BRECKENRIDGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Tuesday

Transcription

BRECKENRIDGE TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
3:00 pm
Work Session
ESTIMATED TIMES:
The times indicated are intended only as a guide. They are at the discretion of the Mayor, depending on the
length of the discussion and are subject to change.
3:00 – 3:15pm
I. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS
Page 2
3:15 – 3:45pm
II. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW *
• BBC Access Ordinance
Page 79
• Council Compensation
Page 88
• Model Traffic Code Amendment
Page 92
• Joyriding Ordinance
Page 96
• 2007/2008 Rollovers & Supplementals
Page 100
3:45 – 4:10pm
4:10 – 6:00pm
III.
•
•
•
•
MANAGERS REPORT
Public Projects Update
Housing/Childcare Update
Committee Reports
Financials
Page 12
Verbal
Page 19
Page 21
IV.
•
•
•
•
•
PLANNING MATTERS
Capacity Analysis (housing/child care)
Comp Plan
Sustainable Building Code Amendment
Ground Floor Offices
Golden Horseshoe Nordic Trails
Page 42
Page 48
Page 53
Page 64
Page 65
*ACTION ITEMS THAT APPEAR ON THE EVENING AGENDA
Page 71
** FINAL ACTION ITEM
NOTE: Public hearings are not held during Town Council Work Sessions. The public is invited to attend
the Work Session and listen to the Council's discussion. However, the Council is not required to take public
comments during Work Sessions. At the discretion of the Council, public comment may be allowed if time permits
and, if allowed, public comment may be limited. The Town Council may make a Final Decision on any item listed
on the agenda, regardless of whether it is listed as an action item. The public will be excluded from any portion of
the Work Session during which an
Executive Session is held.
Report of Town Manager; Report of Mayor and Council members; Scheduled Meetings and Other Matters are
topics listed on the 7:30 pm Town Council Agenda. If time permits at the afternoon work session, the Mayor and
Council may discuss these items.
Page 1 of 104
MEMORANDUM
To:
Town Council
From: Peter Grosshuesch
Date:
February 20, 2008
Re:
Town Council Consent Calendar from the Planning Commission Decisions of the February 19,
2008, meeting.
DECISIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF February 19, 2008
CLASS C APPLICATIONS:
1. Valette Residence Permit Renewal (CN) PC#2008017; 301 South French Street
Extend the vested property rights of the existing development permit (PC#2004007) by 18 months. Remove
the existing non-historic structure and replace it with a new single-family residence with 4 bedrooms, 3
bathrooms on the upper level and a 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom accessory unit on the lower level for a total of
1,942 sq. ft. of density and 2,117 sq. ft. of mass for a F.A.R. of 1:2.2. Approved.
2. Dudney Residence (CK) PC#2008016; 229 Highlands Drive
Construct a new single-family residence with 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms, 4,100 sq. ft. of density and 5,014 sq.
ft. of mass for a F.A.R. of 1:14.8. Approved.
3. Vlach Residence (JS) PC#2008015; 1227 Discovery Hill Drive
Construct a new single-family residence with 4 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 4,851 sq. ft. of density and 6,023
sq. ft. of mass for a F.A.R. of 1:14.57. Approved.
4. Thomas Residence (MGT) PC#2008018; 111 Victory Lane
Construct a new single-family residence with 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms, 5,039 sq. ft. of density and
6,023 sq. ft. of mass for a F.A.R. of 1:9.17. Approved.
5. Lot 7, Warriors Preserve (MGT) PC#2008018; 111 Victory Lane
Construct a new single-family residence with 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 4,210 sq. ft. of density and 5,378
sq. ft. of mass for a F.A.R. of 1:2.40. Approved.
6. Summer Fun Park (CN) PC#2008014; 320 North Park Avenue
Move the summer operations of the Fun Park from the Peak 8 base to the gondola parking lot for two
summers. Attractions will include the human maze, bounce castle, mineral panning, bungee trampoline,
gyroscope, climbing wall and a small portable office. Operations are proposed seven days per week, from
Memorial Day through Labor Day, as well as weekends throughout September, for 2008 and 2009. Hours of
operation would be 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. Ticketing would be from the existing gondola ticket office.
Approved.
7. Norton Residence (CK) PC#2008008; 117 Sage Drive
Construct a new single-family residence with 5 bedrooms, 5.5 bathrooms, 5,507 sq. ft. of density and 6,606 sq.
ft. of mass for a F.A.R. of 1:9.95. Approved.
CLASS B APPLICATIONS:
1. 100 South Harris Street Restoration and Addition (MGT) PC#2008003; 100 South Harris Street
Complete a full historic restoration on the residence and the barn in the rear of the property and construct a
small addition to the main residence. Recommendation to designate property as a local landmark. Approved.
CLASS A APPLICATIONS:
1. Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Block 8 Subdivision (MGT for MM) PC#2008013
Resubdivide a portion of Lot 3, Block 6, of the Wellington Neighborhood (this will be the third filing for
Phase II) in connection with the recently approved Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Master Plan. This
Page 2 of 104
resubdivision will create 12 lots for the construction and sale of 11 single-family homes and 1 double
house (duplex) on one lot. The lots are: 1-12, Block 8, Wellington Neighborhood, Filing 2. Approved.
2. Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Block 8 Development (MGT for MM) PC#2008012
Construct 13 units on 12 lots. 11 units are on single-family lots and 2 units are on one duplex lot. Four of the
single-family units are slated as “possible” market-rate units and the remaining lots are proposed as deedrestricted. All of the proposed models have been approved with earlier applications. The models for this block
are: Winter Rose, Juniper, Hawthorne, Cottonwood, Oak, Copper Rose, Ponderosa and the Mountain Ash.
Approved.
Page 3 of 104
Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Date 02/19/2008
Page 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WORK SESSION
1. Comprehensive Plan (MT)
Mark Truckey presented the updated changes to the comprehensive plan recommended by the Planning Commission
from the February 5 meeting. He explained an open house would be held on the plan prior to the Planning
Commission’s March 4 meeting.
Commissioner Questions/Comments:
Mr. Pringle:
Absent
Mr. McAllister: Arrived at 6:45pm
Mr. Joyce:
Does information exist regarding the effects of using insecticides to prevent beetle kill? (Mr.
Kulick responded that staff had done some research and although the data was not definitive, it
indicated a strong concern with impacts of insecticides, particularly when introduced near water
sources. Staff indicated Town Council direction was to pursuing tree spraying only on specimen
trees this year.)
Mr. Bertaux:
Arrived at 6:26pm. Watershed protection area should be mentioned under forest resources. (Staff
noted it had been added.) Appears use of pine beetle insecticides is still inconclusive regarding
impacts. 4 O’clock road and Park Avenue intersection needs some management, such as no left
turns.
Dr. Warner:
Didn’t think beetle kill is “devastating” (as text suggests) but a wildfire would be. Make sure the
environmental policy notes “preserving, maintaining, and enhancing” open space. Consider
language regarding understanding the use of insecticides to control beetle infestation on the
environment. List additional ways to prevent gridlock during peak days.
Mr. Allen:
Concerned whether time allocated on plan document was sufficient. (Staff reminded Commission
that each chapter in Plan had been previously reviewed by the Commission.) Suggested adding
time on the March 4 agenda to allow public input and direction from the Commission.
Sustainability section is example of time needed to prepare a document like this. It seems this plan
is quite dated referring to 2004 not 2008. (Staff explained that the data in the document is being
updated accordingly. Mr. Grosshuesch informed Commission of the utilization of the plan for the
Town of Breckenridge and how it differs from the way most jurisdictions use their comprehensive
plans.) Concerned that trends now may be different than four years ago and is that captured in the
Plan? Suggested some word changes regarding the beetle kill paragraph. Page 10 in former
version of Plan mentions 150 foot setback in LUD 4; is this still in effect? (Staff explained the
Shores development is not within 150 feet setback from highway.) Water storage should be
addressed in the master plan (McCain property). Page 100, check July 2007 numbers. Page 102
regarding hauling and storing snow, do we need to expand to discuss need to ensure snowmelt
water is filtered/cleaned prior to release to streams? Page 103, include a statement on need for
sidewalk along Airport Road. Page 105 regarding need for traffic light at 4 O’Clock Road and
Park intersection. Page 107 is dated as employee-parking permits are already happening. Page
108 review for a lot has been completed already. Page 113, #19, again update this line, much has
been accomplished in coordinating parking issues with the ski area. Page 124 regarding daycare,
should we note that there may be a need for one additional day care facility (or at least continue to
assess needs)? Page 134 under economy section, should we encourage a large conference facility?
(Staff indicated that the issue has been discussed previously and was rejected partly because of
large anchor hotel that would be required to support large conferences.)
Mr. Khavari:
Agreed that beetle kill would not be “devastating” as Plan mentions. On the global warming
section, do we have an advantage in the ski industry at our elevation? (Mr. Truckey: probably yes
at least in the short-term.)
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:08 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Michael Bertaux
Peter Joyce
Sean McAllister
John Warner
Mike Khavari
Rodney Allen
Dave Pringle arrived @ 7:19pm
Page 4 of 104
Date 02/19/2008
Page 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Allen suggested a change in the work session part of the minutes. Minutes should change to reflect that he had
asked “if members of the Commission could attend and speak at a Council meeting ‘as an applicant’, or on an issue
with a conflict of interest?” With no other changes, the minutes of the February 5, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting were approved unanimously (6-0).
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
With no changes, the agenda for the February 19, 2008 Planning Commission meeting was approved unanimously
(6-0).
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.
Valette Residence Permit Renewal (CN) PC#2008017; 301 South French Street
Mr. Joyce: on page 21, does condition of approval still exist that north deck be removed? (Mr. Neubecker: Yes, that
is still a condition of approval. Staff showed the same plans from a few years ago, which still reflected the deck at
the time.)
Dr. Warner: pointed out this home would have a driveway that would be heated. Should single-family residences be
given a free ride regarding heated driveways? Or should negative points be assigned? The Commission will discuss
in a work session.
2.
3.
4.
Dudney Residence (CK) PC#2008016; 229 Highlands Drive
Vlach Residence (JS) PC#2008015; 1227 Discovery Hill Drive
Thomas Residence (MGT) PC#2008019; 478 Preston Way
Mr. McAllister: sought clarification regarding the driveway and the points assigned. Staff explained the reasoning
behind the longer driveway. The long driveway was caused by the need to keep the slope of the driveway from not
becoming steeper than 8%. The alternative was to snow-melt the driveway.
5.
Lot 7, Warriors Preserve (MGT) PC#2008018; 111 Victory Lane
Dr. Warner: pointed out FAR regarding this item.
6.
Summer Fun Park (CN) PC#2008014; 320 North Park Avenue
Dr. Warner: asked about fencing around this project.
7.
Norton Residence (CK) PC#2008008; 117 Sage Drive
Dr. Warner moved to call up item #6, Summer Fun Park, PC#2008014. Mr. Joyce seconded. The call up passed 40. Mr. Bertaux and Mr. Khavari abstained.
Dr. Warner: sought clarification regarding the fencing, material and color.
Regarding the fencing, Rick Sramek from the Breckenridge Ski Resort explained to the Commission the type of
fence to be used. Mr. Joyce asked if an alternative fence could be considered such as the steel mobile panels. Mr.
Allen was supportive of the Fun Park but concerned about the visibility of the Fun Park on the Highway side of the
project. Staff pointed out the fence would need to be mobile for seasonal purposes. Staff also brought attention to
page 70 which illustrated the use of the fence. Mr. Allen asked if the Alpine Slide would continue to run. Mr. Allen
was ok with buck rail fencing to be used with a matching color.
Dr. Warner moved to approve item #6 with condition 18 adding that “The fence along west side of the site shall be
constructed of buck and rail with a fabric barrier attached, and the fence shall be removed by October 1st. Mr.
McAllister seconded. The motion was approved 4-0, with Mr. Pringle, Mr. Bertaux, and Mr. Khavari abstaining.
Page 5 of 104
Date 02/19/2008
Page 3
With no other motions, the remainder of the consent calendar was approved.
COMBINED HEARINGS:
1. Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Block 8 Subdivision (MGT for MM) PC#2008013
Mr. Thompson presented a proposal on behalf of Mr. Mosher to resubdivide a portion of Lot 3, Block 6, of the
Wellington Neighborhood (this would be the third filing for Phase II) in connection with the recently approved
Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Master Plan. This resubdivision would create 12 lots for the construction and sale
of 11 single-family homes and 1 double house (duplex) on one lot. The lots would be: Lots 1-12, Block 8,
Wellington Neighborhood, Filing 3.
The initial subdivision for the Wellington Neighborhood (PC#1999149) encompassed the entire 84.6-acre property,
while only a portion was initially developed. Lot 3, Block 6 was left unimproved and anticipated for future
development. The Planning Commission approved the Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Master Plan
(PC#2005042) on February 7, 2006 and the Town Council approved it on February 14, 2006.
The first re-subdivision of Wellington Neighborhood Phase II (Wellington Neighborhood Re-Subdivision of Block 5
and Lot 6 PC#2006013) was approved by the Planning Commission on February 21, 2006. This is the third resubdivision filing, pursuant to that Master Plan, that identifies the lots to be created on a portion of Lot 3, Block 6 of
the Wellington Neighborhood.
The layout of this block is similar to the illustrative plan of the Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Master Plan
Modification. Staff has advertised this application as a combined preliminary and final review as they believed the
pertinent issues were reviewed under the first re-subdivision. However, if the Commission believes that the layout of
this re-subdivision is not ready for final approval, we suggest continuing this hearing to a future date.
Mr. David O’Neil, Applicant, pointed out that the same architects are designing this project as used in the passed.
Mr. Khavari opened the hearing for public comment. There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Pringle:
Final Comments: OK to approve this application with a condition that landscaping be added to
buffer Lot 1 and Lot 7, Block 8 from French Gulch Road.
Mr. McAllister: Final Comments: OK to approve this application with a condition that landscaping be added to
Mr. Joyce:
Mr. Bertaux:
Dr. Warner:
When cars are driving up French Gulch Road will their headlights shine into the windows on the
Lot 1 and Lot 7, Block 8? (Mr. O’Neil did not think the headlights would impact the residences
much. Mr. Thompson stated that on Lot 11, Block 7, Mr. O’Neil agreed to mitigate the effects of
headlights with additional landscaping. Mr. O’Neil agreed to add landscaping to Lot 1, Lot 7, and
in the common space for Dragonfly Green near French Gulch Road.)
Mr. Allen:
Landscaping on private property should be included in the Conditions of the Development
approval. Additional landscaping at the north end of Dragonfly Green should be included in the
Conditions of Resubdivision.
Mr. Allen moved to approve Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Block 8 Subdivision, PC#2008013, with conditions
to add landscaping to Dragonfly Green. Dr. Warner seconded. The motion was approved 6-0 with Mr. McAllister
abstaining.
2.
Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Block 8 Development (MGT for MM) PC#2008012
Page 6 of 104
Date 02/19/2008
Page 4
Mr. Thompson presented a proposal on behalf of Mr. Mosher to construct 13 units on 12 lots. 11 units are on singlefamily lots and 2 units are part of one duplex lot. Four of the single-family units are slated as “possible” market-rate units
and the remaining lots are proposed as deed-restricted. The Planning Commission has previously seen all of the
proposed models with earlier applications. The models for this block are: Winter Rose, Juniper, Hawthorne,
Cottonwood, Oak, Copper Rose, Ponderosa and the Mountain Ash.
The last review of new homes on Block 7, PC#2007049, was presented to the Commission as a Class A (rather than
separate Class Cs). Since the Commission has reviewed so many of these typical developments before, Staff presented
this application as a combined Preliminary and Final hearing.
Mr. Khavari opened the hearing for public comment. There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Pringle:
Wanted to make sure switching market rate units wouldn’t negative negatively impact availability.
Final Comments: Does it meet the requirements of the Master Plan? (Mr. Thompson answered
yes it does meet the Master Plan.)
Mr. McAllister: Abstained due to possible conflict of interest. Mr. McAllister has represented David O’Neil on a
limited basis as an attorney.
Mr. Joyce:
Sought clarification regarding drainage. The applicant addressed his question.
Final Comments: Fine with this application.
Mr. Bertaux:
Sought clarification on market rate units; staff clarified.
Final Comments: OK
Dr. Warner:
If one is coming up French Gulch Road will the headlights shine in the windows on Lot 7? (Mr.
O’Neil didn’t think headlights would be an issue.) (Mr. Neubecker suggested the garage on Lot 1,
Block 8, be moved to the north as far as possible without impacting the installed utilities, to block
headlights. Mr. O’Neil stated he would check with his architects and see if the garage could be
moved to the north to help mitigate headlights coming into the residence windows). How wide are
the Greens compared to past Greens? (Mr. O’Neil pointed out they are about the same. Mr.
O’Neil stated he thinks the greens are about as wide as the Pearl Street Mall. Mr. O’Neil believes
there is something about this width that frames a sense of place.)
Final Comments: Wanted to see extra landscaping on Lot 7 to mitigate headlights coming into
windows.
Mr. Allen:
OK with this application with the addition of the more landscaping on Lot 7, and perhaps in the
Right Of Way of French Gulch Road.
Final Comments: I am fine with this application, no additional comments.
Mr. Khavari:
Final Comments: I am fine with this application, no additional comments.
Mr. Allen moved to approve Wellington Neighborhood Phase II Block 8 Development, PC#2008012, with two
additional conditions of approval: moving the garage on Lot 1 to the north and additional landscaping in the French
Gulch Road ROW or north end of Dragonfly Green. Dr. Warner seconded. The motion was approved 6-0 with Mr.
McAllister abstaining.
FINAL HEARING:
1. 100 South Harris Street Restoration and Addition (MGT) PC#2008003; 100 South Harris Street
Mr. Thompson presented a proposal to complete a full historic restoration on the residence and the barn in the rear of
the property and construct a small addition to the main residence. The residence currently sits two and a half feet over the
north property line. The applicant proposes to lift the residence, obtain Landmark status for the residence and the barn,
and add a basement under the house and the new residential portion of the shed. The historic frame will be stabilized and
moved temporarily to Lot 2 to facilitate basement construction. New floor framing is proposed as required, 15” above
existing floor elevation to correct drainage. Restore the historic barn and turn it into a two-car garage. Applicant
proposed to turn the lower roof (labeled as shed on site plan) part of the barn into an accessory apartment.
Staff appreciated the changes the applicant has made to work within the recommendations of the Development Code and
“Handbook of Design Standards for the Historic and Conservation District”.
Page 7 of 104
Date 02/19/2008
Page 5
Staff had two questions for the Commission:
1. Did they support the use of vertical siding on the rebuilt concrete shed?
2. Did they support the amount of glass proposed on the west side of the accessory apartment/shed?
If the Planning Commission supported these changes, then Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the
Sutterley Residence, PC #2007003, Lot 1, Block 7, Yingling and Mickles, located at 100 South Harris Street, with the
attached findings and conditions.
Staff also asked for the Commission to make a second recommendation to the Town Council that this property be
designated as a Local Landmark.
Ms. Janet Sutterley, Architect: Discussed shed and adding a new window. Pointed out the window will not be in street
view. South facing siding is beat up. Landscaping was designed together with adjoining lot. In terms of landscaping,
she feels positive points are warranted. Point analysis for historic restoration should warrant positive twelve (+12) points
rather than positive nine (+9). Significant public benefit may include cooperation with CMC students studying historic
preservation degree.
Mr. Khavari opened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Lee Edwards, local Architect: Landscaping sometime in the future will block the historic home. Historically,
landscaping wasn’t abundant. Allow applicant to raise the home out of the ground. Extensive work is being
performed and positive twelve (+12) points are warranted. Concrete wall on East side of shed is deteriorating. Felt
that vertical siding was appropriate for the east elevation (existing concrete grout shed) of residence.
Mr. Pringle:
Regarding landscaping, more is not always better; rather, “better is better”. Asked the applicant if
she wanted to discuss landscaping points when she didn’t need them. (The Applicant stated she
did want to discuss landscaping points. She was trying to establish a precedent for next project,
and thought this was worth positive points.) Sought clarification from staff regarding obtaining
positive twelve (+12) points for restoration. If Commission goes ahead with positive twelve (+12)
points, should the siding be horizontal and the openings be adjusted?
