shall not be modified or terminated
except by written agreement of the parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
first above written.
__________________________________
Attest:
_______________________________
Julie Franklin, City Clerk
STEAMBOAT HEALTH AND RECREATION

ASSOCIATION, INC.
_________________________________
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF ROUTT
)
)
)
ss.
Subscribed to and sworn to before me this _____ day of _________________, 2014 by

Bart Kounovsky, as City Council President of the City of Steamboat Springs.
Witness my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF ROUTT
)
)
)
ss.
Subscribed to and sworn to before me this _____ day of _________________, 2014 by

______________________________, as ___________________________________, of the
Steamboat Springs Health and Recreation Association, Inc.
Witness my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
AGENDA ITEM #5.

FROM:
Jerry Stabile, Police Captain (Ext. 119)

Casey Earp, Assistant to the City Manager
THROUGH:
Joel Rae, Director of Public Safety (Ext. 113)

Deb Hinsvark, City Manager
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
An ordinance amending Article III of Chapter 19 of the

Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code relating to
wildlife resistant containers; providing an effective date;
and setting a hearing date.
NEXT STEP:
1st reading of commercial wildlife resistant containers.
___
___
_x_
___
___
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
ORDINANCE
MOTION
RESOLUTION
I.
REQUEST OR ISSUE:
Per City Council Direction; this ordinance amends the requirements commercial dumpsters
in Steamboat Springs. City staff also updated language in the residential terminology of
the previous ordinance but has not substantively changed anything with regard to
residential refuse container requirements. This ordinance also has language outlining a
presumption of wildlife attractant material in cases of wildlife human encounters around
refuse collection points.
At second reading staff will bring back a plan to help mitigate residential wildlife
encounters around refuse collection containers.
II.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve
III.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
IV.
This Ordinance will set new requirements for updating commercial dumpsters throughout
Steamboat Springs. The requirement to provide approved dumpsters falls on the refuse
collection companies and the property owner, where the dumpster resides, is responsible
for securing the dumpster.
V.
LEGAL ISSUES:
VI.
VII.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Comment Letter
Attachment 1
Jessica Koenig
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jessica Koenig
Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:49 AM
stettner1@gmail.com; City Council; Casey Earp; Jerry Stabile
FW: Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form
ThankyouforyourcommentPaul.Councilandtheappropriatestaffmembershavereceivedyourcomment.

JessicaKoenig
StaffAssistant
CityClerksOffice
(970)8718225

From: noreply@civicplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form
If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.
City Council Contact Form
First Name*
Last Name*
Paul
Stettner
Email Address*
stettner1@gmail.com
Please select the department(s) you want to contact:
[ ]City Council
Please leave your comments or questions below.
To: Steamboat Springs City Council From: Paul Stettner Subject: Bears Date: January
15, 2014 I respectfully offer the following to expand on my comments at the January 6,
2015 City Council meeting. I agree that the bear issue must be addressed and suggest
that a comprehensive plan (the Plan) be developed before amending the existing
ordinance. An ordinance, by itself, especially without specified penalties and fines, is not
the solution to the bear problem. Some matters to consider in the Plan. As the bear area
extends beyond city boundaries, the City should collaborate with the county in the
planning process. We can minimize but not eliminate the issue of bear/human
interaction. Bears will come to the City to eat the available natural food supply of service
berries, choke cherries and crab apples. Both the existing and proposed city ordinances
primarily address wildlife proof/resistant containers and garbage. In addition to garbage
the availability of other human-provided food (compost, fruit trees, bird feeders, pet
food, pets, farm animals, etc.) needs to be considered. In-city chicken coops, other farm
1
animals and their related feeds are surely bear attractors. While a comprehensive plan is
being developed, immediate remedial actions could be taken using the existing ordinance
to prepare for this bear season; Extensively publicize the program. Give notice to the
public and organizations like property management companies, real estate companies,
HOAs, events organizations, et.al. of the existing ordinance and alert them that by
March 21, 2015; * the municipal court will have established the penalty schedule and
fines, and that * City authorities will be actively enforcing the existing ordinance
concurrent with Plan development. Enforcement should first focus on what seems to be
the biggest problem - commercial (restaurant and condominium) dumpsters. The Plan
should list which agencies (with phone #s) to contact in case of a bear situation. Ref: Se.
19-101.5 Approved Containers: In addition to containers on the Bear Resistant
Container List, locally developed containers that meet the criteria should also be
considered for approval. The ordinance could be written to allow people to use the
container they want as long as its acceptable to their trash hauler and shown to be bearproof. If their container is ever successfully raided, they will receive a citation to either
pay a fine that is at least as much as the cost of an approved container or to purchase an
approved container.
The following form was submitted via your website: City Council Contact Form
:
First Name: Paul
Last Name: Stettner
Email Address: stettner1@gmail.com
Please leave your comments or questions below.: To: Steamboat Springs City Council
From: Paul Stettner
Subject: Bears
Date: January 15, 2014
I respectfully offer the following to expand on my comments at the January 6, 2015 City Council meeting.
I agree that the bear issue must be addressed and suggest that a comprehensive plan (the Plan) be developed
before amending the existing ordinance. An ordinance, by itself, especially without specified penalties and
fines, is not the solution to the bear problem.
Some matters to consider in the Plan.
As the bear area extends beyond city boundaries, the City should collaborate with the county in the planning
process.
We can minimize but not eliminate the issue of bear/human interaction. Bears will come to the City to eat the
2
available natural food supply of service berries, choke cherries and crab apples.
Both the existing and proposed city ordinances primarily address wildlife proof/resistant containers and
garbage. In addition to garbage the availability of other human-provided food (compost, fruit trees, bird feeders,
pet food, pets, farm animals, etc.) needs to be considered. In-city chicken coops, other farm animals and their
related feeds are surely bear attractors.
While a comprehensive plan is being developed, immediate remedial actions could be taken using the existing
ordinance to prepare for this bear season;
Extensively publicize the program.
Give notice to the public and organizations like property management companies, real estate companies,
HOAs, events organizations, et.al. of the existing ordinance and alert them that by March 21, 2015;
* the municipal court will have established the penalty schedule and fines, and that
* City authorities will be actively enforcing the existing ordinance concurrent with Plan development.
Enforcement should first focus on what seems to be the biggest problem - commercial (restaurant and
condominium) dumpsters.
The Plan should list which agencies (with phone #s) to contact in case of a bear situation.
Ref: Se. 19-101.5 Approved Containers: In addition to containers on the Bear Resistant Container List,
locally developed containers that meet the criteria should also be considered for approval. The ordinance could
be written to allow people to use the container they want as long as its acceptable to their trash hauler and
shown to be bear-proof. If their container is ever successfully raided, they will receive a citation to either pay a
fine that is at least as much as the cost of an approved container or to purchase an approved container.
Additional Information:
Form Submitted on: 1/15/2015 10:46:56 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 63.151.71.148
Referrer Page: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form-103
Form Address: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form-103
Jessica Koenig
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jessica Koenig
Friday, January 16, 2015 11:05 AM
City Council; stettner1@gmail.com; Casey Earp; Jerry Stabile
FW: Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form
ThankyouforyourcommentPaul.Councilandtheappropriatestaffmembershavereceivedit.
JessicaKoenig
StaffAssistant
CityClerksOffice
(970)8718225
From: noreply@civicplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.com]

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Online Form Submittal: City Council Contact Form
If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.
City Council Contact Form
First Name*
Last Name*
Paul
Stettner
Email Address*
stettner1@gmail.com
Please select the department(s) you want to contact:
[X]City Council
Please leave your comments or questions below.
To: Steamboat Springs City Council From: Paul Stettner Subject: Bears Date: January
16, 2014 Further to my 1/15/15 note to City Council; Much of the success of this
endeavor will depend on cooperation between the City, Trash Companies and CPW staff.
The City Police Department is not adequately staffed to patrol specifically for violations
of the trash ordinance but could easily respond to complaints. Therefore, it would
simplify the enforcement effort if the trash companies would notify the Police
Department when they encountered violations. It would really facilitate this program if
the City Council pressured all three companies to cooperate in the enforcement effort.
The following form was submitted via your website: City Council Contact Form
:
First Name: Paul
Last Name: Stettner
Email Address: stettner1@gmail.com
Please select the department(s) you want to contact: City Council
Please leave your comments or questions below.: To: Steamboat Springs City Council
From: Paul Stettner
Subject: Bears
Date: January 16, 2014
Further to my 1/15/15 note to City Council;
Much of the success of this endeavor will depend on cooperation between the City, Trash Companies and CPW
staff. The City Police Department is not adequately staffed to patrol specifically for violations of the trash
ordinance but could easily respond to complaints. Therefore, it would simplify the enforcement effort if the
trash companies would notify the Police Department when they encountered violations. It would really facilitate
this program if the City Council pressured all three companies to cooperate in the enforcement effort.
Additional Information:
Form Submitted on: 1/16/2015 11:03:32 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 63.151.71.148
Referrer Page: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form103?savedProgressID=2
Form Address: http://steamboatsprings.net/FormCenter/City-Council-19/City-Council-Contact-Form-103

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
WILDLIFE RESISTANT CONTAINERS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
AND SETTING A HEARING DATE
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are increasing numbers of bear and
other wildlife encounters in urban areas of the City and that the increase is due to
inadequate security of household and commercial waste placed outside for collection;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Steamboat Springs finds it necessary
and appropriate to the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt this ordinance
requiring the storage of household and commercial waste in wildlife resistant
containers; and
WHEREAS, the regulations imposed by this ordinance apply to City refuse
containers and adoption of this ordinance will necessitate the supplemental
appropriation of funds in the fiscal year 2015 budget to replace noncompliant City
refuse containers.
SECTION 1. Chapter 19, Article III of the City of Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE III. - WILDLIFE PROOF RESISTANTCONTAINERS
Sec. 19-100. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
Approved container is a container used for the storage of refuse that has been
approved for use in the City of Steamboat Springs by the Director of the Department of
Public Safety (Director).
Dumpster enclosure is any structure constructioned in accordance with the structural

requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the city, irrespective of the
actual enclosed square footage of the structure including fully enclosed structures. The
structure shall be fully enclosed.
Non residential property is any property used in whole or in part for any use described
in Section 26-92 of the Community Development Code as a commercial, industrial,
public, institutional, civic, agricultural, park, or open space use or for uses accessory to
such uses.
Refuse container is any container, other than a wildlife proof resistant refuse container
or Approved container, used for the storage of refuse.
Residential property is property that is used exclusively for one or more residential uses
as defined in Section 26-92 of the Community Development Code or for uses accessory
to such residential uses. Residential uses shall include home occupations and vacation
home rental uses.
Wildlife proof resistant refuse container is a container used for the storage of refuse
that has been certified to be wildlife proof resistant by the Colorado Division of Parks
and Wildlife, the U.S. Park Service, or the U.S. Forest ServiceCity of Steamboat Springs.
A container not so certified, is considered a wildlife proof resistant refuse container if it
is fully enclosed, of sturdy construction, and includes a latching mechanism suitable to
prevent wildlife from opening the container. Latching mechanisms shall allow a gap
between the container lid of no more than -inch. Latching mechanisms shall keep the
lid closed in the event the container is turned on its side or upside down. Wildlife proof
resistant refuse containers may include drain holes no larger than one inch in any
dimension.
Sec. 19-101. Residential refuse Refuse storage requirements.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to store refuse that is attractive to or edible by
wildlife on residential property out of doors other than in a wildlife proof resistant refuse
container approved by theColorado Division ofParks and Wildlife or the City of
Steamboat Springs. This includes commercial dumpsters whether or not they are in a
dumpster enclosure.
(b) Persons with residential property curbside refuse pickup service shall not place
refuse containers, other than wildlife proof resistant refuse containers, containing refuse
that is attractive to or edible by wildlife at the curb for pickup until after 6:00 a.m. on
the morning of their scheduled collection day. After pickup, all refuse containers, other
than wildlife proof resistant refuse containers, must be returned to a building, house,
garage, or dumpster enclosure by 8:00 p.m.
(c) Compliance with this article notwithstanding, the city manager, or his designee,
may order any residential property owner, agent of the property owner, or tenant to
purchase and use wildlife proof resistant refuse containers for all storage of refuse that
is attractive to or edible by wildlife if the city manager receives more than one
documented, substantiated report that any animal, whether wild or domestic, has
entered into or removed refuse from a refuse container located on the property or
placed at the property curbside for pickup.
Such order shall:
(1) State that a wildlife proof resistant refuse container shall be obtained for the
property within seven (7) days from the date of the order;
(2) Shall be served either personally or by means of posting on the premises upon
which the nuisance exists. If notice is served by posting, a copy of the notice shall
also be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner of record of
the property a the address shown in the records of the county assessor.
(d) Penalties for violation of such an order shall be the same as for any other violation
of this article.
Sec. 19-101.1 Nonresidential refuse containers
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person to store refuse out of doors on nonresidential
property or on public property in a container that is not an Approved container if the
refuse is attractive to or edible by wildlife.
(b)
Any trash hauler who provides service to a nonresidential or public property shall
provide the customer with an Approved container. The trash hauler may charge a fee
for providing the Approved container. The customer shall not be required to purchase
an Approved container from the trash hauler.
(c)
The owner(s) of nonresidential property or public property on which refuse is
stored in an Approved container that is not fully secured in accordance with its design
shall be liable for such violation regardless of whether the owner(s) are directly
responsible for the failure to secure the Approved container in accordance with its
design.
(d)
No person shall be liable for a violation of this subsection if the person has
purchased an Approved container but has not received delivery.
(e)
If an Approved container is damaged to an extent that compromises its
effectiveness the Director shall give the owner or user of the container written notice to
repair or replace the container. The continued use of the unrepaired Approved
container seventy-two (72) or more hours after delivery of written notice to repair or
replace shall be unlawful.
Sec. 19-101.5 Approved Containers
(a) The City Clerk shall maintain for public reference an official list of Approved
containers. The original list and each updated list shall be dated and signed by the
Director and attested to by the City Clerk. The Director shall evaluate the performance
of listed containers and may on the basis of such evaluation remove from the list any
container for the any reason set forth in subsection (b) of this section. The owner or
user of any container that has been removed from the list shall replace the container
with an Approved container within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice of such
removal.
(b) The Director shall not approve a container for use if the container is not certified
to be bear resistant by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). The Director
may decline to approve or may remove from the list an IGBC certified container upon a
finding that the container is a) incompatible with local trash hauler equipment,
practices, or procedures or b) is not resistant to local wildlife. The Director may in
making such a finding rely on any relevant information, including the opinions of
officials of other municipal governments, state agencies, or trash haulers.
Sec. 19-102. - Property maintenance.
(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any property located within the city, including
properties used for special events and properties that are the site of construction
activities, to permit the accumulation on the property of refuse attractive to or edible by
wildlife. Refuse shall be stored on and collected from such properties and stored in
accordance with the provisions of section 19-101
(b) Properties found to be in violation of this section may be deemed to be a nuisance
as defined in section 15-2 of this Code and treated accordingly.
Sec. 19-103. - Feeding of wildlife.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly leave or store any refuse,
recyclable, food product, pet food, grain, salt or any other materials attractive to or
edible by wildlife in a manner, which may attract or entice wildlife.
(b) Bird feeders shall be permitted under this section. However, between the dates of
April 15 and November 15, all feeders must be suspended on a cable or other device so
that they are inaccessible to bears and other wildlife and the area below the feeders
must be kept free of the accumulation of seed, seed debris, or other attractive or edible
materials.
Sec. 19-104. - Penalty schedule.

(a) The municipal court is hereby authorized to establish a penalty schedule for
violations of this article. The penalty schedule may establish mandatory minimum fines
for violations of this article and the mandatory minimum fines may increase for repeat
and multiple offenders.
(b) Mandatory minimum fines contained in a penalty schedule established per this
provision shall not affect the court's authority to impose a greater fine up to the court's
jurisdictional limit.
(c) The penalty schedule may authorize reduced or suspended fines upon the
offender's agreement to purchase and use a an Approved wildlife resistant refuse
container.
Sec. 19-105 Presumption.
In any case involving wildlife entry into or removal of contents from a refuse container,
there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the contents of the refuse container were
attractive to or edible by wildlife.
safety.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take five (5) days after publication following final
passage as provided in Section 7.6(h) of the City of Steamboat Springs Home Rule
Charter.
SECTION 4. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on _______________,
2015, at 5:15 P.M. in the Citizens Hall meeting room, Centennial Hall, Steamboat
Springs, Colorado.

January, 2015.
__________________________
_________________________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
___________________________
_________________________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #6.

FROM:
Chuck Anderson, Director of Public Works (Ext. 204)
THROUGH:
Debra Hinsvark, City Manager (Ext. 228)
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE SPRUCE

STREET RIGHT OF WAY IN THE IDLEWILD ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE; AND SETTING A HEARING DATE
NEXT STEP:
Introduce the ordinance on first reading
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
MOTION
____ DIRECTION
____ INFORMATION
I. REQUEST OR ISSUE:
Introduce an ordinance vacating a portion of Spruce Street.
II. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the ordinance.
III.
On October 13, 1915 one B.F. Niesz recorded the plat of the Idlewild Addition, which
included the dedication to public use that portion of Spruce St. lying east of Schaffnit
St./North Park Road. At that time all of the Idlewild Addition was located outside of the
boundaries of the City of Steamboat Springs. Consequently, the dedication was only an
offer to dedicate that could expire or be revoked if not accepted in a reasonable period
of time. An offer to dedicate can be accepted in one of three ways: formal acceptance
by the local governing body; acceptance by public use; or upon annexation by a

municipality.
On February 2, 1993 the City adopted Ordinance No. 1318, which annexed Block 1 of
the Idlewild Addition and all the Idlewild Addition portion of Spruce Street. At that time
Spruce Street improvements terminated at the boundary between Lots 14 and 15, Block
1. The remainder of Spruce Street to the east (hereafter Unimproved Spruce Street),
with the exception of a gravel area used by City maintenance vehicles as a turnaround,
was fenced and used for private purposes. Ordinance No. 1318 included an
acknowledgement of the private nature of the property used as a turnaround.
In 2005 Jennifer Entress (now Jennifer Jessen), the owner of Lots 1-14, Block 1,
Idlewild Addition filed a quiet title action in the Routt County District Court claiming that
the dedication of Unimproved Spruce Street had been revoked by her and her
predecessors fencing and used of Unimproved Spruce Street prior to any acceptance by
the City or the County and that she had acquired title to Unimproved Spruce Street by
adverse possession.
After determining that the Mrs. Jessens claims were likely to be successful, the City
disclaimed its interest in Unimproved Spruce Street in exchange for certain maintenance
and trail easement rights. As a result, the District Court confirmed Mrs. Jessens title to
most of Unimproved Spruce Street.
The exception relates to a fence constructed by Betty Davis, the owner of Block 2,
Idlewild Addition, along the approximate northern boundary of Spruce Street. This
fence encroached into Unimproved Spruce Street and gave Ms. Davis a claim to
ownership of a narrow and roughly triangular strip of Unimproved Spruce Street
consisting of approximately 1,044 square feet (hereafter the Remainder Right of
Way).
The 2005 quiet title action did not adjudicate ownership of the Remainder Right of Way
because Ms. Davis was the only party with a credible claim to ownership and she
apparently did not wish to become involved in the action. Consequently, the City
retained record title to the Remainder Right of Way. However, the Citys title is subject
to the same quiet title claim that was adjudicated in the 2005 quiet title action.
Mrs. Jessen and Jennifer Ganong, who now own Ms. Daviss property, have requested
that the City vacate the Remainder Right of Way. Staff recommends approving the
request for two reasons. First, the Remainder Right of Way is of no practical use to the
City. Second, the Citys title to the Remainder Right of Way is tenuous due to the fact
that the only evidence of acceptance is the Citys 1993 annexation, which did not occur
until seventy-eight years after the offer to dedicate and after the erection of Ms. Daviss
fence.
IV.
LEGAL ISSUES.
None
V. FISCAL IMPACTS.
None.
Attachments:
1. Right of Way Vacation Narrative from Brooks Design Build date
November 10, 2014
2. Right of Way Exhibit
November 10th, 2014
Attachment 1
Tyler Gibbs, Director

Bob Keenan, Senior Planner
Steamboat Springs Dept. of Planning & Community Development
137 10th Street
970.879.2060
RE: ROW VACATION FOR NORTH PARK SUBDIVISION

We are requesting the vacation of a sliver of ROW concurrent with the North Park
Subdivision application. This area was a remnant created between the platted area within
Idlewild Subdivision, Block #1, Lots #1-16 and Idlewild Subdivision, Block #2, Lot #1-13,
which were under separate ownership until recently. The ROW that was platted as part of the
Idlewild Subdivision in these two parcels was never dedicated nor accepted by the City of
Steamboat Springs. Idlewild Subdivision, Block #1, Lots #1-16 was annexed into the city in
1992, with no ROW dedicated as part of that process. The resulting section of ROW is
unusable in shape & size, relevant & usable only to the common ownership of the Idlewild
Parcel and the Entress Subdivision, contains no utilities, is not anticipated for any future
utilities, and serves no functional purpose for public vehicular, pedestrian, either now or in
the future.
Criteria for Approval
ENGINEERING STANDARDS CHAPTER II
2.8. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATIONS. The Public Works Director provides recommendations
on ROW vacations to City council. City Council reviews and directs staff to vacate ROW. In
reviewing requests to vacate ROW, the Public Works recommendation will consider such
items as:
x There is an overall development plan that provides and equivalent alternate public street
network.
Applicant Response: As stated above, the sliver of ROW serves no functional purpose and
will not impact any of the adjacent properties.
x
There are no utilities in the ROW, or adequate easements will be provided prior to the
vacation.
Applicant Response: There are no utilities present within this section of ROW and the
easements created through the Entress Subdivision property adequately serve the properties
adjacent to the ROW vacation.
x
There is no anticipated future need for utility installation or other public improvements in
the ROW.
Applicant Response: Utility improvements / upgrades were performed as part Entress
Subdivision affecting not only the utilities onsite but also offsite utilities located in the
Schaffnit ROW. There are no future needs anticipated that are not adequately served by the
existing utility easements or upgraded utilities within other ROWs already in place.
x
The comprehensive plan does not support development accessing the ROW (such as
secondary units/ garages in alleys).
Applicant Response: No access is required or anticipated across or through the parcel of
ROW proposed to be vacated.
x The request is for a full section of ROW (not for only part of an existing street or block).
Applicant Response: The section of ROW is a remnant parcel which is pie shaped in nature.
There is no functional purpose to its shape and its vacation will not impact the functional use
of any adjacent ROW or private property.
x The vacation does not leave a parcel of land without access to a public street.
Applicant Response: Complies
x The grades in the ROW are not practical for street construction.
Applicant Response: Not Applicable
x There is adequate alternate circulation provided.
Applicant Response: The ROW parcel that we are proposing to vacate serves no functional
purpose for vehicular or pedestrian circulation.
x There is no existing access to the ROW.
Applicant Response: Not Applicable
x There is no potential for future access to the ROW.
Applicant Response: As stated above, we do not anticipate any future need where this parcel
of ROW would be required either for the Entress Subdivision nor any adjacent properties.
Please contact me with any questions or if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
Brian Hanlen
President, Brooks Design / Build, Inc.
CC
Walter McGill, Four Points Surveying, Inc.
Daniel and Jennifer Jessen
Phyllis Ganong
Attachment 2

AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE SPRUCE STREET RIGHT
OF WAY IN THE IDLEWILD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF STEAMBOAT
SPRINGS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND SETTING A HEARING
DATE
WHEREAS, on October 13, 1915 B.F. Niesz dedicated to public use that portion
of the Spruce Street right of way located in the Idlewild Addition; and
WHEREAS, that portion of the Spruce Street right of way located east of the
northerly extension of the western boundary of Lot 14, Block 1, Idlewild Addition
(Unimproved Spruce Street) has not been improved or used as a public road since its
dedication; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005 the Routt County District Court issued an
order determining that the dedication of Unimproved Spruce Street, excepting a 1,044
square foot strip more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A (Remainder
Right of Way), to public use in the plat of the Idlewild Addition was revoked prior to
acceptance by the City or Routt County; and
WHEREAS, the Routt County District Courts November 10, 2005 order quieted
title to Unimproved Spruce Street except the Remainder Right of Way in Jennifer
Entress (now known as Jennifer Jessen) and left the City with record title to the
Remainder Right of Way; and
WHEREAS, the City is in receipt of a request from Jennifer Jessen and Phyllis
Ganong, the owner and prospective owner of the properties on either side of the
Remainder Right of Way, to vacate said Remainder Right of Way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that the Remainder Right of Way
is not useable for any public purpose and that it is in the interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare to vacate said Remainder Right of Way and return it to private
ownership.
SECTION 1. That portion of the Spruce Street right of way described in the attached
Exhibit A is hereby vacated.
safety.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following final passage as
provided in Section 13.6 of the City of Steamboat Springs Home Rule Charter.
SECTION 4. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on _______________,
2015, at 5:15 P.M. in the Citizens Hall meeting room, Centennial Hall, Steamboat
Springs, Colorado.

January, 2015.
___________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
____________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
Exhibit A
Ph: 970-871-6772 Fax: 970-879-8023 P.O. Box 775966 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477
A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A TRACT OF RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED IN THE WEST OF THE

SOUTHWEST OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6 TH P.M., CITY
OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO
A legal description of a tract of right of way located in the west of the SW of Section 9, Township 6 North,
Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Steamboat Springs, Routt County, Colorado, more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of the Entress Subdivision per the final plat as recorded at File No.
13874 of Routt County records; thence along the north line of the Entress Subdivision the following five
courses;
1. N594054E, 11.25 feet;
2. N542603E, 40.69 feet;
3. N431307E, 22.24 feet;
4. N362211E, 22.52 feet;
5. N341907E, 11.39 feet to the point of intersection with the north line of the Spruce Street right of way
as shown on the Idlewild Subdivision as recorded at File No. 2317 of Routt County records;
Thence along a non-tangent curve to left 99.68 feet, having a radius of 487.90 feet, a delta angle of 114221
and a chord which bears S543128W, 99.51 feet; thence departing said right of way, S115113E, 15.68 feet
to the point of beginning, said right of way tract contains 1,044 square feet more or less;
Basis of Bearing: Plat bearing N115113W, 174.79 feet along the west line of Lot 2, Entress Subdivision
between found monuments.
Legal Description by:
Walter Magill,
Colorado Professional Land Surveyor, #38024
MEMORANDUM
TO:
President, President Pro-Tem and Members of the City Council
THROUGH: Deb Hinsvark, City Manager

FROM:
John Overstreet, Director of Parks and Community Services
DATE:
January 15, 2015
RE:
Parks and Recreation Commission Report
The Commission met for a regular meeting on January 14, 2015. Minutes for the
December 10th, 2014 meeting were approved. Commissioners Stoller, Heydon and
Dolman were excused absences.
John Overstreet presented a letter he drafted for the commission in support of

renewing Jim Swiggarts contract at the Tennis Center. The contract is up in Fall of
2015 and the commission would like to see Jim extended for another three years.
Commissioner Lynch wanted to emphasize that the commission is endorsing
renewing the contract as soon as possible and not waiting until the fall nor doing
another bidding process. The commission unanimously endorsed the letter and will
forward the letter to City Manager Hinsvark.
Scott Ledin from Fraser Valley Metropolitan District and Ron Hopp from Foothills
Parks and Recreation District came and did two presentations on how special
districts have worked in their areas. Chairman Koermer opened the discussion to
express the commissions desire to become more educated on district formation and
operations and how they can address regional park and recreation needs and
welcomes public input into this matter.
Mr. Ledins district was formed in 1978 is in a small mountain town where 70% of
the homes are 2nd homes. Mr. Ledins district operates on a property tax mill levy
and serves a 218 square mile area which includes Winter Park, Fraser and
Tabernash. Fraser Valleys 2015 budget is approximately $4.96 million with 61% of
the budget coming from user fees and 39% from property taxes. The operational
mill levy is 2.466 the debt service levy is 4.63 mills. The assessed value of properties
in the district is $273.6 million (2014). Based on a home valuation of $300,000,

current annual taxes are approximately $169 per household.
The district operates a recreation center, golf course, ice rink, trails and provides
parks maintenance and recreation programs to residents and guests. In 2007, the
district passed a $20M bond to construct the recreation center, ice rink and golf
course clubhouse. Mr. Ledin stated that, while the recession did affect property
valuation in the district, the agency has created a capital reserve of $1.6 million to
repair and construct recreation amenities.
Foothills district was formed in 1959 and serves a population of 93,000 with many
amenities. The district encompasses unincorporated Jefferson County and the
district services include two golf courses, The Edge Ice Rink, parks, trails, sports
complex, sports arena and community centers. Foothills annual budget for 2014
(unaudited) was $21.9 million with projected revenues of $23.3 million.
Mr. Hopp stated that the current mill levey for the district is 7.551 mills with 5.179
mills devoted to operations and 2.347 mills devoted to General Obligation bond
debt. The property valuation in the district for 2014 is $954.5 million. Based on a
home valuation of $300,000, current annual taxes are approximately $180 per
household. The Foothills district estimates that 70% of its budget comes from user
fees, admissions and rentals.
Mr. Hopp expressed that the district operates like a municipal government with its
own human resources, finance department, information technology and risk
management. He further stated that many facilities in the district were either
revenue neutral or made substantial revenue, including The Edge Ice Rink, Foothills
Sports Arena and its golf courses.
Commissioners asked questions of Mr. Ledin and Mr. Hopp regarding district
operations and asked about the differences in a district structure versus a municipal
or county structure. Both directors indicated that the district structure removed the
parks and recreation services from general government and allowed for the district
board to weigh similar needs as they relate to parks, trails, recreation, etc during
budget approval. They both found this as a benefit when capital needs are being
evaluated. Each director discussed challenges that have occurred over the past
decade from failed bond initiatives to the economic downturn that affected property
values but see the benefits from operating and serving a regional population.
The next work session meeting will be held on January 28, 2015 at 5:30pm.
AGENDA ITEM #7.

FROM:
Bob Keenan, Senior Planner (Ext. 260)

Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of Planning and Community Development
(Ext. 244)
THROUGH:
Deb Hinsvark, City Manager, (Ext. 228)
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
#ANX-14-01: An ordinance annexing Block 2, Idlewild addition to

the Town of Steamboat Springs as an enclave and providing an
effective date. Planning Commission voted to approve on January
8, 2015; Vote: 6-0.
NEXT STEP:
If City Council approves Pre-Annexation Agreement and the first

reading of the annexation ordinance, the second reading is
scheduled for February 3, 2015.
_x
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
x_ MOTION
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME:
#ANX-14-01: Idlewild Subdivision, Blk. 2, Lots 1-13
PETITION:
Annexation of .72 acre enclave of county land located immediately

south of Stehley Park and north of East Spruce Street.
APPLICANT:
Steven K. Herron Revocable Trust; Phyllis Ganong, PO Box 775743,

PC ACTION:
Planning Commission voted to approve on January 8, 2015; Vote: 6-0
Executive Summary
City Council Required Action
1. Pre-Annexation Agreement approval is required prior to reviewing or approving the
annexation and annexation ordinance. See attachment 3.
Section 26-63(e) states that No petition for annexation of land shall be reviewed
or approved until the petitioner and the city have negotiated and entered into a
pre-annexation agreement governing the proposed development of the land
proposed for annexation, the timing and phasing of such development,
provisions regarding the construction and maintenance of infrastructure required
to serve such land, pre-existing vested property rights and such other matters as
the city shall deem appropriate for inclusion in order to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of its residents.
City staff has worked with the applicant and both parties are acceptable to the
proposed terms in the Pre-Annexation Agreement. As noted below, streets and
utilities are already available to the site and the proposal does not contemplate
any new development at this time. For the reasons above, there are no
outstanding requirements to provide infrastructure to serve the annexed parcel
nor are there any other requirements necessary to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of the residents.
2. Annexation Ordinance A motion is required for the annexation ordinance. See
attachment 4 for the proposed ordinance.

Background
The applicants are proposing to annex a .72 acre parcel of land currently surrounded by
land within the City of Steamboat Springs. This property, Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 113, Block 2 is bordered by Stehley Park to the north, Entress Subdivision to the east,
North Park Road to the west and East Spruce Street to the south. To facilitate the
proposed annexation, the applicant must also seek approval of the following:
Community Plan Minor Amendment This is required to setup the future land
use designation appropriately so that it will support the subsequent rezone to
RE-2 (Estate Residential designation proposed).
Zoning Map Amendment to provide zoning to the annexed property (RE-2
proposed)
Preliminary Plat to merge the annexed property with the existing Entress
Subdivision
Final Plat If the above applications are approved the applicant will finalize
the Preliminary Plat with a subsequent administrative application.
The subject properties are the Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 and the Entress
Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2. The Idlewild property is currently an enclave of county land
outside of the city limits that is proposed to be annexed. This property is currently
undeveloped except for a shed structure. This site was commonly referred to as the
Betty Davis property which previously contained a single-family residence. The Entress
Subdivision is within the City limits and was platted in 2008. This property is zoned RE2. Both lots in the Entress Subdivision are developed with a single-family structure.
The subject properties include development limitations due their natural characteristics.
The lots in the Entress Subdivision have platted building envelopes to restrict
development of the steep slopes along the rear of the subdivision. The Idlewild
property contains development challenges as well. It contains two channels of
Butcherknife Creek that bisect the property along with the associated 50 waterbody
setbacks and floodway and floodplain.
Proposal
The applicants are proposing to annex the .72 acres of land and merge it with lots 1 and 2
of the Entress Subdivision through the concurrent Preliminary Plat application. The result
is no net increase in lots or buildable area. The applicant is proposing to provide
Residential Estate Two Medium Density (RE-2) zoning to the newly annexed parcel
consistent with the Entress Subdivision zoning.
Due to the lack of proposed increased density with this annexation, no fiscal impact
analysis is required. The existing Entress Subdivision, of which the annexed parcel is to
be joined, is currently served by city infrastructure including streets, water, and sewer.
Planning Commission Discussion
Due to the scope of the proposal, Planning Commission discussion was somewhat brief
but did involve some questions and concerns from at least one of the commissioners. The
questions and concerns centered on the potential for the applicant, or subsequent owner,
to successfully annex the property as proposed (no new lots or development potential
proposed) and then, at a later date, petition the city to allow new development on the
annexed property without cause for the impacts of annexation to be reconsidered.
While staff and commissioners appreciated the concern, it was noted that an applicant
would need to come back through the planning process for at least a subdivision
application if not a Community Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. It was
also noted that due to the relatively small size of the property and the fact that it already
has access and utilities to the parcel, the potential impact to the city is somewhat
negligible.
Please see the attached meeting minutes for more information.

Public Comment
Gwenn Power, an adjacent neighbor, spoke at public comment regarding this item. She
was looking for clarification on the development potential that may occur on this property
as a result of the applications. Staff responded that the applications are not proposing or
have any potential for new development.
Please see the attached meeting minutes for more information.

Recommended Motion
On January 8, 2015, with a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission found that the
application was consistent with the criteria for approval and recommended approval of the
Idlewild Annexation, #ANX-14-01.
List of attachments
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
1
2
3
4
PC Staff Report
01/08/15 Draft PC Minutes
Draft Pre-annexation Agreement
Draft Annexation Ordinance
Attachment 1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM #1:
Project Name:
Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13 #ANX-14-01
Prepared By:
Bob Keenan, Senior Planner (Ext

260)
Through:
Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Planning

Director (Ext. 244)
Planning
Commission (PC):
January 8, 2015
City Council (CC):
January 20, 2015
Zoning:
None currently. Residential

Estate Two, Medium Density
(RE-2) is proposed.
Project
Location
530 North
Park Road
Applicant:

Request:
Annexation of .72 acre enclave of county land.
Development Statistics - Overview

Land Area:
.72 acres
Lots proposed
(separate
application)
Planning Department Staff Report 09/02/2009
Staff Report - Table of Contents

Section
I
CDC Staff Analysis
Summary
II
Project Description
III
Principal Discussion Items
IV
Project Analysis
V
Staff Recommendation
VI
Attachments
Pg
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-6
1-6
Page 2 - 1
I.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (CDC) STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY
CDC - SECTION 26-63 (F): THE ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION SHALL BE APPROVED AND
ADOPTED ONLY IF IT APPEARS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST:
Subsection
Consistent
Yes
No
Notes
NA
Consistency with applicable plans

;
;
Compatibility with surrounding
development
;
3)
Consistent with purpose and
standards of zone district
4)
Contribution to affordable housing
; No additional density proposed
;
5)
Effects on natural environment
;
6)
Advantages versus disadvantages
;
7)
Pre-Annexation agreement
Staff Finding: Staff finds the Idlewild annexation proposal is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan (SSACP) and meets the requirements
of the CDC.
1)
2)
II.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants are proposing to annex a .72 acre parcel of land currently surrounded by land
within the City of Steamboat Springs. This property, Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2
is bordered by Stehley Park to the north, Entress Subdivision to the east, North Park Road to
the west and East Spruce Street to the south. To facilitate the proposed annexation, the
applicant must also seek approval of the following:
x Community Plan Minor Amendment This is required to setup the future land use
designation appropriately so that it will support the subsequent rezone to RE-2 (Estate
Residential designation proposed).
x Zoning Map Amendment to provide zoning to the annexed property (RE-2 proposed)
x Preliminary Plat to merge the annexed property with the existing Entress Subdivision
x Final Plat If the above applications are approved the applicant will finalize the
Preliminary Plat with a subsequent administrative application.
Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2. The Idlewild property is currently an enclave of county land outside
of the city limits that is proposed to be annexed. This property is currently undeveloped except
for a shed structure. This site was commonly referred to as the Betty Davis property which
previously contained a single-family residence. The Entress Subdivision is within the City
limits and was platted in 2008. This property is zoned RE-2. Both lots in the Entress
Subdivision are developed with a single-family structure.
The subject properties include development limitations due their natural characteristics. The
lots in the Entress Subdivision have platted building envelopes to restrict development of the
steep slopes along the rear of the subdivision. The Idlewild property contains development
challenges as well. It contains two channels of Butcherknife Creek that bisect the property
along with the associated 50 waterbody setbacks and floodway and floodplain.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicants are proposing to annex the .72 acres of land and merge it with lots 1 and 2 of
the Entress Subdivision through the concurrent Preliminary Plat application. The result is no
net increase in lots or buildable area. The applicant is proposing to provide Residential Estate
Two Medium Density (RE-2) zoning to the newly annexed parcel consistent with the Entress
Subdivision zoning.
Due to the lack of proposed increased density with this annexation, no fiscal impact analysis is
required. The existing Entress Subdivision, of which the annexed parcel is to be joined, is
currently served by city infrastructure including streets, water, and sewer.
IV. PROJECT ANALYSIS

A) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
CDC - Section 26-63 (f): In considering any petition for annexation of land and any related
pre-annexation agreement, the following criteria shall govern unless otherwise expressly
required by the CDC. The ordinance approving the annexation shall be approved and
adopted only if it appears by clear and convincing evidence presented during the public
hearing before city council that the following conditions exist:
CDC - Section 26-63(f)(1): Consistency with applicable plans. The proposed annexation
and proposed development of the land are consistent with the plans for such land shown in
the adopted Steamboat Springs community area plan and any other adopted plans
addressing the future of the area (including, without limitation, the West of Steamboat
Springs area plan, as applicable).
Staff Analysis: Consistent; The proposed annexation is consistent with the Steamboat
Springs Area Community Plan future land use designation of Estate Residential. There is
no proposed development with this annexation as the annexed area is to be joined to the
existing Entress Subdivision lots.
CDC - Section 26-63(f)(2): Compatibility with surrounding development. The type,
height, massing, appearance and intensity of development that would be permitted by the
proposed amendment will be compatible with surrounding city zone districts, land uses,
and neighborhood character, and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern
within the community.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; No development potential of this area is anticipated by this
annexation as it is to be joined to the existing Entress Subdivision lots. The annexed parcel
will be located outside of the allowable building envelope and will remain unchanged,
unless amended through the public process.
CDC - Section 26-63(f)(3): Consistent with purpose and standards of zone district. The
amendment will be consistent with the purpose and standards of the zone district to which
the property is proposed to be designated.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; The annexed land area is proposed to be zone RE-2 and is
consistent with the purpose and intent of that zone district which is to provide areas for
single-family detached living in a low-density environment. This district may be
appropriate for environmentally sensitive areas, and is best located away from high-density
development.
CDC - Section 26-63(f)(1): Contribution to affordable housing. The proposed
development is consistent with any adopted guidelines or requirements for the inclusion of
affordable housing in new development or annexation proposals.
Staff Analysis: Not applicable; The annexation will not result in any increase in density
and for that reason may not be required to comply with any contributions to affordable
housing.
CDC - Section 26-63(f)(1): Effects on natural environment. That the proposed amendment
will not result in significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including water
quality, air quality, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; The proposed amendment will not result in any significant
adverse effects on the natural environment because the entire annexed area is to be
restricted from development as it is proposed to fall outside of the platted building
envelope.
CDC - Section 26-63(f)(1): Advantages versus disadvantages. Taken as a whole, the
advantages of the proposed Annexation substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the

community and neighboring land occasioned by the annexation.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; It is more advantageous than disadvantageous to bring this
enclave of county land into the City limits. Having this land under City jurisdiction will
allow for more community and neighborhood control and certainty over how this parcel is
used and developed. Also, the lot is currently bordered by city infrastructure (streets and
utilities) and, therefore, more advantageous to annex into the City.
CDC - Section 26-63(f)(1): Pre-annexation agreement. That a pre-annexation agreement
has been negotiated and entered into by all involved parties. No petition for annexation of
land shall be approved until the petitioner and the city have negotiated and entered into a
pre-annexation agreement governing the proposed development of the land proposed for
annexation, the timing and phasing of such development, provisions regarding the
construction and maintenance of infrastructure required to serve such land, and such other
matters as the city shall deem appropriate for inclusion in order to protect the health, safety,
and welfare of its residents. All development of the annexed land shall be consistent with
the terms of the approved pre-annexation agreement.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; The draft Pre-Annexation agreement address all the applicable
elements described above and is to be reviewed at the City Council hearing on January 20,
2015. Staff finds the draft Pre-Annexation agreement acceptable.
B) STEAMBOAT SPRINGS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN (SSACP)
SSACP Chapter 4 Growth Management Strategy GM-1.2 (b): Use Criteria to
Evaluate Annexation Proposals - The following criteria shall apply when the city
evaluates a proposed annexation:
1. Utility Service Area - The property must be within the Citys utility service
area with proven feasibility of extending water and sewer service to the parcel.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; Utilities are currently provided to the Entress
Subdivision which is to absorb the annexed parcel.
2. Adequate Facilities and Services - The property could be adequately served by
City police, fire and road maintenance via a road system which would meet City
standards.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; City facilities and services are currently provided to
the Entress Subdivision which is proposed to be combined with the annexed
parcel.
3. Construction of Public Improvements - All public improvements, off-site as

well as on-site, necessary to serve the density of the annexed area shall be
constructed and financed in accordance with City standards and policy.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; No new improvements are proposed or required.
4. Fiscal Impacts - As determined by the City, actual financial impact on the
community for providing police, fire and road maintenance and other public
improvements that would have to be funded by the community would be judged
as to whether or not the tax base or overall benefit coming to the community
would offset those necessary costs, as measured over time and not just at initial
development.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; A fiscal impact report is not required because the
annexation does not propose new development opportunities.
5. Plan Support - Annexation proposals must be supported by the goals, policies,
and strategies of this Plan.
Staff Analysis: Consistent; The proposed annexation is consistent with the
Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan future land use designation of Estate
Residential as well as the goals and policies of the plan. There are no goals or
policies that specifically relate to this application as there is no new
development proposed or anticipated.
V. STAFF FINDING
Staff finds the Idlewild annexation proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan (SSACP) and meets the requirements of the
CDC.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Draft Pre-Annexation Agreement
Attachment 2 Existing Conditions Plan
NORTH PARK SUBDIVISION

PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
This agreement is made and entered into this 8th day of January 2015, by and between Steve K.
Herron Revocable Trust and Phyllis Ganong, hereinafter referred to as Owner and the City of
Steamboat Springs, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
City.
WITNESSETH:
Annexing certain unincorporated lands of Lot 1-13, Block 2 Idlewild, Located in West of the
SW of Section 9, T6N, R84W of the 6th P.M., Steamboat Springs, Routt County, Colorado
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to annex to the City of Steamboat Springs the property more
particularly described on Exhibit A which is attached hereto, incorporated herein, and made a
part hereof (such property is hereinafter referred to as the Property); and
WHEREAS, Owner has executed a petition to annex the Property, a copy of which petition is
attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein and made a part hereof, and Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, Owners acknowledges that upon annexation, the Property will be subject to all
ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be mended from time to
time; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the covenants as hereinafter
set forth, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
I.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING. The annexation of the Property shall be in conformance

with the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended, and with applicable City
Revised Municipal Code provisions.
The Owner requests that the Property be zoned Residential Estates Two Medium Density
(RE-2) with uses per the Community Development Code upon annexation. Owner
acknowledges that the City Council has sole authority to determine the appropriate zone
district for the Property upon annexation and that the Owners request does not bind the
Planning Commission or City Council to adopt the Residential Estates Two Medium
Density (RE-2) zone district for the Property. As part of this application, the annexed parcel
will be divided and aggregated to Lot #1 and Lot #2 in the Entress Subdivision.
A. Land Use. All residential construction will be subject to the types and intensities of
land use permitted pursuant to the Citys Community Development Code in effect on
the date when the building or development applications are filed.
II.
ANNEXATION MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY. The Steamboat Springs Community

Area Plan, Future Land Use Map includes the entirety of the Property. Through a
Community Plan Amendment application, the Applicant will amend the Future Land Use
Map, changing the current designation of Old Town Residential to Estate Residential.
III.
LAND DEDICATION. The dedication of parks, open space, public easements (other than
the drainage easement), and public rights-of-way are not anticipated for this annexation.
A. There shall be a 30-0 drainage easement dedicated as part of this annexation along
both the North and South fork of Butcherknife Creek as it crosses the property. See
Preliminary Plat.
IV.
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES. City agrees to continue to make available to the

Property all of the usual municipal services in accordance with the ordinances and policies of
the City which services include, but are not limited to, police protection and water and sewer
services.
V.
WATER SERVICE. City shall continue to provide water to the Property.

A. Water Fees. Water tap fees shall be the current City water tap fees at the time which
the applicant requests water taps or additional work. Water tap fees shall be paid
when a building permit for a structure is requested from the City.
VI.
WASTE WATER SERVICE. City shall continue to provide waste water to the Property.
A. Waste Water Fees. Waste water tap fees shall be the current City wastewater tap
fees at the time which the applicant requests wastewater taps or additional work.
Waste water tap fees shall be paid when a building permit for a structure is requested
from the City.
VII.
CONFORMS TO CITY REGULATIONS. Owner agrees that the design, improvement,

construction, development, and use of the Property shall be in conformance with Citys
Community Development Code and any other applicable City regulations including, without
limitation, those pertaining to subdivision, zoning, streets, storm drainage, utilities, and flood
control.
VIII.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. Owner agrees to design, construct, and install in accordance

with City approved plans, the following public improvements:
A. None anticipated
IX.
EXCLUSIVITY OF ANNEXATION PETITION. Owner agrees to not sign any other

petition for annexation of the Property or any petition for annexation election relating to the
Property, except upon request of the City.
X.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. Interpretation. Nothing in this agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a
repeal of the Citys ordinances or resolutions, or as a waiver of the Citys legislative,
governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare
of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this agreement prohibit the enactment or
increase by the City or any tax or fee.
B. Severability. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections of the Agreement. The parties hereby declare that
they would have agreed to the Agreement including each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
C. Amendments to the Agreement. This Agreement may be amended, at any time,
upon agreement of the parties hereto. Such amendments shall be in writing, shall be
recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder of Routt County, Colorado, shall be
covenants running with the land, and shall be binding upon all persons or entities
having an interest in the Property subject to the amendment unless otherwise
specified in the agreement.
In addition, this Agreement may be amended by the City and any Owner without the
consent of any other Owner as long as such amendment affects only that Owners
portion of the Property. Such amendments shall be in writing, shall be recorded with
the County Clerk & Recorder of Routt County Colorado, shall be covenants running
with the land, and shall be binding upon all persons or entities having an interest in
the Property subject to the amendment unless otherwise specified in the amendment.
D. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon the parties, their successors in interest, or their legal representatives,
including all developers, purchasers and subsequent owners of any lots or parcels
within the property, and shall constitute covenants running with the land. This
Agreement shall be recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder of Routt County,
Colorado, at Owners expense. Subject to the conditions precedent herein, this
Agreement may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.
E. Indemnification. Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and the
Citys officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability,
claims, and demands.
F. Termination. If the annexation of the Property is, for any reason, not completed then
this Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
G. No Right or Remedy of Disconnection. No right or remedy of disconnection of the
Property from the City shall accrue from this Agreement, other than provided by
applicable state laws. In the event the Property or any portion thereof is disconnected
at Owners request, the City of Steamboat Springs, shall have no obligation to serve
the disconnected property or portion thereof and this Agreement shall be void and of
no further force and effect as to such property or portion thereof.
H. Annexation, Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Subject to Legislative Discretion. The

Owner acknowledges that the annexation, subsequent zoning, and preliminary
platting of the property are subject to the legislative discretion of the City Council of
the City of Steamboat Springs. No assurances of annexation, zoning, or platting have
been made or relied upon by the Owner. In the event that the Steamboat Springs City
Council, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, does not take any action with
respect to the Property herein contemplated, then the sole and exclusive and exclusive
remedy for the breach hereof accompanied by the exercise of such discretion shall be
the withdrawal of the petition for annexation by the Owner, or disconnection from the
City in accordance with state law, as may be appropriate.
I. Legal Discretion in the Case of Challenge. The City reserves the right to not defend
any legal challenge to this annexation. In the event such a challenge occurs prior to
any expiration of the statute of limitations, the City may, at its discretion choose to
contest the challenge or allow the challenge to proceed without defense. This does not
restrict the Owner from engaging the Citys legal representatives in such a defense, at
no cost to the City.
J. Application of Town Polices. Upon annexation, all subsequent development of the
Property, shall be subject to and bound by the applicable provisions of the City
ordinances, as amended, including public land dedications, provided however, that
changes or amendments to the code, after the date of this agreement shall in no way
limit or impair the Citys obligation hereunder, except as specifically set forth in this
Agreement.
K. Amendments to Governing Ordinances, Resolutions, and Policies. As used in this
Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, any references to any
provision of any City ordinance, resolution, or policy is intended to refer to any
subsequent amendments or revisions to such ordinance, resolution, or policy, and the
parties agree that such amendments or revisions shall be binding upon Owner.
L. Legal Fees. In the event that either party finds it necessary to retain an attorney in
connection with a default by the other as to any of the provisions contained in this
Agreement, the defaulting party shall pay the others reasonable attorneys fees and
costs incurred in enforcing the provisions of this agreement.
M. Reimbursement for Other Costs. The owner shall reimburse the City for any third
party costs necessary for the orderly and proper development of the Property,
including, but not limited to consultants fees for planning and engineering, and
attorneys fees for legal services beyond the normal document review, which is
directly linked to the Property.
N. Cooperation. The parties agree that they will cooperate with one another in
accomplishing the terms, conditions, and provisions of the agreement, and will
execute such additional documents as necessary to effectuate the same.
O. Timely Submittal of Materials. Owner agrees to provide legal documents, surveys,

engineering work, newspaper publications, maps, reports and other documents
necessary to accomplish the annexation of the Property and the other provisions of
this agreement.
P. Compliance with State Law. The Owner shall comply with all applicable State law
and regulations.
XI.
COMPLETE AGGREMENT. This instrument embodies the whole agreement of the

parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained
herein; and this Agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations, or
agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto. Except as provided herein
there shall be no modifications of this Agreement except in writing, executed with the same
formalities as this instrument. Subject to the conditions precedent herein this agreement may
be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.
By this acknowledgment, the undersigned hereby certify that the above Agreement is complete
and true and entered into of their own free will and volition.
_____________________________________________________
Steve K. Herron Revocable Trust, Owner
_____________________________________________________
Phyllis Ganong, Owner
_____________________________________________________
Tyler Gibbs, Director of Planning and Community Development
_____________________________________________________
Horizontal Scale
20'
10'
20'
40'
1" = 20'
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
______________________________________________________________________
DATE:
January 8, 2015
TO:
The Planning Commission
FROM:
SUBJECT: Idlewild ANX-14-01 & PP-14-03

______________________________________________________________________
PP-14-03 New Conditions of Approval
Staff is recommending the following conditions of approval be added:
x
x
Approval of the Preliminary Plat shall be contingent on the approval of the Zoning Map
Amendment, ZMA-14-02, to zone the property to RE-2.
Approval of the Preliminary Plat shall be contingent on the successful vacation of the East
Spruce Street right of way as depicted on sheet two of the Preliminary Plat dated, 12/16/14.
Revised Pre-annexation Agreement

There have been some small changes to the Pre-annexation agreement. They have been attached
to this document with track changes so that you can easily identify those changes. The changes
are not substantial and do not change our recommendations or the proposal.
Attachment:
1. Draft Pre-annexation Agreement 1/7/15
Attachment 2
DRAFT STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 8, 2015
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission was
called to order at approximately 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 8, 2015, in the Citizens
Meeting Room, Centennial Hall, 124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
Planning Commission members in attendance were
Chair Jason Lacy, Kathi Meyer, Rich Levy, Michael Buckley, Charlie MacArthur and Jerry
Burns.
Staff members present were city planner Bob Keenan and Director of Planning and
Community Development Tyler Gibbs.
_____________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

None.
1.
Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13 (ANX-14-01)

Applicant:
Jennifer Jessen and Phyllis Ganong
Project Location:
11 & 15 East Spruce Street
Type of Application: Annexation
General Description: A proposed annexation for a .72 acre parcel of property
located on East Spruce Street. This parcel is within unincorporated Routt County
but is surrounded by the City of SBS.
Project Planner:
Robert Keenan AICP, CFM Senior Planner (970) 871-8260,
Email: bkeenan@steamboatsprings.net
STAFF PRESENTATION
Bob Keenan:
Tonight we have a series of applications dealing with the same property. Its the Idlewild
property, a 0.72 acre enclave thats surrounded by lots within the city limits. The applicant
is pitching the city to bring this into the city limits. In doing so, it requires an annexation
application, a zoning map amendment, a preliminary plat. We need to zone the property,
make a legal subdivision of the property. We also have a community plan amendment
application so that the applicant can adjust the future land use designation from residential
Old Town to estate residential so that the subsequent zoning map amendment would meet
the criteria for approval that the zoning map amendment is in conformance with the future
land use designation. The applicant is requesting RE2 zoning, which is consistent with lots
1 and 2 of the Entress subdivision, which they want to adjoin the newly annexed parcel to
lots 1 and 2 of the Entress subdivision. That would be done through a preliminary plat
application.
With the preliminary plat application, theyre proposing to absorb the newly annexed
property into those two lots, which will not result in any new lots or new development within
the city limits because the existing Entress subdivision has platted building envelopes,
which are drawn around the existing homes. Those were platted during the Entress
Planning Commission Minutes

1/08/15
subdivision to restrict development from going up those slopes to the rear, as the slopes to
the rear of those structures on lots 1 and 2 didnt meet the requirements for usable lot area
at the time of subdivision. So theyre not proposing to change the size of those envelopes,
so it won't allow any new structures or development within the annexed area.
Because of the enclave nature of the annexation, Colorado Revised Statutes does not
require fiscal impact analysis not to say that the city couldnt have asked for one, but
because the proposal would not add any new development to the city limits, it didnt seem
like it was a worthwhile endeavor. Also, because its an enclaved property, it doesnt
require a petition to the city. So the rules are a little bit different for the enclave-type
properties.
Planning staff is recommending approval of all four applications.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Brian Hanlen, Representing The Applicant:
The property was purchased 4-5 years ago. It used to be owned by a lady who refused to
be annexed into the city. When the applicant purchased the property, they subsequently
removed her house, and the second dwelling unit ended up getting converted into a
chicken coop. But there were originally two residences on the property. Theyre currently
zoned in the county as AG Forest, so it was a legally nonconforming property that allowed
us to leave the units there, but once removed, they couldnt replace them in kind.
This started out with a fairly simple request of wed like to be able to carve the third parcel
in half and give half of it to one lot in the Entress subdivision and give half to the other lot in
the Entress subdivision. I originally took our request to Chad Phillips of the county and just
tried to see if they would be willing to leave it in the county, divide the property in half, and
we were willing to sign something that more or less stated that they werent developable
lots and that they were just going to remain separate from lot 1 and lot 2 in the Entres
subdivision but could be sold in conjunction with those lots. Chad expressed a lot of
concern about subdividing the property and potential ramifications of somebody coming in
10 years from now assuming that there was some developable right just because its a lot
in the city. So he didnt feel comfortable doing any further subdivision of the lot and steered
me back to the city, at which point we came to them and explored different options to be
able to more or less reach the result that youre looking at tonight. It has a lot of moving
parts to it, but at the end of the day the intent is really straightforward, which is looking for
two larger lots and not seeking any developable right tonight.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Levy:
For staff, in your analysis on Page 1.5, you talk about the criteria for annexation
advantages versus disadvantages. Are there any disadvantages to the city to annex this
piece of property?
Keenan: No, we couldnt find any disadvantages by bringing this into the city. It seemed to
be more advantageous in almost all respects to have this enclave piece of property that
looks and feels to most people that probably dont even notice that its not part of the city.

1/08/15
Levy: You talk about the city having more control over it if we do annex it as an advantage.
Can you talk about that a little bit more?
Keenan: To have it within the city limits places it within regulation by the Community
Development Code and the interests of the community that surround this property rather
than have it be left as county jurisdiction land.
Gibbs: Just having it under the same jurisdiction as all the surrounding properties so
everybody is subject to the same rules.
Levy: Will the city be extending infrastructure to the property?
Keenan: Infrastructure to the property already exists. Weve got Spruce Street that deadends at the Entress subdivision lots 1 and 2, and it has city water and sewer. With the
preliminary plat thats to come, its going to bring that land and adjoin it to those two lots, so
theyll be served.
Hanlen: The original two dwelling units had city water run to both homes. When they
demolished the one home thats to the north, they removed the water meter and
disconnected it back at the street, but both homes were originally served by city water. If
there was an emergency, they were probably being visited by city fire and city police, etc.
One of the big improvements that we felt was made to the property upon the applicants
purchase was there was an original septic system that was probably I would assume 40-50
years old that was directly adjacent to Butcherknife Creek. That was removed and
disconnected as part of the demolition of the house -- improving the potential water quality
at Butcherknife by not running raw sewage directly into the creek.
Levy: Another question I had with the analysis on 1.4, Contribution To Affordable Housing,
your staff analysis says the annexation will not result in any increase in density. Does that
density word come specifically from the code? We could have huge annexations that dont
increase the density. Density is units per square mile or some similar number, so we could
have huge increases in the number of homes without increasing the density. So where
does that analysis come from?
Keenan: The community area plan doesnt have any specific requirement for contribution
for affordable housing. Its contained within the West of Steamboat Area Plan, which this
parcel isnt subject to. But being an annexation, you technically ask for things that aren't
within the CDC, and staff didnt feel like it was prudent or necessary to request any
contribution to affordable housing, particularly because they werent adding any lots or
potential development to the city.
Levy: Im just bringing that up because the terms youre using are what I have trouble with.
Just making sure that if thats coming from the code that the increase in density or even
the west area plan thats something I think we need to address. If 700 were to come
again with all RE2 development, thats not an increase in density. If thats our judgment
standard, its a poor standard.

1/08/15
Gibbs: I think you make a good point that thats a term that should be evaluated as to
whether thats the appropriate term in this context.
Levy: The easement you talk about that runs between Spruce and Missouri, can you talk
about that? Do you have any idea what our future plans are? My question would be
whether there should eventually be sidewalks along there, whether thats going to be a bike
path, alley, road?
Keenan: At the time of the Entress subdivision, they were required to put in that trail that
connects from East Spruce Street to the alley that separates Missouri and Spruce. Its a
platted right-of-way. Im not aware of any particular CIP thats going to fund additional
sidewalks in that area. If we were to have new development adjacent to that Idlewild piece
thats to be annexed, we could require a sidewalk along the frontage to connect up towards
the park.
Hanlen: At the time of the Entress subdivision, several options were explored since theres
no cul-de-sac or hammerhead at the end of Spruce Street. At the time, the preferred
direction by Public Works and Planning staff was to run the trail up the alley where it
connects through. One of the things that should be heavily noted were the improvements
that the applicant paid at the time of the Entress subdivision. The total dollar amount was in
the $920,000 range for engineering, water and sewer improvements, floodway mapping,
wetlands analysis, put in the bridge and the trail system up to where it connects with the
alley. I would make a pretty significant argument that even if we were presenting a proposal
for development tonight that the amount of improvements that theyve made surrounding
this property more than covered this property in addition to the Entress subdivision initially.
There was a significant amount of work done. To your question about extending the trail,
right now it goes up to Shaffnitt Alley. We had a short conversation with Public Works about
extending the soft-surface trail all the way up to the park, and they said that they didnt
require it at this time.
Commissioner Lacy:
Bob, did you want to point out the changes on the pre-annexation agreement?
Keenan pointed out the minor revisions to the agreement that were made at the behest of
the city staff attorney and the applicant.
Keenan: For the preliminary plat, staff is requesting additional conditions of approval to be
contingent on the approval of the zoning map amendment, and that the approval of the
preliminary plat be contingent on the successful vacation of the East Spruce Street right-ofway.
Levy expressed a similar concern to Chad Phillips regarding future development of the
property and wondered whether it would be appropriate to attach a condition of approval to
mitigate such concerns.
Gibbs said that if someone came forward with a proposal to subdivide, that would have to
go through its own public process.
4

1/08/15
Levy said he has no disagreement with this parcel coming into the city, but he was afraid
this could be used to get around certain requirements for annexation that are not being
asked for now because the current application doesnt merit them.
Lacy said he thought it was likely that a more impactful annexation proposal would be
required to go into greater detail regarding future development.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Gwenn Power, 7 East Spruce Street:
How many buildable lots are there with the 50-foot setback? Im more interested in the
longer one next to the trail. How many buildable lots are there in that long section? Could
the applicant remodel that chicken coop to get around the setbacks? If they add onto the lot
across the street from there, they wouldnt have the 15-foot setback from the road, would
they?
Keenan: That area is going to be prohibited from any new development, so theres no
creation of any additional lots. The henhouse is located outside the building envelope, so
they wouldnt be able to do any expansion of that without going through a variance process,
which would require public notice and youd receive notice on that. There is a 25-foot
setback in that zone district from the edge of East Spruce Street up into the lot.
COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION/MOTION
Commissioner Burns moved to approve #ANX-14-01 with the indicated changes to the preannexation agreement.
Commissioner MacArthur seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION ON MOTION
Meyer: I think this is the first annexation weve seen in 10-15 years, and while I know this is
always scary, I think the applicant helped me by giving me the history as to why this is
logical and to have this as a little outlot under the jurisdiction of the county. I think this is a
logical request, so I will be supporting the motion.
VOTE
Vote: 6-0
Voting for approval of motion: Lacy, Buckley, Levy, MacArthur, Meyer and Burns
Discussion on this agenda item ended at approximately 5:32 p.m.
Attachment 3

PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
This agreement is made and entered into this 20th day of January 2015, by and between Steve K.
Herron Revocable Trust and Phyllis Ganong, hereinafter referred to as Owner and the City of
Steamboat Springs, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
City.
WITNESSETH:
Annexing certain unincorporated lands of Block 2 Idlewild, Located in West of the SW of
Section 9, T6N, R84W of the 6th P.M., Steamboat Springs, Routt County, Colorado
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to annex to the City of Steamboat Springs the property more
particularly described as:
Block 2, Idlewild, located in the West of the SW of Section 9, T6N, R84W of the 6th P.M.,
City of Steamboat Springs, Routt County, Colorado
and made a part hereof (such property is hereinafter referred to as the Property); and
WHEREAS, Owners acknowledges that upon annexation, the Property will be subject to all
ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations of the City, as they may be mended from time to
time; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the covenants as hereinafter
set forth, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
I.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING. The annexation of the Property shall be in conformance

with the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended, and with applicable City
Revised Municipal Code provisions.
The Owner requests that the Property be zoned Residential Estates Two Medium Density
(RE-2) with uses per the Community Development Code upon annexation. Owner
acknowledges that the City Council has sole authority to determine the appropriate zone
district for the Property upon annexation and that the Owners request does not bind the
Planning Commission or City Council to adopt the Residential Estates Two Medium
Density (RE-2) zone district for the Property. As part of this application, the annexed parcel
will be divided and aggregated to Lot #1 and Lot #2 in the Entress Subdivision.
A. Land Use. All residential construction will be subject to the types and intensities of
land use permitted pursuant to the Citys Community Development Code in effect on
the date when the building or development applications are filed.
II.
ANNEXATION MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY. The Steamboat Springs Community