Final Comments: Wanted to say that the historic preservation effort is of “significant public
benefit”, but only meets the requirements of positive nine (+9) points. Would prefer to see some
adjustments for positive twelve (+12) points but would suggest positive four (+4) points for
landscaping.
Mr. McAllister: Not in favor of positive four (+4) points for this landscaping plan. Positive nine (+9) points for
historic restoration, not positive twelve (+12) points. Vertical siding on east elevation ok. Fine
with the amount of glass shown on shed.
Final Comments: Agreed with staff regarding positive nine (+9) points for historic preservation.
Vertical siding fine and ok glass proposed. Ok with Landmarking.
Mr. Joyce:
Asked if the proposed windows lined up with the historic openings. (Ms. Sutterley stated the
window openings weren’t exact.)
Final Comments: Ok with landscaping as planned and would be in favor of positive points for
landscaping if the sizes were increased. Not supportive of vertical siding because of Priority
Policy 125. Landmarking supported. Points proposed were agreeable.
Mr. Bertaux:
Asked how many times have positive fifteen (+15) points have been awarded for historic
preservation? (Staff could not think of an example. Ms. Sutterley thought her current house had
received positive fifteen (+15) points under the old point system.)
Final Comments: Agreed with staff’s points analysis; would support positive four (+4) for
landscaping.
Dr. Warner:
What was the original use of the barn? (Mr. Thompson: A shoe and boot place, shop for making
skis, and most recently a wallpaper business.)
Final Comments: Supported Landmarking. Felt that the landscaping is exceptional and thus
warrants positive four (+4) points. Likes flat rock work proposed. Supported positive nine (+9)
points for historic preservation; as proposed positive twelve (+12) would be possible with one less
Page 8 of 104
Mr. Allen:
Mr. Khavari:
Date 02/19/2008
Page 6
window. Vertical siding only ok in the eave; would prefer horizontal siding on shed where
concrete is replaced.
Asked Ms. Sutterley if the log underneath the siding was usable. (Ms. Sutterley pointed out those
logs may not be chinked, may not be good to expose.) Sought clarification regarding landscaping
absolutes. (Staff explained criteria for points and gave examples of positive points awarded in the
past.) Regarding garage doors on Lincoln, he suggested remote door openers to improve traffic
flow, so user would not need to park in ROW while opening door.
Final Comments: Supported positive four (+4) points for landscaping. Following examples in
Development Code leads to positive nine (+9) points but significant public benefit leads to positive
twelve (+12). Positive twelve (+12) points with minor changes would be possible.
In the eave area (where there is currently vertical siding) vertical siding is appropriate. All other
elevations should be horizontal.
Final Comments: Supported positive nine (+9) points as is. Horizontal siding on concrete
replacement encouraged.
Mr. Bertaux moved approval with staff’s point analysis as is, seconded by Dr. Warner. Motion passed 4-3. There
was then a long discussion about the motion, and what was just recently approved. Staff indicated that there should
be one motion on the point analysis, and only once the point analysis is finalized, a motion on the project.
Mr. Allen moved to amend the previous motion and Dr. Warner seconded but both parties withdrew amendment.
Mr. Pringle moved to rescind all actions taken above. Mr. McAllister seconded. Approved 7-0.
Mr. McAllister moved to approve point analysis as is with no changes, and Dr. Warner seconded. Motion denied 16.
Mr. Pringle moved to change point analysis to assign points for landscaping from zero (0) to positive four (+ 4)
points. Mr. Allen seconded. Approved 6-1.
Mr. Pringle moved to approve 100 South Harris Street Restoration and Addition, PC#2008003, 100 South Harris
Street, with the modification for point analysis regarding landscaping. Mr. Bertaux seconded. Approved 7-0.
WORK SESSIONS:
1. Solar Panels (JS)
Ms. Skurski presented. The topic of solar panels is on the Planning Commission’s Top Five list. Solar panels have
been a recent issue with the installation of solar panels on a few buildings in Town, and with a greater emphasis on
renewable energy. Staff foresees that applications for solar panels will increase in the future out of concern for
energy conservation and the Green Building Code. There are no standards in the Development Code, which would
specifically prohibit this; therefore, Staff has allowed the use of solar panels both inside and outside of the
Conservation District without any negative or positive points.
The purpose of this work session is to discuss an approach to drafting a policy, which would create consistent
regulations for solar panels both within and outside Conservation District, if the Commission would also like to
address this.
Staff asked for feedback from the Commission on the following:
1. Would the Commission like to address solar panels outside of the Conservation District in addition to
the Conservation District?
2. Were there any additional concerns with solar panels other than what was mentioned in the memo?
3. Should policy 5R or 33R be re-worded to better address renewable energy sources and design
standards?
Mr. Pringle:
Should remote arrays be specifically mentioned and encouraged? Do we want to see solar in the
historic district? If so, panels should not change the slope of the roof. If positive points are
awarded for solar and then the solar is removed what will the town do? What is the life of the
Page 9 of 104
Date 02/19/2008
Page 7
shingles type solar cells? (Mr. Allen replied that it was 20 years.) Based on the technology today,
there is not a way to have zero visual impact.
Final Comments: Integrity of historic homes is paramount. On historic structures, panels should
allowed by special review only. Fine with solar panels on new buildings in the District.
Mr. McAllister: Panels should be out of sight and out of view. Fine with points but it is difficult to get too specific
with type of PV for a certain amount of points when technology will constantly be changing in this
field.
Final Comments: In favor of severe limitations, with similar pitch line of the existing roof. Don’t
change angle of roof, and put the panels out of sight, off of the primary facade.
Mr. Joyce:
Panels should be the same color of the existing roof, black or bluish black. Parallel to the pitch of
the roof. Look at the multiplier and types of PVs. 3” above the existing roof seems like the
standard.
Final Comments: Agreed with Mr. Pringle and Mr. McAllister’s final comments. Did not want to
prohibit having panels but would prefer panels to match roof color.
Mr. Bertaux:
How flat is “flush mounted”? (Staff replied that typically we have been seeing 3 ½” above the
roofline).
Final Comments: Inside the conservation district and outside are two different worlds. Inside is
difficult but did not want to prohibit them or allow for any potential damage to the historic
structure. OK with the existing policies in the Historic District Guidelines. Not concerned with
solar panels outside the district.
Dr. Warner:
Should there be a standard (gold, silver, bronze) regarding points assigned for different materials
used? What about a new pitch of panel if it is in the rear of the building? Would be all right with
3”-5” above existing roofline, or industry standard. Believes that the shingle style cells are better
than remote arrays.
Final Comments: Would like to discuss panels both inside and outside the Conservation District.
Remote arrays and shingles should be studied further specific to this area and the snow here.
Inside the district: hopeful of new technology. Concerned but would not want to close the door.
Policy 69 alleviates most of concerns. Would be OK with special review of historic structures.
Put in the conditions of approval. The Town of Breckenridge needs to monitor panels throughout
their life. Reword policy 5R and 33R.
Mr. Allen:
Final Comments: Incentives for solar panels with positive points and make sure they continue to
work. Points should be assigned according to type of panel used on a case-by-case basis. Match
the pitch and color of the roof. Inside and outside the historic district are two different topics of
discussion. Inside should not be on the primary facade. Outside of the District would be ok with
the panels being on the primary facade. We need to discuss wind power and Policy 33 in the
future.
Mr. Khavari:
Sought clarification regarding the Green Building Code and its limitations on where and how the
panels would be installed (Mr. Grosshuesch stated that the Green Building Code allows for points
on the building side but does not address appearance or placement.)
Final Comments: Agreed with special review, not highly visible and does not effect the integrity
of the structure and roof. Should not have any adverse effects to the Historic District.
2. Landscaping Policy (JC)
Ms. Cram presented. Within the last year, three new ordinances have been adopted, one regarding Noxious Weeds
(Ordinance No. 15, Series 2007) another regarding Mountain Pine Beetles (Ordinance No. 16, Series 2007) and
lastly one regarding Water Features (Ordinance No. 39, Series 2007). In addition, staff has been discussing the
importance of improving forest health through forest management plans, wildfire mitigation and replanting with
diverse species. Staff has also discussed the possibility of adjusting the point multiplier for those developments that
propose new landscaping with the Town Council.
Staff believes that updating the Town’s Development Code with regard to Policy 22 – Landscaping, to include new
absolute and relative policies is necessary to be consistent with the recently adopted ordinances noted above and
desired forest management goals for future development. This would assist the public in knowing what requirements
there are pertaining to these ordinances and provide potential opportunities to mitigate negative impacts when
applying for a development permit.
Page 10 of 104
Date 02/19/2008
Page 8
Staff introduced some of the proposed changes to Policy 22 to the Planning Commission. Staff shared these with
the Town Council in October and received feedback on what policies should be absolute and those that should be
relative. Staff will use Planning Commission feedback to work with the Town Attorney to draft changes to Policy
22.
With the goal of trying to improve forest health, reduce wildfire risk and maintain buffers within Town, it is
important to look at updating our existing landscaping policy. Staff welcomed any additional thoughts that the
Planning Commission had with regard to landscaping.
Staff discussed water features and replanting for Mountain Pine Beetle infected trees with the Commission. Due to
lack of time, the Landscaping Ordinance will be discussed again at the March 4th meeting.
Mr. Pringle:
Asked about water rights on water features. (Staff pointed out that water in Town is metered.)
Size needs to be addressed for disturbance and energy issues. Seek information from the CSU
forest service on replanting recommendations for Mountain Pine Beetle. Let’s think about where
we are planting trees so that trees don’t become a problem in the future by being too close to
structures.
Mr. Joyce:
Page 143 regarding replanting for Mountain Pine Beetle trees, what about 2-3 acre lots? Staff
pointed out that replanting would be required in a reasonable manner. The Commission suggested
defining “reasonable”.
Dr. Warner:
Suggested a ratio to define reasonable time for replanting after removal of Mountain Pine Beetle
infested trees.
Mr. Allen:
Ok with year-round operation of water feature with negative points assigned under energy
conservation. Strictly against use of any chemical to prevent freezing. Pointed out Policy 9 on
page 146 might be illegal. Really like three zones for defensible space.
Mr. Khavari:
Would like to regulate size for water features.
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT:
None
OTHER MATTERS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned 11:20p.m.
_______________________________
Mike Khavari, Chair
Page 11 of 104
Memorandum
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
Tom Daugherty, Town Engineer
DATE:
February 21, 2008
RE:
Public Projects Update
Welling Oro Water Treatment Plant
Base Building Solutions is mobilized and is beginning framing on the project. The
project will be completed this summer.
Gondola Lots Master Plan
The Client Review Team (including Town and VRDC staff) for the Gondola Parking Lots
Master Plan met on February 14th with the design consultants to look at 5 initial “big
idea” concept plans. These ideas ranged from a grand hotel icon to an urban river that
meanders west through the site. The team focused on the aspects of each plan that are
most appropriate to Breckenridge, considering the building scale, street pattern,
connections to Main Street, views from the Gondola Plaza, transit location, parking
reservoirs and structures, historic train park and pedestrian issues. The design
consultants will tweak the preferred designs and return with some more detailed plans
for the next CRT meeting in early March.
Main Street
The project to put in storm sewer between Wellington Lot and Ski Hill Road on Main
Street is out to bid and will be updated at the first meeting in March.
Riverwalk Center Roof
There are 2 separate memos that cover the budget update and the heating options and
costs.
Valleybrook Childcare
There are 2 separate memos that cover the green design concepts that are included in
the design and a budget update.
Page 12 of 104
memorandum
to:
from:
date:
project:
re:
tom daugherty, town engineer
matt stais
18 february 2008
valley brook childcare center
sustainable design
I have been asked by Town staff to prepare a memo regarding the current status of sustainable
design and construction issues for this project. The underlying questions are: is this a true
‘green’ project? And ‘how green is it’?
The short answer is that this is a ‘green’ project, when viewed in the proper terms, which are
that this project has less of an environmental footprint [design, construction, and operations]
than a comparable ‘baseline’ project. Please refer to attached checklist for sustainable design
precepts which have been incorporated into the project.
The ‘green-ness’ of the project may be measured in terms of the delta between this project and
a standard ‘baseline design’ for this project type. This methodology is used by rating systems
such as LEED and GBI Green Globes. I have used the Green Globes assessment program as a
design tool throughout the project, and have recently updated the data based on the most
current design. The project achieves 3 globes out of a possible 4, and ‘demonstrates leadership
in energy and environmental design practices and a commitment to continuous improvement
and industry leadership.’ Further details are available upon request.
The project team is focused on achieving a well functioning facility that meets the needs of the
community and expectations of the Town Council, and has incorporated the following options
for your consideration:
1. Energy Efficiency: this has been prioritized by Town staff and project team. We
worked with the Town’s ‘energy consultant’ to incorporate suggestions into the project,
including:
a. High performance equipment and control systems, increasing efficiency roughly
50% above baseline design.
b. Energy Recovery Ventilation system, which increase efficiency an additional 35%
by recycling BTU within heat system [exhaust air preheats incoming air].
c. Ability to tie HVAC system into future ground source or district heating system.
2. Daylighting and Lighting Control Systems:
Page 13 of 104
VBCC sustainable design
18 February 2008
Page 2
Daylighting included at classrooms and most occupied spaces; sophisticated control
systems are expensive and would not be cost-effective for this project type [due to
building use: ie, operators override auto sensors at nap time, etc].
3. Exterior Materials: Researching if exterior materials can be use that are
manufactured with recycled or sustainable materials in a cost effective way.
4. Interior Materials: Researching if interior materials can be use that are manufactured
with recycled or sustainable materials in a cost effective way.
5. Construction waste: Specifications were put in place that requires the contractor to
collect construction waste and recycle the material.
6. Commissioning: The project systems will have a 3rd party commissioning agent verify
that the systems are installed and operating as designed and operating as efficient as
possible.
7. Building Envelope: The insulation, vapor barrier and windows have bee upgraded to
be more efficient.
The following options were considered and accommodated for in the design but have not been
incorporated into the project. Each of these options can be incorporated at any time.
8. Ground Source Heating and Cooling:
a. Additional installation costs approximately $300,000.00 for ‘vertical loop’ system.
b. Payback estimated at 35 years, due to high drilling costs and the fact that the
current design is very efficient so the difference is relatively small.
c. Payback estimated to exceed life span of equipment, therefore not
recommended.
9. Solar PV:
a. Grid-tie system envisioned, building has been designed for this, could be added
now or later.
b. High up-front cost for panels, payback estimated at 15-22 years. These figures
based on installer qualifying for state rebates and passing these savings along to
the Town.
c. Entry canopy: 2 KW array, add $10,500
d. Center area: 3.5 KW array, add $18,500
e. East side: 5-8 KW array possible if solar HW system not used, add $26-42,000
f. Total costs $10.5-$71,000 based on desired scope.
g. There is potential to monitor this via internet for public education/marketing.
10. Solar Hot Water Preheat:
a. Building has been designed for this to tie into mechanical system, most efficient
to add during construction rather than retro-fit
Page 14 of 104
VBCC sustainable design
18 February 2008
Page 3
b. East side: 300 sq ft array would provide 360 gallons per day; approx $45,000
c. Payback period estimated at over 30 years due to efficiency of current design
[domestic HW served by ‘sidearm’ off boilers].
d. Payback estimated to exceed life span of equipment, therefore not
recommended.
Page 15 of 104
Memorandum
To:
Town Council
From: Tom Daugherty
Date: 2/21/2008
Re:
Valleybrook Childcare Budget up
The last time the budget was reported to you we expected the construction costs for the Childcare
facility to be around $3,660,000. Since that time the plans have been better detailed to include items
like furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E). The original estimate did not include some the energy
savings ideas expressed in Matt Stias’s memo that is also in your packet. Details for these items were
not available due to the tight completion schedule.
The revised construction estimate is $3,750,000 which is an additional $119,000. Most of these cost
are based on actual bids but some items remain. We have made allowances for these items and
expect the costs to stay close to this number.
Staff will be available at the work session.
Page 16 of 104
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Ernie Blake and Town Council
Rob Theobald
February 21, 2008
Riverwalk Center Mechanical Upgrades
Upgrading the current mechanical system in the Riverwalk Center was previously
presented to the Council in the discussion of Add-on Items. With the direction of Council
at that meeting staff has been working with our design team to quantify the
improvements, and the condition of the current system, and to develop a more firm
estimate of the cost of the upgrades.
As part of our Transformation project we have added approximately more radiant heat
with the addition of the lobby area at the rear of the facility, and we have added a
ventilation system that brings un-heated fresh air into the facility. We can operate the
facility in this configuration with no cost impact at this time, however there are some
issues that have been raised with this. The mechanical engineer estimates the current
boiler will be due for replacement in 5 years. The current boiler is rated at an 80% ideal
efficiency, however, our mechanical engineer has calculated that we are actually seeing
60% efficiency on average with it dropping below 50% at times due to the operating
temperature of the system. With this current design our ventilation air will not be heated,
and we will be blowing in air that is the temperature of the outside air. Our mechanical
engineer expects that the facility will be very comfortable when the outside air
temperature is 55 degrees and above. At a 50-degree outside air temperature portions
of the facility will begin to feel drafty, and below 50 degrees the facility will become
increasingly uncomfortable.
Option one is to add heat coils to heat the ventilation air and use our existing boiler. The
current boiler is barely sufficient for the radiant heat, but could be plumbed to heat the
floor, or the ventilation air. The size of the current boiler would limit its ability, but would
keep the facility comfortable down to 40 degrees outside air temperature. With this
option when the boiler needs to be replaced it could be replaced with the boiler specified
in the design above and the system would achieve the performance of that system. This
option would cost $166,000 at the current time, and replacing the boiler in the future is
estimated to cost $100,000.
A second option would be to install the heat coils, and replace the current boiler with a
more efficient boiler of similar size. This would make the facility comfortable down to 40
degrees outside air temperature. This option would cost $215,000.
The third option is to upgrade the entire mechanical system. In this option the current
boiler would be replaced a larger more efficient condensing model, in addition the water
heater would be replaced, and heating coils would be added to heat the ventilation air.
This new system would be designed to make the facility comfortable down to a 14
degree outside air temperature, and usable at colder temperatures. This system would
cost $229,000.
The new boilers in option 2 or 3 would operate at or above 94% efficiency. Based on
current energy usage in the facility this increase in efficiency would save $6,000 annually
in energy costs, and savings would increase proportionally with increases in facility use.
Both boilers would be designed and estimated to have a 40 year life.
Page 17 of 104
Memorandum
TO:
Mayor Ernie Blake and Town Council
FROM:
Rob Theobald
DATE:
February 21, 2008
RE:
Riverwalk Center Budget
The Council approved an original budget of $3.632 million, and picked add-on items with
a value of $157,000 for a total of $3.789 million construction budget. We had built in
some contingency for changing conditions, but have used that contingency to this point,
and expect to exceed the project budget prior to completion.
Due to unforeseen conditions relating to the existing structure we have incurred many
unforeseen costs. The walls of the tent were not built in the correct location according
to the original construction plans, and were not built straight. This caused numerous
structural changes and was costly to remedy
Other changes that have been using the contingency budget to date have mostly arisen
through building code review, and the detailing and shop drawing process. These
changes include:
Heat Tape additions on roof, additional structural steel, additional fastening of Tectum
Roof Deck and additional changes to existing steel structure.
Additionally, the wall between the stage and the existing facility was not built to provide
adequate fire separation as required by code. This condition was worsened
considerably, and the repair made far more costly by the renovation of the office areas.
Additionally, code required smoke vents over the stage were never installed in the
current facility. The total cost of remedying these conditions is expected to be $218,000.
Additional costs are expected at this time. These items include additional concession
equipment, donor recognition wall, additional snow fences and changes in one of the
primary acoustical curtains.
We do not have final costs at this time, nor have resolved all of the issues at this time.