Area Plan, Future Land Use Map includes the entirety of the Property. Through a
Community Plan Amendment application, the Applicant will amend the Future Land Use
Map, changing the current designation of Old Town Residential to Estate Residential.
III.
LAND DEDICATION. The dedication of parks, open space, public easements (other than
the drainage easement), and public rights-of-way are not anticipated for this annexation.
A. There shall be a 30-0 drainage easement dedicated as part of this annexation along
both the North and South fork of Butcherknife Creek as it crosses the property. See
Preliminary Plat.
IV.
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES. City agrees to continue to make available to the

Property all of the usual municipal services in accordance with the ordinances and policies of
the City which services include, but are not limited to, police protection and water and sewer
services.
V.
WATER SERVICE. City shall continue to provide water to the Property in accordance with
City regulations and standards. Owner shall be responsible for any extension of public or
private water lines to serve the Property.
A. Water Fees. Water tap fees shall be the current City water tap fees at the time which
the applicant requests water taps or additional work. Water tap fees shall be paid
when a building permit for a structure is requested from the City.
VI.
WASTE WATER SERVICE. City shall continue to provide waste water to the Property in
accordance with City regulations and standards. Owner shall be responsible for any
extension of public or private sanitary sewer lines to serve the Property.
A. Waste Water Fees. Waste water tap fees shall be the current City wastewater tap
fees at the time which the applicant requests wastewater taps or additional work.
Waste water tap fees shall be paid when a building permit for a structure is requested
from the City.
VII.
CONFORMS TO CITY REGULATIONS. Owner agrees that the design, improvement,

construction, development, and use of the Property shall be in conformance with Citys
Community Development Code and any other applicable City regulations including, without
limitation, those pertaining to subdivision, zoning, streets, storm drainage, utilities, and flood
control.
VIII.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. Owner agrees to design, construct, and install in accordance

with City approved plans, the following public improvements:
A. None anticipated
IX.
EXCLUSIVITY OF ANNEXATION PETITION. Owner agrees to not sign any other

petition for annexation of the Property or any petition for annexation election relating to the
Property, except upon request of the City.
X.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. Interpretation. Nothing in this agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a
repeal of the Citys ordinances or resolutions, or as a waiver of the Citys legislative,
governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare
of the City and its inhabitants, nor shall this agreement prohibit the enactment or
increase by the City or any tax or fee.
B. Severability. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections of the Agreement. The parties hereby declare that
they would have agreed to the Agreement including each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
C. Amendments to the Agreement. This Agreement may be amended, at any time,
upon agreement of the parties hereto. Such amendments shall be in writing, shall be
recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder of Routt County, Colorado, shall be
covenants running with the land, and shall be binding upon all persons or entities
having an interest in the Property subject to the amendment unless otherwise
specified in the agreement.
In addition, this Agreement may be amended by the City and any Owner without the
consent of any other Owner as long as such amendment affects only that Owners
portion of the Property. Such amendments shall be in writing, shall be recorded with
the County Clerk & Recorder of Routt County Colorado, shall be covenants running
with the land, and shall be binding upon all persons or entities having an interest in
the Property subject to the amendment unless otherwise specified in the amendment.
D. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon the parties, their successors in interest, or their legal representatives,
including all developers, purchasers and subsequent owners of any lots or parcels
within the property, and shall constitute covenants running with the land. This
Agreement shall be recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder of Routt County,
Colorado, at Owners expense. Subject to the conditions precedent herein, this
Agreement may be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.
E. Indemnification. Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and the
Citys officers, employees, agents, and contractors, from and against all liability,
claims, and demands arising out, or claimed to arise out of, this Agreement.
F. Termination. If the annexation of the Property is, for any reason, not completed then
this Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
G. No Right or Remedy of Disconnection. No right or remedy of disconnection of the
Property from the City shall accrue from this Agreement, other than provided by
applicable state laws. In the event the Property or any portion thereof is disconnected
at Owners request, the City of Steamboat Springs, shall have no obligation to serve
the disconnected property or portion thereof and this Agreement shall be void and of
no further force and effect as to such property or portion thereof.
H. Annexation, Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Subject to Legislative Discretion. The
Owner acknowledges that the annexation, subsequent zoning, and preliminary
platting of the property are subject to the legislative discretion of the City Council of
the City of Steamboat Springs. No assurances of annexation, zoning, or platting have
been made or relied upon by the Owner.
I. Legal Discretion in the Case of Challenge. The City reserves the right to not defend
any legal challenge to this annexation. In the event such a challenge occurs prior to
any expiration of the statute of limitations, the City may, at its discretion choose to
contest the challenge or allow the challenge to proceed without defense. This does not
restrict the Owner from engaging the Citys legal representatives in such a defense, at
no cost to the City.
J. Application of Town Polices. Upon annexation, all subsequent development of the
Property, shall be subject to and bound by the applicable provisions of the City
ordinances, as amended, including public land dedications, provided however, that
changes or amendments to the code, after the date of this agreement shall in no way
limit or impair the Citys obligation hereunder, except as specifically set forth in this
Agreement.
K. Amendments to Governing Ordinances, Resolutions, and Policies. As used in this
Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, any references to any
provision of any City ordinance, resolution, or policy is intended to refer to any
subsequent amendments or revisions to such ordinance, resolution, or policy, and the
parties agree that such amendments or revisions shall be binding upon Owner.
L. Legal Fees. In the event that either party finds it necessary to retain an attorney in
connection with a default by the other as to any of the provisions contained in this
Agreement, the defaulting party shall pay the others reasonable attorneys fees and
costs incurred in enforcing the provisions of this agreement.
M. Reimbursement for Other Costs. The owner shall reimburse the City for any third
party costs necessary for the orderly and proper development of the Property,
including, but not limited to consultants fees for planning and engineering, and
attorneys fees for legal services beyond the normal document review, which is
directly linked to the Property.
N. Cooperation. The parties agree that they will cooperate with one another in
accomplishing the terms, conditions, and provisions of the agreement, and will
execute such additional documents as necessary to effectuate the same.
O. Timely Submittal of Materials. Owner agrees to provide legal documents, surveys,

engineering work, newspaper publications, maps, reports and other documents
necessary to accomplish the annexation of the Property and the other provisions of
this agreement.
P. Compliance with State Law. The Owner shall comply with all applicable State law
and regulations.
XI.
COMPLETE AGGREMENT. This instrument embodies the whole agreement of the

parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained
herein; and this Agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations, or
agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto. Except as provided herein
there shall be no modifications of this Agreement except in writing, executed with the same
formalities as this instrument. Subject to the conditions precedent herein this agreement may
be enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction.
By this acknowledgment, the undersigned hereby certify that the above Agreement is complete
and true and entered into of their own free will and volition.
_____________________________________________________
Steve K. Herron Revocable Trust, Owner
_____________________________________________________
Phyllis Ganong, Owner
_____________________________________________________
Tyler Gibbs, Director of Planning and Community Development
_____________________________________________________

AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING BLOCK 2, IDLEWILD ADDITION TO THE
TOWN OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS AS AN ENCLAVE AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Article II, Section 30 of the Colorado Constitution and
C.R.S. 31-12-106 the City is authorized to annex as an enclave any unincorporated area
that is entirely surrounded by the City and has been entirely contained within the Citys
boundaries for a period of three (3) years; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that Block 2 of the Idlewild Addition
has been entirely surrounded by and contained within the boundaries of the City of
Steamboat Springs for a period of three years by the following properties: Schaffnit St.
and the Crawford Addition to the west; Stehley Park to the north; and Spruce St. and
Block 1 of the Idlewild Addition to the south and east; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-12-108.5 authorizes the annexation of unincorporated
areas without the preparation of an annexation impact report if the area to be annexed
does not exceed ten acres; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Block 2 of the Idlewild Addition has an
area of .72 acres and that therefore no annexation impact report is required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Steamboat Springs hereby finds it
necessary and appropriate to annex Block 2 of the Idlewild Addition in accordance with
Section 31-12-106(1) of the Colorado Revised Statutes and Article II, Section 30 of the
Colorado Constitution.
SECTION 1. Block 2 of the Idlewild Addition is hereby incorporated in and made a

part of the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and
welfare.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take five (5) days after publication following final
passage as provided in Section 7.6(h) of the City of Steamboat Springs Home Rule
Charter.
SECTION 4. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this ordinance, the City
Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to:
A. File one copy of the annexation map with the original of the annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Steamboat Springs,
Colorado.
B. File for recording three certified copies of the annexation ordinance and map
of the area annexed containing a legal description of such area with the Routt
County Clerk and Recorder.
January, 2015.
______________________
ATTEST:
_____________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
__________________________
ATTEST:
_________________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #8.

FROM:

(Ext. 244)
THROUGH:
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
Resolution: #CP-14-02: Idlewild Subdivision, Blk. 2, Lots 1-13;

Steamboat Springs Community Area Plan (SSACP) Minor
Amendment Future Land Use Designation
NEXT STEP:
If City Council approves this resolution, the Future Land Use

Designation will be amended.
__
X
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
_ MOTION
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME:
#CP-14-02: Idlewild Subdivision, Blk. 2, Lots 1-13
PETITION:
Steamboat Springs Community Area Plan (SSACP) Minor

Amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation of the
Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 and Entress Subdivision,
Lots 1 and 2 from Old Town Residential to Estate Residential.
APPLICANT:

PC ACTION:
Executive Summary
Background
proposed)
Subdivision
Per the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan Future Land Use Designation, the
subject properties are classified with Old Town Residential designation. The Old Town
Residential designation supports a future zoning of Residential Old Town (RO) only. It
appears that the Area Plan took a broad-brush approach in designating the entire old town
area with the future designation of Residential Old Town without regard for feasibility of
small lot zoning or transition areas.
Proposal
The applicant is proposing to change the Area Plan Future Land Use Designation of the
subject properties from Old Town Residential to Estate Residential to better reflect the
development challenges of these properties and to enable the proposed zoning of the
Idelwild property to be consistent with that of the Entress Subdivision, RE-2.
Given the natural constraints of the site, the character of the immediate area, and the
development that already exists in the Entress Subdivision, it seems appropriate to change
to a less dense future land use designation of Estate Residential.
There was no Planning Commission discussion on this item as this application is part of a
series and the entirety of the discussion took place under the annexation agenda item.
Public Comment
There was no public comment on this particular item.
Recommended Motion
On January 8, 2015, with a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission found the Steamboat
Springs Community Area Plan (SSACP) Minor Amendment, #CP-14-02, to change the
Future Land Use Designation of the subject parcels from Old Town Residential to Estate
Residential to be consistent with the SSACP criteria for approval in CDC Section 26-32.
List of attachments
Attachment 1 PC Staff Report
Attachment 2 01/08/15 Draft PC Minutes
Attachment 3 Draft Resolution
Attachment 1
AGENDA ITEM # 2
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION FORM
FROM:
Bob Keenan, AICP Senior Planner (Ext. 260)
THROUGH:
Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of Planning and Community Development (Ext.

244)
DATE:
January 8, 2015
ITEM:
Steamboat Springs Community Area Plan (SSACP) Minor Amendment

Future Land Use Designation
___
X
___
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
MOTION
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME:
CP-14-02, Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13
PETITION:
Steamboat Springs Community Area Plan (SSACP) Minor Amendment to

change the Future Land Use Designation of the Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 113, Block 2 and Entress Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 from Old Town
Residential to Estate Residential.
LOCATION:
Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 and Entress Subdivision, Lots 1

and 2
APPLICANT:


January 8, 2015
I. RECOMMENDED MOTION
Staff finds the SSACP minor amendment is in conformance with the criteria for approval in
CDC Section 26-32.
II. VICINITY MAP
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The applicants are proposing to annex a .72 acre parcel of land currently surrounded by land
within the City of Steamboat Springs. This property, Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2
is bordered by Stehley Park to the north, Entress Subdivision to the east, North Park Road to the
west and East Spruce Street to the south. To facilitate the proposed annexation, the applicant
must also seek approval of the following:
Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2. The Idlewild property is currently an enclave of county land outside
of the city limits that is proposed to be annexed. This property is currently undeveloped except
for a shed structure. This site was commonly referred to as the Betty Davis property which
2

January 8, 2015
previously contained a single-family residence. The Entress Subdivision is within the City
limits and was platted in 2008. This property is zoned RE-2. Both lots in the Entress
Subdivision are developed with a single-family structure.
The subject properties include development limitations due thier natural characteristics. The
lots in the Entress Subdivision have platted building envelopes to restrict development of the
steep slopes along the rear of the subdivision. The Idlewild property contains development
challenges as well. It contains two channels of Butcherknife Creek that bisect the property
along with the associated 50 waterbody setbacks and floodway and floodplain.
Per the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan Future Land Use Designation, the subject
properties are classified with Old Town Residential designation. The Old Town Residential
designation supports a future zoning of Residential Old Town (RO) only. It appears that the
Area Plan took a broad-brush approach in designating the entire old town area with the future
designation of Residential Old Town without regard for feasibility of small lot zoning or
transition areas.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to change the Area Plan Future Land Use Designation of the subject
properties from Old Town Residential to Estate Residential to better reflect the development
challenges of these properties and to enable the proposed zoning of the Idelwild property to be
consistent with that of the Entress Subdivision, RE-2.
Given the natural constraints of the site, the character of the immediate area, and the
development that already exists in the Entress Subdivision, it seems appropriate to change to a
less dense future land use designation of Estate Residential.
V. STAFF / AGENCY ANALYSIS
A. Criteria for Review and Approval (CDC Section 26-32)
(i) Criteria for review and approval. The council may approve an amendment to the future land
use map if it is determined that one of the following applies:
(1) The current future land use map does not provide sufficient land with the requested
designation and the location requested is the best site to provide such designation; or
Staff Analysis: Consistent. The location in question is most suitable to provide a Future
Land Use Designation of Estate Residential. As previously stated, the physical constraints
of the subject properties and the character of the immediate area lend itself to a less dense
designation and future zoning.
(2) The change in land use designation is compatible with the goals and policies of the
community plan.

January 8, 2015
Staff Analysis: Consistent. The application is consistent with the following goals and
policies of the SSACP:
x
x
x
x
x
Strategy LU-3.1(a): Continue to Enhance Older Neighborhoods

Policy LU-2.1: Infill and redevelopment will occur in appropriate locations, as
designated by the city.
Policy LU-2.2: Residential infill will be compatible in character and scale with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Policy LU-3.1: New development will maintain and enhance the character and
identity of existing residential neighborhoods.
Policy CD-1.5: Infill and redevelopment projects shall be compatible with the
contest of existing neighborhoods and development.
VI. STAFF FINDINGS

Staff finds this Steamboat Springs Community Area Plan (SSACP) Minor Amendment to
change the Future Land Use Designation of the subject parcels from Old Town Residential
to Estate Residential to be consistent with the SSACP criteria for approval in CDC Section
26-32.
VII.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicants Narrative
December 9th, 2014

137 10th Street
970.879.2060
RE: NORTH PARK SUBDIVISION FLUM CRITERIA
This letter addresses the criteria for a change to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
Sec. 26-32. - Community plan future land use map amendments.
(5) Letter. A letter containing:
a. A clear statement or description of the requested amendment;
b. The purpose for the request and intent for future development of the subject site; and
c. A detailed description of how the proposed change of land use designation will further the
goals and intent of the community plan with specific references to language contained in the
community plan.
Applicants Response: As part of the concurrent applications to Annex, Zone, Subdivide, and
Aggregate the North Park Subdivision property; Planning Staff has recommended that the
property be zoned to Residential Estate Two (RE-2) to match the adjacent properties it will
be aggregated to as part of this application process. We are requesting a change to the FLUM
to run concurrently with the proposed zoning of this property. The North Park Subdivision
will be divided into Parcel A & B which will be aggregated to Lots #1 and Lot #2 of the
Entress Subdivision respectively. The Entress Subdivision is currently zoned RE-2, due
primarily to the size and configuration of the lots. The North Park Subdivision, due both to
its atypical shape and configuration relative to relative to adjacent downtown lots as well as
seeking a zone district that will be congruent with the lots to which they will be aggregated,
was recommended by Staff to be zoned as RE-2, thus requiring this change on the FLUM the
Estate Residential.
x Strategy LU-3.1(a): Continue to Enhance Older Neighborhoods
x Policy GM-2.2: Development will only be allowed in areas where it can be adequately
served by critical public facilities and services.
x Policy CD-1.5: Infill and redevelopment projects shall be compatible with the context of
existing neighborhoods and development.
x Policy CD-2.3: Incorporate natural features in new development areas and orient
structures to maximize energy efficiency and water conservation.
(i) Criteria for review and approval. The council may approve an amendment to the future
land use map if it is determined that one of the following applies:
(1) The current future land use map does not provide sufficient land with the requested
designation and the location requested is the best site to provide such designation; or
Applicants Response: As stated above, due to the size and configuration and adjacent lots to
which these parcels will be aggregated, the Estate Residential designation is a more
appropriate designation on the FLUM. Residential Old Town lots are typically small,
consistent in size, and rectilinear in shape. The irregular shape of the North Park Subdivision
is better suited to one the larger lot designations that exist in the CDC, in this case RE-2.
(2) The change in land use designation is compatible with the goals and policies of the
community plan.
Applicants Response: The FLUM currently designates these parcels as being a future use of
Old Town Residential. We are requesting a change of this designation to be Estate
Residential. We feel that this furthers the goals of the area plan due to the transitional nature
of this specific parcel and how it is easily deemed appropriate to be zoned with the larger lot
zoning of Estate Residential / Residential Estate Two. We have attached a map showing the
adjacent zoning and how this specific parcel is surrounded by RE-2, RO, OR, OH, and RN-2.
Sincerely,
Brian Hanlen
CC
Phyllis Ganong
Attachment 2
January 8, 2015
Burns.
_____________________________________________________________________

None.
2. Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13 (CP-14-02)

Applicant:
Project Location:
Type of Application: Community Plan Amendment
General Description: Community Area Plan Future Land Use Classification Amendment
to amend the current classification of Old Town Residential to Estate Residential to
better reflect the development limitations of the property.
Project Planner:
See Item 1 for presentations, discussion and comments on this general series of
applications.
Commissioner MacArthur moved to approve #CP-14-02.
Commissioner Burns seconded the motion.
VOTE
Vote: 6-0

RESOLUTION NO._____
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE CHANGE OF THE FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF THE IDLEWILD SUBDIVISION, LOTS 1-13, BLOCK 2 AND
ENTRESS SUBDIVISION, LOTS 1 AND 2 FROM OLD TOWN RESIDENTIAL TO
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR
APPROVAL OF A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE STEAMBOAT SPRINGS AREA
COMMUNITY PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to change the Future Land Use designation of the
parcel of land known as Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 and Entress Subdivision, Lots
1 and 2 from Old Town Residential to Estate Residential so that designation becomes more
consistent with the character of the immediate area and to better recognize the natural
development constraints of this area; and
WHEREAS, the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan and the Community
Development Code expressly give the City Council the ability to make minor amendments to the
Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Steamboat Springs City Council finds that the above mentioned Minor
Amendment to the Community Plan meets all of the criteria for approval required of a Minor
Amendment to the Community Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Finding. The future land use designation of the parcel of land known as Idlewild
Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 and Entress Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 is hereby changed
from Old Town Residential to Estate Residential.
Section 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the City of Steamboat Springs City Council.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this
day of _______, 2015.
__________________________
ATTEST:
______________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #9.

FROM:

(Ext. 244)
THROUGH:
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
Ordinance: ZMA-14-02, Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13
NEXT STEP:
If City Council approves the first reading of the Zoning Map

Amendment Ordinance, the second reading is scheduled for
February 3, 2015.
_X ORDINANCE
__ RESOLUTION
__ MOTION
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME:
#ZMA-14-02: Idlewild Subdivision, Blk. 2, Lots 1-13
PETITION:
Official Zoning Map Amendment to provide Residential Estate Two

Medium Density (RE-2) zoning to the property.
APPLICANT:

PC ACTION:
Executive Summary
Background
proposed)
Subdivision
Proposal
The proposed Zoning Map Amendment intends to provide Residential Estate Two
Medium Density (RE-2) zoning to this .72 acre parcel of land. This proposed zoning is
consistent with the existing zoning of the Entress Subdivision in which it is to be joined
through the concurrent Preliminary Plat.
Public Comment
Recommended Motion
On January 8, 2015, with a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission found the proposed
Zoning Map Amendment to be consistent with the criteria for approval per CDC Section
26-62.
List of attachments
Attachment 3 Zoning Ordinance
Attachment 1

Project Name:
Prepared By:
ZMA-14-02, Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13

Bob Keenan, Senior Planner (Ext.
260)
Through:
Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of

Planning and Community
Development (Ext. 244)
Planning
Commission (PC):
January 8, 2015
City Council (CC):
January 20, 2015 First Reading
Project location
February 3, 2015 Second Reading

Existing Zoning:
None - Annexation
Proposed Zoning:
Residential Estate Two Medium

Density (RE-2)
Steven K. Herron Revocable Trust;
Phyllis Ganong, PO Box 775743,
Applicant:
Request:
530 North
Park Road
Official Zoning Map Amendment to provide Residential Estate Two

Medium Density (RE-2) zoning to the property.
Section
I.
II.
III
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Staff Finding
Project Location
Background Information
Project Description
Staff/Agency Analysis
Staff Findings
Attachments
Pg
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-5
3-5
PC Hearing: 01/08/2015
CC Hearing: 01/20/2015
I. STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the Zoning Map Amendment, #ZMA-14-02, to zone a .72 acre parcel with the
Residential Estate Two Medium Density (RE-2) designation is consistent with the Community
Development Code criteria for approval for an Official Zoning Map Amendment.
II. PROJECT LOCATION
III.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicants are proposing to annex a .72 acre parcel of land currently surrounded by land within
the City of Steamboat Springs. This property, Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 is
bordered by Stehley Park to the north, Entress Subdivision to the east, North Park Road to the west
and East Spruce Street to the south. To facilitate the proposed annexation, the applicant must also
seek approval of the following:
Department of Planning and Community Development

Staff Report
Page 3-2
Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2. The Idlewild property is currently an enclave of county land outside of
the city limits that is proposed to be annexed. This property is currently undeveloped except for a
shed structure. This site was commonly referred to as the Betty Davis property which previously
contained a single-family residence. The Entress Subdivision is within the City limits and was
platted in 2008. This property is zoned RE-2. Both lots in the Entress Subdivision are developed
with a single-family structure.
The subject properties include development limitations due thier natural characteristics. The lots
in the Entress Subdivision have platted building envelopes to restrict development of the steep
slopes along the rear of the subdivision. The Idlewild property contains development challenges as
well. It contains two channels of Butcherknife Creek that bisect the property along with the
associated 50 waterbody setbacks and floodway and floodplain.
IV.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Zoning Map Amendment intends to provide Residential Estate Two Medium
Density (RE-2) zoning to this .72 acre parcel of land. This proposed zoning is consistent with the
existing zoning of the Entress Subdivision in which it is to be joined through the concurrent
Preliminary Plat.
V.
STAFF / AGENCY ANALYSIS
Criteria for Review and Approval

In considering any petition for amendment to the Official Zoning Map, the following criteria
contained in Section 26-62 shall govern unless otherwise expressly required by the CDC. The
ordinance approving the rezoning amendment shall be approved and adopted only if it appears by
clear and convincing evidence presented during the public hearing before City Council that the
following conditions exist:
1.
Justification. One of the following conditions exists:
a) The rezoning is necessary to correct a mistake in the current zoning map; or

b) The amendment to the overlay zone district was an error; or
c) The rezoning is necessary to respond to changed conditions since the adoption of the
current zoning map; or
d) The rezoning will substantially further the community plan's preferred direction and
policies, or specific area plans, and the rezoning is compatible with the community plan
land use map designation for the property, or is accompanied by an application for an
amendment to the community plan land use map and the amendment is approved prior
to approval of the requested zoning map amendment.
Staff Report
Page 3-3
Staff Finding:
Staff finds this request is consistent with justifications (c) and (d). The Zoning Map
Amendment is responding to a changed condition since the adoption of the current zoning
map amendment as the subject property did not existing within the City limits.
The proposed amendment is in conformance with Steamboat Springs Area Community
Plan and substantially furthers the Community Plans preferred direction. The proposed
zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, as amended by the previous
application, of the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan that depicts this area as Estate
Residential. Residential Estate Two Medium Density (RE-2) zoning is one of two zone
districts that are the most appropriate zone district for Estate Residential category. The
other appropriate zoning for this future land use designation is RE-1. However, RE-1
zoning is not consistent with the zoning or character of the immediate area.
2.
Compatibility with Surrounding Development. The type, height, massing,
appearance and intensity of development that would be permitted by the proposed
amendment will be compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses, and
neighborhood character, and will result in a logical and orderly development pattern within
the community.
Staff Finding:
Staff finds the proposed zone change to RE-2 is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent
lots that it is proposed to be joined to through the subsequent Preliminary Plat application.
RE-2 zoning is also the most appropriate given the transitional nature of this area and the
physical constraints of the subject parcel.
3.
Advantages vs. Disadvantages. The advantages of the zone district proposed
substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the community and/or neighboring land
occasioned by the zoning amendment; and
Staff Finding:
Staff finds the advantages of the proposed zoning of this property outweigh the
disadvantages to the community and/or neighboring lands. The zoning of RE-2 is
consistent with the transitional nature of this area provides low density zoning that respects
the development challenges of this property.
4.
Consistent with Purpose and Standards of Zone District. The amendment will
be consistent with the purpose and standards of the zone district to which the property is
proposed to be designated.
Staff Finding:
This amendment will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the (RE-2) zone district
which is intended to provide areas for single-family detached living in a low-density
Staff Report
Page 3-4
environment. This district may be appropriate for environmentally sensitive areas, and is
best located away from high-density development.
5.
Effects on Natural Environment. That the proposed amendment will not result in
significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including water quality, air quality,
wildlife habitat, vegetation, wetlands, and natural landforms.
Staff Finding:
The proposed change of Zoning will not have any adverse effects on the natural
environment. A Preliminary Plat for this site will remove the ability to develop any of the
sensitive areas on the site. Also, site development will be required to comply with all
applicable environmental standards established by the City.
VI. STAFF FINDINGS

Staff finds the proposed Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the criteria for
approval per CDC Section 26-62.
VII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant Narrative
2. Adjacent Zoning and Proposed Zoning Map

Staff Report
Page 3-5
October 17th, 2014

137 10th Street
970.879.2060
RE: REVISED NORTH PARK SUBDIVISION NARRATIVE

This revised narrative is in response to the TAC comments issued by the City of Steamboat
Springs dated August 13th, 2014 and the subsequent discussions regarding / clarifying those
comments. This is an annexation request, zoning map amendment, and preliminary plat
application to run concurrently through the City of Steamboat Springs Planning process.
Original / Existing Conditions
The property is a .718 acre parcel located in downtown Steamboat Springs. Butcher Knife
Creek runs through the property and the site has little change in topography (just over 6-0
from West to East). There is a bifurcated channel of Butcher Knife Creek located to the
northern side of the property that is not represented on the City or FEMA maps that was
believed to have been dug over forty years ago by the previous owner (making it a man-made
water way vs. a natural water way). The property is currently part of Routt County and zoned
AF (Agriculture Forest). This parcel is considered legal non-conforming due to its small size
and not meeting the 35 acre minimum size for a parcel in this zone district. It is surrounded
by City of Steamboat Springs property and is non-contiguous to any Routt County property.
When the current owners purchased the property, there were two residential structures (both
with kitchens) located on the property. These dwellings shared / utilized a 50+ years old
septic system, city water, two outbuildings, one pedestrian bridge, and two vehicular bridges.
After purchasing the property, the current owners cleaned up the dead trees and overgrown
vegetation that had been choking the waterway(s). They also removed the northern
residential structure, the two outbuildings, the two vehicular bridges, and the outdated septic
system. After the property was cleaned up, the southern residential structure was converted to
a chicken coop and extensive landscaping and new trees were installed on the property.
This property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is designated as Old Town
Residential on the Future Land Use Map, implying anticipation by the City for future
annexation into the City Limits with densities consistent within the adjacent neighborhood(s).
The Environmental Constraints Map does not designate this area as being flood prone. It is
also not designated as being habitat on the Important Wildlife Habitat Map.
Adjacent Properties
The properties to the south and west of this application are zoned Residential Old Town
(RO). The adjacent 2.67 acre parcel to the southeast now known as the Entress Subdivision
was annexed into the City in 1993 and is zoned Residential Estate-2 (RE-2). The property to
the north known as Stahley Park is zoned Open Space and Recreation (OR) and is owned by
the City of Steamboat Springs.
Proposed Improvements
We are proposing to annex the property into the City of Steamboat Springs. Based on
direction from City Planning Staff, at the time of annexation, we are requesting a zoning of
Residential Estate - Medium Density (RE-2). While this is not in conformance with the 2004
Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map, Staff felt that this was a
preferable direction for the property at this time. The Applicant would strongly recommend
maintaining the FLUM vs. changing it to meet the short term goals of this property as the site
represents a easy parcel to fulfill the goals of infill and density within the existing urban
fabric.
After the property has been zoned, we then propose to subdivide the property into Parcel A
and Parcel B that would then be aggregated respectively to Lot #1 and Lot #2 of the adjacent
Entress Subdivision. It should be strongly noted that there is no buildable right being
requested or conveyed for the property at this time by being annexed. The existing building
envelopes of the Entress Subdivision will be maintained for the purposes of the new
Preliminary Plat.
In summary we feel that this project can be reviewed and approved expeditiously as it has no
impact to the City of Steamboat Springs or directly adjacent property owners and furthers the
intended plan(s) represented within the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan. The
improvements made in good faith by the applicants have significantly improved the existing
conditions of the site and have also improved water quality. We would stress to those
performing the review of this application that any requests or comments be commensurate
with the small size and impacts of this project. It should be noted that the applicants made
significant improvements to Spruce Street, offsite utilities upgrades, built a soft-surface trail
and bridge at the time of the Entress Subdivision in 2007 / 08 which cost in excess of
$920,000. These existing off-site improvements performed by the applicant are of additional
benefit of this application as it reduces any future improvements that would have typically
been required of this parcel.
The preliminary Plat will incorporate a sliver of unusable sliver of City Right of Way
(approximately 1,056 sq ft). We are also seeking to reaffirm the previously approved
variance for the minimum required lot frontage for the RE-2 zone district. This had been
previously sought and granted with the Entress Subdivision Preliminary Plat application in
2007 / 2008. The variance criteria are reviewed below.
Pre-Annexation Agreement
The pre-annexation has been revised based on feedback and discussion which occurred after
the TAC comments were issued. The revised document is an attachment to this narrative.
Sec. 26-63 Annexation.
(f) Criteria for approval
(1) Consistency with applicable plans. The proposed annexation is consistent with the plans
for such land shown in the adopted Steamboat Springs Community Area Plan and any other
adopted plans addressing the future of the area.
Applicants Response: Conforms. This site is located within the existing urban fabric of
downtown Steamboat Springs. The Future Land Use Map identifies this parcel being both
within the City limits as well as being developed at a density matching that of adjacent
neighborhoods of Old Town Residential and Residential Estate Two. Redevelopment of this
site also requires no new off-site infrastructure (road, water, sewer, or dry utilities).
Improvements to the off-site utilities and infrastructure were performed for the Entress
Subdivision will benefit the future development of this site.
Some of the applicable goals, policies, and strategies from the Steamboat Spring Community
Area Plan
Policy LU-2.1. Infill and redevelopment will occur in appropriate locations, as designated by
the city.
Policy LU-2.2: Residential infill will be compatible in character and scale with the
surrounding neighborhood
Policy LU-3.1: New development will maintain and enhance the character and identity of
existing residential neighborhoods.
Goal GM-1: Steamboat Springs will have a compact land use pattern within a well defined
boundary
Policy GM-1.2: Urban development will be required to be locate within the UGB
Strategy GM-1.2: Consider annexation of existing urbanized areas
Policy GM-1.3: Infill development and redevelopment will be promoted in targeted areas.
Policy CD-1.5: Infill and redevelopment projects shall be compatible with the context of
existing neighborhoods and development
Policy T-2.1: New development shall include an interconnected pedestrian and bicycle
system
Goal NS-1 Our community will work to maintain the health and integrity of the Yampa and
Elk Rivers and their tributaries.
Goal OS-3. Enhance and expand our existing City of Steamboat Springs trail system
Policy SPA-1.2. Promote infill, redevelopment, and affordable housing in Old Town, but
new development should preserve Old Towns historical character.
(2) Compatibility with surrounding development. The type, height, massing, appearances,
and intensity of development that would be permitted by the proposed amendment will be
compatible with surrounding city zone districts, land uses, and neighborhood character, and
will result in a logical and orderly development pattern with the community.
Applicants Response: The proposed zoning successfully demonstrates the compatibility with
the character of downtown Steamboat Springs. At this time no buildable right is being
requested or conveyed, but we believe that we are creating a scalable project that in time will
be built-out with an appropriate scale and character based on the adjacent zoning.
(3) Consistent with purpose and standards of zone district. The amendment will be consistent
with the purpose and standards of the zone district to which the property is proposed to be
designated.
Applicants Response: Conforms. After receiving direction from Planning Staff we are
proposing Residential Estate Two (RE-2) zoning based off the adjacent lots in the Entress
Subdivision to which these lots will be aggregated.
(4) Contribution to affordable housing. The proposed development is consistent with any
adopted guidelines or requirements for the inclusion of affordable housing in new
development or annexation proposals.
Applicants Response: Conforms. At this time the Applicant is not proposing any buildable
lots and thus has no impact which would require a contribution. At the time the Applicant
purchased this parcel, there were two residential homes located on this parcel. Based on this
fact, even at which time (through a future application) developable lots are created, there is
no additional impact to the City for the annexation of this parcel.
(5) Effects on natural environment. That the proposed development will not result in
significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including water quality, air quality
wildlife habitat and vegetation.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The original conditions consisted of an antiquated septic
system and two outbuildings that were located in the floodway of Butcher Knife Creek. In
good faith, the applicants removed these improvements. The wetlands that were identified in
2007 during the Entress Subdivision review will be avoided with any of the proposed future
improvements. The existing building envelopes located on Lot #1 and Lot #2 of the Entress
Subdivision will be unchanged in this application and thus not allow any change / impact to
the waterways or wetlands located on the parcels.
(6) Advantages versus disadvantages. Taken as a whole, the advantages of the proposed
annexation substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the community and neighboring land
occasioned by the annexation.
Applicants Response: Conforms. By removing the antiquated septic system which was
shared by two dwelling units, removing the two structures in the floodway, removal of the
dead / overgrown vegetation along the waterways, and the re-vegetation of the site with
appropriately placed native trees and bushes, water quality for Butcher Knife Creek has been
significantly improved. In the immediate term, there will be no visual or physical change to
the site. When or if the site is developed in the future (not through this application), there will
be no net increase in residential units to downtown Steamboat Springs.
(7) Pre-annexation agreement. That a pre-annexation agreement has been negotiated and
entered into by all involved parties. No petition for annexation of land shall be approved
until the petitioner and the city have negotiated and entered into a pre-annexation agreement
governing the proposed development of the land proposed for annexation, the timing and
phasing of such development, provisions regarding the construction and maintenance of
infrastructure required to serve such land, and such other matters as the city shall deem
appropriate for inclusion in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
All development of the annexed land shall be consistent with the terms of the approved preannexation agreement.
Applicants Response: Attached is the revised draft of Pre-Annexation Agreement based on
feedback from the Steamboat Springs Planning Department.
From the Steamboat Springs Area Community Area Plan
Strategy GM-1.2(b): Use Criteria to Evaluate Annexation Proposals The following criteria shall apply when the city evaluates a proposed annexation:
1. Utility Service Area - The property must be within the Citys utility service area with
proven feasibility of extending water and sewer service to the parcel.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The site was previously served by City Water to the two
dwelling units and when the Entress Subdivision Offsite Utility improvements were
performed, the North Park adjacent utilities were enhanced as a result. The Applicant is not
proposing any changes to the water and sewer services as part of this application.
2. Adequate Facilities and Services - The property could be adequately served by City police,
fire and road maintenance via a road system which would meet City standards.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The property can adequately be served by City police, fire
and road maintenance as the property meets the required City standards. Improvements were
made by on-site and off-site at the time of the Entress Subdivision in 2007 / 2008 with no
change to the densities as a result of this application.
3. Construction of Public Improvements - All public improvements, off-site as well as on-site,
necessary to serve the density of the annexed area shall be constructed and financed in
accordance with City standards and policy.
Applicants Response: As stated above, the annexation will not require any improvements
onsite or off-site as a result of this application. This annexation will reside on-paper and
will not result in any physical changes on the property.
4. Fiscal Impacts - As determined by the City, actual financial impact on the community for
providing police, fire and road maintenance and other public improvements that would have
to be funded by the community would be judged as to whether or not the tax base or overall
benefit coming to the community would offset those necessary costs, as measured over time
and not just at initial development.
Applicants Response: Again as stated above, the application is not requiring any physical
improvements and will have no impact or cost to the City of Steamboat Springs.
5. Plan Support - Annexation proposals must be supported by the goals, policies, and
strategies of this Plan.
Applicants Response: Conforms. This site is located within the existing urban fabric of
downtown Steamboat Springs. The Future Land Use Map identifies this parcel being both
within the City limits as well as being developed at a density matching that of adjacent
neighborhoods of Old Town Residential and Residential Estate Two. Redevelopment of this
site also requires no new off-site infrastructure (road, water, sewer, or dry utilities).
Improvements to the off-site utilities and infrastructure were performed for the Entress
Subdivision will benefit the future development of this site. See list of SSACP references
above.
Sec. 26-62 Official Zoning Map Amendments.
(d) Criteria for approval. In considering any petition for amendment to the official zoning
map, the following criteria shall govern unless otherwise expressly required by the CDC. The
ordinance approving the rezoning amendment shall be approved and adopted only if it
appears by clear and convincing evidence presented during the public hearing before city
council that the following conditions exist:
(1) Justification. One of the following conditions exists:
a. The rezoning is necessary to correct a mistake in the current zoning map: or
b. The amendment to the overlay zone district was an error: or
c. The rezoning is necessary to respond to changed conditions since the adoption of the
current zoning map: or
d. The rezoning will substantially further the community plans preferred direction and
policies, or specific area plans, and the rezoning will substantially conform to the community
plan land use map designation for the property, or is accompanied by an application for an
amendment to the community plan land use map and the amendment is approved prior to
approval of the requested zoning amp amendment.
Applicants Response: Conforms. This zoning proposal is both a response to a change in the
conditions since the adoption of the current zoning map created by the proposed annexation
as well as furthering the goals and direction of the SSCAP. The Future Land Sue Map
designated this area as Old Town Residential. The proposed zoning of Residential Estate
Two conforms to direction given to the Applicant by Planning Staff.
(2) Compatibility with surrounding development. The type, height, massing, appearance and
intensity of development that would be permitted by the proposed amendment will be
compactable with surrounding zone districts, land uses, and neighborhood character, and
will result in a logical and orderly development pattern with the community.
Applicants Response: Conforms. As the proposed zoning will match the property to which
the North Park parcels will be aggregated to (RE-2).
(3) Advantages versus disadvantages. The advantages of the zone district proposed
substantially with outweigh the disadvantages to the community and / or neighboring land
occasioned by the zoning amendment.
Applicants Response: Conforms. As previously mentioned, the proposed zoning is in
conformance with direction given to the Applicant by Planning Staff.
(4) Consistent with purpose and standards of the zone district. The amendment will be
consistent with the purpose and standards of the zone district to which the property is
proposed to be designated.
Applicants Response: Conforms. By zoning this parcel Residential Old Town, the character
and scale of downtown will be maintained through the property. Implementation of a fourth
zone district in this immediate area would in effect create spot zoning.
(5) Effects on natural environment. That the proposed amendment will not result in
significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including water quality, air quality,
wildlife habitat, vegetation, wetlands, and natural landforms.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The Applicant has already improved existing water quality
by removing the existing septic system and making the improvements adjacent to the Butcher
Knife Creek. The previously described wetlands are being avoided with any impacts with the
existing building envelopes of eth Entress Subdivision. There are no steep or unstable slopes
and no wildlife habitat has been identified as being present on the site.
Sec. 26-67. Preliminary Plat
(e) Criteria for Approval. All preliminary plats shall be only approved where the plat,
supporting materials and documentation and any testimony and evidence presented during a
public hearing (where applicable), establishes that all of the following standards have been
met:
(1) Conformity with CDC. The proposed preliminary plat substantially conforms to all
applicable requirements of this CDC, including all applicable requirements of the zone
districts(s) in which the property to be subdivided is located, and all regulations
applicable to any conditional uses, as such regulations may have been modified by an
approved variance or PUD for the property.
Applicants Response: Variance required for minimum lot frontage to ROW. See response to
variance criteria below.
(2) Verification of developable lots. Each lot proposed for development in the subdivision
has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the director, that it is developable.
Applicants Response: NA. At this time the applicant is not proposing to create buildable lots
and the existing building envelopes previously created through the Entress Subdivision
process will remain unchanged.
(3) Conformance with other applicable regulations. The proposed subdivision conforms to
any other applicable regulations and requirements including but not limited to provisions
of state law, Steamboat Springs Municipal Code, and any requirements set by any capital
improvements plan or program, or any approved subdivision improvement agreement or
development agreement for the property.
Applicants Response: Conforms.
(4) Conformity with Community Area Plan. The proposed subdivision shall conform to the
preferred direction and any applicable policies of the community area plan.
Applicants Response: Conforms. See responses above for specific reference to the
conformance with the SSACP.
(5) Compatibility with surrounding area. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with
the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding areas.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The subdivision / aggregation of the subdivided parcels of

this site will complete the surrounding neighborhood, remove a non-conforming property,
and function as a backstop for residential use adjacent to Stahley Park.
(6) Suitability for development. The land proposed for subdivision shall be physically
suitable for development, considering its topography (the presence of steep or unstable
slopes), natural resource features (such as wetlands, floodplains, and sensitive wildlife
habitat areas), and any environmental hazards (such as avalanche or landslide paths,
rock fall hazard areas, or wildlife hazard areas) that may limit the propertys
development potential.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The property is suitable for redevelopment and had four
existing structure located on it at the time of purchase (two of which were reside3ntial homes
with kitchens) with one structure remaining at the present day. The site is relatively flat
(approximately 6-0 of fall over an acre) and has ideal soil conditions for residential
construction (alluvial gravels). The wetlands identified in the 2007 Entress Subdivision
review are being avoided and shall see no impacts as the building envelopes created as part
of the Entress Subdivision will remain unchanged as part of this application.
(7) Phasing. If the proposed development is to be developed in phases, then each phase shall
contain the required streets, utilities, landscaping, and other improvements that are
necessary and desirable for residents of the project for that phase.
Applicants Response: NA. No phasing is proposed or required for this application
The following variance criteria is in response to the minimum required lot frontage
Sec. 26-67. - Preliminary plat.
(8) (b) Variance criteria.
1. The intent of the code standard will not be achieved by strict application of the standard
in this particular circumstance.
Applicants Response: Conforms. Parcel B of the North Park Subdivision once aggregate to
Lot #2 of the Entress Subdivision will have approximately 130 of frontage along East
Spruce Street. Parcel A of the North Park Subdivision once aggregated to Lot #1 of the
Entress Subdivision will have approximately 114 of frontage along Schaffnit Street. The
vehicular access to the completed Lot #1 will be across Lot #2 via an existing access
easement that was part of the Entress Subdivision approval in 2007 / 2008.
2.
The application of other code standards and/or intents will be improved by varying this
standard.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The completed lots will conform to all other standards of
the CDC.
3. The special circumstances of the subject property make the strict application of the
standard an unnecessary hardship to the property owner/applicant and the special
circumstances are not the result of actions of the property owner/applicant.
Applicants Response: Conforms. The vehicular access to Lot #1 is least impactful to the site
by utilizing East Spruce Street and the easement across Lot #2. This creates no hardships on
Lot #2 and grants no unique or special rights to Lot #1. This easement was approved in 2007
/ 2008 and has been in use since that date.
4. The special circumstances of the subject property make the strict application of the
standard an unnecessary hardship to the property owner/applicant and the special
circumstances are not the result of actions of the property owner/applicant.
Applicants Response: Conforms. As stated in response #4, the existing circumstances of the
property make the vehicular access to Lot #1 from Spruce Street and across Lot #2 least
impactful to the neighborhood. This access has been in place for six years.
Sincerely,
Brian Hanlen
CC
Phyllis Ganong
PO Box 775481 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

www.brooksdesignbuild.com
970.870.6531
ZONING PLAN
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80487
LOTS 1-13, BLOCK 2 IDLEWILD
2014
All design documents, data, and

the
ideas
incorporated
herein,
prepared by Brooks Design Build,
Inc. as instruments of service is
the property of Brooks Design
/ Build, Inc. This is not to be used,
in whole or in part, for any other
project nor shall deviations from
the original design on this project
be made without first obtaining the
express written consent of Brooks
Design / Build, Inc.
1
ZM1
ADJACENT ZONING MAP
Sheet #
SCALE = NTS
Page 1 of 1
ZM1
Attachment 2
January 8, 2015
Burns.
_____________________________________________________________________

None.
3. Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13 (ZMA-14-02)

Applicant:
Project Location:
Type of Application: Zoning Map Amendment
General Description: A Zoning Map Amendment to provide zoning to this parcel if
annexed into the City. Proposed Zoning is Residential Estate-Two.
Project Planner:
See Agenda Item 1 for presentations, discussion and comments regarding this general
series of applications.
Commissioner MacArthur moved to approve #ZMA-14-02.
Commissioner Burns seconded the motion.
VOTE
Vote: 6-0

ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING ZONING TO .72 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED AS IDLEWILD ADDITION BLOCK 2 AND THE LAND
DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED EXHBIT A, TO RE-2 (RESIDENTIAL
ESTATE TWO MEDIUM DENSITY; REPEALING ALL CONFLICTING
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 26, Art. III, Div. 2, Section 26-62 of the
Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code, a Zoning Map Amendment has been initiated
by the property owner to zone the previously unincorporated properties RE-2 (Residential
Estate Two Medium Density); and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent
lots that it is proposed to be joined to through a Preliminary Plat application, #PP-14-03;
and
WHEREAS, the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan Future Land Use
Designation is consistent with the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Steamboat Springs has
considered the same and recommended approval of the amendment; and finds that the
request is in compliance with the rezoning criteria of Section 26-62(d) of the Community
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considers that it is in the public interest to provide
appropriate zoning to the subject property in accordance with the provisions of this
Ordinance.
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, COLORADO, THAT:
SECTION 1
The City Council specifically finds that the procedures for an Official Zoning Map
Amendment within the City of Steamboat Springs as prescribed in Chapter 26 of the
Steamboat Springs Revised Municipal Code, have been fulfilled, and the Council hereby
approves the rezoning for the subject property as set forth below. The City Council also
finds that this ordinance is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2
Pursuant to Chapter 26, Art. III, Div. 2, Section 26-62 of the Steamboat Springs
Revised Municipal Code, the Idlewild Addition, Block 2 and the land described in the
attached Exhibit A, is hereby zoned RE-2 (Residential Estate Two Medium Density)
SECTION 3
In accordance with Chapter 26, Art. III, Div.2, Section 26-62 of the Steamboat
Springs Revised Municipal Code, the Director of Planning Services is hereby directed to
modify and amend the Official Zoning Map of the City to indicate the zoning specified
above.
SECTION 4
All ordinances heretofore passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Steamboat Springs, Colorado, are hereby repealed to the extent that said ordinances, or
parts, thereof, are in conflict herewith.
SECTION 5
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase or provision of this Ordinance is, or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall to any extent, be held by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unconstitutional, the remaining sections,
subsections, clauses, phrases and provisions of this Ordinance, or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance, shall remain in full force and shall in no way be affected,
impaired or invalidated.
SECTION 6
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.
SECTION 7
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon recordation of a Final Plat consistent
with application PP-14-03 and not before the expiration of five (5) days from and after its
publication following final passage, as provided in Section 7.6 (h) of the Steamboat
Springs Home Rule Charter.

January, 2015.

ATTEST:
__________________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk

ATTEST:
__________________________
Julie Franklin, CMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A TRACT OF RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED IN THE

WEST OF THE SOUTHWEST OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH,
RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS,
COLORADO
A legal description of a tract of right of way located in the west of the SW of
Section 9, Township 6 North, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Steamboat Springs, Routt
County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 2 of the Entress Subdivision per the final plat
as recorded at File No. 13874 of Routt County records; thence along the north line of
the Entress Subdivision the following five courses;
1. N594054E, 11.25 feet;
2. N542603E, 40.69 feet;
3. N431307E, 22.24 feet;
4. N362211E, 22.52 feet;
5. N341907E, 11.39 feet to the point of intersection with the north line of the Spruce
Street right of way as shown on the Idlewild Subdivision as recorded at File No. 2317 of
Routt County records;
Thence along a non-tangent curve to left 99.68 feet, having a radius of 487.90 feet, a
delta angle of 114221 and a chord which bears S543128W, 99.51 feet; thence
departing said right of way, S115113E, 15.68 feet to the point of beginning, said
right of way tract contains 1,044 square feet more or less;
Basis of Bearing: Plat bearing N115113W, 174.79 feet along the west line of Lot 2,
Entress Subdivision between found monuments.
AGENDA ITEM #10.

FROM:

(Ext. 244)
THROUGH:
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
#PP-14-03; Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13
NEXT STEP:
If City Council approves this item, the applicant may apply for a
Final Plat.
__ ORDINANCE
__ RESOLUTION
X MOTION
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME:
#PP-14-03; Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13
PETITION:
A Preliminary Plat for a two lot subdivision to include newly

annexed property into lots 1 and 2 of the Entress Subdivision.
APPLICANT:

PC ACTION:
Executive Summary
Background
proposed)
Subdivision
Proposal
The applicants are requesting a Preliminary Plat to combine the Idlewild parcel that is
proposed to be annexed with existing lots 1 and 2 of the Entress Subdivision. The
Preliminary Plat will not create any additional lots within the City of Steamboat Springs
nor will it increase the buildable area of these lots as the applicants are proposing to
utilize the existing plated building envelopes of the Entress Subdivision.
A sliver of City owned Right of Way exists between Lot 1 of the Entress Subdivision and
the Idlewild parcel. This Right of Way is not necessary and is proposed to be vacated
through this Final Plat. Public Works Department is supportive of this request and a
ROW vacation ordinance will be reviewed at the City Council hearings on this item.

Public Comment
Recommended Motion
On January 8, 2015, with a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission found the Preliminary
Plat for the proposed subdivision consistent with the required findings for approval with
the following conditions:
1. Plat Summary as shown on sheet No. 1 of the Preliminary Plat, with a revision
date of 12/16-14, shall be revised to remove the language noting that open
space is being dedicated by this plat. A note on page No. 3 of the preliminary
plat satisfies the open space requirements.
2. Prior to final plat approval, obtain a revocable license for the existing structures
located within the public drainage easement.
3. Approval of the Preliminary Plat shall be contingent on the approval of the
Zoning Map Amendment, ZMA-14-02, to zone the property to RE-2.
4. Approval of the Preliminary Plat shall be contingent on the successful vacation of
the East Spruce Street right of way as depicted on sheet two of the Preliminary
Plat dated, 12/16/14.
List of attachments
Attachment 1

Project Name:
Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13 #PP-14-03
Prepared By:
Bob Keenan, Senior Planner (Ext

260)
Through:
Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Planning

Director (Ext. 244)
Planning
Commission (PC):
January 8, 2015
City Council (CC):
January 20, 2015
Zoning:
Residential Estate Two, Medium

Density (RE-2)
Applicant:
Request:
Max. Lot Size
530 North
Park Road, 11
& 15 East
Spruce Street

A Preliminary Plat for a two lot subdivision to include newly annexed property
into lots 1 and 2 of the Entress Subdivision.
Development Statistics - Overview

Area:
Number of Lots:
Min. Lot Size
Project
Location
2.73 acres
2 lots
Lot 2: 0.92
acres
Lot 1: 1.81
acres
RE-2
Minimum
N/A
N/A
.31 acres
.31 acres

Section
I.
II.
III
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Staff Finding
Project Location
Background Information
Project Description
Staff/Agency Analysis
Staff Findings and Conditions
Attachments
Pg
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-5
4-5
I.

CDC - SECTION 26-67(E): NO PRELIMINARY PLAT SHALL BE APPROVED UNLESS THE CITY COUNCIL
FINDS THAT THE PLAN MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:
Subsection
Consistent
Yes
1)
Conformity with the Community

Development Code
2)
Verification of Developable Lots
3)
Conformance with other Applicable
Regulations
4)
Conformity with Community Plan
5)
Compatible with Surrounding Area
6)
Suitable for Development
7)
Phasing
8)
Variance
Staff Finding: Staff finds the Preliminary
approval of a Preliminary Plat.
No
Notes
NA
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 No phasing.
5 No variances are requested.
Plat is in compliance with the CDC criteria for
(Detailed policy analysis is located in Section V; Staff Findings and Conditions are in Section VI)
II. PROJECT LOCATION
III.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicants are proposing to annex a .72 acre parcel of land currently surrounded by land within
the City of Steamboat Springs. This property, Idlewild Subdivision, Lots 1-13, Block 2 is
Staff Report
Page 4-2
bordered by Stehley Park to the north, Entress Subdivision to the east, North Park Road to the west
and East Spruce Street to the south. To facilitate the proposed annexation, the applicant must also
seek approval of the following:
Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2. The Idlewild property is currently an enclave of county land outside of
the city limits that is proposed to be annexed. This property is currently undeveloped except for a
shed structure. This site was commonly referred to as the Betty Davis property which previously
contained a single-family residence. The Entress Subdivision is within the City limits and was
platted in 2008. This property is zoned RE-2. Both lots in the Entress Subdivision are developed
with a single-family structure.
The subject properties include development limitations due their natural characteristics. The lots
in the Entress Subdivision have platted building envelopes to restrict development of the steep
slopes along the rear of the subdivision. The Idlewild property contains development challenges as
well. It contains two channels of Butcherknife Creek that bisect the property along with the
associated 50 waterbody setbacks and floodway and floodplain.
IV.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants are requesting a Preliminary Plat to combine the Idlewild parcel that is proposed to
be annexed with existing lots 1 and 2 of the Entress Subdivision. The Preliminary Plat will not
create any additional lots within the City of Steamboat Springs nor will it increase the buildable
area of these lots as the applicants are proposing to utilize the existing plated building envelopes of
the Entress Subdivision.
A sliver of City owned Right of Way exists between Lot 1 of the Entress Subdivision and the
Idlewild parcel. This Right of Way is not necessary and is proposed to be vacated through this
Final Plat. Public Works Department is supportive of this request and a ROW vacation ordinance
will be reviewed at the City Council hearings on this item.
V.
STAFF / AGENCY ANALYSIS
Criteria for Review and Approval.

Preliminary Plats shall be approved only where the plat, supporting materials and
documentation, and any testimony and evidence presented during a public hearing (where
applicable), establishes that all of the following criteria have been met:

Staff Report
Page 4-3
1. Conformity with Community Development Code. The proposed Preliminary Plat

substantially conforms to all applicable requirements of the Community Development
Code (CDC).
Staff Analysis: Consistent. The proposed plat conforms to all applicable requirements of
the Community Development Code as contained in the application materials and the
conditions of approval listed below.
The use of platted building envelopes ensure
compliance with the usable lot area standards by restricting development to the areas of the
lot that do not conflict with steep slopes, floodways, or waterbody setbacks. All
dimensional standards of the RE-2 zone district, as they relate to lot size and width, have
also been met. The 15% open space requirements are satisfied via the land outside of the
platted building envelopes as noted on sheet No. 3 of the Preliminary Plat.
2. Verification of Developable Lots. Each lot proposed for development in the subdivision
has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the director, that it is developable. Elements
reviewed for developability include a demonstrated ability to meet the requirements of this
Community Development Code in terms of zone district standards, development standards,
and subdivision standards:
Staff Analysis: Consistent. The proposed lots are suitable for development as they restrict
development of sensitive areas of the lot per the proposed platted building envelope. The
proposed lost have the ability to meet all zone districts standards and development
standards.
3. Conformance with other Applicable Regulations. The proposed subdivision conforms
with applicable regulations and requirements including but not limited to provisions of
state law, Steamboat Springs Municipal Code, and any requirements set by any capital
improvement plan or program, or any approved subdivision improvements agreement or
development agreement for the property.
Staff Analysis: Consistent. It appears that the proposed subdivision conforms to all other
applicable regulations. There are no requirements set by a capital improvement plan or
development agreement.
4. Conformity with Community Area Plan. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible
with the preferred direction and policies outlined in the community plan or approved
master plans. This criterion shall only be applicable to proposed variances within a
preliminary plat.
Staff Analysis: Consistent. N/A no variances are proposed.
5. Compatibility with Surrounding Area. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible
with the character of the existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the
future development of the surrounding area.
Staff Analysis: Consistent. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the character of
the existing land uses in the area. The surrounding area creates a transition from small lot
Staff Report
Page 4-4
RO zoning to larger lot RE-2 zoning. The proposed subdivision should not have any
adverse impact to future development of the surrounding area.
6. Suitability for Development. The land proposed for subdividing shall be physically
suitable for development, considering its topography (the presence of steep or unstable
slopes), natural resource features (such as wetlands, floodplains, and sensitive wildlife
habitat areas), and any environmental hazards (such as avalanche or landslide paths,
rockfall hazard areas, or wildfire hazard areas) that may limit the propertys development
potential.
Staff Analysis: Consistent. The proposed plat will utilize platted building envelopes to
restrict development to the most suitable areas of the lot. These building envelopes will
restrict development from encroaching waterbody setbacks, floodway, and steep slopes.
7. Phasing.
Staff Analysis: Not Applicable. To be developed in one phase.
8. Variance.
Staff Analysis: Not Applicable. No variance requested.
VI.
STAFF FINDING & CONDITIONS

Recommended Finding
Staff finds that the Preliminary Plat for the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
required findings for approval with the following conditions:
1. Plat Summary as shown on sheet No. 1 of the Preliminary Plat, with a revision date of
12/16-14, shall be revised to remove the language noting that open space is being
dedicated by this plat. A note on page No. 3 of the preliminary plat satisfies the open
space requirements.
2. Prior to final plat approval, obtain a revocable license for the existing structures
located within the public drainage easement.
VII.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Preliminary Plat Plan

Staff Report
Page 4-5
Horizontal Scale
20'
10'
20'
40'
1" = 20'
Horizontal Scale
20'
10'
20'
40'
1" = 20'
Horizontal Scale
30'
15'
30'
60'
1" = 30'
Attachment 2
January 8, 2015
Burns.
_____________________________________________________________________

None.
4. Idlewild Subdivision, Block 2, Lots 1-13 (PP-14-03)

Applicant:
Project Location:
Type of Application: Preliminary Plat
General Description: A Preliminary Plat to combine the annexed area with existing
Entress Subdivision. (11 & 15 East Spruce St.)
Project Planner:
See Agenda Item 1 for presentations, discussion and comments regarding this general
series of applications.
Commissioner Meyer moved to approve #PP-14-03 with the two additional conditions.
Commissioner Buckley seconded the motion.
VOTE
Vote: 6-0
AGENDA ITEM #11.

FROM:
Toby Stauffer, AICP, Planner (Ext. 280)

(Ext. 244)
THROUGH:
DATE:
January 20, 2015
ITEM:
#TXT-14-02: Text Amendment Outdoor storage, commercial,

seating, display, and sales
NEXT STEP:
If City Council approves the second reading the CDC text will be
amended based on established procedures.
_x
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
x_ MOTION
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME:
#TXT-14-02: Text Amendment - Outdoor storage, commercial,

seating, display, and sales
PETITION:
A Text Amendment to the Community Development Code to revise

and remove definitions of outdoor uses, amend the principal use
chart, add a new section to Article V: Development Standards and
remove any conflicting language.
APPLICANT:
City of Steamboat Springs, Department of Planning and Community

Development, c/o Tyler Gibbs, Planning Director, 970-879-2060.
PC ACTION:
Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve with changes on December

11, 2014
Executive Summary
We started this project with two different code fixes, one for outdoor storage (TXT-1402) and one for outdoor seating and display (TXT-14-08). As the project evolved, these
ideas came together and are merged into one amendment that will amend most
outdoor uses that are not covered by other definitions.
This amendment includes standards for outdoor storage as a principal use where no
other use exists on a property, standards for accessory storage where storage occurs in
addition to a business, building, warehouse, or other structure or use, as well as a
reduction of outdoor use types from ten to three.
This amendment does not make any changes to auto related or junk yard uses. All
auto related uses or anything to do with vehicles is covered under automobile
categories including Automobile filling station, Automobile major repair shop,
Automobile minor repair shop, Automobile rental, Automobile sales, Automobile service
station, and Automobile yard which is the closest use type we have to a junk yard. The
definition of an Automobile Yard is as follows:
Automobile yard. Any parcel of land or building for which the principal or accessory use
is the collection, demolition, dismantling, keeping, storage, bailment, salvage or sale of
used discarded, worn out or scrapped machinery, automobile, automobile parts, or
scrap metal.
Any uses that are similar to a junk yard are different from outdoor storage. Outdoor
Storage and Outdoor Commercial uses are different from Recycling Centers, Nurseries,
and Building Supply and Lumber Yards.
In addition to creating new use definitions, this amendment will create new
development standards for outdoor storage and display that will be applied to all
development. Outdoor seating on private property was determined to be accessory to
any other private principal use and will be removed as a principal use from the use
chart with this amendment. Outdoor seating that is in public property or in public
rights-of-way is managed through the revocable license process and does not need
additional regulation in the CDC; those changes were made earlier this year. The use
category of outdoor sales will also be removed with this amendment as outdoor
commercial, outdoor display and other use definitions cover most variations on outdoor
sales.
City Staff has reached out to all parties who indicated an interest in changes to outdoor
storage and we have provided the proposed language and notice of all public hearing
dates.
Please see the attached ordinance for the proposed language to amend the CDC.
In regard to existing uses, staff proposes the following outdoor storage implementation
plan:
1. The new regulations will take effect upon City Council approval.
2. Any new uses, those that did not exist prior to code adoption, would need to
meet new standards at the time of application.
3. Existing outdoor storage uses or other businesses with storage, display or
outdoor commercial areas that exist at the time of code adoption would have the
remainder of 2015 to apply for a development plan without having to provide
any documentation to demonstrate grandfathered/ nonconforming status.
4. Through 2015: any use that receives a valid complaint and/or is confirmed to be
in violation of the CDC will need to meet new regulations or could meet old
regulations without having to provide any documentation to demonstrate
grandfathered/ nonconforming status.
5. Starting in 2016 all uses will need to provide legal nonconforming registration
information to be grandfathered into old regulations or to seek relief from any
enforcement penalties.
If the text amendment is approved, staff will create a press release that describes the
changes to the CDC and the implementation plan, so that outdoor storage uses, existing
and proposed, have an opportunity to come into compliance with the new regulations
during the next two years.
The Planning Commission discussed the removal of outdoor seating and display from the
Principal Use Chart, the enforcement/implementation plan, nonconforming status, the time
frame to determine whether a use is outdoor storage or just storing something outdoors
for a brief time, the location criteria for outdoor display, enforcement procedures, auto
salvage and junk yard uses, and the Directors ability to interpret screening. Based on the
discussion some changes were made to the proposed text.
Please see the proposed text and attached minutes for additional details.
Public Comment
Public comment on this item was in person from Jim Pavelik and Loretta VanNorstrand.
Mr. Pavelik indicated that the proposed regulations are too generic and he is concerned
with screening between properties, given that not all uses or properties in a given zone
district are the same or similar.
Ms. VanNorstrand indicated that properties should be screened per the current
regulations and that there has been a lack of notice about the suspension of
enforcement of the screening provision for outdoor storage.
Staff responded that notice about enforcement and screening of outdoor uses was
provided in accordance with City rules and requirements and Council action was taken in
April 2014 to provide time to amend the regulations while also ceasing enforcement on
existing properties.
Please see the attached planning commission meeting minutes and city council minutes
from January 6, 2015 for more information.
Recommended Motion
On December 11, 2014, with a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Community Development Code Text Amendments, #TXT-14-02, with
changes as incorporated in this packet, to revise and remove definitions of some outdoor
uses, amend the principal use chart, add a new section to Article V: Development
Standards that addresses outdoor display and storage, and remove any conflicting
language.
List of attachments
Attachment 2 Draft PC Minutes
Attachment 3 Proposed Ordinance
Attachment 1
AGENDA ITEM # 2
_______________________________________________________________________________
FROM:
Toby Stauffer, AICP, Planner (Ext. 280)
THROUGH:
Tyler Gibbs, AIA, Director of Planning & Community Dev. (Ext. 244)
DATE:
December 12, 2014
ITEM:
TXT-14-02: Text Amendment Outdoor storage, commercial, seating,

display, and sales
NEXT STEP:
Planning Commissions recommendation will be forwarded to the City

Council for first reading of this ordinance on January 6th, 2015 and second
reading on January 20th, 2015.
_______________________________________________________________________________
X
ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION
X
MOTION
_
DIRECTION
INFORMATION
______________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT NAME:
TXT-14-02: Text Amendment - Outdoor storage, commercial, seating,

display, and sales
PETITION:
A Text Amendment to the Community Development Code to revise and/or

remove definitions of some outdoor uses, amend the principal use chart,
add a new section to Article V: Development Standards that addresses
outdoor display and storage, and remove any conflicting language.
APPLICANT:
City of Steamboat Springs, Department of Planning and Community

Development, c/o Toby Stauffer, AICP, Planner, 970-871-8280.