At this time we wanted to notify Council that the project cost is escalating, and we will
report back once final numbers have been reached.
Page 18 of 104
MEMO
TO:
Mayor & Town Council
FROM:
Tim Gagen
DATE:
2/21/2008
RE:
Committee Reports
Summit Stage
Jim Benkelman
th
On January the 30 the Summit Stage Board met at their regularly scheduled monthly
meeting. James Phelps attended this meeting in my place since I was out of town.
The Stage passed a milestone this year, breaking the 2 millionth rider mark for a single
season ending the year with 2,143,966 riders, up 7.5% over last year. Late night service was
up 27.4% (65,093 from 10:30pm to 2am). Since 1996 the Stage has carried over 18,448,591
passengers, covering 15,272,890 miles utilizing 834,997 service hours, pretty impressive.
Discussions during the meeting consisted of out of county service and the new surveillance
cameras mounted in the busses.
Out of County Service –Summit Stage is investigating cost and operational considerations to
run buses out of Summit County and into adjoining counties. To run three round trips to
Leadville from Frisco during peak commuting hours would cost approximately $550k
annually.
Public Art Commission
Jen Cram
Breckenridge Theatre Gallery Applications The BPAC accepted 4 new artists to exhibit in the gallery.
Group shows are booked through July.
Alpine Bank Dedication
Alpine Bank requested that the dedication be postponed until spring.
Please see the minutes from the February 6, 2008, meeting for more details.
Other Meetings
CML
Wildfire Council
BEDAC
Summit Leadership Forum
Tim Gagen
Peter Grosshuesch
Julia Skurski
Tim Gagen
No Meeting
No Meeting
No Meeting
No Meeting
Page 19 of 104
I-70 Coalition
Police Advisory Committee
CAST
NWCCOG
Tim Gagen
Rick Holman
Tim Gagen
Peter Grosshuesch
No Meeting
No Meeting
No Meeting
No Meeting
Page 20 of 104
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
TIM GAGEN, TOWN MANAGER
FROM:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT
DATE:
2/18/2008
This report summarizes the financial condition of the Town of Breckenridge for the period
January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007 (100% of the fiscal year). The report includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benchmark comparisons between prior & current year. Percentage variances compare the
Town’s present revenue streams and expenditures to both historical levels & YTD budget.
An overview of each of the Town’s twelve funds – both revenue and expenditures (See
attachment titled “All Funds”).
An overview of each of the Town’s twelve funds, net of inter-fund transfers – both revenue
and expenditures. Receipts and charges to/from other funds are not reflected in this report
(See attachment titled “All Funds Net of Inter-Funds Transfers).
Review of the Excise Tax Fund (See attachment titled “Excise Tax Fund”).
Review of the General Fund – both consolidated revenue categories and department
expenditures (See attachment titled “General Fund”).
Incorporation of fund balance information for Excise Tax Fund and General Fund to
include legally required and Council identified reserves.
A series of tax reports and related business activity and business sector reports.
The balance of the narrative portion of this report highlights the revenue activity of each of the
twelve funds under the heading “Revenue Overview by Fund” followed by a section that describes
expenditure activity when applicable under the heading “Expenditure Overview by Fund”.
Revenue Overview by Fund:
GENERAL FUND: Revenues are derived from the following sources as a percent of the
budget. Recreation Fees 12%, Property Taxes 10%, Investment Income 2%,
Miscellaneous Income 1%, Charges for Services 4%, Licenses and Permits 3%,
Intergovernmental Revenue and Fines 3%, and Transfers from Other Funds 65%. Property
Tax is higher than 2006 due to the increased mill levy. Charges for Services for 2007 are
higher than 2006 primarily due to building, plumbing, and mechanical plan review fees.
Licenses and Permits are higher than 2006 due to building, electrical, and plumbing
permits. Intergovernmental revenues are higher than 2006 due primarily to higher revenue
from the CDOT Grant for transit operations. Fines/Forfeitures are higher than 2006 due to
parking tickets, traffic fines, and penal fines. 2007 year-to-date General Fund revenue (net
of transfers) is higher than 2006 by 13.9%.
WATER FUND: Revenues are derived from the following sources, Water Rents 67%,
Plant Investment Fees (PIF) 18%, Water Service Maintenance Fees (WSMF) 4%,
Investment Income 3%, and Miscellaneous Income 8%. 2007 revenues are less than last
year due to the timing of recording of developer contributions, which are expected to be
about the same as last year. PIFs are slightly down from last year.
Page 21 of 104
CAPITAL FUND: 2007 revenue is derived from a transfer from the Excise Fund,
investment income, Parking District assessment and various grants for projects. 2007
revenues are higher than 2006 primarily due to the receipt of the COP revenue for the
Childcare Facility, the 2007 Supplemental Appropriation, and donation revenue received
for the Riverwalk roof. The variance in YTD budget versus actual is primarily due to the
COP revenue, the supplemental transfer from the Excise Fund and Riverwalk Center roof
donations.
MARKETING FUND: Revenues are driven by Business Licenses, Accommodations Tax,
Sales Tax, transfers from the Excise Tax Fund, and investment income. Transfers from the
Excise Tax Fund are budgeted to be $9,167 per month higher than last year. As presented
in the All Funds Net of Inter-Fund Transfers report, the Marketing Fund is higher than last
year by 8.07% due to increased Sales and Accommodations Tax. And, YTD Actual is
higher than YTD Budget also due primarily to Sales and Accommodation Tax.
GOLF FUND: Revenues consist of residential card sales, greens fees, cart rental, driving
range fees, investment income, clubhouse rent and a transfer from the Excise Tax Fund.
2007 revenues are higher than 2006 primarily due to Green Fees and Cart Fees.
EXCISE TAX FUND: Sales Tax represents 64% of this fund’s budgeted revenue, Real
Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) 24%, Accommodation Tax 8%, Investment Income 1%,
Miscellaneous Taxes, which includes Cigarette and Franchise Taxes 3%. The series of tax
reports provides more information.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND: Revenues are based on sales tax, impact fees, rental
of properties owned or leased by the Town, and repayment of housing assistance loans.
2007 revenues are higher than 2006 due to transfers from the Excise Tax Fund that are
budgeted to be $25,332 per month higher (result of exercising the GO mil levy
authorization), the 2007 supplemental appropriation transfer from the Excise Fund,
affordable housing sales tax receipts, and impact fees. The variance in YTD budget versus
actual is primarily due to the supplemental transfer from the Excise Fund.
OPEN SPACE FUND: Revenues are typically derived from sales tax, investment income
and development contributions. 2006 revenues are higher than 2007 primarily due to the
Great Outdoor Colorado Grant received in 2006. 2007 actual is higher than budgeted due
primarily to sales tax and investment income.
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND: Revenues are the Town’s share of lottery funds and
investment income. The state distributes lottery proceeds on a quarterly basis. Amounts
shown for 2007 are slightly less than last year’s proceeds.
GARAGE SERVICES FUND: Revenue for this fund is derived by charging the
departments within the Town a pro-rata cost based on the use of Town vehicles. 2007
YTD Actual is less than budget due to the timing of Federal Grant funding for capital
acquisitions.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND: Revenues are derived from charging the
departments within the Town a pro-rata cost based on their use of IT services. The internal
service revenue is planned to be more than the prior year ($11,205 per month).
Page 22 of 104
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE FUND: This fund is new this year and has been
established to provide funding for specified maintenance and replacement of capital assets.
Revenues are derived from other funds associated with primary use of the facility and
transfers from the Excise Tax Fund.
Expenditure Overview by Fund:
Comments below are limited to funds with significant variance from the prior year.
GENERAL FUND: Net of the Gondola expenditures for 2007, the overall General Fund
YTD Actual expenditures are tracking at about 79% of the YTD Budget. 2007 General
Government expenditures are higher than 2006 due primarily to Highway 9 lobby costs and
personnel costs. Finance expenditures are higher than 2006 due to contracted services,
personnel costs, and office equipment associated with the department’s relocation. Parking
and Transit expenditures are higher than 2006 due primarily to personnel costs and costs
for implementation of the parking management plan. Public Works expenditures are
higher than 2006 primarily due to pine beetle mitigation and repair/maintenance.
Recreation expenditures are higher than 2006 due primarily to personnel costs.
Miscellaneous expenditures are lower than 2006 due to payments for the gondola.
WATER FUND: 2006 expenditures are higher than 2007 due primarily to capital
expenditures. YTD Actual is higher than budgeted primarily due to water line repairs. The
2007 Supplemental Appropriation will provide for this budget deficit.
CAPITAL FUND: 2006 expenditures are higher than 2007 due primarily to construction
of the police facility, bus barn, and parking facility last year. Expenses are incurred as
construction occurs and are subject to the timing of construction. For that reason, historical
comparisons are not always useful. The YTD Budget reflects the added supplemental
appropriation. In addition, current year “YTD Budget” column is modeled upon last year’s
spending pattern, and may not always reflect this year’s spending activity (YTD Actual).
MARKETING FUND: Expenditures are primarily for contracted services (BRC) and
grants to community organizations. 2007 expenditures are higher than 2006 due primarily
to an increase in the BRC contract, increases in grants of $14,000 to various non-profits,
and costs for the Kingdom Days Heritage Event of $50,000.
GOLF FUND: 2007 expenditures are about level with 2006 expenditures and less than the
budgeted amount.
EXCISE TAX FUND: Because the Excise Tax Fund includes transfers to other funds and
debt expenditures, any variances between fiscal years is a result of changes in budgeted
transfers and changes in debt service payments.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND: Expenditures are down payment assistance loans,
rental down payment assistance, childcare support, and other affordable housing related
expenditures. 2007 expenditures are higher than 2006 due primarily to payments for
childcare support. 2007 YTD Actual is lower than YTD Budget primarily due to the
timing of affordable housing and related expenditures planned but not expended.
OPEN SPACE FUND: 2007 expenditures are higher than 2006 due primarily to land
23 of 104
acquisitions and remediation costs. YTD Actual is higher than YTD Budget duePage
to capital
expenditures associated with Wellington Oro, which has capital budget authority from
2006.
CONSERVATION TRUST FUND: 2007 expenditures are budgeted and incurred on a
recurring monthly basis, so long as an eligible CIP project has been identified and executed
within the calendar year.
GARAGE SERVICES FUND: Expenditures for vehicle and equipment maintenance,
repair and replacement occur in this fund. 2007 operations expenditures are less that 2006
due to the timing of depreciation expense that has not yet been applied to 2007. 2007
capital expenditures for this period are higher than 2006 due to more equipment purchases,
but lower than the YTD Budget due to the timing of bus acquisitions.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND: This fund provides telephone, computer
equipment, software licenses, repair, and maintenance of the same. 2007 expenditures are
higher than last year due primarily to computer equipment and support.
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE FUND: Expenditures for scheduled maintenance and
replacement of capital assets are budgeted in this fund.
In Summary, the All Funds Summary and the All Funds Net of Inter-Fund Transfers
Summary report 2007 YTD revenues approximately 14% and 10% higher than 2006
respectively. The current YTD expenditures are approximately 2% higher than 2006 for
All Funds and 8% lower than 2006 Net of Inter-Fund Transfers.
Page 24 of 104
All Funds
Current Year to Prior Year Comparison
YTD Ending: DEC-07
Prior Year
Current Year
YTD
Actual
YE
Total
Pct of YE
Rec'd/Spent
Actual/Actual
Pct Variance
YTD
Actual
YTD
Budget
Actual/Budget
Pct Variance
Annual
Budget
Pct of Budget
Rec'd/Spent
General Fund
Water Fund
Capital Fund
Marketing Fund
Golf Fund
Excise Tax Fund
Affordable Housing Fund
Open Space Fund
Conservation Trust Fund
Garage Services Fund
Information Services Fund
Facilities Maintenance Fund
21,621,130
4,026,597
8,915,438
1,142,851
2,522,728
20,685,176
83,427
2,506,258
36,900
1,750,704
748,756
0
21,621,130
4,026,597
8,915,438
1,142,851
2,522,728
20,685,176
83,427
2,506,258
36,900
1,750,704
748,756
0
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
n/m
7.91%
-17.83%
52.66%
17.55%
5.57%
5.79%
1535.18%
-11.17%
-5.03%
2.08%
17.96%
n/m
23,330,898
3,308,825
13,610,166
1,343,453
2,663,278
21,882,050
1,364,190
2,226,421
35,043
1,787,168
883,215
430,408
21,666,609
2,980,252
4,093,000
1,230,581
2,404,970
18,690,446
713,981
1,774,786
30,320
3,444,373
883,213
430,410
107.68%
111.03%
332.52%
109.17%
110.74%
117.08%
191.07%
125.45%
115.58%
51.89%
100.00%
100.00%
21,666,609
2,980,252
4,093,000
1,230,581
2,404,970
18,690,446
713,981
1,774,786
30,320
3,444,373
883,213
430,410
107.68%
111.03%
332.52%
109.17%
110.74%
117.08%
191.07%
125.45%
115.58%
51.89%
100.00%
100.00%
TOTAL REVENUE
64,039,966
64,039,966
100.00%
13.78%
72,865,115
58,342,942
124.89%
58,342,942
124.89%
General Fund
Water Fund
Capital Fund
Marketing Fund
Golf Fund
Excise Tax Fund
Open Space Fund
Garage Services Fund - Ops
Garage Services Fund - Capital
22,391,722
3,872,599
10,521,478
1,124,562
2,159,624
20,248,675
53,554
1,844,384
30,000
1,581,198
0
637,797
0
22,391,722
3,872,599
10,521,478
1,124,562
2,159,624
20,248,675
53,554
1,844,384
30,000
1,581,198
0
637,797
0
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
n/m
100.00%
n/m
4.90%
-38.14%
-40.93%
15.00%
1.17%
17.95%
1988.66%
29.45%
0.00%
-28.47%
n/m
34.79%
n/m
23,489,344
2,395,530
6,214,703
1,293,224
2,184,918
23,882,767
1,118,573
2,387,617
30,000
1,131,051
494,475
859,713
20,689
25,198,581
2,264,363
11,723,965
1,338,611
2,402,494
23,883,267
2,831,303
2,093,995
30,000
1,146,980
2,892,440
914,746
65,875
93.22%
105.79%
53.01%
96.61%
90.94%
100.00%
39.51%
114.02%
100.00%
98.61%
17.10%
93.98%
31.41%
25,198,581
2,264,363
11,723,965
1,338,611
2,402,494
23,883,267
2,831,303
2,093,995
30,000
1,146,980
2,892,440
914,746
65,875
93.22%
105.79%
53.01%
96.61%
90.94%
100.00%
39.51%
114.02%
100.00%
98.61%
17.10%
93.98%
31.41%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
64,465,593
64,465,593
100.00%
1.61%
65,502,604
76,786,622
85.30%
76,786,622
85.30%
Page 25 of 104
All Funds Net of Inter-Fund Transfers
YTD Ending: DEC-07
Prior Year
Current Year
YTD
Actual
YE
Total
Pct of YE
Rec'd/Spent
Actual/Actual
Pct Variance
YTD
Actual
YTD
Budget
Actual/Budget
Pct Variance
Annual
Budget
Pct of Budget
Rec'd/Spent
General Fund
Water Fund
Capital Fund
Marketing Fund
Golf Fund
Excise Tax Fund
Open Space Fund
Garage Services Fund
8,170,131
4,026,597
2,885,438
1,122,851
2,270,883
20,685,176
16,677
2,506,258
36,900
14,128
0
0
8,164,111
4,026,597
2,885,438
1,122,851
2,272,728
20,685,176
18,427
2,506,258
36,900
14,128
0
0
100.07%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.92%
100.00%
90.50%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
n/m
n/m
12.01%
-17.83%
80.97%
8.07%
6.27%
5.79%
2165.23%
-11.17%
-5.03%
50.14%
n/m
n/m
9,151,760
3,308,825
5,221,701
1,213,453
2,413,278
21,882,050
377,767
2,226,421
35,043
21,212
0
0
7,634,436
2,980,252
429,500
1,100,581
2,154,970
18,690,446
345,000
1,774,786
30,320
1,659,707
0
0
119.87%
111.03%
1215.76%
110.26%
111.99%
117.08%
109.50%
125.45%
115.58%
1.28%
n/m
n/m
7,634,437
2,980,252
429,500
1,100,581
2,154,970
18,690,446
345,000
1,774,786
30,320
1,659,707
0
0
119.87%
111.03%
1215.76%
110.26%
111.99%
117.08%
109.50%
125.45%
115.58%
1.28%
n/m
n/m
TOTAL REVENUE
41,735,040
41,732,615
100.01%
9.86%
45,851,510
36,799,998
124.60%
36,800,000
124.60%
General Fund
Water Fund
Capital Fund
Marketing Fund
Golf Fund
Excise Tax Fund
Open Space Fund
Garage Services Fund - Ops
Garage Services Fund - Capital
20,263,615
2,789,875
10,258,736
1,124,562
2,146,939
636,000
70,278
1,840,811
0
1,141,322
24,064
634,497
0
20,253,535
3,406,877
10,521,478
1,124,562
2,110,730
636,000
53,554
1,835,811
0
1,581,198
0
634,497
0
100.05%
81.89%
97.50%
100.00%
101.72%
100.00%
131.23%
100.27%
n/m
72.18%
n/m
100.00%
n/m
2.16%
-31.02%
-39.42%
16.04%
-1.92%
-53.25%
1804.17%
29.42%
n/m
0.48%
1954.85%
34.67%
n/m
20,700,709
1,924,333
6,214,703
1,304,949
2,105,731
297,338
1,338,206
2,382,466
0
1,146,815
494,475
854,458
20,689
22,484,547
1,794,934
11,723,965
1,338,611
2,324,591
297,838
2,831,303
2,088,837
0
1,146,980
2,892,440
911,340
65,875
92.07%
107.21%
53.01%
97.49%
90.59%
99.83%
47.26%
114.06%
n/m
99.99%
17.10%
93.76%
31.41%
22,484,554
1,794,934
11,723,965
1,338,611
2,324,592
297,838
2,831,303
2,088,837
0
1,146,980
2,892,440
911,340
65,875
92.07%
107.21%
53.01%
97.49%
90.58%
99.83%
47.26%
114.06%
n/m
99.99%
17.10%
93.76%
31.41%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
40,930,698
42,158,242
97.09%
-5.24%
38,784,872
49,901,262
77.72%
49,901,270
77.72%
Page 26 of 104
Excise Tax Fund
YTD Ending: DEC-07
Prior Year
Current Year
YTD
Actual
YE
Total
Pct of YE
Rec'd/Spent
Actual/Actual
Pct Variance
YTD
Actual
YTD
Budget
Actual/Budget
Pct Variance
Annual
Budget
Pct of Budget
Rec'd/Spent
Sales Tax
Accomodations Taxes
RETT
Miscellaneous Taxes
Investment Income
12,092,192
1,574,982
5,811,220
601,707
605,075
12,092,192
1,574,982
5,811,220
601,707
605,075
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
8.66%
14.51%
-2.34%
0.07%
9.38%
13,139,419
1,803,464
5,675,235
602,106
661,827
11,797,577
1,512,869
4,500,000
630,000
250,000
111.37%
119.21%
126.12%
95.57%
264.73%
11,797,577
1,512,869
4,500,000
630,000
250,000
111.37%
119.21%
126.12%
95.57%
264.73%
TOTAL REVENUE
20,685,176
20,685,176
100.00%
5.79%
21,882,050
18,690,446
117.08%
18,690,446
117.08%
Transfers
Debt Service
19,612,675
636,000
19,612,675
636,000
100.00%
100.00%
20.26%
-53.25%
23,585,429
297,338
23,585,429
297,838
100.00%
99.83%
23,585,429
297,838
100.00%
99.83%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
20,248,675
20,248,675
17.95%
23,882,767
23,883,267
YTD EXCESS/(DEFICIT)
(2,000,717)
Jan. 1 2007 Fund Balance
11,377,946
Reserved for Debt Service
(600,000)
UNAUDITED BALANCE
8,777,229
23,883,267
Page 27 of 104
General Fund
YTD Ending: DEC-07
Prior Year
Current Year
YTD
Actual
YE
Total
Pct of YE
Rec'd/Spent
Actual/Actual
Pct Variance
YTD
Actual
YTD
Budget
Actual/Budget
Pct Variance
Annual
Budget
Pct of Budget
Rec'd/Spent
REVENUES
Recreation Fees
Property Tax
Investment Income
Miscellaneous Income
Charges For Services
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental
Fines/Forfeitures
Transfers In
2,549,358
1,805,193
705,839
208,570
1,137,939
871,346
643,009
242,859
13,457,019
2,549,358
1,805,193
705,839
208,570
1,137,939
871,346
643,009
242,859
13,457,019
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
2.72%
21.21%
2.37%
7.99%
18.77%
31.36%
16.24%
23.87%
4.27%
2,618,575
2,187,999
722,558
225,232
1,351,509
1,144,615
747,414
300,824
14,032,172
2,546,271
2,167,981
350,000
233,000
932,050
625,100
531,335
248,700
14,032,172
102.84%
100.92%
206.45%
96.67%
145.00%
183.11%
140.67%
120.96%
100.00%
2,546,271
2,167,981
350,000
233,000
932,050
625,100
531,335
248,700
14,032,172
102.84%
100.92%
206.45%
96.67%
145.00%
183.11%
140.67%
120.96%
100.00%
Revenues
21,621,130
21,621,130
100.00%
7.91%
23,330,898
21,666,609
107.68%
21,666,609
107.68%
EXPENDITURES
General Government
Community Development
Engineering
Finance
Parking and Transit
Police
Public Works
Recreation
Miscellaneous
Debt Service
Transfers Out
1,627,537
1,607,774
428,142
931,781
1,832,479
2,962,909
4,563,489
4,092,993
3,814,525
530,093
0
1,627,537
1,607,774
428,142
931,781
1,832,479
2,962,909
4,563,489
4,092,993
3,814,525
530,093
0
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
n/m
12.16%
-4.42%
2.34%
20.59%
14.30%
2.73%
10.16%
5.68%
-7.48%
2.86%
n/m
1,825,435
1,536,715
438,167
1,123,597
2,094,448
3,043,673
5,027,173
4,325,651
3,529,234
545,252
0
2,179,328
1,811,803
466,171
1,220,060
2,193,993
3,194,359
5,299,696
4,708,342
3,578,587
546,243
0
83.76%
84.82%
93.99%
92.09%
95.46%
95.28%
94.86%
91.87%
98.62%
99.82%
n/m
2,179,328
1,811,803
466,171
1,220,060
2,193,993
3,194,359
5,299,696
4,708,342
3,578,587
546,243
0
83.76%
84.82%
93.99%
92.09%
95.46%
95.28%
94.86%
91.87%
98.62%
99.82%
n/m
Expenditures
22,391,722
22,391,722
100.00%
4.90%
23,489,344
25,198,581
93.22%
25,198,581
93.22%
(770,592)
(770,592)
(158,446)
(3,531,972)
Rev Over(Under) Exp
Jan. 1 2007 Fund Balance
Operating Reserve
Tabor Reserve
Debt Service Reserve
Medical Reserve
Unaudited Balance
(3,531,972)
11,268,223
(5,200,000)
(700,000)
(2,100,000)
(500,000)
2,609,777
Page 28 of 104
TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE
SALES TAX COLLECTIONS
REPORTED IN THE PERIOD EARNED
2006 Collections
Tax
Year
Collected
To Date
Sales
Period
Percent
of Total
Tax
Budgeted
2007 Budget
Year
To Date
2007 Monthly
% Change
% of
Actual
from 2006 Budget
Percent
of Total
2007 Year to Date
% Change
% of
Actual
from 2006 Budget
JAN.