#TXT-14-02: Text Amendment: Outdoor storage, commercial, seating, display, and sales
December 11, 2014
I.
CDC - Section 26-61(D): Criteria for approval. Approval of the amendment shall be granted only if it
appears by clear and convincing evidence presented during the public hearing before planning commission
or city council that the following conditions exist:
Subsection
CONSISTENT
Yes
1)
2)
3)
Compatibility with the community

plan.
Error or goal/objective.
Public health, safety, & welfare
No
NOTES
NA
5
5
5
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed Community Development Code Text Amendment,
TXT-14-02, to revise and/or remove definitions of some outdoor uses, amend the principal use
chart, add a new section to Article V: Development Standards that addresses outdoor display
and storage, and remove any conflicting language, is consistent with the criteria for approval
per CDC Sec. 26-61(D).
II.
BACKGROUND
We started this project with two different code fixes, one for outdoor storage (TXT-14-02) and
one for outdoor seating and display (TXT-14-08). As the project evolved, these ideas came
together and are merged into one amendment that will amend most outdoor uses that are not
covered by other definitions.
This amendment includes standards for outdoor storage as a principal use where no other use
exists on a property, standards for accessory storage where storage occurs in addition to a
business, building, warehouse, or other structure or use, as well as a reduction of outdoor use
types from ten to three.
This amendment does not make any changes to auto related or junk yard uses. All auto related
uses or anything to do with vehicles is covered under automobile categories including
Automobile filling station, Automobile major repair shop, Automobile minor repair shop,
Automobile rental, Automobile sales, Automobile service station, and Automobile yard which is
the closest use type we have to a junk yard. The Outdoor Storage and Outdoor Commercial uses
are also separate from Recycling Centers, Nurseries, and Building Supply and Lumber Yards.
In addition to creating new use definitions, this amendment will create new development
standards for outdoor storage and display that will be applied to all development. Outdoor
seating on private property was determined to be accessory to any other private principal use and
will be removed as a principal use from the use chart with this amendment. Outdoor seating that
is in public property or in public rights-of-way is managed through the revocable license process
and does not need additional regulation in the CDC; those changes were made earlier this year.
The use category of outdoor sales will also be removed with this amendment as outdoor
commercial, outdoor display and other use definitions cover most variations on outdoor sales.

December 11, 2014
City Staff has reached out to all parties who indicated an interest in changes to outdoor storage
and we have provided the proposed language and notice of all public hearing dates. No
comments have been received on the changes at the time this report was written.
III.
DESCRIPTION
The primary changes to outdoor uses are as follows:

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Outdoor storage will be defined as either a principal or accessory use.

Outdoor display and outdoor seating will no longer be principal uses and will be accessory to
an existing use on a property.
Outdoor sales will be removed as a principal use as most outdoor sales can be
accommodated as outdoor commercial, mobile food units, temporary events, or accessory
uses.
Outdoor commercial will cover all sales or rental of items that are traditionally located
outside of a building occupying the majority of a property.
Outdoor commercial will be a conditional use in G-1, G-2, CO, CY, CN, and I zone districts,
a use with criteria in CC, and CS districts.
Outdoor storage as a principal use will be a conditional use in CO, CY, CC, and CS districts,
a use with criteria in the I district.
Outdoor display and storage will now be evaluated as an aspect of any commercial,
industrial, or multi-family project as a development standard.
Any principal use that includes outdoor storage, display or commercial areas will be
reviewed through a development plan process, rather than through a use with criteria
process. Administrative Final Development Plans are still an option for projects that meet all
requirements.
In regard to existing uses, staff proposes the following outdoor storage enforcement plan:
1. The new regulations will take effect upon City Council approval.
2. Any new uses, those that did not exist prior to code adoption, would need to meet new
standards at the time of application.
3. Existing outdoor storage uses or other businesses with storage, display or outdoor
commercial areas that exist at the time of code adoption would have the remainder of
2015 to apply for a development plan without having to provide any documentation to
demonstrate grandfathered/ nonconforming status.
4. Through 2015: any use that receives a valid complaint and/or is confirmed to be in
violation of the CDC will need to meet new regulations or could meet old regulations
without having to provide any documentation to demonstrate grandfathered/
nonconforming status.
5. Starting in 2016 all uses will need to provide legal nonconforming registration
information to be grandfathered into old regulations or to seek relief from any
enforcement penalties.

December 11, 2014
IV.
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
CDC Sec. 26-61. CDC text amendments.

(d) Criteria for approval. In considering any application for amendment to the CDC, the
following criteria shall govern unless otherwise expressly required by the CDC. Approval of the
amendment shall be granted only if it appears by clear and convincing evidence presented during
the public hearing before planning commission or city council that the following conditions
exist:
(1)
Compatible with the community plan. The amendment to the CDC is compatible with and
furthers the community plan's preferred direction and policies.
Staff Analysis: Consistent: The proposed CDC Text Amendment is compatible with the
Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan as there are no goals or policies that conflict
with the proposed text amendment. The amendment is compatible with the envisioned
character of nonresidential and industrial land use classifications, and it supports the
goals and policies in Chapter 5, Community Design and Image (policies 1.4, 1.5, 4.1, 4.2)
and Chapter 10 Economic Development and Sustainability (policies 1.2, 2.1). The
amendment provides guidance for integrating these uses into the City fabric while
seeking input and involvement from the community.
(2)
Error or goal/objective. The amendment to the CDC will correct an error, or will further
a public goal or objective.
Staff Analysis: Consistent: The amendment will further a public objective of providing a
development review process and standards that are clear, efficient, measurable, and
commensurate with impacts of the proposed uses.
(3)
Public safety. The amendment to the CDC is necessary to ensure public health, safety and
welfare.
Staff Analysis: Consistent: The amendment is necessary to ensure the public health,
safety and welfare by requiring a review process and development standards that reduce
negative impacts to the community and adjacent properties.
V.
STAFF FINDING
Staff finds that the proposed Community Development Code Text Amendment, TXT-14-02, to
revise and/or remove definitions of some outdoor uses, amend the principal use chart, add a new
section to Article V: Development Standards that addresses outdoor display and storage, and
remove any conflicting language, is consistent with the criteria for approval per CDC Sec. 2661(D).
VI.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Changes to the CDC
2. Section 26.137 for reference to Screening standards.
Attachment 2
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 11, 2014
called to order at approximately 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 11, 2014, in the
Citizens Meeting Room, Centennial Hall, 124 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.
Burns.
Staff members present were city planner Toby Stauffer, principal planner Rebecca Bessey
and Director of Planning and Community Development Tyler Gibbs.
_____________________________________________________________________
Outdoor Storage, Seating, Display Text Amendment, TXT-14-02
STAFF PRESENTATION
Toby Stauffer:
Im talking to you tonight about outdoor storage, outdoor commercial, seating,
display and sales. This text amendment will amend all of those different uses. Itll
make some changes to the principal uses in our code. It will allow outdoor
storage as a principal use in the industrial zone district, and it will be a conditional
use in several others. Weve also got some changes to our development
standards. Outdoor display and storage standards would now apply to all
commercial and industrial uses in addition to multi-family as much as thats
allowed.
I did make a few changes to the packet based on some comments from planning
commissioners. On Page 2-3, weve got a plan there for enforcement and what
happens after these new uses are approved. I would change #4 moving forward
so that it would say: Any use that receives a valid complaint and/or is confirmed
to be in violation of the CDC would need to meet new regulations or could meet
old regulations if they choose to without having to provide documentation to
demonstrate their grandfathered or nonconforming status. A second change
would be to Page 2-5 under the Outdoor Display definition. I would add sort of an
informational statement to that definition that would be a see also like we have up
above, so it would be: See Also: Outdoor Storage, Automobile Uses, Building
Supplies and Lumber Yard, Nursery, and Outdoor Commercial.
This is for storage and display uses. Any other automobile uses, nurseries,
lumber yards, those are all regulated by other aspects of the code.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Levy:
On Page 2-6, you have both outdoor display and outdoor seating strikethrough
on the use chart. Is it because theyre no longer primary uses that we do not any
longer need a use chart for those definitions?

12/11/14
Stauffer: Right. Those arent principal uses, so outdoor display and outdoor
seating are allowed; we just find them to be accessory uses or incidental to other
commercial uses. So its not like were removing outdoor seating from the
community. Its just not a primary use that needs its own line in the table; its
going to be allowed with any other use. The same goes for display.
Levy: Then how would we regulate that use as far as the amount of coverage
Stauffer: How well regulate those is through our development standards. Now
we have outdoor display listed and all the requirements for location in our
development standards. Outdoor seating we have defined so we know when
something is outdoor seating. But when a use comes in for approval, they have
to provide a site plan in some form, and on that site plan they would show their
outdoor seating. They need to show that on a building permit as well for water
uses. So weve got other methods to figure out if the use is outdoor seating.
Gibbs: When were talking about outdoor seating or outdoor display, were
referring to seating or display that is on private property, not the seating or
display that might be on a public right-of-way like on a sidewalk on Lincoln, which
is governed by our revocable license process; it is not governed by zoning.
MacArthur: Can you explain the difference between a typical development plan
process versus a use with criteria in terms of fees, time to approval, TAC
process? By creating a DP process rather than a use with criteria, how much
more are we subjecting people to in order to get storage on their lot?
Stauffer: The typical use with criteria process requires someone to fill out an
application. They do have to provide a site plan, and they do have to review a
criteria sheet and check it off and say that theyre going to meet the criteria. So
anything that would be an administrative development plan that doesnt need a
variance has a $1,000 fee. They provide a site plan, and its reviewed
administratively. We check it against all the development standards. It does
include notice, I believe. Thats for any structure or any development of the
property over 1500 square feet. Any addition greater than 1500 square feet you
need to do a final development plan. I think thats the difference if that answers
your question.
MacArthur: In the short time that Ive been on planning, weve been trying to
reduce the number of DPs that come through for what I call incidental stuff. In
some instances storage and display I would consider that. Is there a reason you
chose the DP process as opposed to revised use with criteria?
Stauffer: The use with criteria process was never really created as a process. It
just described a use type in our code, so thats a disconnect that we have in our
code thats sort of evolved over time I think. We chose the DP process for the
principal use because it is development of the site. It requires us to look at
drainage, grading, surfacing, which we normally wouldnt require with a use with
criteria. Usually, those uses with criteria are allowed in the zone district. A
2

12/11/14
restaurant is a use with criteria, and you just have to check a couple things
before they can operate. An outdoor storage use had a lot more development
than most of our other uses with criteria. I think well probably be revising that
process into some sort of smaller administrative type process thats not quite a
DP, but that is a little bit more informative than a use with criteria, and were
going to be changing a lot of those uses. For outdoor storage specifically, we
thought the intensity of most of those uses was usually enough to warrant a
development plan because theyre doing so much on the site, generally.
MacArthur: The enforcement plan Ill walk through as I understand it, and please
correct me. After city council approval, any new uses would need new approval.
Existing outdoor uses would have through 2015 to apply for a DP. Starting in
2016, all uses will need to provide legal nonconforming. So if a use did not come
in through 2015 and then got a complaint against them in 2016, would they have
already lost the ability to reconsider legal nonconforming?
Stauffer: No, they would just have to do the research and provide that information
showing us when they were on site, how they received their approval if theyd
been there for a long enough time that they didnt need to meet any regulations,
anything like that. If they didnt want to or couldnt do that, then they would just go
through a standard DP process.
MacArthur: So a site would have in perpetuity the ability to come back after it was
approved if the site was currently legal nonconforming and apply for that status.
Stauffer: Yes.
MacArthur: Can you explain what happens in 2015 that youre aiming for?
Stauffer: Some businesses may have come on to the site during the time period
weve had outdoor storage regulation. As far as I can tell, weve had outdoor
storage regulation since at least 1997. So if an outdoor storage use exists in our
community and has been there for a while, they probably needed to meet these
regulations, but they may not have. We havent enforced it since 1997, but they
also havent applied for a development plan since 97. So this 2015 year is just
sort of a clean slate. Come in, do some site improvements, apply for a
development plan, get your use squared up, and then youre ready to go for the
future; you dont have to worry about it.
MacArthur: Or if youve been there prior to 97, come in and apply for legal
nonconforming, in which case you would lose both sets of these regulations.
Stauffer: Sometimes thats a little bit onerous to people, so thats the option that
were providing to people. If someone really wants to get current with the new
regs and not have to think about this ever again, this year would be the time to
do it. But someone can always come in and say: Ive been here for forever; I
dont have to meet these regulations.
3

12/11/14
Lacy: So are we going to charge the same fees for people in 2015 when were
not really providing a review? It says they can come in without providing any
documentation and get approval. Were still going to charge a $1,000 fee even
though were not really reviewing anything?
Stauffer: Well, they would have to do a development plan. So we would provide
the same fee. We dont charge fees now for legal nonconforming status. Thats
usually just finding documentation and research that a person has to do.
MacArthur: So if the site was developed between 97 and now, theyd have to
come in for a DP. If the site was developed prior to 97, and there hadnt been a
complaint against them, they can come in and apply for legal nonconforming
without paying a DP fee.
Stauffer: Then they would be grandfathered as legal nonconforming.
MacArthur: The 24-hour time period seems to me to be a bit short. You can get
thrown into the outdoor storage principal and/or outdoor storage accessory if you
own a vacant lot by parking whatever on your lot over the weekend, and if your
neighbor complained youd have to come in and apply for outdoor storage
principal.Is there a reason you chose 24 hours as opposed to a lengthier amount
of time that might not catch as many incidents?
Stauffer: There wasnt a reason for this particular amendment. I think that was
our original definition when we created outdoor storage. We didnt change that.
Im not sure what the impetus was when we established it. My guess would be
that if its stored for a fair amount of time, its storage. But I see where youre
coming from too; it seems like we could have some flexibility in that to make it a
little more like storage because theres days when I dont drive my car.
MacArthur: Exactly. On the bottom of 2.5, Outdoor Commercial: We have the
15% criteria or 1,000 square feet, whichever is more restrictive. We had
mentioned a couple local businesses such as Ski Haus, Boomerang, that we
were concerned would be caught in this trap. Where are we at with that?
Stauffer: We looked at Ski Haus, and their uses meet that 15 and thousand
square foot, so they fall into that category. Boomerang is a little bit over; theyre
at about 18% for that use as it exists now. The other businesses we looked at fell
within those guidelines, so after looking at it we thought they were still
appropriate guidelines for us. With these being development standards for
whatever business comes in, looking at an administrative final development plan
we would have enough flexibility in that process to allow the uses to have a little
bit more storage based on their use if they needed to. Boomerang and any other
use would be grandfathered at this point with what they have.
MacArthur: I wouldnt consider Ski Haus to be an obtrusive amount of outdoor
display by any means and yet it does front Highway 40, so its right on the brink
of being not allowed if it were to come in with a new DP. Is that correct?
4

12/11/14
Stauffer: I think outdoor display we do allow on Highway 40.

MacArthur: Outdoor commercial on 2.5.
Stauffer: Thats anything thats going to be 15%, so if something does front on
Highway 40 and it has more than 15%, thats going to be a conditional use. Its
going to be something that well talk about; it doesnt say that it cant happen
there. I think for Ski Haus, as they stand, they would meet the criteria for outdoor
display. So theyre not going to be considered outdoor commercial. Outdoor
commercial is probably going to be something more like Steamboat Motorsports.
Levy: Back to 2.3, how do we plan to enforce these new rules and regulations?
Stauffer: Well enforce them as we always do on a complaint basis. We try to be
in the community as much as we can noticing new uses as they happen. So if we
see anything that pops up, we can also enforce on that basis as well. So itll be
the same process we use now.
Gibbs: When we say we enforce on a complaint basis, we certainly address any
valid complaints that we get. That doesnt mean that we ignore egregious
situations if we observe them. We dont have inspectors driving around the city
every day looking for violations. If we see a violation, we will take action. We
wont wait for somebody to call.
Levy: What are the steps of those actions?
Gibbs: First is to notify them of the violation and give them an opportunity to
remedy. If that doesnt take place, then theyre cited to court.
Lacy: We dont really have a separate definition for junkyard. Do you think we
need one? Automobile yard is kind of the closest we have.
Stauffer: We have an auto salvage yard, which is actually broader than it sounds
by its name. It includes all manner of things that you would put into a junkyard. I
would say that we dont need a definition of a junkyard. I looked into definitions of
junkyards and different ways that communities regulate that use and that
definition. I think its too difficult to define. Youd have to define what junk is, and
thats different based on the person. So I think we would go down a rabbit hole
that we dont want to go down. I do think our auto salvage is a comprehensive
enough use that could work for a junkyard. Its a conditional use in the industrial
zone, so I think we have options for people to do that in our community, and I
wouldnt recommend creating a junkyard use.
Lacy: On 2.8, you had this new language about giving the director the ability to
suggest, modify, approve or disapprove screening methods. I like giving flexibility
to the director in this spot, but I guess Im a little concerned that it almost sounds
like someone could come in with materials that meet the screening requirements,
5

12/11/14
and the director could say they need to do something else. Maybe Im
overthinking it. I know thats probably not your intent.
Stauffer: With the wrong director, I think it could go that direction. It wasnt the
intent. We do have an intent in the Outdoor Display and Storage section, so I
would hope that that intent would guide any interpretation of this section.
Gibbs: If we need to make that any clearer, the way that should work is that if you
meet the standards, then youre approved; if you want to propose an alternative,
and the director finds its equally acceptable as a screening method, then it could
also be approved. But it doesnt mean that if you come in with something that
meets the standard, then the director or planning office can say to do something
else.
Lacy: I just noticed it before the hearing tonight. I dont have any alternative
language off the top of my head.
Levy: approve or disapprove alternative screening methods.
Commissioners and staff agreed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
James Pavlec, Precision Sharpening Repair, 1675 13th Street:
My building is adjacent to one of these industrial subdivisions. What concerns me
about this change of regulations for industrial subdivisions is that it is too generic.
I was in the Planning Department office today, and I asked them why the change.
My concern is the screening of the lots. They said that the reason is that they feel
that for the most part, everybody who buys a lot in an industrial area is going to
have basically the same purpose, and they should all get along just fine with
what we have in our back yards. I disagree. My building is beautiful. Its kept up
immaculately. The landscaping is gorgeous. My regulations say that no
equipment will be stored outside at night. All of my equipment gets pushed inside
in the evenings when nobodys in the shop. Adjacent to my building is the
Captain Jack subdivision. When the lots were sold, we started seeing the outdoor
storage usage happening in all of these lots. Theres not a permanent structure
on any of these lots. The debris on these lots is anywhere from recreational
trailers to house trailers. On one lot theres a complete house that was moved
from across the street and just plopped down on the ground on no foundation,
and its been there for two years. Its up the hill from me; its not a great concern
of mine. What is a concern of mine is the lot directly adjacent to me. The young
man who owns it has been putting what I consider junk on his lot. Its an
assortment of vehicles, broken machinery, lawnmowers, snow blowers,
snowmobiles, whatever he decided to collect. We have been calling Planning
Department and complaining about this eye sore in my eyes for over a year. Ill
go back to last winter on a complaint that this eye sore is getting out of hand. We
asked them do they not have to screen, and they said yes he does, but we cant
expect him to screen in the winter. Well, winter passed, summer came, summer
passed, winters here again; it still wasnt screened. So we started asking
questions as of two weeks ago. Over the last year, I have a lot of customers and
6

12/11/14
I receive a lot of complaints from my customers. Mostly, is that your junk piled
over there. I have to explain to them that its not. Well, how do they get away with
it? This happens weekly that customers come in and cant believe next to my
pristine property is this junkyard. Every time a customer calls, we would call the
Planning Department and complain; nothing has been done about it. We just
cannot understand how this has gone this debris sitting on an undeveloped,
ungraded, unscreened lot for so long without anything being done about it. We
were finally told that they had allowed the owner of this lot to slide for the last
year because regulations will probably be changing, and it will affect the way he
screens his lot. So we looked into regulations as of two weeks ago, and we found
out they were going to say: Lots in an industrial subdivision basically do not have
to be screened from other lots in that subdivision, only from main streets where
the public and tourists can see it. I see it every day.
The application that the owner of the lot had given the Planning Department with
the previous regulations said he was going to put up a fence as per regulations.
The new regulations say he doesnt have to, and he wont. What I ask is that it be
denied, or in my specific case, if an industrial lot with a junk pile on it is next to a
pristine, well-kept, regulation-following lot, it should be screened.
Loretta Van Norstand, Half Owner of 1675 13th Street:
Today we met with three members of the Planning staff, and we garnered some
information. In summer of 2013, city Planning staff notified Dalton Reid that he
must comply with Steamboat Springs outdoor storage regulations. This was after
numerous complaints about the number of junk (cars and other debris) on his
very small lot. This junkyard is visible to our customers and anyone driving
passed on 13th Street. It is an eye sore and should be screened as current
regulations require. But instead of doing their job, city Planning staff decided not
to enforce the current regulations. We were told that Reid recently agreed to
work with Planning staff to get approval for his lot. He has talked about wanting
his lot to comply with regulations, but he has done nothing. We were told that city
Planning has no intention of enforcing the regulations that pertain to screening
because theyve already decided the rules should be changed. This decision was
made over a year ago even though this is the first public meeting that I know of to
consider making these changes. How and why does staff make a determination
to discontinue enforcing the regulations for a whole year without public input?
Toby Stauffer told us: During 2014, the city has suspended enforcement of
Provision F in the current regulations. She said: That means we havent
enforced the lack of fencing on outdoor storage properties for this year only. For
a whole year only? You may know that Reid not only has property issues with the
city, but he also refuses to comply with Routt County regulations as well. This
looks like a pattern of Ill do what I want and to hell with my neighbors or stinkin
regulations. It appears city Planning is an accomplice in this pattern of behavior. I
oppose changes in the CDC. A blanket description of what is industrial doesnt
work for us. Our business is now outdoor storage. It is a retail business in an
industrial area. The decision to not enforce regulations is unfair and a slap in the
face to all who have abided by the rules in the past. Thank you.
Lacy: Toby or staff, did you want to respond to these concerns on enforcement?
7

12/11/14
Stauffer: I can clarify one thing. For 2014, the enforcement of fencing in our
current regulations, we did take that through a public process. We came to
Planning Commission and went to city council. We cant just suspend
enforcement of our code without doing that. We suspended that one regulation.
We suspended enforcing the screening regulation for outdoor storage uses for
that part of the criteria for 2014.
Lacy: And that was voted on by city council.
Stauffer: It was; it was voted and approved, and it was to expire at the end of
2014. The impetus for that was we were reviewing these regulations to see if
they made sense because wed had enough discussion about outdoor storage
and screening that it warranted some review of our code. Other than that, I do
have a little bit of history on their particular situation. Were working on that. Staff
has been working with the applicant. We have submitted a violation letter to
those property owners, and we have enforcement and violation actions available
to us that well be pursuing as needed on those properties.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS
Levy: This list on Outdoor Storage Principal and Accessory: The unenclosed
storage of goods (operable vehicles, operable equipment and/or materials.)
What exceptions are there to that list? You specifically call out operable
equipment, but I could probably call inoperable equipment materials. The list
seems to include about anything, whereas if we were talking about inoperable
vehicles, what category would they not fall into? I think you were trying to
quantify what can be left out. As weve heard from public comment, there are
items that at least visually dont really meet our intent. What is the intent of the
definition here? How do you separate junk from this list that you have here?
Stauffer: I think it does come into that auto salvage use. I think the auto salvage
use lists inoperative vehicles, vehicles that are being used for parts, those sorts
of things. What we were trying to get at here with the outdoor storage is a place
where people store things that they are going to be using again coming back and
forth, or maybe theyre keeping them there for a long time. The intention would
be that probably those things would come and go over time and change like any
other storage does. But we did want to try to specify that and make the difference
between a piece of equipment or a vehicle thats going to be there without any
wheels thats never going to move again potentially. Its just going to be used for
parts. So I think some of those vehicles and inoperable things are listed in that
auto salvage use that would be more of a junkyard use.
Levy: What part of the code did you use to enforce against the properties in
question?
Stauffer: We have our enforcement code, which is in the front of our CDC,
Chapter 26, which outlines our violation process and how we do that. Then we
8

12/11/14
enforce the use criteria and the use definition for outdoor storage for what they
were using. So we looked at the use and thought that it was outdoor storage, and
at the time until now, weve said that those are use with criteria in the industrial
zone, and they need to meet the criteria. So weve used that to apply, and then
weve said you need to meet our process to do that.
Levy: So would they meet this new proposed code or not?
Stauffer: I think they would need to put some changes onto their property, but I
think its possible. Im not familiar exactly with the property in question, but theyll
need to provide an all-weather surface and some things like that which are listed
in the development standards. A lot of the development standards came out of
the criteria, so I think they would need to meet those standards to meet this
definition.
Meyer: I believe in the past when we have had industrial subdivisions come
through, one of the things that is addressed is outdoor storage. So to the extent
outdoor storage is limited even further through the subdivision plan, Im assuming
that that would take higher precedence. If the requirements of the subdivision
require screening, and were addressed on a more individual lot as opposed to
an industrial subdivision, that would supersede these regulations, correct? You
could say you were in violation of the subdivision?
Stauffer: Correct. If we had specific requirements on a subdivision that were sort
of like covenants but they were listed on a plat, then those would supersede
these regulations.
Meyer: And that would give you an enforcement opportunity.
Stauffer: It would. Similarly, private covenants could be enforced privately in
industrial subdivisions as well.
Commissioner Meyer moved to approve #TXT-14-02 with changes to the outdoor
display definition on 2.5 to include: See Also: outdoor storage, automobile uses,
building and supplies and lumber yard, grocery and outdoor commercial; #4 on
Page 2.3: Any use that receives a valid complaint and/or is confirmed to be in
violation of the CDC will need to meet new regulations; add alternative to
Page 2.8, Item D.
Commissioner Buckley seconded the motion.
Commissioner MacArthur proposed a friendly amendment to include: Change 24
hours to four days under Item 2.5; change the percentage of unenclosed storage
from 50 to 80%; change 24 hours to four days under Outdoor Storage Accessory;
change 15% to 20% under Outdoor Commercial at the bottom of 2.5.
Meyer: Ive got a problem with going from 50% to 80%. I dont think thats any
more scientific then by saying half the property. I understand going to four days
9

12/11/14
and to bump up outdoor commercial. But to go from 50% all the way up to 80%
of a lot, I think if thats the case we need to look at each of those individually and
figure out are they really part of the business. Are they outdoor storage principal?
MacArthur: They would still fall under Outdoor Storage Accessory, I believe.
There was a lot of businesses I drove by mines one of them -- with a big lot
area a big building footprint and a bigger lot area. If theres a number youre
comfortable with in between those two, thatd be great. I just dont want to start
catching more than what we intend here.
Meyer: I think Id like to hear staffs comment on some of these.
Stauffer: We did choose the 50% number with the intention youre speaking of
that if property really had more than 50%, it really started to feel more like a
storage use and less like there was another principal use on the property. We did
try to indicate that the primary use would need to be the primary thing on the
property for it to have accessory storage. I think that some of the uses like a
plumbing supply company or a masonry company could fall under the building
supply and lumber yards definition, which allows for taller height and greater
footprint because there are large items that need to be stored. This was really for
just stuff thats stored outside, so any property that has stuff on it.
MacArthur: Waste Management? Concrete companies?
Stauffer: I think that could be called outdoor storage, but that entire site is filled
with dumpsters, so thats tricky.
MacArthur: But the principal use on that site is not storage.
Stauffer: Yes, its not storage. So what wed probably have would be two
principal uses on the Waste Management site; wed have waste management
and then the storage of their dumpsters. Even those dumpsters I could see how
they could be accessory. If any of these criteria are not met, then it still just
means that were talking about it at a public hearing It doesnt change the fee. It
does add a little bit of public hearing to their process, but I think thats a valuable
input to have so we can talk about the impacts of seeing a lot of dumpsters, and
maybe we need to add some extra screening to that property if that was the
case.
Meyer: Charlie, arent you talking about vehicles that come and go?
MacArthur: Thats exactly my point. In our particular case, we run large
equipment which takes a great deal of space where your yard area has to be big.
We have a big building on ours as well, but its less than 50% of the property.
The storage takes up more than 50%. So the process Im hearing is essentially
the same, but it seems ridiculous to call ours or a concrete company a primary
storage site.
10

12/11/14
Lacy: Could there be instances where its over 50% but it could be the principal
use on the property and therefore we would rather it go through that additional
process Toby was describing.
Meyer: Or grandfather it in. Youre not along Highway 40 or Elk River.
MacArthur: Im grandfathered in. Im not concerned about ours, but the definition
seems flawed to me.
Stauffer: I dont know if this helps at all; we can have more than one principal use
on a property. So were going to be looking at an entire property, and it can have
multiple principal uses on it. So we can have business and we can have storage.
So if we have someone whos got storage, and they have storage associated
with that business, that could be one thing. If theyre renting out the back half as
storage for people to come and go and store their stuff, that would be a different
principal use, and wed be looking at that as a whole development plan and
looking at the impacts of those uses.
Gibbs: I wanted to point out one thing that maybe addresses your concern,
Charlie. It says the definition does not include outdoor storage of goods, vehicles,
equipment or materials available for wholesale or retail sale. If Im a masonry
company, I believe that would include any material that Im selling as part of that
business.
Commissioners Meyer and Buckley accepted each change with the exception of
50% to 80%.
Levy: I think staff has put a good amount of work into this, and I think its a step in
the right direction. Weve heard from public comment and other discussions that
enforcement is still an item of contention both how its enforced and whether its
enforced or not. Just consistency and meeting the intent of our regulations, so
just putting these in place doesnt make me feel great. Weve talked about that
were changing our parking enforcement a little bit with new technologies; weve
talked about other rules. Id like to see a little better consistency with our
regulations. Im not sure how were going to accomplish that, but I will be
supporting the motion.
Lacy: I share that concern, too, so I really hope we do a good outreach effort on
this. Make sure people understand the enforcement plan or implementation plan.
The last thing I ever want us to do is change rules and then not enforce them, so
Id really hope that once these are implemented we really start enforcing this and
certainly respond to any valid complaints that we might receive on a timely basis.
VOTE
Vote: 6-0
11

12/11/14
Discussion on this agenda item ended at approximately 7:05 p.m.
12

ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN
ORDINANCE
TO
AMEND
SECTIONS
26-92:
USE
CLASSIFICATIONS, 26-145: SPECIAL SETBACK STANDARDS, 26402: DEFINITIONS AND USE CRITERIA; AND ADD SECTION 26140: OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND STORAGE.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the revised Community Development Code
as Ordinance #1802 on July 23, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City of Steamboat Springs is committed to a regular, ongoing
review of the Community Development Code so that the provisions contained therein
are relevant and applicable to the community at any given point in time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has recognized the importance of a streamlined and
efficient development review process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found it appropriate to provide a level of
development review that is commensurate with the potential impact to the community;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Steamboat Springs ordains as
follows:
SECTION 1
New language in bold and old language in strikethrough.
Section 26-92. Use Classifications
Traditional Zoning Districts
Use Classification and
Specific Principal Uses
C
S
Commercial, outdoor
Outdoor equipment sales

and rental
Outdoor recreational
equipment rental
O R
R E
R R R
N O R
TND Zoning
(Transects)
MH MF G- G- C C
1 2 O Y
CR C
R
C
R
C C
N C
C
R
C
R
C
R
T T3- T3- T T S
2- NG NG 4- 5- D
N 1 2 N T
E
C C
Outdoor display
CR CR C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
Outdoor seating
CR CR C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C
R
C C C C C C
R R
Outdoor sales
Outdoor commercial
C C C
R
Outdoor storage,
principal
C C
C C C
R
C
R
Outdoor storage,
accessory
CR CR CR C C C C C C
R R R R R R
C C
R R
C
R
C
R
Warehouse with outdoor

storage
SECTION 2
Section 26-145. Special Setback Standards
(d)(4)
I industrial zone district.