$ 1,472,414
$
1,472,414
12.2%
$ 1,436,540
$
1,436,540
12.2%
$ 1,655,286
12.4%
115.2%
$
1,655,286
12.4%
14.0%
FEB
$ 1,444,750
$
2,917,163
24.1%
$ 1,409,550
$
2,846,089
24.1%
$ 1,573,159
8.9%
111.6%
$
3,228,444
10.7%
27.4%
MAR
$ 1,881,482
$
4,798,645
39.7%
$ 1,835,641
$
4,681,730
39.7%
$ 2,068,772
10.0%
112.7%
$
5,297,217
10.4%
44.9%
APR
$
877,023
$
5,675,668
46.9%
$
855,655
$
5,537,385
46.9%
$
961,921
9.7%
112.4%
$
6,259,137
10.3%
53.1%
MAY
$
368,130
$
6,043,798
50.0%
$
359,161
$
5,896,546
50.0%
$
468,712
27.3%
130.5%
$
6,727,849
11.3%
57.0%
JUN
$
646,984
$
6,690,782
55.3%
$
631,221
$
6,527,767
55.3%
$
731,509
13.1%
115.9%
$
7,459,358
11.5%
63.2%
JUL
$
902,674
$
7,593,456
62.8%
$
880,682
$
7,408,448
62.8%
$
977,334
8.3%
111.0%
$
8,436,692
11.1%
71.5%
AUG
$
793,370
$
8,386,826
69.4%
$
774,040
$
8,182,489
69.4%
$
829,380
4.5%
107.1%
$
9,266,072
10.5%
78.5%
SEP
$
737,548
$
9,124,374
75.5%
$
719,578
$
8,902,067
75.5%
$
779,729
5.7%
108.4%
$
10,045,801
10.1%
85.2%
OCT
$
490,299
$
9,614,673
79.5%
$
478,354
$
9,380,420
79.5%
$
549,408
12.1%
114.9%
$
10,595,209
10.2%
89.8%
NOV
$
650,265
$ 10,264,938
84.9%
$
634,422
$ 10,014,843
84.9%
$
682,786
5.0%
107.6%
$
11,277,995
9.9%
95.6%
DEC
$ 1,827,254
$ 12,092,192
100.0%
$ 1,782,734
$ 11,797,577
100.0%
$ 1,861,424
1.9%
104.4%
$
13,139,419
8.7%
111.4%
Sales tax amounts reflect collections net of the 3.3% transferred to the Marketing Fund and .5% tax earmarked for Open Space.
2/21/2008
Page 29 of 104
ACCOMMODATION TAX COLLECTIONS
2006 Collections
Sales
Tax
Year
Percent
Period Collected
To Date
of Total
Tax
Budgeted
2007 Budget
Year
To Date
2007 Monthly
% Change
Actual
from 2006
JAN.
$ 239,311
$
239,311
15.2%
$ 229,873
$
229,873
15.2%
$
288,977
20.8%
125.7%
$
288,977
20.8%
19.1%
FEB
$ 257,341
$
496,652
31.5%
$ 247,193
$
477,065
31.5%
$
292,577
13.7%
118.4%
$
581,554
17.1%
38.4%
MAR
$ 351,874
$
848,526
53.9%
$ 337,997
$
815,063
53.9%
$
389,705
10.8%
115.3%
$
971,260
14.5%
64.2%
APR
$ 100,437
$
948,963
60.3%
$
96,476
$
911,538
60.3%
$
121,571
21.0%
126.0%
$
1,092,831
15.2%
72.2%
MAY
$
21,668
$
970,631
61.6%
$
20,814
$
932,352
61.6%
$
20,872
-3.7%
100.3%
$
1,113,703
14.7%
73.6%
JUN
$
43,542
$
1,014,173
64.4%
$
41,825
$
974,177
64.4%
$
63,384
45.6%
151.5%
$
1,177,086
16.1%
77.8%
JUL
$
88,873
$
1,103,046
70.0%
$
85,368
$ 1,059,545
70.0%
$
98,186
10.5%
115.0%
$
1,275,272
15.6%
84.3%
AUG
$
73,102
$
1,176,148
74.7%
$
70,219
$ 1,129,763
74.7%
$
82,172
12.4%
117.0%
$
1,357,445
15.4%
89.7%
SEP
$
54,134
$
1,230,282
78.1%
$
51,999
$ 1,181,763
78.1%
$
61,629
13.8%
118.5%
$
1,419,073
15.3%
93.8%
OCT
$
29,417
$
1,259,699
80.0%
$
28,257
$ 1,210,020
80.0%
$
30,799
4.7%
109.0%
$
1,449,873
15.1%
95.8%
NOV
$
53,868
$
1,313,568
83.4%
$
51,744
$ 1,261,764
83.4%
$
56,042
4.0%
108.3%
$
1,505,915
14.6%
99.5%
DEC
$ 261,415
$
1,574,982
100.0%
$ 251,105
$ 1,512,869
100.0%
$
297,549
13.8%
118.5%
$
1,803,464
14.5%
119.2%
Percent
of Total
2007 Year to Date
% Change % of
Actual
from 2006 Budget
% of
Budget
Accommodation tax amounts reflect collections at the 2% rate.
2/21/2008
Page 30 of 104
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX COLLECTIONS
2006 Collections
Sales
Tax
Year
Period Collected
To Date
Percent
of Total
Tax
Budgeted
2007 Budget
Year
To Date
2007 Monthly
% Change
% of
Actual
from 2006 Budget
Percent
of Total
2007 Year to Date
% Change % of
Actual
from 2006 Budget
JAN. $
255,323 $
255,323
4.4%
$
197,713 $
197,713
4.4%
$
352,958
38.2%
178.5%
$
352,958
38.2%
7.8%
FEB
$
282,460 $
537,782
9.3%
$
218,727 $
416,439
9.3%
$
342,995
21.4%
156.8%
$
695,953
29.4%
15.5%
MAR $
316,197 $
853,980
14.7%
$
244,852 $
661,291
14.7%
$
271,817
-14.0%
111.0%
$
967,770
13.3%
21.5%
APR
$
428,997 $
1,282,977
22.1%
$
332,200 $
993,491
22.1%
$
564,624
31.6%
170.0%
$
1,532,394
19.4%
34.1%
MAY
$
525,834 $
1,808,811
31.1%
$
407,187 $
1,400,678
31.1%
$
533,680
1.5%
131.1%
$
2,066,074
14.2%
45.9%
JUN
$
381,660 $
2,190,471
37.7%
$
295,544 $
1,696,222
37.7%
$
522,999
37.0%
177.0%
$
2,589,073
18.2%
57.5%
JUL
$
346,180 $
2,536,650
43.7%
$
268,069 $
1,964,291
43.7%
$
343,610
-0.7%
128.2%
$
2,932,683
15.6%
65.2%
AUG
$
532,065 $
3,068,716
52.8%
$
412,012 $
2,376,303
52.8%
$
594,349
11.7%
144.3%
$
3,527,032
14.9%
78.4%
SEP
$
865,050 $
3,933,766
67.7%
$
669,863 $
3,046,167
67.7%
$
711,996
-17.7%
106.3%
$
4,239,028
7.8%
94.2%
OCT
$
689,653 $
4,623,418
79.6%
$
534,042 $
3,580,209
79.6%
$
392,752
-43.1%
73.5%
$
4,631,779
0.2%
102.9%
NOV
$
532,680 $
5,156,098
88.7%
$
412,488 $
3,992,697
88.7%
$
459,147
-13.8%
111.3%
$
5,090,926
-1.3%
113.1%
DEC
$
655,122 $
5,811,220
100.0%
$
507,303 $
4,500,000
100.0%
$
584,308
-10.8%
115.2%
$
5,675,235
-2.3%
126.1%
EFFECTIVE DEC 31, 2007
2/21/2008
Page 31 of 104
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SALES TAX COLLECTIONS
2006 Collections
Tax
Year
Collected
To Date
Sales
Period
Percent
of Total
Tax
Budgeted
2007 Budget
Year
To Date
2007 Monthly
% Change
% of
Actual
from 2006 Budget
Percent
of Total
2007 Year to Date
% Change
% of
Actual
from 2006 Budget
JAN.
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
34,094
$
34,094
12.2%
$
51,087
n/a
149.8%
$
51,087
n/a
18.2%
FEB
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
33,454
$
67,548
11.9%
$
38,682
n/a
115.6%
$
89,768
n/a
32.1%
MAR
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
43,567
$
111,115
15.6%
$
26,803
n/a
61.5%
$
116,571
n/a
41.6%
APR
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
20,308
$
131,423
7.3%
$
24,331
n/a
119.8%
$
140,903
n/a
50.3%
MAY
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
8,524
$
139,947
3.0%
$
10,950
n/a
128.5%
$
151,853
n/a
54.2%
JUN
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
14,981
$
154,928
5.4%
$
15,741
n/a
105.1%
$
167,594
n/a
59.9%
JUL
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
20,902
$
175,830
7.5%
$
26,125
n/a
125.0%
$
193,719
n/a
69.2%
AUG
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
18,371
$
194,201
6.6%
$
24,494
n/a
133.3%
$
218,214
n/a
77.9%
SEP
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
17,078
$
211,279
6.1%
$
13,502
n/a
79.1%
$
231,715
n/a
82.8%
OCT
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
11,353
$
222,632
4.1%
$
13,274
n/a
116.9%
$
244,990
n/a
87.5%
NOV
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
15,057
$
237,689
5.4%
$
17,712
n/a
117.6%
$
262,701
n/a
93.8%
DEC
$
-
$
-
0.0%
$
42,311
$
280,000
15.1%
$
52,398
n/a
123.8%
$
315,099
n/a
112.5%
Affordable Housing Sales Tax reflects money distributed to the Town net of the Housing Authority share and is deposited directly into the Affordable Housing Fund.
Jan. 2007 sales tax receipts include overpayments from a large vendor that have been credited back in later months.
2/21/2008
Page 32 of 104
TAXABLE SALES ANALYSIS BY BUSINESS SECTOR
(in Thousands of Dollars)
Total - All Categories
Monthly Totals
Monthly
YTD
Actual
1995
Actual
1996
Actual
1997
Actual
1998
Actual
1999
Actual
2000
Actual
2001
Actual
2002
Actual
2003
Actual
2004
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Actual
2007
%
06-07
YTD
2006
YTD
2007
% Change
06-07
January
23,917
25,557
27,635
28,801
29,065
28,563
31,078
29,408
28,210
31,448
33,224
38,415
44,145
14.9%
38,415
44,145
14.9%
February
25,373
28,985
27,917
29,631
31,137
31,869
34,425
31,954
29,893
33,199
35,711
39,290
43,332
10.3%
77,705
87,477
12.6%
March
32,003
35,967
39,570
37,415
39,642
43,397
44,187
42,716
39,324
39,106
45,253
50,031
55,935
11.8%
127,736
143,412
12.3%
April
13,019
15,800
15,064
17,458
17,634
17,001
18,459
15,706
14,908
17,721
17,376
22,741
23,940
5.3%
150,477
167,352
11.2%
May
5,055
5,898
6,250
6,577
6,911
7,907
8,706
8,186
8,768
8,826
9,294
10,587
12,138
14.7%
161,064
179,490
11.4%
June
9,173
9,883
9,873
10,959
12,963
13,910
15,001
13,654
13,240
13,953
15,889
16,922
20,079
18.7%
177,986
199,569
12.1%
July
13,419
14,775
15,621
16,993
17,806
18,829
18,864
19,056
19,700
20,602
22,029
24,027
25,638
6.7%
202,013
225,207
11.5%
August
12,942
14,784
14,989
15,987
16,166
16,988
17,725
16,706
17,755
17,734
19,254
21,925
23,532
7.3%
223,938
248,739
11.1%
September
10,678
10,924
11,202
12,282
13,921
16,062
13,356
13,495
14,159
15,696
16,863
19,861
20,620
3.8%
243,799
269,359
10.5%
October
7,166
7,464
7,924
7,986
8,797
9,915
10,642
9,550
9,740
10,654
12,297
13,531
14,728
8.8%
257,330
284,087
10.4%
November
9,399
9,782
11,147
11,637
11,392
12,294
11,559
11,403
12,349
13,460
14,987
18,141
17,968
-1.0%
275,471
302,055
9.7%
December
25,837
26,356
29,535
30,506
30,621
33,530
28,630
33,416
34,822
39,109
43,692
46,637
49,416
6.0%
322,108
351,471
9.1%
TAXABLE SALES - DECEMBER
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2/21/2008
Page 33 of 104
Total - All Categories
ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION
Monthly Totals
CPI
Monthly
YTD
BASE
Actual
1995
3.5%
Actual
1996
3.3%
Actual
1997
2.4%
Actual
1998
2.9%
Actual
1999
4.0%
Actual
2000
4.7%
Actual
2001
1.9%
Actual
2002
1.1%
Actual
2003
0.1%
Actual
2004
2.1%
Actual
2005
3.6%
Actual
2006
3.2%
Actual
2007
%
06-07
YTD
2006
YTD
2007
% Change
06-07
January
23,896
24,681
25,825
26,281
25,769
24,334
25,286
23,521
22,319
24,851
25,696
28,707
31,965
11.3%
28,707
31,965
11.3%
February
25,352
27,990
26,086
27,046
27,602
27,179
28,035
25,556
23,655
26,243
27,648
29,361
31,376
6.9%
58,068
63,341
9.1%
March
31,928
34,684
36,886
34,055
35,066
36,919
35,966
34,155
31,099
30,892
35,031
37,389
40,504
8.3%
95,457
103,845
8.8%
April
13,002
15,242
14,065
15,927
15,624
14,471
15,021
12,552
11,789
14,008
13,450
16,992
17,334
2.0%
112,449
121,179
7.8%
May
5,031
5,665
5,835
5,999
6,130
6,739
7,067
6,545
6,934
6,975
7,195
7,909
8,788
11.1%
120,358
129,967
8.0%
June
9,129
9,493
9,151
9,928
11,455
11,768
12,169
10,889
10,465
11,019
12,298
12,644
14,536
15.0%
133,002
144,503
8.6%
July
13,382
14,260
14,590
15,515
15,797
16,061
15,358
15,233
15,588
16,285
17,055
17,952
18,566
3.4%
150,954
163,069
8.0%
August
12,924
14,275
14,012
14,567
14,333
14,485
14,438
13,357
14,044
14,017
14,906
16,379
17,041
4.0%
167,333
180,110
7.6%
September
10,636
10,508
10,367
11,117
12,271
13,612
10,841
10,759
11,194
12,334
13,054
14,837
14,930
0.6%
182,170
195,040
7.1%
7,150
7,191
7,390
7,290
7,789
8,450
8,664
7,636
7,697
8,420
9,519
10,105
10,664
5.5%
192,275
205,704
7.0%
October
November
9,396
9,438
10,421
10,622
10,097
10,485
9,420
9,118
9,773
10,638
11,599
13,554
13,009
-4.0%
205,829
218,713
6.3%
December
25,812
25,401
27,494
27,740
27,073
28,511
23,306
26,706
27,546
30,893
33,825
34,850
35,782
2.7%
240,679
254,495
5.7%
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2/21/2008
Page 34 of 104
Retail-Restaurant-Lodging Summary
Actual
1995
Actual
1996
Actual
1997
Actual
1998
Actual
1999
Monthly Totals
Actual Actual
2000
2001
Actual
2002
Actual
2003
Actual
2004
Actual
2005
Actual
2006
Actual
2007
Monthly
%
06-07
YTD
2006
YTD
2007
YTD
% Change
06-07
January
19,862
21,263
22,893
23,523
23,629
22,723
24,118
22,465
21,509
23,620
25,240
28,528
32,546
14.1%
28,528
32,546
14.1%
February
21,191
24,673
23,443
24,805
25,532
26,044
27,464
26,258
23,253
25,826
27,553
29,972
33,097
10.4%
58,500
65,643
12.2%
March
26,964
30,343
33,414
30,809
32,254
35,348
36,196
35,344
31,988
31,209
35,705
39,051
44,523
14.0%
97,551
110,166
12.9%
April
9,924
12,182
11,347
13,256
13,579
12,426
13,029
10,587
9,562
12,102
10,773
15,134
16,276
7.5%
112,685
126,442
12.2%
May
2,700
3,167
3,264
3,565
3,610
3,949
4,203
3,950
4,331
4,095
4,179
4,647
5,367
15.5%
117,332
131,809
12.3%
June
5,955
6,174
6,451
6,588
7,513
8,001
9,058
8,619
7,724
8,217
9,568
9,789
12,081
23.4%
127,121
143,890
13.2%
July
9,914
10,950
11,405
12,527
12,944
13,464
13,406
13,292
13,590
14,248
14,766
16,038
17,334
8.1%
143,159
161,224
12.6%
August
9,292
10,738
10,981
11,517
11,352
11,542
11,407
11,174
11,717
11,429
12,122
13,446
15,089
12.2%
156,605
176,313
12.6%
September
7,220
6,966
6,687
7,492
8,160
9,443
7,666
8,513
8,599
8,940
9,897
11,761
12,734
8.3%
168,366
189,047
12.3%
October
4,313
4,232
4,560
4,578
5,049
5,054
5,425
4,991
4,855
5,257
5,824
6,248
7,139
14.3%
174,614
196,186
12.4%
November
6,203
6,426
7,617
7,255
7,122
7,352
6,816
7,174
7,511
7,771
8,557
10,963
10,590
-3.4%
185,577
206,776
11.4%
December
21,142
20,928
23,219
23,650
23,124
24,361
22,090
23,901
24,818
28,314
30,619
33,736
34,650
2.7%
219,313
241,426
10.1%
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1995
2/21/2008
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Page 35 of 104
TAXABLE REVENUE ANALYSIS BY BUSINESS SECTOR
Retail Sales
Month To Date
January
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
6,497
7,079
7,205
7,173
7,411
7,149
8,271
Actual
Year To Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
7,320
6,807
7,545
8,001
8,607
9,893
Monthly
% CHG
14.9%
Actual
Actual
Actual
YTD
2005
2006
2007
% CHG
8,001
8,607
9,893
14.9%
February
6,756
7,753
7,568
7,474
7,983
8,024
9,231
8,549
7,418
8,312
8,744
8,942
9,580
7.1%
16,745
17,549
19,473
11.0%
March
8,858
9,902
10,702
9,507
10,525
11,337
12,116
11,390
10,028
10,162
11,632
11,774
13,380
13.6%
28,377
29,323
32,853
12.0%
April
3,702
4,481
4,156
4,841
4,789
4,423
5,008
4,105
3,679
4,714
3,678
5,406
5,309
-1.8%
32,055
34,729
38,162
9.9%
May
1,092
1,263
1,272
1,408
1,492
1,569
2,014
1,583
1,626
1,549
1,708
1,858
2,201
18.5%
33,763
36,587
40,363
10.3%
June
2,404
2,335
2,391
2,521
2,931
3,135
3,514
3,227
3,062
3,140
3,565
3,589
4,485
25.0%
37,328
40,176
44,848
11.6%
July
3,767
4,040
4,336
4,499
4,543
4,678
4,998
4,838
4,732
5,087
5,174
5,403
6,045
11.9%
42,502
45,579
50,893
11.7%
August
3,693
3,981
4,199
4,109
4,100
3,973
4,492
4,269
4,429
4,397
4,620
4,757
5,028
5.7%
47,122
50,336
55,921
11.1%
September
2,948
2,698
2,753
3,021
3,671
3,944
3,242
3,587
3,370
3,781
4,249
4,726
5,077
7.4%
51,371
55,062
60,998
10.8%
October
1,961
1,563
1,759
1,815
2,024
1,908
2,374
2,132
2,127
2,298
2,404
2,591
3,019
16.5%
53,775
57,653
64,017
11.0%
November
2,561
2,650
3,108
3,060
3,124
3,041
3,057
3,249
3,378
3,326
3,586
4,376
4,212
-3.7%
57,361
62,029
68,229
10.0%
December
8,026
7,978
8,746
8,985
8,919
8,782
8,338
8,893
9,184
10,388
11,099
11,971
11,848
-1.0%
68,460
74,000
80,077
8.2%
Taxable Retail Sales - DECEMBER
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1995
2/21/2008
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Page 36 of 104
Restaurants/Bars
Month To Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Actual
Year To Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Monthly
Actual
Actual
Actual
YTD
% CHG
2005
2006
2007
% CHG
January
4,810
5,180
5,515
5,723
5,784
5,697
6,300
5,644
5,835
6,425
6,897
7,924
8,396
6.0%
6,897
7,924
8,396
6.0%
February
5,125
5,735
5,667
5,880
6,162
6,519
6,783
6,412
6,092
6,637
7,047
8,058
8,523
5.8%
13,944
15,982
16,919
5.9%
March
5,731
6,651
7,180
6,688
7,031
7,792
8,258
7,870
7,307
7,413
8,117
9,256
10,064
8.7%
22,061
25,238
26,983
6.9%
April
2,683
3,238
3,149
3,548
3,576
3,624
3,706
2,967
3,068
3,595
3,609
4,552
4,789
5.2%
25,670
29,790
31,772
6.7%
May
1,129
1,329
1,454
1,541
1,492
1,641
1,590
1,561
1,808
1,746
1,760
1,832
2,118
15.6%
27,430
31,622
33,890
7.2%
June
2,079
2,364
2,437
2,488
2,796
2,779
3,413
3,257
2,982
3,136
3,525
3,938
4,380
11.2%
30,955
35,560
38,270
7.6%
July
3,491
3,877
4,113
4,380
4,639
4,910
4,675
4,632
4,913
5,138
5,375
5,905
6,288
6.5%
36,330
41,465
44,558
7.5%
August
3,161
4,032
3,953
4,056
4,106
4,270
4,068
4,156
4,832
4,302
4,521
5,067
5,957
17.6%
40,851
46,532
50,515
8.6%
September
2,526
2,641
2,452
2,770
2,814
3,468
2,860
3,169
3,249
3,138
3,498
4,340
4,635
6.8%
44,349
50,872
55,150
8.4%
October
1,643
1,779
1,807
1,870
2,097
2,220
1,959
1,977
1,978
2,100
2,290
2,352
2,579
9.7%
46,639
53,224
57,729
8.5%
November
2,160
2,261
2,428
2,364
2,367
2,558
2,307
2,425
2,520
2,624
2,841
3,651
3,566
-2.3%
49,480
56,875
61,295
7.8%
December
4,658
4,402
4,834
5,076
5,191
5,393
5,275
5,354
5,646
6,428
7,017
7,681
7,924
3.2%
56,497
64,556
69,219
7.2%
Taxable Restaurant Sales - DECEMBER
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1995
2/21/2008
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Page 37 of 104
Short-Term Lodging
Month To Date
Year To Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Actual
Actual
2006
2007
Monthly
Actual
Actual
Actual
YTD
% CHG
2005
2006
2007
% CHG
January
8,555
9,004
10,173
10,627
10,434
9,877
9,547
9,501
8,867
9,650
10,342
11,997
14,257
18.8%
10,342
11,997
14,257
18.8%
February
9,310
11,185
10,208
11,451
11,387
11,501
11,450
11,297
9,743
10,877
11,762
12,972
14,994
15.6%
22,104
24,969
29,251
17.1%
12,375
13,790
15,532
14,614
14,698
16,219
15,822
16,084
14,653
13,634
15,956
18,021
21,079
17.0%
38,060
42,990
50,330
17.1%
3,539
4,463
4,042
4,867
5,214
4,379
4,315
3,515
2,815
3,793
3,486
5,176
6,178
19.4%
41,546
48,166
56,508
17.3%
479
575
538
616
626
739
599
806
897
800
711
957
1,048
9.5%
42,257
49,123
57,556
17.2%
June
1,472
1,475
1,623
1,579
1,786
2,087
2,131
2,135
1,680
1,941
2,478
2,262
3,216
42.2%
44,735
51,385
60,772
18.3%
July
2,656
3,033
2,956
3,648
3,762
3,876
3,733
3,822
3,945
4,023
4,217
4,730
5,001
5.7%
48,952
56,115
65,773
17.2%
August
2,438
2,725
2,829
3,352
3,146
3,299
2,847
2,749
2,456
2,730
2,981
3,622
4,104
13.3%
51,933
59,737
69,877
17.0%
September
1,746
1,627
1,482
1,701
1,675
2,031
1,564
1,757
1,980
2,021
2,150
2,695
3,022
12.1%
54,083
62,432
72,899
16.8%
709
890
994
893
928
926
1,092
882
750
859
1,130
1,305
1,541
18.1%
55,213
63,737
74,440
16.8%
November
1,482
1,515
2,081
1,831
1,631
1,753
1,452
1,500
1,613
1,821
2,130
2,936
2,812
-4.2%
57,343
66,673
77,252
15.9%
December
8,458
8,548
9,639
9,589
9,014
10,186
8,477
9,654
9,988
11,498
12,503
14,084
14,878
5.6%
69,846
80,757
92,130
14.1%
March
April
May
October
Taxable Short-Term Lodging Sales - DECEMBER
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1995
2/21/2008
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Page 38 of 104
Grocery/Liquor Stores
Month To Date
Year To Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Actual
Actual
2006
2007
Monthly
Actual
Actual
Actual
YTD
% CHG
2005
2006
2007
% CHG
January
2,280
2,458
2,746
3,104
2,977
2,999
3,242
3,472
3,314
3,570
3,589
3,977
5,154
29.6%
3,589
3,977
5,154
29.6%
February
2,371
2,595
2,702
3,020
3,119
3,296
3,501
2,931
3,643
3,714
3,949
4,233
4,527
6.9%
7,538
8,210
9,681
17.9%
March
3,068
3,383
3,839
3,960
4,199
4,282
4,366
4,311
3,988
3,968
4,449
4,585
4,806
4.8%
11,987
12,795
14,487
13.2%
April
1,615
1,928
1,937
2,325
2,105
2,330
2,441
2,336
2,437
2,682
2,503
3,149
3,074
-2.4%
14,490
15,944
17,561
10.1%
May
1,103
1,256
1,309
1,440
1,558
1,728
1,779
1,836
1,801
1,823
1,806
1,969
2,237
13.6%
16,296
17,913
19,798
10.5%
June
1,815
1,940
1,772
2,214
2,648
2,784
2,760
2,352
2,354
2,341
2,392
2,584
2,787
7.9%
18,688
20,497
22,585
10.2%
July
2,008
2,283
2,494
2,701
2,862
3,152
2,527
3,253
3,303
3,266
3,414
3,588
3,854
7.4%
22,102
24,085
26,439
9.8%
August
1,993
2,266
2,364
2,559
2,587
2,861
3,404
3,117
3,216
3,103
3,292
3,529
3,780
7.1%
25,394
27,614
30,219
9.4%
September
1,799
1,959
2,122
2,311
2,430
2,765
2,231
2,284
2,409
2,456
2,671
2,757
2,839
3.0%
28,065
30,371
33,058
8.8%
8.4%
October
1,266
1,407
1,584
1,644
1,748
1,969
1,965
1,990
2,066
2,069
2,239
2,372
2,420
2.0%
30,304
32,743
35,478
November
1,578
1,602
1,804
2,330
2,152
2,339
1,970
1,597
2,096
2,096
2,214
2,377
2,482
4.4%
32,518
35,120
37,960
8.1%
December
2,910
3,115
3,477
3,858
3,869
4,305
2,865
5,868
5,897
6,017
6,356
6,604
7,684
16.4%
38,874
41,724
45,644
9.4%
Taxable Grocery/Liquor Sales - DECEMBER
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
IN 2001 A MAJOR GROCERY/LIQUOR VENDOR CHANGED ITS REPORTING FREQUENCY FROM 12 TO 13 PERIODS
THE TOWN IS AWARE OF INCONSISTENT FILING PRACTICES THAT HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED COMPARISONS FOR THIS SECTOR.
2/21/2008
Page 39 of 104
Supplies
Month To Date
Year To Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Actual
Actual Monthly
2006
2007
% CHG
Actual
Actual
Actual
YTD
2005
2006
2007
% CHG
January
466
635
676
728
884
1,216
1,527
1,327
1,294
1,574
1,720
2,081
2,856
37.2%
1,720
2,081
2,856
37.2%
February
515
499
522
685
1,126
1,170
1,385
1,106
1,197
1,268
1,669
2,029
2,554
25.9%
3,389
4,110
5,410
31.6%
March
573
712
784
1,055
1,390
1,677
1,558
1,307
1,401
1,630
2,216
2,967
3,091
4.2%
5,605
7,077
8,501
20.1%
April
363
509
525
615
723
946
1,095
1,059
869
1,110
1,359
1,680
1,891
12.6%
6,964
8,757
10,392
18.7%
May
327
571
451
525
654
1,139
1,125
1,128
896
1,261
1,370
2,045
2,150
5.1%
8,334
10,802
12,542
16.1%
June
476
742
870
1,024
1,400
1,615
1,858
1,455
1,696
1,837
2,083
2,836
3,132
10.4%
10,417
13,638
15,674
14.9%
July
719
746
892
852
1,093
1,333
1,642
1,364
1,380
1,694
2,186
2,872
2,863
-0.3%
12,603
16,510
18,537
12.3%
August
836
936
800
1,001
1,314
1,591
1,578
1,217
1,429
1,794
2,211
3,096
3,047
-1.6%
14,814
19,606
21,584
10.1%
September
736
940
1,290
1,230
1,837
2,102
2,105
1,427
1,770
2,865
2,452
3,394
3,251
-4.2%
17,266
23,000
24,835
8.0%
October
778
959
976
910
1,083
1,853
1,899
1,342
1,390
1,980
2,107
2,924
3,287
12.4%
19,373
25,924
28,122
8.5%
November
794
819
752
1,003
1,066
1,378
1,425
1,171
1,173
1,737
1,876
2,537
2,651
4.5%
21,249
28,461
30,773
8.1%
December
737
932
1,269
1,337
1,743
2,441
1,915
1,795
1,810
2,151
2,712
3,091
3,805
23.1%
23,961
31,552
34,578
9.6%
2004
2005
Taxable Supplies Sales - DECEMBER
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1995
2/21/2008
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2006
2007
Page 40 of 104
Utilities
Month To Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Actual
Year to Date
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Monthly
Actual
Actual
Actual
YTD
% CHG
2005
2006
2007
% CHG
January
1,309
1,201
1,320
1,446
1,575
1,625
2,191
2,144
2,093
2,684
2,675
3,829
3,589
-6.3%
2,675
3,829
3,589
February
1,296
1,218
1,250
1,121
1,360
1,359
2,075
1,659
1,800
2,391
2,540
3,056
3,154
3.2%
5,215
6,885
6,743
-6.3%
-2.1%
March
1,398
1,529
1,533
1,591
1,799
2,090
2,067
1,754
1,947
2,299
2,883
3,428
3,515
2.5%
8,098
10,313
10,258
-0.5%
April
1,117
1,181
1,255
1,262
1,227
1,299
1,894
1,724
2,040
1,827
2,741
2,778
2,699
-2.8%
10,839
13,091
12,957
-1.0%
2.2%
May
925
904
1,226
1,047
1,089
1,091
1,599
1,272
1,740
1,647
1,939
1,926
2,384
23.8%
12,778
15,017
15,341
June
927
1,027
780
1,133
1,402
1,510
1,325
1,228
1,466
1,558
1,846
1,713
2,079
21.4%
14,624
16,730
17,420
4.1%
July
778
796
830
913
907
880
1,289
1,147
1,427
1,394
1,663
1,529
1,587
3.8%
16,287
18,259
19,007
4.1%
August
821
844
844
910
913
994
1,336
1,198
1,393
1,408
1,629
1,854
1,616
-12.8%
17,916
20,113
20,623
2.5%
September
923
1,059
1,103
1,249
1,494
1,752
1,354
1,271
1,381
1,435
1,843
1,949
1,796
-7.9%
19,759
22,062
22,419
1.6%
October
809
866
804
854
917
1,039
1,353
1,227
1,429
1,348
2,127
1,987
1,882
-5.3%
21,886
24,049
24,301
1.0%
November
824
935
974
1,049
1,052
1,225
1,348
1,461
1,569
1,856
2,340
2,264
2,245
-0.8%
24,226
26,313
26,546
0.9%
December
1,048
1,381
1,570
1,661
1,885
2,423
1,760
1,852
2,297
2,627
4,005
3,206
3,277
2.2%
28,231
29,519
29,823
1.0%
Taxable Utility Sales - DECEMBER
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
SEVERAL UTILITY VENDORS CHANGED FILING FREQUENCY FROM QUARTERLY TO MONTHLY IN 2001
2/21/2008
Page 41 of 104
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
Chris Kulick, Planner I
Mark Truckey, Assistant Director of Community Development
DATE:
February 14, 2008
SUBJECT:
Capacity Analysis Chapters VI. – IX. Housing, Childcare & Schools
Overview
Continuing with our fourth scheduled installment of our capacity analysis we are presenting information on
our social components, chapters VII. - IX. These three chapters of housing, childcare, & schools are
interrelated and also provide benchmarks for our ability to sustain the needs of our residents and workforce.
The presentation will be broken down as follows:
VII. Housing
• Affordability comparison of average median home price to median income trends
• Number of deed restricted affordable housing units
• Number affordable housing units needed per housing needs assessment, both catch-up and keep up
VIII. Childcare
• Number of childcare slots provided
• Number of children slots needed per needs assessment
IX. Schools
• Number of students compared to recommended occupancy of buildings
• Number of students per teacher
VII. Housing
In an effort to conduct a capacity analysis of the Town’s affordable
housing program, staff utilized our most recent housing needs
assessment to provide baseline data. The council has seen much of
this data previously in the information Laurie Best has shown on
housing.
Affordability comparison of average median home price to
median income trends
A quick, illustrative measure that shows if we are losing or
Page 42 of 104
gaining ground in housing affordability is the comparison of average median home price to average
median income over time. For instance in 1996 the average median income for a Summit County
resident was $35,229. A resident with this income spending 30% of their income on housing could
afford $103,847, somewhat close to the average median home price at the time of $121,000. In 2006 the
average median income for Summit County stood at $54,800 and indicates an affordable purchase price
for housing of up to $194,740. Unfortunately in 200 the average median home price for Summit County
was $417,000, which results in a gap between an affordable price and the average median price of
$222,260. In ten short years the gap between affordability and the average median home price has
grown from $17,153 to $222,260.
Median Home Price
Average Median Home Price Compared to Average
Median Income
$500,000
$400,000
Median Price
$300,000
Income
$200,000
Affordable Price
$100,000
$0
1996
2006
Years
Number of deed restricted affordable housing units in Town
Another way of measuring how we are doing relative to providing affordable housing is to look at the
number of deed restricted affordable units located in the Town over time. In 1999 there were a total of
135 deed restricted units located within the Town by the end of 2007 this number has grown to 485.
Some of the areas of Town with the largest concentrations of owner occupied affordable housing are the
Wellington Neighborhood with 121 units, Gibson Heights 40 units and Vista Point with 19 units. In
addition to owner occupied affordable housing there several developments that have large
concentrations of affordable housing rental units such as Breckenridge Terrace with 180 units, and
Pinewood Village with 74 units.
Deed Restricted Affordable Units
500
400
Deed Restricted
Affordable Units
300
200
100
0
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
Number of Units
600
Years
Page 43 of 104
Number affordable housing units needed per housing needs assessment
Despite the progress the Town has made in producing affordable housing units there is plenty of catch
up to do in order to accommodate need. According to our most recent housing needs assessment it is
estimated there is a need for an additional 914 affordable housing units to satisfy current demand. The
estimate of 914 additional units assumes an estimated 1,000 units of market rate inventory currently are
being utilized as workforce housing, and continue to be utilized in the same way in the future. The
reality is as property values continue to increase many of these market rate options will gradually be
eliminated as workforce housing options, so in the future, need for deed restricted affordable housing
may be much greater than 914 units. The breakdown of the 914 needed units is as follows:
Summary of Workforce Housing Units Needed in Breckenridge*
Total units needed
914
Total rentals needed
Catch-up In-Commuters/Residents (<60% AMI)
Catch-up Seasonal (2 workers/unit) (<50% AMI)
Keep-up (through 2010) (<60% AMI)
Keep-up (2015) (<60% AMI)
314
64
77
84
89
Total ownership units needed (60 to 180% AMI)
Catch-up In-Commuters/Residents
Keep-up (2010)
Keep-up (2015)
600
396
99
105
*Source: Town of Breckenridge Housing Needs Assessment, 2006
VIII. Childcare
As the eighth element of the Town’s capacity analysis,
staff completed a thorough review of existing studies
related to childcare for the Town. Information in this
analysis was obtained through the Town’s most recent
childcare needs assessment, and various Town Council
memos regarding childcare.