a. No fence higher than four (4) six (6) feet shall be located within the required
building setback or landscaping setback adjacent to a public right-of-way. Fences
for security and screening purposes shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height in
any location on the property.
SECTION 3
Section 26-402. Definitions and Use Criteria
Commercial, outdoor. The display of products and services for sale or rent primarily
outside of a building or structure including but not limited to, vehicles, boats, aircraft,
snowmobiles, construction equipment, farm equipment, recreational vehicles, and
manufactured homes.
Outdoor display. A portion of a lot used for exhibiting in an orderly manner,

completed assembled or finished products sold by a retail business located on the same
lot.
(1) Use criteria.
a. Review shall be prior to development or building permit, as applicable.
b. Shall not be located immediately adjacent to property zoned OR, RE, RN, RO, MF,
and MH. (City-owned OR lands and open space that has been designated in a
commercial or industrial subdivision shall not be included in this classification and for
the purposes of this definition, a public right-of-way shall not separate property.
Example: If a property proposing this use is located across a street from a RE zoned
property, this criteria would be applicable.)
c. Areas of outdoor display shall be adequately screened from residential uses.
d. Shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the ground level indoor floor area of the
business, or one thousand (1,000) square feet, which ever is more restrictive.
e. Shall be normally associated with the use of the business or structure.
f. Shall not obstruct pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, or emergency services access and
shall maintain six (6) feet of unobstructed access.
g. Shall not utilize public rights-of-way without a valid revocable permit issued by the
public works director.
h. Shall not store display merchandise outdoors during nonbusiness hours.
i. Where outdoor display and outdoor (recreation) equipment rental are provided for the
same business, lot, or location, the maximum combined area allowed for both uses shall
be twenty-five (25) percent of the ground level indoor floor area of the business.
Outdoor equipment sales/rental. The sale or rental of motorized vehicles, such as

commercial vehicles/trucks, rental moving vehicles/trucks, construction equipment, farm
equipment, recreational vehicles, motorized boats, and manufactured homes. This does
not include outdoor recreation equipment.
(1) Use criteria.
a. Outdoor equipment sales/rental shall not have frontage that is either directly
adjacent to or only separated by an open space parcel or tract from US Highway 40 and
Elk River Road.
b. Outdoor equipment sales/rental shall not be located adjacent to property zoned RO,
RE, RN, RO, MF, and MH. (City-owned OR lands and open space that has been
designated in a commercial or industrial subdivision shall not be included in this
classification and for the purposes of this definition, a public right-of-way shall not
separate property. Example: If a property proposing this use is located across a street
from a RE zoned property, this criteria would be applicable.)
Outdoor recreation equipment rental. Any use where nonmotorized recreational

equipment such as bicycles, kayaks, tubes, and rafts are stored or displayed outdoors
for rental purposes.
(1) Use criteria.
b. Equipment displayed for rental purposes shall be able to be utilized in the season in
which it is displayed.
c. Shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the ground level indoor floor area of the
business, or one thousand (1,000) square feet in any case. Shall be normally associated
with the use of the business or structure.
d. Shall not obstruct pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, or emergency services access and
shall maintain six (6) feet of unobstructed access.
e. Shall not utilize public rights-of-way without a valid revocable permit according to
City of Steamboat Springs Charter.
f. Shall not store display merchandise outdoors during nonbusiness hours.
g. Where outdoor display and outdoor recreation equipment rental are desired for the
same business, lot, or location, the maximum combined area allowed for both uses shall
be twenty-five (25) percent of the ground level indoor floor area of the business.
h. No use shall be approved where the proposed use includes any use of city property
in violation of any applicable city ordinance or regulation. Use of city property by
customers of the applicant shall be deemed use by the applicant to the extent such
customer use is the reasonably expected consequence of the applicant's proposed
operation. The director may require submittal of operating plans or other information
reasonably necessary to determine the applicant's compliance with this provision.
i. The number of users or their rental volumes may be limited by the director in order to
mitigate the impacts of the use including, but not limited to, degraded fish habitat,
conflicts with other resource user groups, noise pollution, littering, and trespass. The
director shall retain the authority to review user numbers and rental volumes on an
annual basis.
Outdoor sales. Sales and vending of merchandise, produce, or services offered from a
fixed public or private location. Such sales and vending may occur on a seasonal or
permanent basis. Outdoor sales does not include mobile vending or mobile food unit
uses.
Outdoor seating. An outdoor area adjoining a restaurant or other establishment,

consisting of outdoor tables, chairs, plantings, and related decorations and fixtures, and
where meals or refreshments may or may not be served to the public for consumption
on the premises.
(1) Use criteria.
b. Outdoor seating shall not encroach into the public right-of-way unless a valid
revocable permit is obtained from the public works director.
c. After placement of the tables and chairs, an unobstructed area of a minimum of six
(6) feet shall be maintained.
d. A permanent barrier system shall be installed around the seating area. Such barrier
system may consist of having fixed holes in the ground, with poles that can be inserted
when the seating is utilized, and removed when the seating is not functioning.
However, the barriers must be in a fixed location so outdoor seating does not encroach
into access paths and impede circulation.
e. Outdoor seating located on Oak Street shall only be permitted on the south side of
Oak Street.
Outdoor storage area. A lot or a portion of a lot used for the unenclosed storage of
goods, vehicles, equipment and/or materials for more than twenty-four (24)
consecutive hours.
(1) Use criteria in the TND-SD and I zone districts.

a. The commercial or industrial land shall not have frontage that is either directly
adjacent to, or are separated only by open space from US Highway 40 and Elk River
Road.
b. Outdoor storage materials must be resistant to damage or deterioration from
exposure to the outside environment.
c. Outdoor storage shall not be permitted within public right-of-way or in landscaped
areas.
d. Outdoor storage shall not be permitted to impede any vehicular or pedestrian
building entrances or access ways.
e. The height of outdoor storage materials shall be no greater than fifteen (15) feet.
f. All outdoor storage materials must be fully screened. Screening may be provided by
existing buildings, opaque fencing, landscaped berming or landscaping of sufficient
height to screen the outdoor storage materials. No chain link fencing with slats or
environ screens are permitted.
g. All outdoor storage areas shall be on all-weather surfaces, as defined in the public
works standards.
h. There shall be a paved apron connecting between any all-weather surface and the
edge of the public street.
i. All outdoor storage areas shall comply with city drainage criteria.
j. All outdoor storage areas shall comply with applicable city engineering standards,
including but not limited to access and grading.
k. Shall not be located immediately adjacent to property zoned OR, RE, RN, RO, MF,
and MH. (City-owned OR lands and open space that has been designated in a
commercial or industrial subdivision shall not be included in this classification and for
the purposes of this definition, a public right-of-way shall not separate property.
Example: If a property proposing this use is located across a street from a RE zoned
property, this criterion would be applicable.)
Warehouse with outdoor storage. A commercial or industrial building and land used
primarily for the storage of goods and materials, and/or vehicles, with ancillary outdoor
storage materials normally associated with and incidental to the warehouse use.
(1) Use criteria.
a. In the event the commercial or industrial land is located adjacent to or separated
only by open space from Elk River Road or US Highway 40, a building must be located
between the street frontage and the outdoor storage.
b. Outdoor storage materials must be those that are associated with the primary
warehouse use.
c. Outdoor storage materials must be resistant to damage or deterioration from
exposure to the outside environment.
d. Outdoor storage shall not be permitted within public right-of-way or in landscaped
areas.
e. Outdoor storage shall not be permitted to impede any vehicular or pedestrian
building entrances or accessways.
f. The height of outdoor storage materials shall be no greater than fifteen (15) feet or
the plate height of the building located closest to the outdoor storage area, whichever
is less.
g. All outdoor storage materials must be fully screened. Screening may be provided by
existing buildings, opaque fencing, landscaped berming or landscaping of sufficient
height to screen the outdoor storage materials. No chain link fencing with slats or
environ screens are permitted. The director shall have the ability to approve or
disapprove of any proposed screening method.
h. All outdoor storage areas shall be on all-weather surfaces, as defined in the public
works standards.
i. There shall be a paved apron connecting between any all-weather surface and the
edge of the public street.
j. All outdoor storage areas shall comply with city drainage criteria.
k. All outdoor storage areas shall comply with applicable city engineering standards,
including but not limited to access and grading.
l. Shall not be located immediately adjacent to property zoned OR, RE, RN, RO, MF, and
MH. (City-owned OR lands and open space that has been designated in a commercial or
industrial subdivision shall not be included in this classification and for the purposes of
this definition, a public right-of-way shall not separate property. Example: If a property
proposing this use is located across a street from a RE zoned property, this criterion
would be applicable.)
Outdoor display. A portion of a lot used for exhibiting completed, assembled

or finished products or nonmotorized recreational equipment, such as
bicycles, kayaks, tubes, and rafts, sold or rented by a retail business located
on the same lot. See also: outdoor storage, automobile uses, building
supplies and lumber yard, nursery, outdoor commercial.
Outdoor storage, principal. The unenclosed storage of goods, operable

vehicles, operable equipment and/or materials for more than four days
where no other principal use, building, or structure exists on the property or
where unenclosed storage occupies 50% or more of the total land area of a
property. This definition does not include outdoor storage of goods, vehicles,
equipment or materials available for wholesale or retail sales. See also:
automobile uses, building supplies and lumber yard, nursery, outdoor
commercial.
(1) Use Criteria.
a. The use shall not be located on a lot that fronts on, is directly adjacent
to, or is only separated by open space from US Highway 40 and Elk
River Road.
Outdoor storage, accessory. The unenclosed storage of goods, materials,

operable vehicles or operable equipment for more than four days that occurs
with any other use, building or structure, and that occupies less square
footage than the primary use, building or structure on the property. This
definition does not include outdoor storage of goods, vehicles, equipment or
materials available for wholesale or retail sales. See also: automobile uses,
outdoor commercial, outdoor display.
(1) Use Criteria.
a. In the event the lot fronts on, is located adjacent to, or is only
separated by open space from Elk River Road or US Highway 40, a
building must be located between the street frontage and the
accessory outdoor storage.
b. Outdoor storage materials shall be those customarily associated with
the principal use of the lot, business, building, or structure.
Outdoor seating. An outdoor area adjoining and accessory to a restaurant or

similar use, consisting of outdoor tables, chairs, and related decorations and
fixtures, and where meals or refreshments are served to the public for
consumption on the premises.
Outdoor commercial. The display, sale, or rental of products or services
located outside of a building or structure and occupying more than twenty
(20) percent of the ground level indoor floor area of the business, or one
thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet, whichever is more restrictive.
The use may or may not include a building.
(1) Use criteria.
a. The use shall not be located on a lot that fronts on, is directly adjacent
to, or is only separated by open space from US Highway 40 and Elk
River Road.
b. The use shall not be located adjacent to property zoned OR, RE, RN,
RO, MF, and MH. City-owned OR lands and open space that has been
designated in a commercial or industrial subdivision shall not be
included in this classification and for the purposes of this definition, a
public right-of-way shall not separate property. Example: If a property
proposing this use is located across a street from a RE zoned property,
this criteria would be applicable.
SECTION 4
NEW SECTION: Article V: Development Standards
Section 26-140. Outdoor Display and Storage
(a) Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to ensure that
principal and accessory outdoor storage and display uses are managed for
the life of the use, so that visual, site, and other impacts to public roadways,
adjacent uses and adjacent properties are addressed and mitigated.
(b) Applicability. The standards in this section apply to any site or

development where merchandise, materials, supplies, or equipment are
stored outside of a building or structure.
(c) Outdoor Display Standards for all zone districts.
(1) Area. The total area(s) where items are displayed shall not exceed
twenty (20) percent of the ground level indoor floor area of the
business, or one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet, whichever
is more restrictive.
Materials. Displayed materials shall be those customarily

(2)
associated with the principal use of the lot, business, building, or
structure.
(3)
Location.
(a) Display materials shall not obstruct or impede any pedestrian,
bicycle, vehicular or emergency services accesses or building
entrances or accesses.
(b) Display materials shall not utilize public rights-of-way without a
valid revocable license issued by the City.
(d) Outdoor Storage Standards for all zone districts.
(1)
Location.
(a) See additional location criteria in Section 26-402, definitions for
Outdoor Storage, Principal, and Outdoor Storage, Accessory.
(b) Material storage shall not obstruct, impede, or be located in any
public right-of-way, easement, pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular or
emergency service access, building entrance, required landscape,
setback, or buffer area.
(c) All outdoor storage areas and access points on the lot shall be
located on an approved all-weather surface with a paved apron
connecting any all-weather surface to the edge of the public street.
The site development, all weather surface, and paved apron shall be
in accordance with City Engineering Standards.
(2)
Height.
(a) Principal use. The height of stored materials shall be no greater
than twelve (12) feet.
(b) Accessory use. The height of stored materials shall be no greater
than twelve (12) feet or the lowest plate height of the building
located closest to the outdoor storage area, whichever is less.
(c) Within the industrial zone district the Director may vary the height
requirement of stored materials based on evaluation of the use, the
site, and the intent of this section.
(3)
Screening.
(a) All stored materials shall be screened from adjacent public
arterial and collector streets and adjacent properties zoned OR, RE,
RN, RO, MF, and MH. Open space that has been designated in a
commercial or industrial subdivision shall not be included in this
classification.
(b) Screening shall be composed of landscaping, berming, structures,
or materials that are compatible with surrounding structures.
(c) Screening shall be at a minimum height of 6 or as approved by the
Director to mitigate visual, site, and other impacts to public
roadways, adjacent uses and adjacent properties. Screening shall
comply with Section 26-137.
(d) The Director shall have the ability to suggest, modify, and/or
approve or disapprove alternative screening methods and materials
in favor of methods or materials that are of equal or better quality
or performance.
SECTION 5
All ordinances heretofore passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Steamboat
Springs, Colorado, are hereby repealed to the extent that said ordinances, or parts,
thereof, are in conflict herewith.
SECTION 6
If any section, subsection, clause, phrase or provision of this Ordinance is, or the
application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall to any extent, be held by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unconstitutional, the remaining sections,
subsections, clauses, phrases and provisions of this Ordinance, or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance, shall remain in full force and shall in no way be affected,
impaired or invalidated.
SECTION 7
The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary
for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety.
SECTION 8
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the expiration of five (5) days from and
after its publication following final passage, as provided in Section 7.6 (h) of the
Steamboat Springs Home Rule Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED, as provided by law, by the City
January, 2015.

ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk
FINALLY READ, PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of January, 2015.

ATTEST:
Julie Franklin, CMC

City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #12
Council Member Kenny Reismans Council Report

I attended the monthly YVSC meeting. Interesting presentation by a person from
Breckenridge who is engaged in food-waste programs in Summit County with High
Country Conservation. Breckenridges trash service is run through the city, so a bit
easier to make changes since it is just a single point of contact. I think food waste
programs are in our future makes a lot of sense to me, and makes a lot of compost
for others J I Would love to see this part of our Green Teams sustainability
conversations at some point in the future.
I attended the monthly Grand Futures meeting. Sad to pass along that Kate Elkins
announced she will be leaving GFPC in April, when she gives birth to her first child.
Kates contributions to the community have been immense. More on the transition in
the next month or so.
I have received some concerns from the non-profit community about the city now
charging sales tax on proceeds from fundraisers, from items such as beer sales to
wreaths. I wont go into too much depth on this, as I will expand on it some during the
Allocations agenda item. I understand the rationale for this, but it just seems like we
are keeping money from those we are then giving money to, and creating a bit of a silly
cycle.
I would like to encourage us to put on an upcoming agenda, possibly the second one in
February, a discussion to create a citizens committee to select a site for building a new
police station.
Macys Council report 1.15.15

For discussion:
Council's credibility and governance structure.
I'm sure that all have seen the recent, unfavorable, press attention the Council and City
Manager have received. The constituents I have spoken with have serious concerns
about the way we are conducting City business. These concerns center around two
points:
Who is the current leadership? Is it the City Council or City Manager?
How do we make decisions? Do we believe in a logical, stepwise process that includes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A problem statement (or opportunity statement)

Identification of alternatives
Analysis of alternatives
Selection of a preferred alternative
Implementation of the preferred alternative
A few recent examples have led people to believe that Council is only engaged in this
process at step 5, after the City Manager has identified (for us) the preferred
alternative.
For example, on transit, there is widespread community belief that the reason we are
having a rough season is because we lack drivers. But why do we lack drivers? Let' go
back to the budget hearing when we were told by Kim Weber, the proverbial
messenger...
"We budget so tightly that they dont have enough personnel to run the current routes.
So when we started the budget they came in and asked for an additional 4 FTEs. It
wasnt something we were comfortable with. We asked Jonathan, in discussions with
me Jonathan, Chuck and Deb, what would routes look like if you created routes within
your current FTE structure."
To see Kim's comments for yourself please visit the City Council website, look for the
10/7/14 meeting and start watching at 2 hours and 30 minutes.
So our "management team" had a recommendation from our highly skilled Transit
1
Manager, who brings decades of experience to the table, that he needed 4FTEs to
retain current routes and the current level of service. He was told no. By the time this
issue came to Council, we were told that the managers named were not comfortable
with supporting those FTES so we were presented one option.... implement their
preferred alternative, which is what we did. And here we sit, having "saved" 126k by
following management team's preferred alternative. Of that, how much are we
spending now to resolve the issues we created? How many skilled and capable drivers
have we lost? Can we retain our skilled Transit Manger when we dismiss his
recommendations then saddle him with solving the problems that we forced him to
create?
I'd like to talk about governance and decision making.
Police Station.
At the last meeting, Kenny asked Scott Ford and me to propose our solutions to the
police station issue. I will recap a few of the suggestions that I have made over the
years.
Partner with other organizations in the community who are also looking to
relocate and/or share space (i.e. YVEA- the option still exists, other law
enforcement).
Put the issue to a public vote.
Partner with our own city staff who have shared needs and who have an
imminent plan to relocate (i.e. Fire!).
Assemble a citizen's committee to study it and bring options on location and

funding mechanisms.
Resolve other issues that are within our control at the same time (i.e. Search and
Rescue).
Consider a creative and entrepreneurial approach to securing land (i.e. land
swap).
The unfortunate truth, however, is that my confidence with the City Manager's capacity
to successfully execute this project has been low since John Roberts decided to sell the
building. Recent events have not helped. I believe that our approach to this has
severely compromised our credibility and unnecessarily squandered what little public
trust we may have had. From my perspective it is time to table the issue, at least until
2
we have addressed our own issues of governance.

Meetings.
Joined Scott Ford for a tour of the new YVEA building.
Visited with Chris Paoli, Steve Schelesky and Roger Good about the URA.
Joined the Urban Land Institute group to see Yampa and all of downtown from their
perspective.
Upcoming meetings.
Colorado Association of Ski Towns, Water Congress
Scott L. Ford
City Council Report
For January 20, 2015
Monday, January 12th
Lunch with City Manager Had lunch with the City Manager to what can best be described as a philosophical discussion
about the difference between Economic Benefit and Economic Development. Also how both
economic diversity and vibrancy can be measured.
Urban Land Institute RETL Winter Symposium

Accompanied Tyler Gibbs along with the participants in the ULI symposium on a walking tour of
Yampa Street and a presentation about the Howelsen Hill Master Plan given by John Overstreet
and Craig Robinson. It was interesting to hear how others view the potential of both areas and
how geographically tied they are. Council member Macey also participated in the tour.
Tuesday, January 13th

Steamboat Springs School District RE2 Was given a tour of Soda Creek Elementary by School Board President Roger Good. The focus of
the tour was on utilization of existing facilities. Roger also gave me a 101 on the states school
per pupil financing formula. I understand much better the impact Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
strategies have on school districts state wide and specifically at the local level.
Wednesday, January 14th

Tour of Yampa Valley Electric Association Took a tour of the Yampa Valley Electric Association new home. Executive Director, Diane
Johnson described YVEA vision for the new facility short term and long term. The new facility is
a great fit for them. Ms. Johnson also outlined some of the business challenges they face in the
industry and locally. Council member Macey also participated in the tour.
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting

There were two presentation made by directors of different Parks and Recreation Districts in the
State:
I.
The Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District (FVMRD) is a special district
governed by a five member citizen elected Board of Directors. We are
considered a quasi-municipal government agency but unlike municipalities,
property tax is our only tax revenue mechanism. - See more at:
http://www.fraservalleyrec.org/site/epage/103777_964.htm#sthash.HFEWB2Tz
.dpuf
II.
Foothills Parks and Recreation District is a district serves 93,000 residents in

unincorporated Jefferson County while managing over 2,400 acres. The District
includes the following: Ridge Recreation Center & Pools, Edge Ice Arena, Lilley
Gulch Recreation Center & Pool, Peak Community & Wellness Center, Foothills
Sports Arena, Foothills Golf Course Complex, Meadows Golf Club and thousands
of classes, programs and events. It is a property tax funded district. It receives
no contribution from neighboring municipalities (Lakewood).
Thursday, January 15th

Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association (SSCRA) There was a brief over view of the 2015 budget and some of the re-alignment that is occurring
within the various different functions of SSCRA. The SSCRA budget for 2015 with revenue from
all sources is about $1.7 million. The City of Steamboat Springs contribution represents about
48% of SSCRAs annual budget for 2015.
Tyler Gibbs and Casey Earp gave a presentation about the infrastructure needs downtown that
as envisioned would be funded through Tax Increment Financing. Randy Rudasics indicated the
Executive Committee of the SSCRA board wanted the entire board to pass a resolution of
support for the URA and the use a TIF. The resolution passed unanimously with only statements
for support being made. Randy encouraged as many board members as possible to attend the
upcoming City Council meeting to show support.
My Bus Riding ExperienceI have made the commitment to ride Steamboat Springs Transit (SST) for the vast majority of my
personal and business related errands and meetings. Overall with a lot of planning and a little
luck I have been able to accomplish a majority my errands and meeting commitments.
SST drivers are wonderful front-line ambassadors for this community. I have seen first-hand
their willingness to answer a cornucopia of questions and go the extra mile in customer service
to insure the best experience possible. Their professionalism and commitment great customer
services is an asset to this community. I did not fully realize until I started riding the bus. I
cannot think of any department within the City of Steamboat Springs that has more face time
with residents and visitors alike in any given day than an SST driver.
(I will plan on discussing the following two items during my Council report)
Police Station Discussion Follow-up for January 6th Meeting

At the last City Council meeting council member Kenny Reisman asked if my answer regarding
anything Police Station was always going to be NO. After a very long meeting on January 6th I
was not prepared to respond that evening. This a very fair question and I am glad Kenny asked
it. I could get to YES if as a City Council we collectively commit to a public process. A public
process that is citizen driven and less staff driven.
The Public Involvement process has been followed by various governing boards for such projects
as:
High School Remodel
Library
CMC Academic Planning Facility
Hospital (YVMC)
Some of these major capital projects involved bonding and some of them did not.
Regarding the Police Station what we have been involved with over the past year I have been on
City Council and 18 months prior have been trying to convince/sway /sale each other as City
Council members and who we need to involve is the citizens.
This community is filled with people that are passionate about this place and when considering
the largest capital expenditure this town has made in its 115 year history want to be involved.
This involvement would include public discussion and dialogue regarding:
Needs (Including Staffing and Space now and into the future.)
Location
Design
Financing
To assure that the goal of public involvement is achieved I suggest that a ballot question appears
during the next election cycle to determine the citizens approve of plans going forward. A lot of
the work associated with some of the items listed above has already been done. This process
likely could be accomplished before the November 2015 election.
Steamboat Pilot/Today Editorial Wednesday, January 14th

Our View: Decision-making process needs work
AGENDA ITEM #13a1.

*****TENATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2015*****
This agenda is tentative and the information is subject to change until the agenda is finalized.

AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NO. 2015-03
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015
5:00 P.M.
MEETING LOCATION:

MEETING PROCEDURE: Comments from the Public are welcome at two

different times during the course of the meeting: 1) Comments no longer than
three (3) minutes on items not scheduled on the Agenda will be heard under
Public Comment; and 2) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on all
scheduled public hearing items will be heard following the presentation by Staff
or the Petitioner. Please wait until you are recognized by the Council President.
With the exception of subjects brought up during Public Comment, on which no
action will be taken or a decision made, the City Council may take action on, and
may make a decision regarding, ANY item referred to in this agenda, including,
without limitation, any item referenced for review, update, report, or
discussion. It is City Councils goal to adjourn all meetings by 10:00 p.m.
A City Council meeting packet is available for public review in the lobby of City
Hall, 137 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO, or on our website at
http://steamboatsprings.net/city_council/council_meetings. The e-packet is
typically available by 1pm on the Friday before the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at
the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO
DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY
COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS.
ALL
COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.
A.
ROLL CALL
B.
PROCLAMATIONS
_________________________________________________________________
C.

1.
D.
Building Department Update. (Gibbs)
CONSENT
CALENDAR:
MOTIONS,
ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS
RESOLUTIONS
AND
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND
MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC
MAY WITHDRAW ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ANY
TIME PRIOR TO APPROVAL.
E.
2.
MOTION: Gates Gooding property. (Overstreet)
3.
RESOLUTION: A resolution designating the public places for

posting notices of regular and special meetings. (Franklin)
4.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: Exemption from noise

ordinance for street sweepers. (Anderson)

THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT PRO-TEM WILL READ EACH ORDINANCE TITLE
INTO THE RECORD. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY ORDINANCE.
F.
5.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance approving a

Declaration of Restrictive Covenant and Disclaimer that modifies
City rights in certain property owned by the Steamboat Health and
Recreation Association and providing an effective date.
(DelliQuadri)
6.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance amending

Article III of Chapter 19 of the Steamboat Springs Revised
Municipal Code relating to wildlife resistant containers; providing an
effective date; and setting a hearing date. (Earp/Stabile)
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or

at the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL
MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE
ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME
AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.
G.
________________________________________________________________________
H.
I.

DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
MAY REQUEST AN ITEM(S) BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION. ALL ORDINANCES APPROVED BY CONSENT SHALL BE READ INTO THE
RECORD BY TITLE.
7.
J.
PROJECT: Pahwintah CP-14-01

PETITION: Minor Urban Growth Boundary amendment.
LOCATION: 955 Pahwintah.
APPLICANT:
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: To be heard January 22, 2015.

x Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner
to state name and residence address/location.
x Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.
x Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes).
Individuals to state name and residence address/location.
x City staff to provide a response.
8.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance annexing

Block 2, Idlewild addition to the Town of Steamboat Springs as an
enclave and providing an effective date. (Keenan)
Staff is requesting this item be postponed to the February 24, 2015 Council
meeting.
9.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance providing

zoning to .72 acres of the property described as Idlewild Addition
Block 2 and the land described in the attached Exhbit A, to RE-2
(residential estate two medium density; repealing all conflicting
ordinances; providing for severability; and providing an effective
date. (Keenan)
Staff is requesting this item be postponed to the February 24, 2015 Council
meeting.
K.
L.
REPORTS
10.
City Council
11.
Reports
a.
Agenda Review (Franklin):
1.) Regular Meeting February 24, 2015.
2.) Regular Meeting March 3, 2015.
12.
Staff Reports
a.
City Attorneys Update/Report. (Lettunich)
b.
City Managers Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)
OLD BUSINESS
13.
M.
Minutes (Franklin)
a. Regular Meeting 2015-01, January 6, 2015.
b. Regular Meeting 2015-02, January 20, 2015.
ADJOURNMENT
BY:
JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC

CITY CLERK
AGENDA ITEM #13a2.


AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NO. 2015-04
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
5:00 P.M.
MEETING LOCATION:

MEETING PROCEDURE: Comments from the Public are welcome at two

different times during the course of the meeting: 1) Comments no longer than
three (3) minutes on items not scheduled on the Agenda will be heard under
Public Comment; and 2) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on all
scheduled public hearing items will be heard following the presentation by Staff
or the Petitioner. Please wait until you are recognized by the Council President.
With the exception of subjects brought up during Public Comment, on which no
action will be taken or a decision made, the City Council may take action on, and
may make a decision regarding, ANY item referred to in this agenda, including,
without limitation, any item referenced for review, update, report, or
discussion. It is City Councils goal to adjourn all meetings by 10:00 p.m.
A City Council meeting packet is available for public review in the lobby of City
Hall, 137 10th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO, or on our website at
http://steamboatsprings.net/city_council/council_meetings. The e-packet is
typically available by 1pm on the Friday before the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or at
the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE NO
DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE ADDRESSING CITY
COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME AND ADDRESS.
ALL
COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.
A.
ROLL CALL
Liquor Licensing Authority Meeting after roll call the City Council will
adjourn and reconvene in their capacity as the Steamboat Springs
Liquor Licensing Authority and follow the attached Liquor Licensing
Authority agenda.
At the conclusion of the Steamboat Springs Liquor License Authority

Meeting, the City Council will reconvene as the Steamboat Springs City
Council and proceed with the following agenda:
B.
PROCLAMATIONS
_________________________________________________________________
C.

1.
D.
Iron Horse RFP. (Small)
CONSENT
CALENDAR:
MOTIONS,
ORDINANCES FIRST READINGS
RESOLUTIONS
AND
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR GENERALLY REQUIRE LITTLE COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND
MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC
MAY WITHDRAW ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ANY
TIME PRIOR TO APPROVAL.

E.

THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT PRO-TEM WILL READ EACH ORDINANCE TITLE
INTO THE RECORD. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY ORDINANCE.
F.
2.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance vacating a

portion of East Spruce Street in the Idlewild Addition. (Anderson)
3.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: Exemption from noise

ordinance for street sweepers. (Anderson)
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment will be provided at 7 p.m., or

at the end of the meeting, (whichever comes first). CITY COUNCIL WILL
MAKE NO DECISION NOR TAKE ACTION, EXCEPT TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER. THOSE
ADDRESSING CITY COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY NAME
AND ADDRESS. ALL COMMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE MINUTES.
G.
________________________________________________________________________
H.
I.

DELIBERATION AND MAY BE APPROVED WITH A SINGLE MOTION. A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
MAY REQUEST AN ITEM(S) BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION. ALL ORDINANCES APPROVED BY CONSENT SHALL BE READ INTO THE
RECORD BY TITLE.
____________________________________________________
J.

x Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner
to state name and residence address/location.
x Presentation by the Opposition. Same guidelines as above.
x Public Comment by individuals (not to exceed 3 minutes).
Individuals to state name and residence address/location.
x City staff to provide a response.
4.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: Idlewild annexation.

(Keenan)
This item was postponed from the February 3, 2015 Council meeting.
5.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: Idlewild zoning map

amendment. (Keenan)
This item was postponed from the February 3, 2015 Council meeting.
K.
REPORTS
6.
City Council
7.
Reports
a.
Agenda Review (Franklin):
1.)
Regular meeting March 3, 2015.
2.)
Regular meeting March 17, 2015.
8.
Staff Reports
a.
b.
L.
City Attorneys Update/Report. (Lettunich)

City Managers Report: Ongoing Projects. (Hinsvark)
ADJOURNMENT
BY:
JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC

CITY CLERK
AGENDA ITEM #14
STAFF REPORTS:
a) City Attorneys Update/Report. The above is a discussion item
b) City Managers Report: Ongoing Projects. Report to follow this page
AGENDA ITEM #14b.