Childcare Availability & Need
Obtaining childcare in Breckenridge has traditionally
been difficult for parents for a variety of reasons
including cost, number of available childcare spaces
and the times childcare is offered. Within
Breckenridge there are three main childcare centers
(Little Red, Carriage House, Breckenridge Montessori), which combined currently offer 180 daily slots
of childcare. Additionally the Town’s most recent childcare analysis determined the Kinderhut child
care accommodates, on average, 15 local children a day in the winter and 58 local children a day in the
summer. At the end of the 2007/2008 ski season Kinderhut is slated to close and those spaces will be
lost. In addition to the closing of Kinderhut it is anticipated the Peak 8 child care center, which provides
15 daily spaces of care to Breckenridge Ski Resort employees, will be closed this summer as a result of
the re-development of the base area of Peak 8. By the year 2014 (Buildout) it is anticipated there will be
a deficit of 127 spaces if no action is taken to increase the amount of daily childcare spaces in
Breckenridge. To counteract this situation the Town has recently started construction on the new Valley
Brook childcare center, the center is anticipated to accommodate 69 spaces per day. The new Valley
Brook childcare center is anticipated absorb the current unmet demand as well as the spaces vacated
Page 44 of 104
through the closing of Kinderhut and the Peak 8 childcare center but will not meet any further future
demand. It is anticipate that at least one more childcare facility will need to be constructed to
accommodate demand at buildout beyond the new Valley Brook facility. Listed below are the
breakdowns of the present amount of daily childcare spaces, and current and anticipated future childcare
space deficits.
Present Amount of Daily Childcare Spaces
Number of
Daily Spaces
Childcare Facility
Little Red
Carriage House
Breckenridge Montessori
Kinderhut*
Peak 8 (BSR Employees)*
Total
78
72
30
15 - 58
15
210-253
* Both Kinderhut and Peak 8 Childcare Center are scheduled to close in summer 2008
Childcare Space Deficits
2014
(Buildout)
Town Deficit in
Childcare Spaces
127 1
IX. Schools
An integral part of any community is the quality of its
school system. Educational associations have
established standardized measures for measuring and
comparing capcitities of schools. Listed below are the
established capacity measures each school system
utilizes to gauge itself, along with information on how
the Summit County Schools Breckenridge Pupils
attend, measure up with comparable districts.
•
•
Number of students compared to recommended
capacity of buildings
Number of students per teacher
Breckenridge Schools Enrollment/Capacity (Students) 2
School
Breckenridge Elementary
Upper Blue Elementary
Middle School
High School
1
1995
319
-*
536
589
Enrollment
2000
175
216
662
711
2006
226
230
654
889
Capacity
279
324
900 3
1,000
With the completion of the Valley Brook Child Care Center the deficit of 127 will be decreased by 69 spaces.
Overall deficit could be greater if families increase usage above the present average of two days per week.
2
Summit County School District.
3
Page 45 of 104
Capacity is based on the renovated building that was completed in 2007
Number of Students per Teacher 4
The most common measurement of a school’s capacity that educators use is students per teacher. By
utilizing this measurement it is assumed the lower the students per teacher ratio the more successful the
learning environment. Comparatively our school’s students per teacher numbers are in the middle of the
pack compared to other mountain community schools in Colorado and are very close to the national
average.
Breckenridge
Elementary
Students Per
Grade Teacher
13.3
1
15.3
2
12.9
3
13.3
4
15.7
5
Upper Blue
Elementary
Students Per
Teacher
19.8
12.3
11.9
13.4
12.3
Summit Middle School
Students Per
Grade
Teacher
14.7
6
12.4
7
13.2
8
Summit High School
Students Per
Grade
Teacher
18.8
9
18.3
10
17.6
11
16.5
12
Colorado School Districts
Students per teacher K-12
Telluride
11.3
Aspen
12.0
Park County
12.1
Eagle County
14.0
Steamboat Springs
14.1
Summit County
14.6
U.S. National Average
15.5
Boulder Valley
16.5
Clear Creek
16.9
Colorado State Average
16.9
Lake County
17.1
4
Information is from the Summit County School District and Colorado Department of Education for the 2006/2007
Page 46 of 104
school year
Additional School Capacity Measures
As the measures shown indicate all Summit District schools having Breckenridge students are at the
moment under capacity. The School District’s pupils per classroom average are better than state or
national averages. One measure staff is still exploring is if capacity for will be adequate at buildout. A
representative of the Summit County School District has stated a growth forecast for the District is in the
process of being conducted. This information is anticipated to be available in late May or early June of
2008. When this information becomes available it will be evaluated and added to the capacity analysis.
The District is also working to provide us information on where students reside that attend schools
located within Breckenridge and the percentages of Breckenridge students that attend Summit Middle
and High School.
Council Discussion
Staff looks for any input the Council has on the information provided above. Particularly, input on the
following questions would be helpful:
1. Does the Council agree with the proposed capacity measurements and are there other measurements
the Council feels would be useful exploring?
2. Are there questions or additional information the Council desires regarding the Housing, Childcare,
and Schools analysis?
Page 47 of 104
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Planning Commission
Comprehensive Plan
February 20, 2008
Several years ago staff initiated a process to update the Town’s Master Plan, which was first
adopted in 1984. Over the period of 2004-2006, staff drafted individual chapters of the new
Breckenridge “Comprehensive Plan” and reviewed each chapter first with the Planning
Commission and then with Town Council. Because of numerous conflicting staff commitments
and an evident need to update much of the data included in the Plan, staff was unable to assemble
a final draft of the Plan until now.
Most of the Council was involved in the initial review of the individual plan chapters. However,
a couple of the newer Council members only reviewed the later chapters (e.g., Land Use). Staff
has provided a hard copy of the draft plan for each Council member.
The planning commission has held two work sessions on the entire plan document in February.
They have one more meeting scheduled to discus the plan and make a recommendation to the
Town Council on March 4. Before the March 4 meeting, staff intends to host a public open
house, where the public can review information that summarizes the plan and ask questions of
staff. The draft plan is currently available on the Town’s web site. The proposed schedule for
consideration of the Comprehensive Plan is as follows:
•
•
•
•
February 26 work session with Town Council
March 4 public open house and final recommendation by Planning Commission
March 11 work session with Town Council
March 25 public hearing and potential final action on plan by Town Council
Given that each chapter has already received individual attention from the Council, staff intends
to focus on bigger picture issues in this final review of the Plan. For the February 26 work
session we are providing an overview of the Plan that summarizes the highlights of each chapter,
which is included below.
The draft plan document should incorporate all of the previous comments of the Council. It also
incorporates recent suggestions made by the planning commission. Our focus will be to discuss
general comments and observations that the Council has on the plan on February 26. At the
March 11 meeting, the Council will have had two additional weeks to review the draft and we
will be in a better position to discuss specific wording suggestions the Council may have.
We realize this is a large document that takes some time to review and absorb. As a suggestion,
you may wish to initially concentrate on certain chapters of the Plan, which contain more
substantive goals and policies, such as the Land Use and Housing chapters. In addition, you may
wish to first review the goals and policies at the end of each chapter, as they are the “meat” of the
document. You can then review the earlier narrative text for background and further
explanations.
Page 48 of 104
Summary of Plan Document
The Plan consists of the following chapters, which are summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Introduction
Natural Environment
Population & Demographics
Transportation
Community Facilities
Economy
Housing
Recreation & Tourism
Cultural Arts
Historic Character
Community Character
Land Use
1. Introduction
Provides a basic overview of the Comprehensive Plan, including the purpose of the Plan, the
boundaries of the Plan, and an explanation of goals and policies.
2. Natural Resources
Discusses the important environmental resources of the community, including issues such as
water, air, soils, vegetation, forest resources, visual resources, mineral resources, wildlife, and
natural hazards. Goals and policies address numerous issues, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Protection of the natural resources
A discussion of environmental sustainability and policy guidance to establish a
“Sustainability Plan”, which could serve as the Town’s overall blueprint for a holistic
approach to environmental sustainability.
Consideration for enhancing the Town’s existing wetlands policies and regulations
Need to address insect infestations, forest health, wildfire potential and mitigation, and
watershed planning
Encouragement of reclamation of dredge piles
Need to protect large, uninterrupted corridors for wildlife habitat
3. Population and Demographics
Provides an overview of historic trends and current patterns in population growth in the Town,
including an analysis of permanent resident population, second homeowners, and peak population
days that include visitors. Projects future population. Analyzes population by gender, race,
education level, and income.
4. Transportation
Inventories and analyzes all segments of the transportation system, including the road system,
parking, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian networks. Goals and policies address numerous issues,
including:
Page 49 of 104
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A desire to have a multi-modal transportation system that is convenient, economical, and
sustainable
A goal of making the Town a place people do not have to use their cars once they have
arrived
A need to have a coordinated effort with the ski area in managing traffic during peak days
Support for improvements to Highway 9 and other modifications to roadways to improve
traffic and circulation
Extension of transit service to neighborhoods with high local populations
Improved pedestrian and bicycle options throughout Town as alternative transportation
modes
Extension of the Riverwalk
5. Community Facilities
Inventories and analyzes the different public facilities in the Town, including the water and sewer
systems, the school system, the fire protection district, electric power, solid waste, town and
county government, and day care. Goals and policies address numerous issues, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A goal of planning for facilities that meet the community’s long-range needs
Coordination on planning with different service providers
A suggested requirement for development to pay for a share of services
Undergrounding of utility lines
A desire to acquire more water rights and provide additional storage capacity
Support to existing and new daycare facilities
6. Economy
Provides an overview of the Town’s economic drivers in the past and today. Analyzes tax
revenues, skier visits, and employment rates. Outlines strategies to maintain and improve the
Town’s economy. Goals and policies include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A desire to have a strong year-round economy
Support for year-round and off-season activities that improve economy
A desire to receive higher visitation from second homeowners
Implementation of the heritage tourism master plan
Promotes encouragement of day skiers to stay longer in Town and increase overnight
Colorado visitors
A desire to attract more destination visitors
7. Housing
Discusses the historical and current housing situation. Describes occupancy by renters, resident
owners, and second homeowners. Outlines the results of the recent housing needs assessment for
the Town and identifies the number of existing workforce housing units the Town has. Describes
trends and strategies for maintaining housing for locals. Goals and policies include:
•
Goal of having a diversity of permanently affordable housing in the community, at a
range of incomes up to 180 % Area Median Income
Page 50 of 104
•
•
•
•
•
•
A goal of 25 to 35 percent of the housing in the community to be for local residents
A goal of maintaining or improving on the current figure of 47 % of the Town’s
workforce being housed in the Town.
Need to identify and landbank sites for workforce housing
Creation of partnerships with private developers to create workforce housing
Utilization of new annexations to provide affordable housing
Consideration of a new absolute policy in the Development Code or incentives to
encourage more housing
8. Recreation and Tourism
Describes the numerous recreational amenities in the community, including alpine and Nordic
skiing facilities, the Recreation Center, the ice arena, parks, the golf course, and open space.
Goals and policies include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Goal of providing a diversity of recreational opportunities for different ability levels
Partnership with the ski area on projects of mutual community benefit
Future expansion of the Gold Run Nordic center
Plans and enhancement of the Town’s open space and trails system
A desire to make Breckenridge a destination for mountain bikers and Nordic skiers
Coordinated planning for future recreational needs
9. Cultural Resources
Describes cultural arts, programs, and events provided in the community, including the public art
program, the Riverwalk Center and its two music festivals, the international snow sculpture
contest, the Backstage Theatre, and the Arts District. Goals and policies include:
•
•
•
•
A goal of providing diverse and affordable cultural programs to the community
Define the Town’s role of providing staffing and facilities support and leaving marketing
to other agencies such as the Breckenridge Resort Chamber
A goal of having special events be self-funded
Implementation of the Arts District Master Plan
10. Historic Character
Provides a brief history of the Town and identifies efforts the Town has made to preserve its
historic sites and structures. Describes efforts to promote visitation from heritage tourists. Goals
and policies include:
•
•
Promotion of historic preservation projects, both within the Town and in outlying areas
such as the Golden Horseshoe
Support for heritage tourism and the work of the Breckenridge Heritage Alliance
11. Community Character
Describes the different components that make up the community, including the people, the built
environment, and the natural setting. Articulates a desire to preserve the small town atmosphere,
insure that locals can continue to live and work here, and preserve the natural setting.
Page 51 of 104
12. Land Use
Describes the direction provided in other Town planning documents. Inventories land use and
identifies the percent that the Town is built-out. Describes residential, commercial, and
recreational/open space land use patterns in the community and recommendations on future land
use. Describes land use in surrounding unincorporated areas and annexation issues. Goals and
policies address numerous issues, including:
There are two main sections of the Land Use Chapter. The first section addresses land use
primarily within the town limits. The second section addresses unincorporated areas within the
Town’s “Three Mile area of influence” and sets forth the Town’s annexation policies.
The Land Use Chapter attempts to carry forth the goals and policies of the Town’s Vision Plan
and the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan. As the chapter notes, a fairly clear direction for the shape
of development in the Town and surrounding areas has emerged as a result of these previouslyadopted documents. This Plan mainly reinforces that direction, with some additional guidance
intended to advance certain land use policies of the Town. Some of the new ideas embraced in
this update include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Goals and policies related to capping ultimate residential development and reducing
overall buildout (carries out the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan).
A goal to achieve a better balance of permanent versus second homeowners in the
community.
Some relatively minor suggested changes to the Town’s Land Use Guidelines (LUGs),
and a more substantive suggestion to establish LUGs for the Highway 9 corridor at
Farmer’s Korner.
Policies focused on preserving the first floor of Main Street businesses for pedestrianfriendly commercial retail uses, and suggested changes to the Development Code to
discourage office uses on the first floor on Main Street.
Policies focused on further discouraging the conversion of commercial properties to
residential uses.
Policies related to analyzing needs for different land uses and exploring additional
opportunities to locate needed land uses (e.g., affordable housing, service commercial
uses, commercial offices).
Policies on limitations on the size of single-family homes.
Policies encouraging appropriate redevelopment.
Policies supporting the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
Policies for the Town’s Three Mile Area of influence promoting coordination between
the County and Town on land use decisions, planning, and regulation development.
A requirement for fiscal impact analyses to accompany proposed annexations.
New annexation policies emphasizing that significant public benefits must result from
potential annexations.
Recommended ratios for affordable versus free-market housing units in any new
annexation proposals.
A requirement to replace any existing affordable housing stock that is removed as a result
of the annexation.
Page 52 of 104
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
Glen Morgan, Chief Building Official
DATE:
February 19, 2008 for meeting of February 26, 2008
SUBJECT:
Sustainable, (Green) Building Code, a new Energy Code and up dating existing
Building Codes to the 2006 Editions
Building Codes Update
The Building Codes currently adopted by the Town are the 2000 International Code series and
the 2002 National Electric Code. The International Code series is published and updated by the
International Code Council on a three-year basis .The 2006 series of codes are the most updated
published codes. The Electrical Code is published by the National Fire Protection Agency and
the 2008 Code is the latest published edition. To enforce the provisions of the latest published
codes Council must adopt those codes by reference along with local amendments as deemed
appropriate. In conjunction with the code update, staff is also including additional code
amendments that will implement the recently legislated state energy code and that implement the
proposed sustainable building code. The purpose of this memo is to seek comments and feedback
regarding proceeding or otherwise with an updated Code adoption process.
New Energy Code Requirements
Colorado House Bill 07-1146 effective July 1, 2007, requires that any Municipality that has
adopted a Building Code must adopt an energy code by July 1,2008. An energy code means, at a
minimum, the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code, or any successor. Breckenridge
does not currently have an adopted energy code. The proposed Sustainable Building Code that
will be discuses further in this memo, if adopted will only go part way to meeting this
requirement. The State legislation encompasses all buildings, including mixed use, commercial
and residential. The Sustainable Building Code does not address commercial buildings.
To meet the requirements of HB07-1146 specifically for commercial and mixed use structures it
is recommended that Council consider adopting the 2006 International Energy Conservation
Code in conjunction with the proposed Sustainable Building Code
Page 53 of 104
Sustainable Building Code
A joint task force, the Efficient Building Code Advisory Group, has been meeting since the fall
of 2005 to address the issue of developing a Green Building Code for jurisdictions in Summit
County. The group is comprised of representatives from local building departments as well as
architects, engineers, builders (including the Builders Association), the High Country
Conservation Center, ski area representatives and other interested parties.
Initially the Efficient Building Codes Advisory Group determined that two principles would help
guide their work:
1. The Green Building Code should be consistent throughout all of the County jurisdictions.
2. The code should address the unique climatic and market place conditions in Summit
County as opposed to adopting a generic national code or copying a neighboring towns
code.
Given these priorities, the Efficient Building Codes Advisory Group has been working toward
developing a code, which envisions that all homes in the future will be “equally green”. In order
to achieve this goal, the following Green Building Code components have been proposed for
new residential development.
1. Mandatory requirements, including minimum insulation values for walls and ceilings,
maximum heat loss values for windows, minimum efficiency ratings for boilers, etc. These
mandatory requirements will at a minimum meet the state energy code requirements established
this year by the state legislature.
2. Secondary requirements, addressing additional energy efficiencies, green building practices,
and building size. The secondary requirements would set minimum standards for renewable
/engineered lumber used, windows in bathrooms/garages, window insulation requirements, etc.,
which could only be varied from if other green measures are incorporated in the development. In
addition, single-family homes larger than 3,000 square feet (and multi-family units larger than
1200 square feet) would be required to earn points by undertaking additional green building
measures. Points would be required for each additional 50 square feet of living space; so larger
homes would be required to incorporate more green measures.
3. Intensive Energy Use Amenity requirements. These amenities include hot tubs heated
pools, heated drives and patios, out door gas fire pits and air conditioning. These types of
amenities will need to be offset by additional green or energy efficient measures.
To summarize the Green Building Code approach, there will be minimum energy efficiency and
green building requirements for all new residential construction. In addition, larger dwelling
units with numerous energy-consuming amenities will need to include an array of energy
efficient and green measures that will pay for or offset their size and amenities. The green
building standards are not proposed to apply to commercial development.
Page 54 of 104
Accompanying the code will be the “Summit Sustainable Building Resource Guide”. The
resource guide has been prepared by the High Country Conservation Center in conjunction with
the advisory group and will be the go to place, to find Energy Efficient / Green building
techniques, materials or products that will offset the points required by the code. It is envisioned
that the Resource Guide will continue to be maintained and updated by the High Country
Conservation Center and that a Technical Panel will be responsible for determining points values
for new products or practices and their inclusion in the Resource Guide. It is proposed that the
technical panel be made up of Town and County Building Officials, a Colorado Licensed
Designer (architect/ engineer) a Builders Association representative and a High Country
Conservation Center representative.
As drafted the Sustainable Building Code is applicable to all new residential occupancy
construction, including attached and detached single family residences, additions, alterations,
multi-family buildings and dwelling units associated with mixed use development. Where
builders propose to follow an alternative nationally recognized green building program such as
LEED or Green Globes the program may be used in lieu of the sustainable building program.
Almost all of the Green Building Programs adopted by Municipalities in Colorado address only
single-family construction. The Advisory Group wavered on including or excluding multi family
buildings for some time. As drafted the code addresses multi-family-buildings using the same
design criteria as single-family buildings. However the common areas, (parking garages, lobbies,
corridors, commercial spaces etc) have not been included as floor area that must be offset. These
common areas will be required to meet future adopted Energy Code Standards. Amenities such
as swimming pools, hot tubs, heated paved surfaces, air conditioning and out door fire pits will
be treated equally for single-family and multi-family projects by the Sustainable Code.