City Manager Report
January 20, 2015
x
x
DIRECTION NEEDED: How do you want to move forward with the Police Station?
RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING: As
requested in last weeks City Council meeting here is a list of the 30 Department of
Local Affairs Energy Impact grants that the City has applied for and received since 1997.
City of Steamboat Springs

DOLA Energy Impact Grants
PROJECT
Transit Center
City Hall Expansion (centennial)
Fire Training Facility
Lavery Acquisition Phase II
Visiting Nurse Facility
City Hall Expansion
West Steamboat Water Tank
Wastewater Interceptor Project
HH Jumps (Olympian Project)
Mountain Fire Station
Wildland Fire Engine
Howelsen Hill Ski Jump
Public Safety Building remodel
Hospital Chemotherapy Center
Craig Transit Center
Public Works Shop Expansion
Hospital Radiography equipment
VNA Haven Acquisition/Expansion
Community Center
Union Pacific Triangle Acquisition
VNA community health equipment
Green Building Code
West Steamboat Water Main
Craig Transit - supplemental funding
Library Renovation
Public Works Shop 2nd Addition
New Energy Communities Initiative
Main Street Graduate Assessment
Police Station - planning and permitting
Economic Development Intern
FUNDING SOURCE
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Governor's Health Initiative
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Governor's Health Initiative
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Governor's Health Init
DOLA: Office of Smartgrowth
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA: Energy Impact
DOLA Energy Impact`
APPLICANT
City / Transit
City / Community Svs
West Routt FPD
City / Transit
VNA
City / Community Svs
City / Public Works
City / Public Works
City / PROS
City / Public Safety
City / Fire
City / IGS
City / Police
City / YVMC
Craig / Moffat / City
City / Public Works
City / YVMC
Routt County
City / City Manager
City / IGS
Routt County/VNA
City / Planning
City / Public Works
City / Transit
Library
City / Facilities
Multiple Partners
City / Main Street
City / Internal Svs
City / General Services
Grand Total
GRANT
Year
$250,000
$300,000
$200,000
$250,000
$600,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$600,000
$300,000
$140,000
$600,000
$237,300
$90,000
$500,000
$500,000
$125,000
$600,000
$500,000
$150,000
$50,000
$25,250
$750,000
$216,000
$500,000
$500,000
$88,000
$2,500
$25,000
$35,000
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2010
2012
2013
$9,034,050
Winnie also looked at the grant applications that were submitted but not funded. From 1997 until
today, the grants that were applied for and not funded by DOLA consist of 5 projects:
x
In 2004 we applied, in conjunction with Routt County, for operational funding (not capital) for
the Yampa Valley Housing Authority that grant request was not funded by DOLA through
2|Page
x
x
Energy Impact. Winnie recalls that DOLA suggested that the Colorado Division of Housing
would be a better fit for funding this grant.
We also applied for funding for Cultural Heritage Tourism operating costs for program
staffing, with undefined interpretive projects for nonprofit entities in NW Colorado in 2005, and
this grant was also not funded. The comments on this one mentioned a lack of support for the
operational funding and that the interpretive projects were not well enough defined to fund.
In 2007, we requested supplemental funding for the Community Center. DOLA funded the
original project, but did not provide supplemental funding.
In 2008, we requested funding to purchase land for a public safety center. DOLA declined to
fund land purchase as their board was moving to adopt new criteria requiring that projects be
shovel ready, however they did note their interest in funding construction once the project was
ready to construct.
In 2009, the Town of Avon submitted a grant application for a regional energy initiative. This
was not a City application, however the City was a proposed partner, and the project was not
funded. (The applicant and the majority of proposed partners did not have any direct energy or
mineral impacts, so it wasnt a good fit for the funding source.)
x
x
x
CML FISCAL CONDITIONS PROJECT: CML in partnership with DOLA and the
CU School of Public Affairs recently completed Phase I of a Fiscal Conditions Project
designed to track the changing fiscal health of Colorado municipalities. Ive attached the
report for your information. Phase I is a macro look at this subject, but it does provide
some trending information that is important. The findings are 1) Demands for public
services have increased over the last 40 years, 2) Municipalities have become
increasingly self-reliant, 3) Regional differences matter more today than 40 years ago, 4)
Fiscal slack is more important to small jurisdictions than larger ones, and 5) Historically,
fiscal health of Colorado municipalities is strong. In the small print, I located something
that is worth mentioning: On page 15 of the report, theres Figure 12 showing total
revenue per capita among the cities that they studied to be a bit under $1000 per capita
with sales tax revenue per capita right at $400 per capita. Under that chart it states,
Among the findings, governments that rely on elastic revenue sources, such as sales
taxes, face more financial risk from fiscal downturns. Our 2011 sales tax was $1,578
per capita.
Heres the Finance Departments Year-in-Review for 2014:
Accounting Division:
o Financial and Compliance Reporting
Received Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting on
the 2013 CAFR.
New Affordable Care Act Compliance reporting in 2014
x Filed Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute(PCORI) Fees
x Filed ACA Transitional Reinsurance Program Fees
o Treasury Management
Adjusted Investment Strategy to utilize Wells Fargo Earning Credit saved
approximately 2k/month in bank fees for Nov & Dec 2014 and we will have an
on-going monthly savings.
3|Page
The City is now accepting American Express Cards and Military issued Air
Cards.
Invested $6.7M of City reserve funds with an estimated annual interest income
of $55k. Focused on 1-3 year investments in CDs and FHLMC investments.
The City is the first Colorado municipality to utilize a free Econnectdirect
Investment Platform that was this year endorsed by the National Association of
Counties. This has been an effective tool for the City.
Debt Service Administration
Prepared and issued a comprehensive schedule of the Citys Debt Service in the
form of a Debt Book with all of the amortization schedules.
Completed Arbitrage compliance for Energy Efficiency Lease.
Grants
Provided annual grant training for grant managers.
In 2014 there were 37 active State Grants and 16 active Federal Grants.
31Grants were awarded to the City in 2014 with a value of $2.2M
Grant Revenue and associated project:
x $102,000 Morning Gloria Trail
x $204,000 Street Sweeper
x $482,000 Transit Operations
x $1.1M Hybrid Busses
x $175,000 Caseys Pond Construction
Implementation of new Federal granting regulations (Omni Circular).
Updated procedures to include new government grant websites
x ECHO(FAA grants) & CoTraMS (none airport grants)
x TEAM converting to TraMS
Accounts Payable(AP) & Document Management

Began issuing ACH electronic payment to vendors.
x 246 City Vendors currently enrolled for ACH payments
x 171 Employees currently enrolled for ACH payments for A/P
3,111 paper checks were issued in 2014 vs 4,980 paper check were issue in
2013 a reduction of 1,869 paper checks.
1,844 ACH payments were initiated in 2014.
Electronic Document Management in Onbase the following types of documents
are now being filed electronically:
x Journal Entries and backup, Payroll, A/P Payments and Reports,
Purchasing Card Information, Vendor Information, Cash Receipts,
Budget Reports, and Sales Tax Applications.
Payroll
Converted to electronic W-2 filing, enabling employees to receive their W-2s
electronically.
Implemented shift differential while ensuring the City was in compliance with
FLSA overtime rules.
4|Page
Administered new PTO and Holiday policies.
Updated our timekeeping software to the newest version which hadnt been
done in several years.
o Utility Billing
Improved collection timeliness and customer past due notification to improve
cash flow and reduce water service shut-offs.
Reduced A/R from 2013 by 10% as of 12/31/2014.
At the end of 2013 19% of our Utility customers were on paperless billing. At
the end of 2014 that percent was 26%, a 7% increase.
o Accounts Receivable
We made an effort to convert our entire manual billing processes in all
departments to an electronic process through Finance and through our general
ledger system. We more than doubled the number of general A/R invoices
processed totaling 473 invoices for $602,000. Of that we only had $1,800
outstanding at the end of 2014 which is less than .3% of our total A/R billed for
the year.
Budgeting & Tax Division:
o Sales & Use Tax
Completed 102 Building Use Tax Reconciliations collecting a net of $79,239.
Completed 12 Sales Tax Audits assessing $63,471.
Provided 2 sales tax related seminars for the public. (Non-profit sales tax
compliance & Sales Tax specific to the lodging industry).
Reduced Sales Tax 0-90 day accounts receivable by 56% from prior year.
(105,734 in 2013 to $46,179 in 2014).
In 2013, 1171 sales tax returns were filed on-line, with $2.3 million collected. In
2014, 2535 sales tax returns were filed on-line, collecting $5.5 million. This was
more than double the returns and the amount collected in 2013.
Police Department 2014 Report
o There were 14,423 calls for service in 2014; 660 arrests; 622 accidents; 1,585 citations;
1,909 warnings.
Officer Stucker has announced that he is retiring on March 4, 2015 after 29 years of faithful
Police service to the City of Steamboat Springs.
Brooke Johnston, our CSO, has been hired as the new face of the police department as our
Records Tech/Front Desk Representative.
We are recruiting a new CSO as well as 3 patrol positions.
Planning is continuing on the transition of the animal shelter to the Humane Society.
Engineering contacted several CDOT offices asking for a review of the US40/Pine Grove
Intersection light timing. The result to date is that CDOT discovered an error in the
programming of the traffic light phasing in the eastbound and westbound turning lanes. CDOT
reversed the timing this week. This correction added time to the US 40 to Pine Grove turn,
Engineering continues to monitor.
x
x
x
x
x
5|Page
x
SST remains three drivers short for the current schedule, but started a training class for 2
drivers on January 12. Training is scheduled for 4 weeks, but consolidation of tasks may shorten
that time line.
Attachment 1
THE FISCAL CONDITIONS PROJECT:
THE CHANGING FISCAL HEALTH OF COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES

November 2014
By Sam Mamet, CML executive director; Scott Olene, Colorado Department of Local
Affairs Local Government Services manager; Benoy Jacob, University of Colorado
School of Public Affairs Center for Local Government Research and Training director;
and Laura Bravo, University of Colorado School of Public Affairs Center for Local
Government Research and Training student fellow
The Voice of Colorados Cities and Towns
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
BACKGROUND ON THE FISCAL CONDITIONS PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
THE CHANGING FISCAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How to use this report
THE DIMENSIONS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
OTHER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
An overview of the measures used in this report
FOREWORD
The Changing Fiscal Health of Colorado MunicipalitiesLVWKHUVWSXEOLFDWLRQWR
emerge from the Fiscal Conditions Project, DFROODERUDWLYHHIIRUWEHWZHHQWKH
&RORUDGR0XQLFLSDO/HDJXH&0/WKH&RORUDGR'HSDUWPHQWRI/RFDO$IIDLUV
'2/$DQGWKH&HQWHUIRU/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW5HVHDUFKDQG7UDLQLQJLQWKH
%XHFKQHU,QVWLWXWHIRU*RYHUQDQFHDWWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI&RORUDGR&8'HQYHU
6FKRRORI3XEOLF$IIDLUV7KLVSURMHFWLVPRWLYDWHGE\WKHUHFRJQLWLRQWKDWZKLOH
PDQ\&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHWKHFDSDFLW\DQGUHVRXUFHVWRXQGHUWDNH
DULJRURXVDQDO\VLVRIWKHLUQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQRWKHUVGRQRW7KXVWKHJRDORI
WKHSURMHFWLVWRVXSSRUWWKHHIIRUWVE\PXQLFLSDOLWLHVWRPRQLWRUDVVHVVDQG
FRPPXQLFDWHLVVXHVUHODWLQJWRWKHLUVFDOKHDOWK
7KLVSURMHFWZLOOOHDGWRVHYHUDOLPSRUWDQWRXWSXWV)LUVW&0/'2/$DQG
WKH&HQWHUIRU/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW5HVHDUFKDQG7UDLQLQJDUHFRPPLWWHGWR
WUDQVODWLQJWKHUHVHDUFKLQWRpractical toolsWKDWZLOOVXSSRUWORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV
LQWKHLUGHFLVLRQSURFHVVHV)RUH[DPSOHWKHPHWULFVWKDWKDYHEHHQGHYHORSHG
DVSDUWRIWKLVSURMHFWZLOOEHXVHGWRGHYHORSDVFDOGDVKERDUGWKDWZLOOKHOS
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVTXLFNO\DVVHVVWKHLUVFDOFRQGLWLRQDQGWKRVHRIWKHLUSHHUV
6HFRQGWKHSURMHFWZLOOVXSSRUWDQGH[WHQGFXUUHQWHIIRUWVE\'2/$DQG&0/
WRRIIHUWHFKQLFDODVVLVWDQFHWRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVSDUWLFXODUO\LQWKHDUHDRISXEOLF
QDQFH)LQDOO\WKHSURMHFWZLOOKHOSIRVWHUDQGIDFLOLWDWHDVWDWHZLGHGLDORJXH
RQWKHVFDOLVVXHVIDFLQJ&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
7KLVSXEOLFDWLRQ The Changing Fiscal Health of Colorado Municipalities,
GHVFULEHVWKHZD\LQZKLFKWKHVFDOFRQGLWLRQVRI&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYH
FKDQJHGRYHUWKHODVW\HDUV2YHUWLPHWKHVFDODQGSROLWLFDOHQYLURQPHQWV
RIDQ\MXULVGLFWLRQZLOOFKDQJH7KLVDIIHFWVWKHFRQVWUDLQWVDQGRSSRUWXQLWLHV
ZLWKLQZKLFKWKHVFDOFRQGLWLRQRIDPXQLFLSDOLW\LVVKDSHG7KLVWKHQUHTXLUHV
WKDWDFLW\RUWRZQDGMXVWLWVVFDOVWUXFWXUHDFFRUGLQJO\7KHLQVLJKWVZHRIIHU
LQWKLVUHSRUWZLOOKHOSPXQLFLSDORIFLDOVDQGVWDNHKROGHUVXQGHUVWDQGKRZ
&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHDGDSWHGWRDFKDQJLQJHQYLURQPHQW:KLOHWKRVH
LQYROYHGLQWKLVSURMHFWDUHWRRQXPHURXVWRDFNQRZOHGJHLQGLYLGXDOO\ZH
ZDQWWRFRPPHQGWKHFRQWULEXWLRQVRISDVWDQGFXUUHQWVWDIIRIWKH&RORUDGR
'HSDUWPHQWRI/RFDO$IIDLUV'LYLVLRQRI/RFDO*RYHUQPHQWLQFOXGLQJWKHHIIRUWV
RI'RQ0HUULRQDQG&\QWKLD7KD\HU7KDQNVDOVRJRHVWR&KULVWLQH7DQLJXFKL
&0/FRPPXQLFDWLRQVFRRUGLQDWRU
6DP0DPHW
&0/([HFXWLYH'LUHFWRU
5HHYHV%URZQ
'2/$([HFXWLYH'LUHFWRU
3DXO7HVNH
&8'HQYHU6FKRRORI
3XEOLF$IIDLUV'HDQ
BACKGROUND ON THE
FISCAL CONDITIONS PROJECT
7KHSULPDU\REMHFWLYHRIWKLVSURMHFWLVWRSURYLGHWRROVIRUORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV
WREHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGDQGFRPPXQLFDWHWKHVFDOLVVXHVWKH\DUHIDFLQJ
7KHLQIRUPDWLRQZHJHQHUDWHZLOOVXSSRUWPXQLFLSDOLWLHVLQWKHLUHIIRUWWR
PRQLWRUWKHLURZQVFDOKHDOWKDQWLFLSDWHIXWXUHVFDOVWUHVVRUVDQG
FRPPXQLFDWHVFDOLVVXHVWRFRQVWLWXHQWVDQGVWDNHKROGHUV7KHSURMHFW
XQIROGVLQWKUHHVHSDUDWHEXWLQWHUUHODWHGSKDVHV
PHASE I
,QWKHUVWSKDVHRIWKHSURMHFWPHDVXUHVRIVFDOFRQGLWLRQDUH
GHYHORSHGDQDO\]HGDQGWKHQGLQJVVXPPDUL]HGLQWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQ
,QSDUWLFXODUD\HDUWUHQGDQDO\VLVIRUHDFKPHDVXUHIRUDOO&RORUDGR
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVLVGHYHORSHG7KLVDQDO\VLVRIIHUVDEURDGSLFWXUHRIWKH
VFDOWUHQGVDQGDOVRRIIHUVVRPHLQVLJKWVLQWRKRZWRRSHUDWLRQDOL]H
VFDOFRQGLWLRQVDQDO\VHV
PHASE II
7KHVHFRQGSKDVHRIWKHSURMHFWGULOOVGRZQLQWRWKHZD\LQZKLFKGLIIHUHQW
GLPHQVLRQVRIQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQPDWWHUIRUVSHFLFPXQLFLSDOLWLHV7KDWLV
ZKHUH3KDVH,RIIHUVDORRNDWVFDOFRQGLWLRQVIURPDIRRWOHYHO
3KDVH,,RIIHUVDVWUHHWOHYHOSHUVSHFWLYH7KXVLQWKLVSKDVHZHZLOOZRUNZLWK
VSHFLF&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVWRXQGHUWDNHDVFDODQDO\VLVWKDWLVXQLTXHWR
SDUWLFXODUMXULVGLFWLRQV
PHASE III
7KHQDOSKDVHRIWKHSURMHFWGHYHORSVDVLPSOHVWDWLVWLFDOPRGHORI
PXQLFLSDOQDQFHV7KHREMHFWLYHRIWKLVPRGHOLVWRRIIHUGHWDLOHGLQVLJKWVLQWR
WKHZD\LQZKLFKNH\IDFWRUVVKDSHDQGKDYHVKDSHGPXQLFLSDOQDQFHV
7KLVPRGHOZLOOKHOSFLWLHVDQGWRZQVIRUHFDVWDQGDQWLFLSDWHVFDORXWFRPHV
$VQRWHGLQWKHIRUHZRUGDQDQFLOODU\EXWLPSRUWDQWRXWFRPHRIWKLVSURMHFW
LVWKHIDFLOLWDWLRQRIDQRQJRLQJGLDORJXHDERXWORFDOVFDOFRQGLWLRQVLQWKH
VWDWH$VVXFKZHDUHGHYHORSLQJHDFKSKDVHLQFROODERUDWLRQZLWKDVPDQ\
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVDVSRVVLEOH,QSDUWLFXODUZHZLOOFRQWLQXHWRFRQVXOWZLWKHOHFWHG
RIFLDOVFLW\PDQDJHUVSXEOLFQDQFHRIFHUVDQGRWKHUVWDNHKROGHUVWRWHVW
RXULQVLJKWVDJDLQVWWKRVHLQYROYHGLQWKHUHDOZRUOGDQGWRWKLQNDERXWGLIIHUHQW
ZD\VWKDWWKHSURMHFWFDQEHWXUQHGLQWRWDQJLEOHWRROVIRUSUDFWLFH7KLVRQJRLQJ
HQJDJHPHQWSURYLGHVDXQLTXHRSSRUWXQLW\WRRSHQDQGVXVWDLQDGLVFRXUVH
DERXWVFDOLVVXHVWKDWLPSDFWORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV
COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
7KHGDWDIRUWKLVSURMHFWLVGUDZQODUJHO\IURPWKHFRPSUHKHQVLYHDQQXDO
QDQFLDOUHSRUWVWKDWKDYHEHHQFRPSLOHGE\'2/$+LVWRULFDOO\WKLVGDWDKDV
EHHQXVHGWRVXSSRUW'2/$VQDQFLDOFRPSHQGLXP7REHFDQGLGDVEHVWZH
FDQWHOOWKLVLVRQHRIWKHPRVWFRPSUHKHQVLYHGDWDVHWVRIPXQLFLSDOQDQFHV
LQWKHQDWLRQ7KXVEH\RQGVXSSRUWLQJ&RORUDGRVPXQLFLSDOLWLHVZHDOVRKRSH
WKLVSURMHFWZLOOVHUYHDVDQDWLRQDOPRGHOIRUFROODERUDWLYHVFDODQDO\VLV
)LQDOO\WKHUHVRXUFHVFRPPLWWHGWRWKHSURMHFWIURP&0/'2/$DQGWKH
&HQWHUIRU/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW5HVHDUFKDQG7UDLQLQJSURYLGHVXSSRUWIRUWKH
/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW6WXGHQW)HOORZVKLSZLWKLQWKH&HQWHUIRU/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW
5HVHDUFKDQG7UDLQLQJ7KHVWXGHQWIHOORZLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUPXFKRIWKH
XQGHUO\LQJDQDO\VLVRIWKHSURMHFW7KXVWKHIHOORZVKLSSURYLGHVDVWXGHQWDQ
RSSRUWXQLW\WRHQJDJHLQDSURMHFWWKDWZLOOSURYLGHWKHPZLWKDUHDOZRUOG
DSSUHFLDWLRQRIWKHLVVXHVIDFLQJORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVZKLOHDOVRSURYLGLQJORFDO
JRYHUQPHQWVZLWKWLPHO\DQGUHOHYDQWLQIRUPDWLRQ,QFRQFHUWZLWKWKHODXQFKRI
HDFKQHZSKDVHRIWKHSURMHFWDQHZIHOORZZLOOEHDZDUGHGHDFK\HDU
THE FISCAL CONDITIONS PROJECT
THE CHANGING FISCAL CONDITIONS:

HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
7KLVUHSRUW3KDVH,RIWKHFiscal Conditions Project, VXPPDUL]HVD\HDU
WUHQGDQDO\VLVIRUPHDVXUHVRIQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQIRU&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
:HHQYLVLRQPXOWLSOHXVHVIRUWKLVUHSRUWLQSDUWLFXODUWKLVUHSRUWSURYLGHV
VWDNHKROGHUVZLWK
$VLPSOHIUDPHZRUNIRUWKLQNLQJDERXWQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQ
$JXLGHWRFDOFXODWHDQGLQWHUSUHWGLIIHUHQWPHDVXUHV
$SLFWXUHRIQDQFLDOWUHQGVIRU&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
)LUVWWKHUHSRUWSURYLGHVVWDNHKROGHUVZLWKDVLPSOHIUDPHZRUNIRUWKLQNLQJ
DERXWVFDOFRQGLWLRQ7KXVWKHQH[WVHFWLRQZKLFKGHVFULEHVWKLVIUDPHZRUN
FDQEHXVHGE\PXQLFLSDORIFLDOVDQGVWDNHKROGHUVDVDVWDQGDORQHSLHFHWR
KHOSIUDPHDGLDORJXHDERXWWKHIDFWRUVWKDWVKDSHVFDOFRQGLWLRQWKH
GLIFXOWLHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKPHDVXULQJLWDQGKRZWRLQWHUSUHWDQGGHVFULEHLW
7KLVIUDPHZRUNWKHQFDQEHXVHGDVDWRROWRHQJDJHFRPPXQLW\VWDNHKROGHUV
LQDQLQIRUPHGGLVFXVVLRQDERXWVFDOLVVXHV
6HFRQGZHGHYHORSGLIIHUHQWPHWULFVLQRXUDQDO\VLV:KLOHQRWD
FRPSUHKHQVLYHVHWRIPHDVXUHVWKH\RIIHUDEURDGSLFWXUHRIVFDOFRQGLWLRQIRU
DPXQLFLSDOLW\$GHVFULSWLRQRIHDFKRIWKHVHPHDVXUHVLVRIIHUHGLQWKH
$SSHQGL[7KH$SSHQGL[FDQEHXVHGWRKHOSJXLGHVWDNHKROGHUVDERXWGLIIHUHQW
ZD\VWRFDOFXODWHDQGLQWHUSUHWWKHGLIIHUHQWFRPSRQHQWVRIWKHLUVFDOFRQWH[W
)LQDOO\WKHPDMRULW\RIWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQVXPPDUL]HVWUHQGVZHXQFRYHUHGLQRXU
DQDO\VLV7KHVHWUHQGVFDQEHXVHGLQGLIIHUHQWZD\V)RUH[DPSOHWKH\FDQ
KHOSFLWLHVDQGWRZQVWKLQNDERXWWKHLUSDUWLFXODUVLWXDWLRQLQUHODWLRQWRRWKHU
&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHV,WKHOSVFLWLHVDQGWRZQVDQVZHUWKHTXHVWLRQRIKRZ
DUHZHGRLQJUHODWLYHWRRXUSHHUV"7KHWUHQGDQDO\VLVZLOODOVRVXSSRUWHIIRUWV
WRVKDSHSXEOLFSROLF\WKDWDIIHFW&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVLQJHQHUDO
THE DIMENSIONS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

0HDVXULQJQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQLVGLIFXOW$PXQLFLSDOLW\VVFDOFRQGLWLRQLV
VKDSHGE\VHYHUDOIDFWRUV6XEVHTXHQWO\WKHUHLVQRVLQJOHPHWULFWKDW
FRPSOHWHO\UHHFWVVFDOKHDOWK,QWKLVVHFWLRQZHVXPPDUL]HVRPHRIWKH
GLIIHUHQWIDFWRUVWKDWQHHGWREHFRQVLGHUHG7KHSULPDU\OHVVRQLVWKDWDQ
DGHTXDWHSLFWXUHRIQDQFLDOKHDOWKFDQRQO\EHGUDZQE\XVLQJPXOWLSOH
PHDVXUHVWKDWDVVHVVLWVYDULRXVGLPHQVLRQV$VWKHEDVLVIRUWKLVGLVFXVVLRQ
ZHHPSOR\DPRGHORIQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQIURP-DFREDQG+HQGULFN1
7KLVPRGHOLVVXPPDUL]HGLQ)LJXUHEHORZ
Figure 1. Model of Financial Condition
7KH-DFRE+HQGULFNPRGHOGHPRQVWUDWHVWKDWVFDOFRQGLWLRQLVDSURFHVV
VKDSHGE\WKHH[WHUQDOHQYLURQPHQWDVZHOODVYDULRXVLQWHUQDOIDFWRUVLQFOXGLQJ
WKHVWUDWHJLFFKRLFHVRIGHFLVLRQPDNHUV7KHPRGHOVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHUHLV
DUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQFXUUHQWFKRLFHVDQGIXWXUHRSSRUWXQLWLHVDQGYLFH
YHUVDWKHUHDUHIDFWRUVWKDWDUHOHVVFRQWUROODEOHE\ORFDOGHFLVLRQPDNHUV
LHWKHHQYLURQPHQWDQGWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKHHQYLURQPHQWDQG
WKHGHFLVLRQPDNHULVPHGLDWHGE\ULVNDQGVODFN$WWKHFRUHRIWKHPRGHODUH
- DFRE%HQR\+HQGULFN5HEHFFD7KHPHDQLQJDQGPHDVXUHPHQWRIVFDOKHDOWKDQG
VXVWDLQDELOLW\LQSXEOLFRUJDQL]DWLRQV,Q-RQDWKDQ-+HOLVVH/DQG(ULF6/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW
)LVFDO+HDOWK-RQHVDQG%DUWOHWW%XUOLQJWRQ0DVV
4
WKHVWUDWHJLFFKRLFHVPDGHE\SXEOLFRIFLDOVZLWKUHVSHFWWRFXUUHQWQHHGV
7KHVHFKRLFHVDUHPDGHHLWKHULQUHVSRQVHWRFKDQJHVLQWKHHQYLURQPHQWRULQ
WKHKRSHRIFKDQJLQJWKHH[WHUQDOHQYLURQPHQW7KLVLQWXUQKDVDQHIIHFWRQ
WKHRSSRUWXQLWLHVDQGFRQVWUDLQWVWKDWWKHDJHQF\ZLOOIDFHLQWKHIXWXUH7KXV
ZKHQPDNLQJFXUUHQWVWUDWHJLFFKRLFHVGHFLVLRQPDNHUVPXVWEHFRJQL]DQW
RIIXWXUHLPSOLFDWLRQV
:LWKRXWGHOYLQJLQWRWKHYDULRXVUHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQDOOWKHYDULDEOHVLQWKLV
PRGHOWKHLPSRUWDQWLQVLJKWVDUH
7KHUHDUHPXOWLSOHIDFWRUVWKDWVKDSHVFDOFRQGLWLRQ
7KHUHDUHVRPHIDFWRUVWKDWDUHHDV\WRPHDVXUHDQGRWKHUVWKDWDUHQRW
,QGHHGLQDQLGHDOZRUOGHDFKGLPHQVLRQFRXOGEHHDVLO\TXDQWLHGDQGWKHQ
LQFOXGHGLQVRPHDJJUHJDWHPHWULFWKDWZRXOGSURYLGHDVLQJOHLQGLFDWRURI
QDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQ7KHFKDOOHQJHLVWRPHDVXUHDQGDVVHVVDVPDQ\
GLPHQVLRQVRIWKHQDQFLDOPRGHODVSRVVLEOH:LWKWKHVHFKDOOHQJHVLQPLQG
ZHGHYHORSHGWKHIROORZLQJPHWULFVWKDWUHHFWGLIIHUHQWFRPSRQHQWVRIWKH
QDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQPRGHOVHH$SSHQGL[
METRICS USED FOR EVALUATION

1HWQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQ
$GHFLWLQGLFDWRU
Revenues
'HSHQGHQFHRQUHYHQXHV
,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHV
2ZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHV
7UDQVIHUVRWKHUIXQGV
3HUFDSLWDPHDVXUHV
7RWDOUHYHQXH
7RWDOWD[UHYHQXHV
3URSHUW\WD[UHYHQXHV
6DOHVDQGXVHWD[UHYHQXHV
Expenditures
'HEWVHUYLFHREOLJDWLRQ
3HUFDSLWDPHDVXUHV
7RWDOH[SHQGLWXUHV
2SHUDWLQJH[SHQGLWXUHV
3XEOLFVDIHW\H[SHQGLWXUHV
3XEOLFZRUNVH[SHQGLWXUHV
&XOWXUHDQGUHFUHDWLRQH[SHQGLWXUHV
&DSLWDORXWOD\V
*LYHQWKHVHPHWULFVZHVHWRXWWRSURYLGHDSLFWXUHRIWKHZD\LQZKLFKWKH
VFDOFRQGLWLRQRI&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDGFKDQJHGRYHUWLPH7KLVWDVN
KRZHYHULVFRPSOLFDWHGE\WKHIDFWWKDW&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVOLNHPRVW
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVYDU\ZLGHO\EHWZHHQHDFKRWKHU6LPSO\VWDWHGQRWZR
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVDUHWKHVDPH7KXVGUDZLQJFRQFOXVLRQVDERXWWKHPDVDJURXS
LVGLIFXOW6RZKLOHZHZHUHLQWHUHVWHGLQGHVFULELQJVFDOWUHQGVLQIDLUO\EURDG
VWURNHVZHDOVRFRQVLGHUHGWKHVHPHWULFVLQWHUPVRIdifferent regions,DQGby
jurisdiction size.
)LUVWZHVSHQWDJUHDWGHDORIWLPHGHWHUPLQLQJWKHLGHDOVHWRIUHJLRQV
UHJLRQVWKDWDUHFRPSULVHGRIVLPLODUORRNLQJPXQLFLSDOLWLHV(VVHQWLDOO\ZH
ZHUHWU\LQJWRGHQHSHHUPXQLFLSDOLWLHV$IWHUOHQJWK\FRQYHUVDWLRQVZLWK
SXEOLFRIFLDOVWKURXJKRXWWKHVWDWHZHQDOO\VHWWOHGRQWKHYHUHJLRQV
GLVWULFWVFUHDWHGE\&RORUDGR&RXQWLHV,QF)LJXUH(DVWHUQ3ODLQV)URQW
5DQJH0RXQWDLQ'LVWULFW6RXWKHUQ'LVWULFWDQG:HVWHUQ6ORSH
Figure 2. Colorado Regions Colorado Counties, Inc.
:KLOHZHUHFRJQL]HWKDWWKLVUHJLRQDOEUHDNGRZQLVLPSHUIHFWZLWKUHVSHFWWR
GHQLQJSHHUPXQLFLSDOLWLHVLWVHHPHGWKDWUHGHQLQJWKHVHERXQGDULHVZRXOG
EHEH\RQG3KDVH,RIWKHSURMHFW7KDWVDLGWKHVWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOGHYHORSHGLQ
3KDVH,,,RIWKHSURMHFWZLOOKHOSXVUHQHWKHUHJLRQDOFDWHJRULHVVSHFLFWR
PXQLFLSDOVFDOFRPSDULVRQV7KXVZKLOHZHVXPPDUL]HWKHZD\LQZKLFKVFDO
KHDOWKKDVFKDQJHGDVan average for all of Colorados municipalities over the
\HDUWLPHSHULRGZHDOVRFRQVLGHUHGWKHVHPHDVXUHVLQWHUPVRIWKHYH
different regions.
6HFRQGZHDOVRFRQVLGHUHGRXUPHDVXUHVLQWHUPVRIPXQLFLSDOVL]H:H
FRQGXFWHGRXUWUHQGDQDO\VLVIRUJURXSVRIPXQLFLSDOLWLHVWKDWZHUHVPDOO
SRSXODWLRQOHVVWKDQPHGLXPSRSXODWLRQEHWZHHQDQG
DQGODUJHSRSXODWLRQJUHDWHUWKDQ$JDLQZHUHFRJQL]HWKDWWKLV
EUHDNGRZQLVLPSHUIHFWKRZHYHUWKHVHFDWHJRULHVUHHFWHGQDWXUDOEUHDNVLQ
WKHGDWD7KXVWKH\PDNHVHQVHDVDQRWKHUZD\WRFRQVLGHUSHHUFRPSDULVRQV
%\ORRNLQJDWWKHVHPHDVXUHVRYHUWKH\HDUWLPHSHULRGLQWKHVHWKUHH
GLIIHUHQWZD\VDQRYHUDOODYHUDJHE\UHJLRQDQGE\VL]HZHXQFRYHUHG
WKHIROORZLQJYHQGLQJV
'HPDQGVIRUSXEOLFVHUYLFHVKDYHLQFUHDVHGRYHUWKHODVW\HDUV
0XQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHEHFRPHLQFUHDVLQJO\VHOIUHOLDQW
5HJLRQDOGLIIHUHQFHVPDWWHUPRUHWRGD\WKDQ\HDUVDJR
)LVFDOVODFNLVPRUHLPSRUWDQWWRVPDOOMXULVGLFWLRQVWKDQODUJHURQHV
+LVWRULFDOO\VFDOKHDOWKRI&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVLVVWURQJ
7KHUHVWRIWKLVUHSRUWVXPPDUL]HVHDFKRIWKHVHQGLQJV
FINDING 1: DEMANDS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES HAVE INCREASED

OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS
7KHUVWQGLQJWRHPHUJHIURPWKHWUHQGDQDO\VLVLVWKDW&RORUDGRV
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHVHHQDQLQFUHDVHLQWKHGHPDQGIRUSXEOLFVHUYLFHV:KLOH
ZHKDYHQRWPHDVXUHGGHPDQGGLUHFWO\ZHPHDVXUHDQGGHVFULEHFKDQJHVLQ
SXEOLFVHFWRUH[SHQGLWXUHV([SHQGLWXUHVSURYLGHDXVHIXODOEHLWLPSHUIHFW
SUR[\IRUWKLQNLQJDERXWDQGFRPSDULQJFLWL]HQGHPDQGV)RUH[DPSOHGLIIHUHQW
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVWKDWIDFHVLPLODUVSHQGLQJQHHGVKDYHVRPHH[LELOLW\WRIXQG
WKRVHQHHGVDWGLIIHUHQWOHYHOV7KHVHGLIIHUHQFHVDUHOLNHO\WKRXJKQRWHQWLUHO\
DIXQFWLRQRIORFDOGHPDQG
:HH[SORUHGWKHWUHQGVRQSHUFDSLWDVSHQGLQJIRUPXOWLSOHDUHDVRI
H[SHQGLWXUHV7KHVHPHDVXUHVDVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHLQGLFDWHDWDKLJK
OHYHOKRZPXFKPXQLFLSDOLWLHVVSHQGRQHDFKUHVLGHQWIRUDOOJRYHUQPHQW
RSHUDWLRQVDQGGHEWVWRWDOH[SHQGLWXUHVDQGDVHULHVRIVXEVHWVRIWRWDO
H[SHQGLWXUHV,QSDUWLFXODUZHPHDVXUHDQGGHVFULEHH[SHQGLWXUHVRQ
JRYHUQPHQWRSHUDWLRQVRSHUDWLQJH[SHQGLWXUHVDVZHOODVDWDPRUH
JUDQXODUOHYHOKRZPXFKPXQLFLSDOLWLHVVSHQGRQVSHFLFVHUYLFHVVXFKDV
SXEOLFVDIHW\SXEOLFZRUNVFXOWXUHUHFUHDWLRQDQGFDSLWDOLQYHVWPHQWV
)LJXUHVKRZVWKHPHGLDQH[SHQGLWXUHVSHUFDSLWDIRUDOORI&RORUDGRIRUWKH
ODVW\HDUVDGMXVWHGIRULQDWLRQ7KLVJXUHLOOXVWUDWHVWKDWWKHPHGLDQWRWDO
DQGPHGLDQRSHUDWLQJH[SHQGLWXUHVSHUFDSLWDLQFUHDVHGIURPXQWLO
7KLVVXJJHVWVLQSDUWWKDWPHGLDQH[SHQGLWXUHVSHUFDSLWDIRUSXEOLFVDIHW\
SXEOLFZRUNVFXOWXUHDQGUHFUHDWLRQDQGFDSLWDORXWOD\VKDYHUHPDLQHGUHODWLYHO\
VWHDG\ZLWKVOLJKWLQFUHDVHVRYHUWKHWLPHVKRZQRIWKHVHIRXULQGLFDWRUV
PHGLDQFDSLWDORXWOD\VSHUFDSLWDVDZWKHPRVWYDULDELOLW\RYHUWKH\HDUV
d

K

W^

Wt

Z

K
Figure 3. Median per Capita Expenditures
FINDING 2: MUNICIPALITIES HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY SELF-RELIANT

7KHVHFRQGQGLQJWRHPHUJHIURPRXUWUHQGDQDO\VLVLVWKDWPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYH
EHFRPHZLWKUHVSHFWWRORFDOQDQFHVLQFUHDVLQJO\VHOIUHOLDQW7KLVQGLQJLV
SDUWLFXODUO\VLJQLFDQWLQWKHFRQWH[WRI)LQGLQJWKDWGHPDQGIRUSXEOLF
JRRGVKDVLQFUHDVHG(YHQDVGHPDQGIRUVHUYLFHVLQFUHDVHGPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
PHWWKLVGHPDQGSULPDULO\WKURXJKWKHLURZQUHYHQXHVRXUFHV7KLVLQVLJKWLV
UHSUHVHQWHGLQ)LJXUHVWKURXJK
/RFDOJRYHUQPHQWVKDYHWZRSULPDU\FDWHJRULHVRIUHYHQXHLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO
DQGRZQVRXUFH
Own-Source Revenue:0HDVXUHRIGHSHQGHQFHRQRZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHV
ZLWKDKLJKHUUDWLRLQGLFDWLQJPRUHGHSHQGHQFHRQUHYHQXHVGHULYHGIURP
VRXUFHVZLWKLQWKHPXQLFLSDOLWLHVFRQWURO
Dependence on Intergovernmental Revenue:0HDVXUHRIGHSHQGHQFHRQ
LQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHVZLWKDKLJKHUUDWLRLQGLFDWLQJOHVVH[LELOLW\IRU
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVLQGHFLGLQJRQXVHVRIWKHUHYHQXHVLQFHLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO
UHYHQXHVRIWHQKDYHUHVWULFWLRQVRUVWLSXODWLRQVLQSODFHUHJDUGLQJKRZWKH
IXQGVPD\EHXVHG
)LJXUHEHORZGHSLFWVWKHUHOLDQFHRQRZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHYHUVXV
LQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXH,WLOOXVWUDWHVWKDW&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHFRPH
WRUHO\PRUHRQWKHLURZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHV:KLOHWKHFKDQJHLVQRWSDUWLFXODUO\
SURQRXQFHGWKHUHLVDGLVWLQFWXSZDUGWUHQGLQPHGLDQRZQVRXUFHUHYHQXH
GHSHQGHQFHLQGLFDWLQJWKDWGXULQJWKLVWLPHPHGLDQRZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHDVD
SRUWLRQRIWRWDOUHYHQXHZDVLQFUHDVLQJ
&RUUHVSRQGLQJO\PHGLDQGHSHQGHQFHRQDQGLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHVKDYH
UHPDLQHGJHQHUDOO\DWVLQFHWKHODWHVZLWKDVOLJKWGRZQZDUGWUHQGEHIRUH
WKLVWLPH2YHUDOOLQUHFHQW\HDUV&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVEDVHGRQDPHGLDQ
PHDVXUHVDZDURXQGSHUFHQWRIWKHLUUHYHQXHVFRPHIURPWKHLURZQ
VRXUFHVZLWKOHVVWKDQSHUFHQWRULJLQDWLQJIURPLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOVRXUFHV
K^
Z

/Z
Figure 4. Dependence on Own-Source Revenue and Intergovernmental Revenue

&2/25$'2081,&,3$//($*8(
)LJXUHVDQGVXPPDUL]HWKHVHWUHQGVIRUHDFKRIWKHYHUHJLRQV
'LVDJJUHJDWHGLQWKLVZD\WKHRYHUDOOWUHQGUHPDLQVXQFKDQJHG:KLOHWKHQDWXUH
RIUHOLDQFHLVFOHDUO\PRUHYRODWLOHWKDQWKHDYHUDJHWUHQGVXJJHVWVLWGRHVDSSHDU
WKDWPXQLFLSDOJRYHUQPHQWVDUHUHO\LQJPRUHRQWKHLURZQVRXUFHVRIUHYHQXHVWR
VXSSRUWWKHLUSURYLVLRQRISXEOLFJRRGVDQGVHUYLFHVLQHDFKUHJLRQ)LJXUH
&RUUHVSRQGLQJO\WKHUHLVDIDLUO\GLVWLQFWGRZQZDUGWUHQGDFURVVHDFKRIWKH
UHJLRQVZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHLUUHOLDQFHRQLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHV)LJXUH
&Z
D
^
t^
W
Figure 5. Ratio of Own-Source Revenue by Region
t^
^
D
&Z
W
Figure 6. Ratio of Intergovernmental Revenue by Region
10
FINDING 3: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES MATTER MORE TODAY

THAN 40 YEARS AGO
7KHWKLUGQGLQJWRHPHUJHIURPWKHWUHQGDQDO\VLVLVWKDWUHJLRQDOGLIIHUHQFHV
ZLWKUHVSHFWWRPXQLFLSDOQDQFHVVHHPWREHPRUHSURQRXQFHGWRGD\WKHQ
\HDUVDJR:KLOHWKHQDWXUHRIWKLVFKDQJHLVQRWXQLIRUPWKURXJKRXWDOOWKH
PHWULFVZHHPSOR\HGZHQGWKHGLIIHUHQFHVDUHSDUWLFXODUO\SURQRXQFHGIRU
SHUFDSLWDWRWDOWD[HVVDOHVDQGXVHWD[HVDQGRSHUDWLQJH[SHQGLWXUHV
)LJXUHVWKURXJK
)LJXUHVDQGLOOXVWUDWHIRUHDFKRIWKHYHUHJLRQVSHUFDSLWDWRWDO
WD[UHYHQXHVDOHVDQGXVHWD[DQGRSHUDWLQJH[SHQGLWXUHVUHVSHFWLYHO\
&ROOHFWLYHO\WKHVHJXUHVVKRZWKDWPXQLFLSDOLWLHVLQWKH0RXQWDLQ'LVWULFW
:HVWHUQ6ORSHDQG)URQW5DQJHKDYHLQFUHDVHGWKHLUFDSDFLW\PXFKPRUH
WKDQWKHLUFRXQWHUSDUWVLQWKH6RXWKHUQ'LVWULFWDQG(DVWHUQ3ODLQV7KLVQGLQJ
VXJJHVWVWRXVWKDWHYHQZKLOHPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHEHFRPHPRUHVHOIUHOLDQW
WKHUHDUHLPSRUWDQWUHJLRQDOGLIIHUHQFHVZLWKUHVSHFWWRVFDOFDSDFLW\6RPH
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYHDQGRUHPSOR\PRUHUHVRXUFHVWKDQRWKHUV

t^
^
D
&Z
W

Figure 7. Median Total Taxes per Capita by Region
11

t^

^

D

&Z

W
Figure 8: Median Sales and Use Tax per Capita by Region
t^
^
D
&Z
W
Figure 9: Median Operating Expenses per Capita by Region
12
FINDING 4: FISCAL SLACK IS MORE IMPORTANT TO

SMALL JURISDICTIONS THAN LARGER ONES
)LVFDOVODFNUHIHUVWRWKHSRRORIUHVRXUFHVDYDLODEOHWRDJRYHUQPHQWLQ
H[FHVVRIZKDWLVQHFHVVDU\WRSURGXFHDPLQLPXPOHYHORIVHUYLFHV6ODFN
LVDQLPSRUWDQWFRXQWHUZHLJKWWRULVNEHFDXVHDOORWKHUWKLQJVEHLQJHTXDO
JRYHUQPHQWVZLWKPRUHVODFNKDYHJUHDWHUH[LELOLW\DQGFDSDFLW\WRDEVRUE
HQYLURQPHQWDOFKDQJHVHLWKHUSRVLWLYHRUQHJDWLYHDQGWKHUHIRUHOHVV
RYHUDOOULVN
:HPHDVXUHGVFDOVODFNZLWKDVLPSOHUDWLRRIUHYHQXHVWRH[SHQGLWXUHV
7KLVUDWLRLQGLFDWHVWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFKUHYHQXHVDUHJUHDWHURUOHVVWKDQ
H[SHQGLWXUHV7KLVLVDTXLFNDQGEURDGPHDVXUHPHQWWKDWSURYLGHVDKLJK
OHYHOV\QRSVLVRIKRZPXQLFLSDOLWLHVDUHGRLQJLQDQ\JLYHQ\HDUDQGRYHU
ORQJHUWLPHIUDPHV$VVXPPDUL]HGLQ)LJXUHEHORZZLWKRQO\DIHZ
H[FHSWLRQVVPDOOHUPXQLFLSDOLWLHVLQ&RORUDGRKDYHKDGKLJKHUUHVHUYHVWKDQ
ODUJHUPXQLFLSDOLWLHV7KLVQGLQJVXJJHVWVWRXVWKDWVPDOOHUPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
JLYHQPRUHOLPLWHGVFDOUHVRXUFHVDUHPRUHULVNDYHUVHZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHLU
QDQFHVDQGVXEVHTXHQWO\PDLQWDLQKLJKHUUHVHUYHV
>
^
)LJXUH2SHUDWLQJ'HFLW5DWLRIRU/DUJHDQG6PDOO0XQLFLSDOLWLHV
13
FINDING 5: HISTORICALLY, FISCAL HEALTH OF COLORADO

MUNICIPALITIES IS STRONG
*LYHQWKHSUHYLRXVIRXUQGLQJVWKHODVWQGLQJVKRXOGQRWEHSDUWLFXODUO\
VXUSULVLQJ8VLQJWKHVDPHGHFLWLQGLFDWRUDVDERYHZHIRXQGWKDWRYHUWKHODVW
\HDUVWKHVFDOKHDOWKRI&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVRYHUDOOKDVEHHQVWURQJ
)LJXUHEHORZVXPPDUL]HVWKHGHFLWLQGLFDWRUUHYHQXHVGLYLGHGE\WRWDO
H[SHQGLWXUHVIRUDOORI&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVRYHUWKHODVW\HDUV
7KLVUDWLRLVDPHDVXUHRIZKHWKHUUHYHQXHVDUHDGHTXDWHIRUH[SHQGLWXUHV
FDOFXODWHGE\WRWDOUHYHQXHVGLYLGHGE\WRWDOH[SHQGLWXUHVZKLFKLQWXUQ
LQGLFDWHVZKHWKHUWKHUHLVDGHFLW6SHFLFDOO\ZKHQWKHUDWLRIDOOVEHORZWKHQ
DGHFLWLVSUHVHQWLQGLFDWLQJWKDWWKHUHDUHUHGXFHGEXGJHWDU\DQGVHUYLFHOHYHO
VROYHQFLHVIRUPXQLFLSDOLWLHV$GGLWLRQDOO\KLJKHUUDWLRVLQGLFDWHWKDWUHYHQXHV
H[FHHGH[SHQGLWXUHVVRVDYLQJVDUHRFFXUULQJZKHQWKHUDWLRLVTXLWHKLJKWKLV
LQGLFDWHVWKDWLQWHUSHULRGLQHTXLW\LVRFFXUULQJZKHUHE\WKHFXUUHQWJHQHUDWLRQRI
WD[SD\HUVLVIXQGLQJH[SHQGLWXUHVIRUIXWXUHJHQHUDWLRQV
)LJXUHVKRZVWKDWWKHPHGLDQGHFLWLQGLFDWRURQO\IHOOEHORZWZLFHLQWKH
WLPHSHULRGGHSLFWHGLQDQGLQGLFDWLQJWKDWLQWKHVH\HDUVWKH
ERWWRPKDOIRIPXQLFLSDOLWLHVZHUHRSHUDWLQJDWDGHFLW,QWKHUHPDLQLQJ\HDUV
WKHUHZDVVRPHYDULDELOLW\LQWKHPHGLDQUDWLREXWJHQHUDOO\VSHDNLQJLW
XFWXDWHGIURPWR
)LJXUH2SHUDWLQJ'HFLW,QGLFDWRU5DWLRIRU$OO&RORUDGR0XQLFLSDOLWLHV
14
'HVSLWHWKLVSRVLWLYHQGLQJZHDUHFDXWLRXVLQLWVIXWXUHLPSOLFDWLRQV7KDWLV
&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVDUHKHDYLO\DQGLQFUHDVLQJO\UHOLDQWRQORFDOVDOHVWD[
UHYHQXHV)LJXUH:KLOHZHKDYHVKRZQWKDW&RORUDGRPXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYH
EHHQDEOHWRZHDWKHUPDQ\VFDOVWRUPVLPSRUWDQWVKLIWVLQWKHQDWXUHRIUHWDLO
DQGVKLIWVLQ&RORUDGRVGHPRJUDSKLFPDNHXSPD\PDNHWKLVUHOLDQFHDQG
WKHUHODWHGVFDOKHDOWKPRUHWHQXRXVWKDQKLVWRU\WHOOVXV)RUH[DPSOH
WKHVKLIWWRZDUGPRUHHUHWDLOPDNHVFROOHFWLQJVDOHVWD[UHYHQXHFKDOOHQJLQJ
:KLOHWKLVLVDQLVVXHWKDWLVFXUUHQWO\EHLQJGLVFXVVHGLQSROLF\FLUFOHVHJLQ
GLVFXVVLRQVDURXQGWKH0DUNHWSODFH)DLUQHVV$FWFROOHFWLQJWKHVHWD[UHYHQXHV
UHPDLQVDFKDOOHQJHWKDWPDQ\PXQLFLSDOLWLHVKDYH\HWWRDGHTXDWHO\DGGUHVV
$GGLWLRQDOO\VKLIWVWRZDUGSXUFKDVLQJVHUYLFHVYHUVXVFRPPRGLWLHV
PD\IXUWKHUOLPLWVDOHVWD[UHYHQXHV
dZW

ddW
Wd
^d
Figure 12. Per Capita Tax Revenues
$PRQJWKHQGLQJVJRYHUQPHQWVWKDWUHO\RQHODVWLFUHYHQXHVRXUFHVVXFKDV
VDOHVWD[HVIDFHPRUHQDQFLDOULVNIURPVFDOGRZQWXUQV5HOLDQFHRQHODVWLF
UHYHQXHVRXUFHVVWLOOSUHVHQWVXQFHUWDLQW\DQGDODFNRIVWDELOLW\WKDWPDNHV
PDLQWDLQLQJQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQPRUHGLIFXOW
15
OTHER RESOURCES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL DATABASE
7KH'HSDUWPHQWRI/RFDO$IIDLUV'2/$PDLQWDLQVWKH/RFDO*RYHUQPHQW
)LQDQFLDO'DWDEDVHwww.dola.colorado.gov/dlg7KHQDQFLDOGDWDEDVH
FRQWDLQVGDWDIURPWRSUHVHQWIRUUHYHQXHVDFURVVFDWHJRULHVDQG
H[SHQGLWXUHVDFURVVFDWHJRULHV,WLQFOXGHVLQIRUPDWLRQIRUselected
districts:ZDWHUGLVWULFWVVDQLWDWLRQGLVWULFWVZDWHUDQGVDQLWDWLRQGLVWULFWVUH
GLVWULFWVDQGPHWURGLVWULFWVXSRQUHTXHVW5HYHQXHH[SHQGLWXUHDQGGHEW
LQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHIRUERWKJHQHUDOJRYHUQPHQWDFWLYLWLHVDQGSXEOLF
HQWHUSULVHV,WDOVRLQFOXGHVcurrent assets and liabilitiesRQDJRYHUQPHQW
ZLGHEDVLVJHQHUDOJRYHUQPHQWDFWLYLWLHVDQGSXEOLFHQWHUSULVHVFRPELQHG
IURPIRUZDUGDQGIRUWKHLQGLYLGXDO3XEOLF(QWHUSULVH)XQGVIURP
IRUZDUG7KHauxiliary dataLQFOXGHVSRSXODWLRQPLOOOHYLHVDVVHVVHG
YDOXDWLRQUHWDLOVDOHVORFDOVDOHVWD[UDWHVYHKLFOHUHJLVWUDWLRQVDQGPLOHVRI
URDG,QGLYLGXDODQQXDOUHSRUWVDVZHOODVFRPSOHWHVHWVRIDQQXDOUHSRUWVDUH
DYDLODEOHIRUPXQLFLSDOLWLHVDQGFRXQWLHVRQWKH'2/$ZHEVLWH6SUHDGVKHHW
GRZQORDGVRIWKHGDWDIRUVLQJOHRUPXOWLSOH\HDUVDUHDOVRDYDLODEOHE\
FRQWDFWLQJWKH'2/$RIFH
DOLA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

'HQYHU'2/$VWDIIZRUNZLWKUHJLRQDOPDQDJHUVDFURVV&RORUDGRWRFRQGXFW
WHFKQLFDOUHYLHZVRIWKLQJVOLNHEXGJHWODZEDVLFVWUHQGDQDO\VLVQDQFLDO
UDWLRVZDWHUDQGVHZHUHQWHUSULVHVGHEWFDSDFLW\DQGUDWHVDQGIHHV
7KLVWHFKQLFDODVVLVWDQFHLVRIWHQDEHJLQQLQJVWHSLQWKHLGHQWLFDWLRQRI
VWUDWHJLHVWUHQGVSRWHQWLDOLPEDODQFHVRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUQHZERDUGQDQFLDO
SROLFLHVDQGSURMHFWSODQQLQJ,WFDQKHOSPDQDJHPHQWEXLOGFDSDFLW\DQGPDNH
GHFLVLRQV,WLVQRWLQWHQGHGWRKDYH'2/$VWDIIEHSUHVFULSWLYHWRPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
RUUHSODFHPRUHH[WHQVLYHFRQVXOWDQWVHUYLFHV
'2/$DOVRRIIHUVDQQXDO%XGJHWZRUNVKRSVZKLFKLVHVSHFLDOO\KHOSIXOIRU
QHZEXGJHWVWDIIDQGWRZQFOHUNV7KLVLVSDUWLFXODUO\KHOSIXOIRUVPDOOHU
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVZLWKOLPLWHGVWDIIDQGFDQKHOSLGHQWLI\QDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQUHYHQXH
DQGH[SHQGLWXUHWUHQGVDQGIXQGEDODQFHV
FISCAL HEALTH ANALYSIS FOR COLORADO COUNTIES

AND MUNICIPALITIES
7KLVRYHUYLHZSURYLGHVDFRPSOHPHQWWRRWKHUH[LVWLQJVFDOWRROVVXFKDVWKH
Fiscal Health Analysis for Colorado Counties and MunicipalitiesUHSRUW
GHYHORSHGE\WKH2IFHRIWKH6WDWH$XGLWRU2FWREHU7KHREMHFWLYHRI
WKHUHSRUWLVWRSURYLGHEDVLFLQIRUPDWLRQRQFRQGXFWLQJDVFDOKHDOWKDQDO\VLV
DQGFDQEHXVHGDVDVWDUWLQJSRLQWIRUVRPHFRXQWLHVDQGPXQLFLSDOLWLHVDQGDV
DQDGGLWLRQDOZD\IRURWKHUVRIHYDOXDWLQJVFDOKHDOWK
16
APPENDIX: AN OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES

USED IN THIS REPORT
NET FINANCIAL CONDITION
7RPHDVXUHQHWQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQZHHPSOR\HGDQRSHUDWLQJGHFLWUDWLR7KLV
UDWLRLVDPHDVXUHRIZKHWKHUUHYHQXHVDUHDGHTXDWHIRUH[SHQGLWXUHV
FDOFXODWHGE\WRWDOUHYHQXHVGLYLGHGE\WRWDOH[SHQGLWXUHVZKLFKLQWXUQ
LQGLFDWHVZKHWKHUWKHUHLVDGHFLW6SHFLFDOO\ZKHQWKHUDWLRIDOOVEHORZWKHQ
DGHFLWLVSUHVHQWLQGLFDWLQJWKDWWKHUHDUHUHGXFHGEXGJHWDU\DQGVHUYLFHOHYHO
VROYHQFLHVIRUPXQLFLSDOLWLHV$GGLWLRQDOO\KLJKHUUDWLRVLQGLFDWHWKDWUHYHQXHV
H[FHHGH[SHQGLWXUHVVRVDYLQJVDUHRFFXUULQJZKHQWKHUDWLRLVTXLWHKLJKWKLV
LQGLFDWHVWKDWLQWHUSHULRGLQHTXLW\LVRFFXUULQJZKHUHE\WKHFXUUHQWJHQHUDWLRQRI
WD[SD\HUVLVIXQGLQJH[SHQGLWXUHVIRUIXWXUHJHQHUDWLRQV7KLVLVDTXLFNDQG
EURDGPHDVXUHPHQWWKDWSURYLGHVDKLJKOHYHOV\QRSVLVRIKRZPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
DUHGRLQJLQDQ\JLYHQ\HDUDQGRYHUORQJHUWLPHIUDPHV
REVENUES
5HYHQXHVDUHDJRYHUQPHQWVPRVWLPSRUWDQWDVVHW/RFDOJRYHUQPHQWVKDYH
WZREDVLFW\SHVRIUHYHQXHLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDODQGRZQVRXUFH
,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHVDUHWKRVHUHFHLYHGIURPWKHVWDWHRUIHGHUDO
JRYHUQPHQWDQGRZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHVDUHWKRVHJHQHUDWHGIURPUHVRXUFHV
ZLWKLQWKHORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVMXULVGLFWLRQ7UDQVIHUVIURPHQWHUSULVHVDQGRWKHU
IXQGVDUHDVXEVHWRIRZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHVRIWHQVHSDUDWHGRXWDVHQWHUSULVHV
DQGRWKHUIXQGVW\SLFDOO\RSHUDWHDFWLYLWLHVRXWVLGHRIJHQHUDOJRYHUQPHQW
EXVLQHVV7KHVWDWHHFRQRP\LVDQLPSRUWDQWIDFWRULQORFDOQDQFLDOFRQGLWLRQ
EHFDXVHZLWKUHVSHFWWRLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHVDVLJQLFDQWSRUWLRQRI
PRVWORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVUHYHQXHLVIURPVWDWHJRYHUQPHQWV%HFDXVHORFDO
JRYHUQPHQWVKDYHOLWWOHFRQWURORYHUVWDWHVHFRQRPLHVORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVWKDW
DUHPRUHUHOLDQWRQVWDWHUHYHQXHIDFHPRUHULVN
5HYHQXHEXUGHQLVDQDGGLWLRQDOPHDVXUHWKDWLVXVHIXOLQGHWHUPLQLQJQRWRQO\
KRZPXFKRIDQ\JLYHQW\SHRIUHYHQXHLVVKRXOGHUHGE\HDFKUHVLGHQWRQ
DYHUDJHEXWDOVRLQPDNLQJLWSRVVLEOHWRFRPSDUHPXQLFLSDOLWLHVRIGLIIHUHQW
VL]HV:HKDYHFRQVLGHUHGUHYHQXHEXUGHQSHUFDSLWDLQIRXUDUHDVWRWDO
UHYHQXHWKHQDVXEVHWRIWKLVWRWDOWD[UHYHQXHDQGWKHQWZRVXEVHWVRIWRWDO
WD[UHYHQXHSURSHUW\WD[UHYHQXHDQGVDOHVXVHWD[UHYHQXH
REVENUE DEPENDENCE
7KHUHDUHWKUHHDVSHFWVRIUHYHQXHGHSHQGHQFHWKDWWKLVSURMHFWDQDO\]HG
RZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHGHSHQGHQFHRQWUDQVIHUVDQGGHSHQGHQFHRQ
LQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHV
Own-Source Revenue:0HDVXUHRIGHSHQGHQFHRQRZQVRXUFHUHYHQXHV
ZLWKDKLJKHUUDWLRLQGLFDWLQJPRUHGHSHQGHQFHRQUHYHQXHVGHULYHGIURP
VRXUFHVZLWKLQWKHPXQLFLSDOLWLHVFRQWURO
17
Dependence on Transfers:0HDVXUHRIGHSHQGHQFHRQWUDQVIHUVIURP
HQWHUSULVHVDQGRWKHUIXQGVDQGZKLFKWKHUHIRUHLVDPHDVXUHRIWKHH[WHQW
WRZKLFKRWKHUIXQGVVXEVLGL]HJHQHUDOJRYHUQPHQWRSHUDWLRQV$KLJKHUUDWLR
LQGLFDWHVWKHUHLVPRUHGHSHQGHQFHRQRWKHUIXQGVZKLFKLPSOLHVWKDWLI
WKHVHIXQGVHQWHUSULVHVGRQRWSHUIRUPZHOOWKHQUHYHQXHVIRUJHQHUDO
JRYHUQPHQWRSHUDWLRQVPD\EHFRQVWULFWHG
Dependence on Intergovernmental Revenue:0HDVXUHRIGHSHQGHQFHRQ
LQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDOUHYHQXHVZLWKDKLJKHUUDWLRLQGLFDWLQJOHVVH[LELOLW\IRU
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVLQGHFLGLQJRQXVHVRIWKHUHYHQXHVLQFHLQWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO
UHYHQXHVRIWHQKDYHUHVWULFWLRQVRUVWLSXODWLRQVLQSODFHUHJDUGLQJKRZWKH
IXQGVPD\EHXVHG
0HDVXULQJPHGLDQPXQLFLSDOUHYHQXHRQDSHUFDSLWDEDVLVDOORZVIRU
FRPSDULVRQVDFURVVPXQLFLSDOLWLHVRIGLIIHUHQWVL]HV7KHEURDGHVWPHDVXUHLV
total revenue per capita,ZKLFKLVDPHDVXUHRIUHYHQXHEXUGHQSHUPXQLFLSDO
UHVLGHQWZLWKORZUDWLRVLQGLFDWLQJWKDWWKHUHLVJUHDWHUH[LELOLW\IRUPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
WRREWDLQDGGLWLRQDOUHYHQXHLQWKHIXWXUH3HULRGVZLWKGHFUHDVLQJUDWLRVLQGLFDWH
WKDWPXQLFLSDOLWLHVPD\IDFHDQLQDELOLW\WRPDLQWDLQFXUUHQWVHUYLFHOHYHOVLQWKH
IXWXUH7KHUHDUHWKUHHRWKHUUHODWHGLQGLFDWRUVtotal taxes per capitaDQGLWV
VXEVHWVproperty tax per capitaDQGsales and use tax per capita
EXPENDITURES
3HUFDSLWDH[SHQGLWXUHPHDVXUHVLQGLFDWHDWDKLJKOHYHOKRZPXFK
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVVSHQGRQHDFKUHVLGHQWRQDYHUDJHIRUDOOJRYHUQPHQW
RSHUDWLRQVDQGGHEWVWRWDOH[SHQGLWXUHVDQGIRUMXVWJRYHUQPHQWRSHUDWLRQV
RSHUDWLQJH[SHQGLWXUHVDVZHOODVDWDPRUHJUDQXODUOHYHOKRZPXFK
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVVSHQGRQFHUWDLQVHUYLFHVWKDWUHVLGHQWVUHFHLYHSXEOLFVDIHW\
SXEOLFZRUNVFXOWXUHUHFUHDWLRQDQGFDSLWDOLQYHVWPHQWV7KHVHPHDVXUHVDUH
SDUWLFXODUO\XVHIXOZKHQFRPSDULQJPXQLFLSDOLWLHVRUJURXSVRIPXQLFLSDOLWLHVWR
RQHDQRWKHURUZKHQFRPSDULQJPXQLFLSDOLWLHVRYHUWLPH
7KHGHEWVHUYLFHREOLJDWLRQUDWLRLVDPHDVXUHRIWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFK
H[SHQGLWXUHVDUHREOLJDWHGWRSD\IRUSULRUGHEW*HQHUDOO\DGHEWVHUYLFH
REOLJDWLRQRIRUOHVVLVFRQVLGHUHGDFFHSWDEOH/RZUDWLRVVXJJHVWWKDW
PXQLFLSDOLWLHVDUHDEOHWRSD\LWVGHEWVHUYLFHVZKHQWKH\DUHGXHEXWDVWKH
UDWLRULVHVDQGPRUHUHYHQXHVDUHGHGLFDWHGWRVHUYLFLQJWKHGHEWPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
KDYHOHVVH[LELOLW\LQJHQHUDOJRYHUQPHQWIXQGLQJ$KLJKGHEWVHUYLFHREOLJDWLRQ
PD\LQGLFDWHQRWRQO\VFDOVWUDLQEXWDOVRH[FHVVLYHGHEW
18

Steamboat Springs City Council Agenda

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Steamboat Springs City Council Agenda

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

Citizens Meeting Room, Centennial Hall;

ROLL CALL (5:00 PM)

COMMUNITY REPORTS/CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION TOPIC:

4. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance approving a

There are no items scheduled for this portion of the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENT: PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED AT 7 P.M., OR AT

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT

7. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance annexing Block 2,

PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT:

Presentation by the Petitioner (estimated at 15 minutes). Petitioner to state name and

11. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE: An ordinance to amend Sections

JULIE FRANKLIN, CMC

AGENDA ITEM #1.

Tyler Gibbs, Planning Director (Ext. 244)

Deb Hinsvark, City Manager

January 20, 2015

CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES:

Steamboat Springs Downtown

Making Downtown More Attractive

Downtown Projects by location

Goal #1- Required Investment

Goal #1- Measures of Success

Goal #2 Required Investment

Goal #2 Measures of Success

Goal #3 Required Investment

Goal #3 Measures of Success

Goal #4 Required Investment

Goal #4 Measures of Success

Goal #5 Required Investment

Goal #5 Measure of Success

Tools - Pros & Cons

Capital Infrastructure Fund (CIP)

Large dollar amount

Compete with other CIP projects for

Can complete 100% of projects

Delays other CIP projects

Need to locate $9M of Capital for

No extra cost associated with going to

Can complete capital improvements

Assessment of every adjacent property

Can finance all or a portion of

Property tax would be needed to

Debt is currently relatively cheap

Can finance all or a portion of

Property tax or assessment on a

Scope of project can be flexible

Would require establishing new

GID can finance maintenance

Requires vote of downtown electorate

Does not enhance experience

Creates safer pedestrian environment

Sends poor message to visitors

Community Investment (81% of

Perception of tax diversion

Estimated growth can be influenced by

Debt is currently relatively cheap

URA would enter into an agreement with every

$10.2M of incremental sales tax would flow to TIF

Room 029 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203-1784

Ron Kirk, Research Associate, 303-866-4785

Property Tax Accruing to Tax Increment Financing Districts