The Draft Code has been through a few changes since the October Council work session. Most
of the changes involve clarifying methods of compliance and adjusting some values to meet the
International Energy Code provisions. Additionally a draft of the Resource Guide and a
submittal checklist are now available.
Two main questions where raised by Council in October.
1. What do other jurisdictions do with monetary buyout option funds?
2. Should we look at restricting the number of gas fireplaces inside dwellings?
1. The draft code does not include a monetary buy out option. Some Green Codes do include this
type of option. The Advisory Group debated this and resolved that a monetary buy out option
would work against the aims and objectives of the code and could be seen as establishing an
unfair disparity between different classes or groups of persons impacted by the code.
Aspen is the best example of a code that includes a monetary buy out. The Pitkin County and
Aspen building codes require new homes to meet an energy “budget.” Homeowners who wish to
consume additional energy have the option of installing a renewable energy system or paying a
renewable energy mitigation fee instead. The funds collected from their fee are managed by the
“Community Office for Resource Efficiency” (CORE), a local non-profit. The funds are
dedicated to energy efficient and renewable energy projects in the Roaring Fork valley. To date
$8 million has been raised. Approximately $1.5 million was raised in 2007.
Page 55 of 104
2. It is not uncommon to see five plus interior gas fireplaces in new homes in Breckenridge.
These fireplaces vary from sealed combustion decorative appliances in bedrooms / bathrooms to
open gas log sets in living room areas. While these appliances do not serve as primary heat
sources they do produce heat, which assists the primary system resulting in less demand from the
zone in which the fireplace is located. In a new building, built to the proposed specifications of
the Sustainable Code (good insulation good windows etc), the heat from fireplaces will not be
excessively wasteful. A large concern in the Green Code movement is that second homes in
particular consume a lot of energy while unoccupied, (heating, hot tubs drive way melt etc).
Fireplaces in a home will only be used when the home is occupied. Having regard to the above, a
restriction on the number of indoor gas fireplaces has not been included in the draft code.
Development of the Sustainable Building Code has been a two and a half year project involving
multi jurisdictional cooperation and a task force including local environmental groups, building
designers, builders and members of the Summit County Home Builders Association. Council’s
support of the process and patience has allowed us to build a locally grown code from the ground
up. On January 31st the draft code was presented to public forum co hosted by the Summit
County Builders Association. Many questions where raised and a number of those have already
been addressed through changes in the code and the Resource Guide. The Builders Association
have notified the Advisory group that they have concerns with the code and accompanying
documents as drafted, and will be forwarding those comments in writing. At the time of writing
this report those comments have not been received. However a meeting of the Advisory Group
has been set for February 28th to discuss and resolve the Builders Association’s and any other
comments received.
In light of the time it has taken to get to this point, staff feels that the Sustainable
Code can be complete and ready for a first reading in conjunction with updated Building Codes
and the new Energy Conservation Code on March 11, followed by a public hearing and possible
adoption on March 25th. This is a tight schedule given the outstanding concerns of the Builders
Association and could result in alienating them near the end of a long cooperative process.
However it is a schedule that could be achieved if Council determines accordingly.
A copy of the Draft Code is attached for Councils review. The draft resource guide can be found
at www.highcountryconservation.org Staff asks for Council’s input on the following.
Does the Council have suggestions or concerns with the code update as currently drafted?
Does the Council wish to move forward with the Sustainable Building Code amendment
hearings in March?
Page 56 of 104
Town of _________
February 2008 Draft
Sustainable Building Ordinance
1.
Purpose
The purpose of these regulations is to set forth the requirements for the Town’s Sustainable
Building Ordinance. The Chief Building Official has the discretion to render interpretations of
this ordinance and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its
provisions.
These regulations were adopted by The Town of ______________ on ____________________
The intent of the Town of _______________ Sustainable Building Program (SB Program) is to
encourage cost effective and sustainable building methods to conserve fossil fuels, water and
other natural resources, to promote the reuse and recycling of building materials and a reduction
in solid waste, and to promote enhanced indoor health and amenity in residential buildings.
The Town of _____________ SB Program uses a combination of mandatory and secondary
(discretionary) requirements combined with a points based system to ensure that all residential
buildings achieve or exceed a minimum level of efficiency with out limiting or restricting the
size, design, and type of construction of the buildings or the amenity level provided.
The Town of _____________ SB Program consists of three interconnected parts.
1. Mandatory Measures.
2. Secondary Measures, measures that must be met or offset by measures of equal value
from the Summit Sustainable Building Resource Guide.
3. The Summit Sustainable Building Resource Guide (the Resource Guide) (Appendix A).
A guide that contains Sustainable recommendations, practices and point values.
2.
Applicability
The provisions of this code shall apply to all new residential occupancy construction, alterations
and additions, including but not limited to, one and two family dwellings, and multi-family
buildings (a building containing three or more dwelling units). Further, the provisions of this
code shall apply to all residential dwelling units associated with a mixed-use development. For
alterations and additions all new work shall comply with the provisions of this code and for the
purposes of calculating building size the entire building, existing and proposed will be used.
Buildings that meet the mandatory measures as required in Section 4 and the secondary measures
in Sections 5, and 6 as is applicable to the project type are deemed to comply with this code.
SUSTAINABLE BUILDING ORDINANCE - 2/21/2008 – DRAFT
Page 57 of 104
Buildings that meet the mandatory measures in Section 4 but do not meet the secondary
measures in Sections 5 and 6 as is applicable to the project type must off set the level of non
compliance by undertaking alternative measures and achieving points of equal value as identified
in the Resource Guide.
Exception; Buildings that meet and receive certification under L.E.E.D, Green Globes or other
approved Nationally recognized Green Building Programs may be deemed to meet the Town of
____________SB Program.
3.
Compliance
These regulations identify the specific requirements and measures for complying with the SB
Program. A completed SB Checklist must be submitted with the appropriate building permit
application.
Compliance with each measure described below or found in the Resource Guide will be
demonstrated by one of two methods. If compliance is “Inspected,” Town staff will inspect
these measures during typical inspections and shall require the submission of appropriate
documentation to establish compliance. All materials and/or methods selected on the submitted
Sustainable Building Checklist must be identified on the plans. If a measure is indicated as
“Self-Certified,” the applicant’s signature on the SB Checklist serves as certification that a
measure will be complied with as described in each section. The Town of ______________
reserves the right to conduct follow-up inspections or compliance audits of self-certified
measures prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). If for any reason and
inspection or compliance audit fails, no C.O. will be issued until such time as those self-certified
measures are corrected.
4.
Mandatory Measures
The following measures are mandatory for all projects:
4.1
Insulation
Exterior wall Insulation R-21
Roof Ceiling Insulation R- 49
Basement Wall Insulation R-10 (continuous) R13 (framing cavity)
Conditioned crawl Space Wall (below grade) R-10 (continuous) R-13 (framing
cavity)
Conditioned Crawl Space Wall (above grade) R-19
Under Slab Insulation R- 10
Slab Edge Insulation R- 10, R-15 for heated slabs
Floor (over crawl) Insulation R-30
Cantilever Floor R-30
A reduction of the above minimum values that is permitted by the International
Energy Conservation Code will be permitted by this code.
Compliance: Inspected (Insulation)
Page 58 of 104
4.2
Fenestrations, (windows and doors)
Windows,
maximum U- value of .35
Doors,
maximum U- value of .35
Skylights and other fenestrations,
maximum U- Value .60
Compliance: Inspected (Plan Check and Final) Inspector must be able to clearly
identify the U-value and the window type.
4.3
Exterior opaque Doors
1 Exterior opaque door assembly to the house and one to the garage are exempt
from the fenestrations U-Factor requirement. Over head garage doors are also
exempt.
Compliance: Inspected (Final)
4.4
Energy efficient boiler or furnace
When a boiler is installed, it must meet a minimum 87% efficiency rating. For a
forced air system, an 88% efficient system must be installed.
4.5
Water Heater
Any conventional (storage) water heater installed must meet a minimum .63
energy factor (EF) rating for gas and a minimum .93 energy factor (EF) rating for
electric. If a tankless, indirect, solar, or heat pump water heater is installed, this
mandatory requirement shall be deemed to be met.
4.6
Owners Manual
An owner’s manual, which includes the operation instructions of all mechanical
systems and energy saving systems installed in the house, shall be provided to the
homeowner. Not required for Multi Family.
Page 59 of 104
5. Secondary Measures
Secondary measures for sustainable building must be provided for according to the
specific units types and unit sizes outlined within this Section 5. In order to provide the
designer and builder with flexibility, each secondary measure listed is also accompanied
by an “offset value.” This offset value refers to the alternative methods and materials
found in the Resource Guide, which may be used instead of the listed secondary measure.
5.1.1
Building Size; Single Family (Attached and Detached)
For every 50 square feet of conditioned space (including heated garage)
over 3,000 square feet, a dwelling unit shall be required to earn one point
which must be offset by applicable measures listed in the Resource Guide.
Dwelling units of less than 3000 square feet will be credited with one
point for every 50 square feet less than 3000 square feet.
5.1.2 Unit Size; Multi Family (3 or more units) or Residential units in
mixed use developments.
For every 50 square feet of conditioned space within a dwelling unit over
1200 square feet, a building shall be required to earn one point, which
must be offset by applicable measures listed in the Resource Guide.
5.1.3
Building Size Additions
For the purpose of calculating total building size the existing plus the
proposed building /unit size will be used.
A single-family building that has a total building size of more than 3000
square feet shall be required to earn one point for every additional 50
square feet of new conditioned space, which must be offset according to
applicable measures listed in the Resource Guide. The amount of new
conditioned space between the existing home size and 3000 square feet
will not need to be offset.
A multi family unit that has a total unit size of more than 1200 square feet
shall be required to earn one point for every 50 square feet of new living
space which must be off set by applicable measures listed in the Resource
Guide. The amount of new living space between the existing living space
and 1200 square feet will not need to be offset.
Page 60 of 104
5.2
Renewable or Engineered Lumber
Install the following quantities of renewable/engineered lumber in each
building: Multi Family and Mixed Use Buildings of non- combustible
construction as defined by the Building Code are deemed to comply with
this requirement.
Minimum of 60% of renewable or engineered lumber in roof framing
Minimum of 80% of renewable or engineered lumber in floor framing
Minimum 80% of wood beams and headers to be of renewable or
engineered lumber.
The percentage area for floors and roofs will be measured as a percentage
of the floor/roof area in plan view.
The percentage of beams and headers will be measured as a percentage of
the total lineal length of all wood beams and headers.
Off set value, 1 point for every 10% less than required and 1point credit
for every 10% more than required
Compliance: Inspected (Plan Review / Framing)
5.3
Day Lighting
All bathrooms/powder rooms/laundry rooms and garages have windows
and/or skylights to the outside or transoms to adjoining rooms, meeting
natural light requirements of the Building Code.
Offset value, 2 points for every bathroom/ powder room/ laundry room
without exterior windows.
Compliance: Inspected (Plan Review / Final)
5.4
Air Stratification
All vaulted / raised ceiling areas greater than fifteen feet above the
finished floor level are to include an air destratification fan or vent system.
Off set value, 5 points
5.5
Window Insulation
All high windows in vaulted ceiling areas or high ceiling rooms greater
than fifteen feet above finished floor level shall install insulated
blinds/curtains that are readily controlled from the floor below.
Off set value, 1 points for each 10 sq/ft of window area above ten feet
without insulated blinds/curtains.
Compliance: Inspected (Plan Review / Final )
Page 61 of 104
5.6
Recycling
Install a recycling center in all kitchen areas. Provide a dedicated space in
all garages for the storage of recycling bins.
Off set value, 3 points
5.7
Energy Star® rated appliances
Install an energy efficient dishwasher, refrigerator / freezer, and clothes
washer. Energy efficient appliance designation is indicated on the
required Department of Energy “Energy Star®” label.
Off set value, 1 point for each appliance not rated or not provided.
6.
Intensive Energy Use Amenities
Any new residential occupancy construction, alterations and additions, and new
construction, including but not limited to, one and two family dwellings, and multifamily dwellings that propose any of the following amenities must offset the energy
usage in the following amounts:
6.1
Out door, gas fire pits/fire places and stoves, (excluding grills)
Off set value, 5 points for appliance.
6.2
Hot tubs, spa pools and swimming pools.
Off set value, 5 points for every 50 square feet of hot tub, spa, or pool water
surface area.
6.3
Outdoors heated surfaces including exterior drives, pathways patios,
and garage aprons, etc.
Off set value, 2 points for every 100 sq/ft of out door heated surface
6.4 Air Conditioning
Off set value 5 points for every 1000sq/ft of air conditioned space
Page 62 of 104
7.0 Example Single Family Residence
Sect 5.1.1, a 3,400 square foot house with a unheated garage would be required
to provide measures to off set a total of 8 points (3,400-3000)=400 divided by 50
=8 points
Sect5.2, if the house is predominantly a truss roof with I joist flooring and LVL
headers then no off set points would be required.
Sects 5.3, assume there are three bathrooms a separate laundry and a garage.
The garage and two bathrooms have windows. Measures to off set a total of
4 points, (2 for the bathroom and 2 for the laundry) would be required.
Sect 5.4, the house has a vaulted ceiling and a reversible direction fan is provided
that will move the built up heat in the vault. No off set points required.
Sect5.5, the builder has chosen not to provide insulated blinds to the windows in
the vault. The windows fifteen feet above the floor area have 25 square feet of
glazed area. Measures to off set a total of 3 points would be required. (1 point for
each 10 sq/ft or part thereof.)
Sect 5.6, a recycling center is provided in the kitchen and a dedicated space has
been provided for recycling in the garage. No off set points required.
Sect5.7, the builder will not be providing a washer and dryer but will provide
energy star rated range, dishwasher, and fridge. Measures to off set a total of 1
point would be required. (1 point for a washer not provided)
Section 6, a 7’x7’ out door hot tub is proposed but no heated exterior surfaces or
outdoor gas appliances. Measures to offset a total of 5 points would be required
The total off set points required for the above example would be 22 points
The building will include in the project additional green measures from the
resource guide that individually or collectively equal 22 off set points.
Page 63 of 104
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
DATE:
February 20, 2008
SUBJECT:
Ground Floor Office Uses
On Wednesday, February 20 staff is holding a public open house to gather public input on the downtown
ground floor office issue. Three options will be presented at the open house for public reaction. These
options were discussed previously with the Town Council. Questionnaires will be handed out to all open
house participants for them to fill out and offer their input on the issue.
Do to the timing of the open house, staff is unable to provide the results of the public questionnaire prior to
the Council meeting. However, staff intends to present a summary of the results of the questionnaire at the
Council meeting. With this piece of public input, the Council can then discuss how to proceed with the
ground floor issue.
Page 64 of 104
Memorandum
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Town Council
Open Space and Trails Staff
Golden Horseshoe Nordic Trail Planning
February 20, 2008
Introduction
Background
Town Council has provided direction to Town staff and BOSAC to pursue the creation
and promotion of a regionally significant nordic ski area in the Upper Blue Basin. That
direction is outlined in the following Council-approved and commissioned documents:
• Town Vision Plan (2002)
• Upper Blue Nordic Master Plan (2002)
• GOCO $600,000 Local Government grant for the purchase of the Peabody
Placer as the Peabody Nordic and Backcountry Ski Area (2005)
• Nordic Feasibility Study by Nordic Group International (2006)
• Council outlined memo to the Golden Horseshoe citizen’s group regarding
the proposed nordic expansion (2006- attached)
• Golden Horseshoe Travel Recommendations (2007)
Cumulatively, these documents provide an increasingly specific framework to guide staff
and BOSAC in pursuing an expansion of the Gold Run Nordic Center (GRNC) into the
north-facing Gold Run drainage in the Golden Horseshoe. Staff is now presenting an
implementation plan for phase 1 of this proposed nordic expansion.
Experimental Grooming
Through cooperative efforts during the past two nordic seasons, staff has secured
temporary permission on an annual basis from Summit County and the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) to groom an experimental loop of existing trails/roads in the proposed
expansion area. These trails take skiers from the Jessie Mill site (where the existing
groomed trails terminate) up to the Preston town site and then around a loop utilizing
Turnpike, Draw and Extension Mill routes. The experimental grooming operation has
been met with good community acceptance and usage over the past two seasons, but
approval for this experimental loop will expire after this season unless the Town submits
and is granted a formal Nordic Master Development Plan from the USFS.
Consultant Direction
Based on the recommendations within the 2006 Nordic Feasibility Study, which outlined
a three phase expansion approach, staff initiated a specific on-the-ground trail design for
phase 1 of the nordic expansion. This phase targets the Peabody Placer because it:
• Is Town and County open space, rather than National Forest, meaning the
permitting process is likely more expedient.
Page 65 of 104
•
•
Is directly adjacent to the existing groomed nordic ski terrain at the
GRNC.
Offers unique mine-altered terrain that would enhance nordic trail
alignments and user experience.
In 2007, nordic trail consultant Morton Trails (http://www.mortontrails.com) was hired to
design a trail system to provide specific trail alignments on the Peabody Placer (phase 1)
and the Western Bench (the logical and proximate location for the phase 2 of the
proposed expansion). Two-time Olympian John Morton and his partner David Lindahl
are known internationally for their skills in planning and designing quality nordic trails,
many of which are used as competition venues. These consultants designed and laid out
feasible trail alignments that would work as both winter nordic and summer nonmotorized trails.
In conjunction with this planning effort, archaeological and environmental specialists
were brought in to assess the proposed trail corridors in an effort to avoid impacts to
sensitive sites while capitalizing on interpretive opportunities where they exist. The
environmental analysis evaluated potential tree loss through pine beetle infestation,
wetland impacts, wildlife impacts, opportune use of likely remaining tree stands to
protect future trail conditions, and the integration of trail construction with forest health
and fire mitigation measures. The archeological assessment identified key historic
resources to be avoided and others that could serve as outstanding interpretive
opportunities for winter and summer users.
Permitting Process
With this information in hand, Town staff investigated the necessary steps in the
permitting process for trail construction under both the Summit County and Forest
Service jurisdictions. The County conditional use permitting process for such excavation
work will require a wetland survey in the spring, and would need to be fully reviewed by
County staff and the Upper Blue Planning Commission prior to construction.
The Gold Run Nordic Center Master Development Plan is required by the Forest Service
to continue the experimental grooming that has occurred for the past two seasons, and for
any future new trail construction on National Forest lands. Through this documentation,
the Town can obtain special use authorization for the nordic trail system concept on the
National Forest. Actual site-specific construction and management of the nordic trail
system will need to be evaluated more fully by the USFS (NEPA analysis) prior to
construction approval. Also, to secure permission to groom the ‘experimental loop’ for
the 2008-2009 season, the Gold Run Nordic Center Master Development Plan needs to be
submitted to the USFS in the next month to allow for adequate review by USFS staff.
Phase I: Proposed Peabody Nordic Trail
Purpose and Need
A Peabody nordic loop was initially designed by Town staff when the Gold Run Nordic
Center first opened. A portion of this trail was built and incorporated into the existing
Page 66 of 104
Gold Run trail system approximately four years ago and remains particularly popular
with intermediate skiers, local skiers and skiers with dogs (as dogs are allowed on this
particular trail).
The additional 5 km trail on the Peabody Placer designed in 2007 by Morton Trails
addresses a number of needs and desires. It would be one of the first trails in the county
specifically designed and constructed for the nordic experience. It would utilize terrain
that has been highly altered by historical hydraulic mining and could capitalize on the
historical landscape, which would be a unique attraction for nordic skiers. It would also
offer appropriate intermediate terrain for nordic skiing, with moderate grades and rolling
hills, as opposed to the either very flat or extremely vertical terrain like many of the other
GRNC trails. The north-facing aspect of the Peabody Placer would retain snow for
longer periods of time, helping Gold Run open on a timely basis and stay open at the end
of the season when much of the golf course terrain must be closed for operational
purposes.
Design
The proposed 5 km loop has been designed to provide a sustainable and fun skiing
experience that can also serve summer non-motorized users. To ensure efficient and safe
grooming, the trail corridor is designed to be 14 feet wide and 14 feet high to
accommodate the GRNC groomer. Within the current alignment corridor, however,
flexibility is anticipated in an effort to preserve trees that will survive the mountain pine
beetle infestation. At the recommendation of Morton Trails, the 5 km loop is intended to
be one-way, which allows for more specific uphill and downhill trail designs and
enhances a safer skiing experience. Lastly, the design takes into account the various
historical, wetland and topographical features to enhance the skier experience and protect
open space values.
Capital and Operational Costs
When Town staff initially approached potential road and trail contractors about the cost
of construction of the Peabody 5 km loop, preliminary estimates ranged from
approximately $200,000 to $373,000. Although such numbers were far beyond Morton
Trails’ estimates, staff took the estimates to BOSAC to discuss funding. BOSAC was
disappointed with the range of costs and directed staff to re-evaluate the scope of the
project if necessary to bring the costs to $150,000 or less. With that, BOSAC
unanimously recommended an appropriation of $150,000 out of the open space fund for
Council consideration.
In the meantime, staff has pursued other contractor options with Morton Trails. Mr.
Morton works closely with a contractor out of the northeast on many of the trails that he
has designed. This contractor has agreed to come to the Breckenridge area and construct
the trail with oversight by John for $80,000 to $100,000 (as a conservative estimate),
excluding tree clearing.
Page 67 of 104
Return on Investment/Operational Costs
At Council’s request, staff researched the potential return on investment (ROI) for the
proposed nordic expansion. According to Morton Trails, the type of trail being proposed
could facilitate regionally and nationally-recognized events that could generate positive
revenue for the GRNC. Large competition events such as the Junior Nationals,
Continental Cup or the NCAA Championships could bring in $40,000 or more in
revenues.
Based on the experience of other destination-oriented nordic facilities, Morton Trails
estimates that the creation of a destination-level trail system, as is recommended, could
generate a minimum of 3,000 additional users. Assuming net revenue of $10/user, this
could yield approximately $30,000 annually. This estimate represents a payback period
of five years, a very favorable return on investment for a public or private capital project.
These are the best available projections based on the consultants’ experiences in other
locations worldwide. It is important to note that the GRNC use numbers have increased
from 3500 visits in 2002/2003 to 5200 visits in 2006/2007 with an estimated visit total
for the 2007/2008 season of approximately 7000.
Staff has also worked with GRNC staff to estimate annual operational costs (grooming
and maintenance) for the proposed 5 km loop, which constitutes phase 1 of the proposed
expansion. The grooming and maintenance of the proposed Phase 1 expansion would
require only incremental increases in staffing and resources, due to the presence of the
existing GRNC operations. Staff estimates that the annual operational cost increase for
the additional proposed 5 km loop is $3,600, which includes fuel, labor and equipment
maintenance.
Next Steps
Staff seeks Council direction regarding the following questions:
1) Should staff pursue the Gold Run Nordic Center Master Development Plan
through the U.S. Forest Service so that the current experimental grooming can
continue in the 2008-2009 season (and thereafter), and the nordic expansion
proposal can be formally recognized by the USFS?
2) Should staff pursue a Summit County conditional use permit application in an
effort to proceed with phase 1 of the nordic expansion- the Peabody 5 km loop
trail construction?
3) Is Council supportive of the $150,000 expenditure approved by BOSAC for
construction of the Peabody 5 km loop in 2008? This amount would allow for
both the trail excavation and tree clearing costs.
Page 68 of 104
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Golden Horseshoe Recreation Group
FROM:
Scott Reid, Open Space and Trails Planner
DATE:
July 26, 2006
SUBJECT:
Nordic Feasibility discussion summary
In winter 2005-2006, the Town of Breckenridge contracted with Nordic Group International to
perform a feasibility assessment of extending Nordic trails from the existing Gold Run Nordic
Center into areas of the Golden Horseshoe. The report, including an executive summary, has now
been completed. On July 24, the BOSAC reviewed the findings from the executive summary and
identified some key points from the summary that the BOSAC felt were appropriate to forward to
the Golden Horseshoe Recreation Group. On July 25, the Town Council reviewed these points and
concurred, with minor wording adjustments.
Given the timing of the Golden Horseshoe Recreation Group’s work, the Town wanted to make the
group aware of a concept for Nordic expansion that is being envisioned by the Town. The Town
does not endorse all the recommendations included in the entire Nordic Assessment or the executive
summary. The Town does endorse the following points:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Nordic Feasibility Assessment represents an initial step in developing Phase II of the Upper
Blue Nordic Master Plan, and is important information to consider for the future of Nordic
operations in the Upper Blue Basin.
The Golden Horseshoe represents an “exceptional” location for expanding Nordic operations
from the Gold Run Nordic Center.
Expansion of the Gold Run Nordic Center from its current 22 kilometers of groomed Nordic
trails to approximately 50 kilometers total (equaling 28 kilometers of additional routes) is a
reasonable expectation and a manageable size for Nordic operations.
More intermediate and advanced terrain should be offered to provide diversity in difficulty levels
in the Gold Run Nordic System.
The Peabody Placer is a critical property for any current and future expansion plans.
A phased approach to expansion would be prudent.
The use of existing sustainable routes should be pursued for Nordic purposes and potentially
new trails could be designed with sustainable grades and features. Existing unsustainable routes
should be closed and revegetated to an extent to account for any new trails developed, thus
resulting in no-net increase in trails in the area.
The County’s existing Backcountry zoning regulations could preclude some of the proposed
Nordic route construction due to limitations on road construction. The Town should work
closely with the County OSAC and BOCC to consider appropriate modifications to the zoning
regulations (or other land use documents) that allow for the construction of Nordic trails, while
ensuring that such construction results in environmentally-sustainable routes in character with
the protection of the backcountry.
All of this work should be done with the goal of protecting sensitive natural and historical
resources.
www.townofbreckenridge.com
Page 69 of 104
TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE • 150 Ski Hill Road • P.O. Box 168 • Breckenridge, CO 80424 • 970- 453-2251
•
The planning of Nordic trails in the Golden Horseshoe should be done in a cooperative manner
working with other users (e.g., snowmobilers, backcountry skiers) to ensure that opportunities
for all user groups are best accommodated.
www.townofbreckenridge.com
Page 70 of 104
TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE • 150 Ski Hill Road • P.O. Box 168 • Breckenridge, CO 80424 • 970- 453-2251
TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 (Regular Meeting); 7:30 p.m.
I
II
III
IV
CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 12, 2008 Regular Meeting
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL
A.
Citizens Comment - (Non-Agenda Items ONLY; 3 minute limit please)
B.
BRC Director’s Report
CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. SECOND READING OF COUNCIL BILL, SERIES 2008 – PUBLIC HEARINGS**
1. Council Bill No. 3, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH JOSEPH
S. MILLER AND BRADDOCK HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (Extended Vested Property
Rights—Stan Miller Master Plan)
2. Council Bill No. 7, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1-7-1 OF THE BRECKENRIDGE TOWN
CODE CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS ELECTED OR
APPOINTED ON OR AFTER APRIL 1, 2008
3. Council Bill No. 8, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1205 OF THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE
FOR COLORADO, 2003 EDITION
Page 72
V
NEW BUSINESS
A. FIRST READING OF COUNCIL BILL, SERIES 20081. Council Bill No. 9, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-3B-10 OF THE BRECKENRIDGE
TOWN CODE CONCERNING THE MUNICIPAL OFFENSE OF “JOYRIDING”
B. RESOLUTIONS, SERIES 20081. A RESOLUTION MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 2008 TOWN BUDGET FOR
PROJECTS NOT COMPLETED IN BUDGET YEAR 2007E
2. A RESOLUTION MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 2007 TOWN BUDGET
C. OTHER
Page 79
Page 88
Page 92
VI
PLANNING MATTERS
A. Planning Commission Decisions of February 19, 2008
B. Town Council Representative Report (Dr. Warner)
VIII
REPORT OF TOWN MANAGER AND STAFF*
IX
REPORT OF MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS*
A. CAST (Mayor Blake)
B. Breckenridge Open Space Advisory Commission (Mr. Bergeron)
C. BRC (Mr. Rossi)
D. Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Authority (Mr. Millisor)
E. Breckenridge Heritage Alliance (Ms. McAtamney)
F. Liquor Licensing Authority (Mr. Bergeron)
X
OTHER MATTERS
XI
SCHEDULED MEETINGS
XII
ADJOURNMENT
*Report of Town Manager; Report of Mayor and Council Members; Scheduled Meetings and Other Matters are topics listed
on the 7:30 pm Town Council Agenda. If time permits at the afternoon work session, the Mayor and Council may discuss
these items. The Town Council may make a Final Decision on any item listed on the agenda, regardless of whether it is listed
as an action item
** Second Readings are Final Action Items. Public comment will be allowed during the public comment portion of the
reading.
Page 96
Page 102
Page 103
VII
Page 2
Page 104
TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, February 12, 2008
PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Blake called the February 12, 2008 Town Council Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The
following members answered roll call: Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Mamula, Ms. McAtamney, Mr. Rossi, Mr.
Millisor, Dr. Warner and Mayor Blake.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 22, 2008 Regular Meeting
There were no changes to the minutes. Dr. Warner commented that Rick Sramek’s name was
misspelled 2 times. They were approved with that one change.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Town Manager, Tim Gagen, commented that they would like to add an Executive Session related
to Attorney Advice at the end of the meeting
COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL
A. Citizens Comment - (Non-Agenda Items ONLY; 3 minute limit please)
1.
Leslie Davidson- Introduced herself as the new operator of the Valley Brook Child Care Facility.
2.
Paul Hintgen- Owns Country Boy Mine and Breckenridge Sleigh Rides. In earlier January the
catering contractor decided business wasn’t good enough and interpreted his contract with the Town to
exclude Breckeridge Sleigh Rides from the Gold Run Nordic Center. He has done extensive marketing,
website design, brochure development, PR, etc and he is now not allowed to us the Gold Run Nordic
Center, you can’t use the bathrooms or warm up near the fire. His numbers have been down since
Gilchrist closed the restaurant and will not allow them in the building. He handed out a letter from his
attorney to be part of the record.
3.
Cindy Hintgen- Owns Country Boy Mine and Breckenridge Sleigh Rides. Has to tell parents
that she can not have them enter the building. They want to warm up and assure their children are warm
and they need a place to go to the bathroom. She becomes the target of their anger and frustration. They
want to know why they can’t enter the building and why their marketing says they have these facilities
and have a five star sleigh ride. They offered to split bathrooms cleaning costs but that was ignored.
They offered to do a port-a-potty and that was denied.
4.
Doug Tomlinson- Previous owner of Breckenridge Sleighrides. He is here because Paul and
Cindy requested his help. After 4 weeks the TOB has failed to come up with a solution. The situation
has been poorly managed. If the TOB wants a world-class sleigh ride operation they can not allow the
catering company to shut down. They have done a lot of marketing and have been taking reservations for
months. Gilchrist does not give any explanation or any resolution. If the Town fails to take a stance they
will be condoning Gilchrist’s behavior. Why is it that the Nordic visitors can use the facility but the
sleigh ride guests cannot? He feels Gilchrist is not in compliance with the contract. Gilchrist has refused
to provide dinner or have the facility open for the sleigh rides. He quoted a portion of the contract
between Gilchrist and the TOB that says that he will provide dinner for special events and sleigh rides.
4.
Tim Hinely- Plays Tennis everyday. He represents a group that plays and a lot of Seniors that
play tennis. He believes they have between 300-350 people who use the tennis courts. John O’Conner
and Tim do a great job. He hopes that the Council will consider keeping the courts.
Mayor Blake commented that he spoke with Tim and told him that at the work session the Council
decided that the 2 courts will remain a part of the facility at least for now. He mentioned that the tennis
players were well represented at the work session.
5.
Marty Trissler- Commented Sunset magazine had a great article on Breckenridge and the Sleigh
Rides and that there was a clip.
B. BRC Director’s Report – Shawna, commented that the Hintgen’s have done a great job with
marketing and have been very helpful to the Chamber. NBS commented that it was the smoothest
Page 72 of 104
PAGE 2
Summit/Mini-Summit they have ever done. There were about 900 guests. She handed out a breakdown
of the Economic Impact from the week the NBS was in town. Talked with a bunch of the lodging
companies and they were extremely happy and very well booked especially in their high-end properties.
With Snow Sculpture as well, January was great and they can’t wait to see the numbers.
Welcome Center visits were 15,580 guest contacts for the month compared to 8,169 guests last
year. Mr. Rossi asked if that was bathroom use as well. Mr. Mamula commented that if we could find
out the difference between the entrance counter and the bathroom counter so we could determine if it was
a smart decision to put the bathrooms down there. Terry Perkins, Public Works Director, commented that
the counter on the way down to the bathrooms was fixed.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. SECOND READING OF COUNCIL BILLS, SERIES 2007 & 2008 – PUBLIC
HEARINGS**
1. Council Bill No. 3, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH JOSEPH S. MILLER AND BRADDOCK HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company (Extended Vested Property Rights—Stan Miller Master Plan)
Tim Berry commented that a formal application for the Master Plan for the combined Miller
Annexation and Braddock Holdings properties would be submitted. In connection with that application
and the annexation of the Miller property, the applicants consistently have expressed the need for
extended vesting for a period of eighteen years therefore a separate development agreement for the
extended vesting must occur.
Mayor Blake asked for public comment. There was no comment. He closed the public hearing.
Ms. McAtamney moved to approve Council Bill No. 3, Series 2008 on second reading. Dr.
Warner made the second. The motion passed 7-0.
2. Council Bill No. 4, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A
SIGN EASEMENT TO B & D LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Tim Berry commented that in 2006 the Town approved a sign variance to authorize the placement
of a 28 square foot off-premise sign for the new Breckenridge Building Center building. The proposed
location of the sign is on property owned by the Town. Therefore, in order to finalize the sign that was
approved in 2006 it is necessary for the Town to grant the BBC permission to place its new sign on Town
property. The sign is proposed to be located near the intersection of Highway 9 and the new BBC as more
clearly depicted in the proposed easement.
Pursuant to the proposed Easement, B & D will pay the Town $500 per year for the easement
grant. The rental is to be paid in 5-year installments to minimize the accounting for both parties. If B & D
should fail to pay the required rental, the Town can terminate the easement and require B & D to
reconvey the easement to the Town, thereby clearing the Town’s title to the land.
Mr. Mamula moved to approve Council Bill No. 4, Series 2008 on second reading in the form of
the sign easement that is contained in the Council Packet. Dr. Warner. made the second. The motion
passed 7-0.
3. Council Bill No. 5, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SECOND AMENDED
GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO B & D LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Tim Berry commented that this ordinance would grant an access Easement to the buildings
located off Highway 9. There is a blank on Page 71 in section 8 that they just received the information on
today and are in the process of confirming. He requested that they continue the ordinance to the next
meeting.
Mr. Bergeron moved to move the second reading of Council Bill No. 5, Series 2008 to the second
meeting in February. Mr. Mamula made the second. The motion passed 7-0.
B.
FIRST READING OF COUNCIL BILLS, SERIES 20081. Council Bill No. 6, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDED GUIDELINES FOR
LAND USE DISTRICT 33
Page 73 of 104
PAGE 3
Tim Berry commented that at the last meeting the Council adopted an ordinance placing the
recently annexed Stan Miller property in Land Use District 33. However, as was acknowledged in the
Annexation Agreement, the Land Use Guidelines for District 33 need to be amended in order to allow for
the development of the Stan Miller property as contemplated by the annexation proposal. It is a condition
of the Stan Miller Annexation Agreement that the Land Use District 33 Guidelines be amended to
accommodate the proposed Stan Miller development.
The revised guidelines will allow for the Planning Commission to consider and ultimately
approve (if appropriate) the proposed Master Plan for the development of the Stan Miller property.
Without the amendment to the Land Use District 33 Guidelines, the proposed Stan Miller Master Plan
cannot be approved as submitted.
This particular amendment to the Land Use Guidelines is classified as a quasi-judicial
amendment because it deals with specifically identifiable property. Under the Town’s established
procedures, it is necessary for the Town to publish twice a special notice of public hearing and to also
provide a special notice to the owners of all real property located within Land Use District 33 who would
be affected by the adoption of the proposed LUG amendments. In order to allow for the special notice to
be published and mailed to the affected landowners, it will be necessary for second reading of this
ordinance to be held no sooner than the March 11th Council meeting.
Mr. Bergeron moved to approve Council Bill No. 6, Series 2008 on first reading and to move the
second reading to the March 11th Council meeting. Mr. Mamula made the second. The motion passed 70.
2. Council Bill No. 7, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1-7-1 OF THE
BRECKENRIDGE TOWN CODE CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF THE MAYOR
AND COUNCILMEMBERS ELECTED OR APPOINTED ON OR AFTER APRIL 1, 2008
Tim Berry commented that the ordinance would amend the portion of the Town Code that sets the
salaries of the Mayor and the Councilmembers. If adopted, the ordinance will raise the monthly salaries of
the Mayor and the Councilmembers to $1,200 and $800, respectively.
Because an elected official’s salary can neither be increased nor decreased during his or her term
of office, if this ordinance is adopted the change will apply only to persons elected at the regular Town
election this April and thereafter.
Dr. Warner moved to approve Council Bill No. 7, Series 2008 on first reading. Mr. Bergeron
made the second. The motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Rossi objecting.
3. Council Bill No. 8, Series 2008- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1205 OF THE
MODEL TRAFFIC CODE FOR COLORADO, 2003 EDITION
Tim Berry commented that the ordinance would amend the Model Traffic Code to allow for angle
parking within the Town. The Model Traffic Code contemplates that angle parking may properly be used
within a municipality, but the Code requires that it be authorized by ordinance. As you know, we have
several locations within Town where angle parking is required.
The ordinance would amend Section 1205 of the Model Traffic Code to authorize angle parking
within the Town where determined to be appropriate by the Town Engineer. As you will note, once a
street is designated for angle parking the Town will have to make or sign the street to indicate that angle
parking is permitted and at angle at which vehicles shall be parked.
Any person who parks improperly in a designated angle parking slot will be guilty of a civil
traffic violation. The Municipal Judge will establish the appropriate fine.
This ordinance will not be applicable to Colorado Highway 9, so it will not be necessary to get
CDOT’s approval before this ordinance can become effective.
Mr. Mamula moved to approve Council Bill No. 8, Series 2008 on first reading. Mr. Rossi made
the second. The motion passed 7-0.
C.
RESOLUTIONS, SERIES 2008
1. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RED, WHITE & BLUE FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT TO ENFORCE A FIRE CODE WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
Page 74 of 104
PAGE 4
Tim Berry commented that the Red White and Blue Fire Protection District recently updated their
Fire Code by adopting the 2006 International Fire Code with amendments. Colorado statute provides Fire
Protection Districts with the powers to adopt and enforce fire codes, but those codes do not apply within a
municipality unless the governing body of the municipality adopts a resolution saying the Fire Protection
Districts can enforce the fire code within the municipality. In the past the Towns position on this matter
has been to defer adoption and enforcement of Fire Codes to the Red White and Blue Fire Protection
District.
The resolution will provide the Red White and Blue Fire Protection District with the powers to
enforce the newly adopted a Fire Code and any subsequently adopted Fire Codes within the town. He met
with Jay Nelson with RWB after the work session in regard to enforcement of the occupancy
requirements of the fire code and they will continue to enforce it.
Mr. Bergeron moved to approve the Resolution, Series 2008. Ms. McAtamney made the second.
The motion passed 7-0.
2. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
STATE OF COLORADO GOVERNOR’S ENERGY OFFICE
Tim Berry commented that the Resolution would approve a memorandum of understanding with
the Town and the Governor’s Energy Office (GEO). The purpose of the MOU is to establish that we are
utilizing the services of the GEO, and that we intend to follow their prescribed process, in our efforts to
hire a performance contractor to conduct energy audits on our buildings and vehicle fleet. The GEO’s
services are at no cost to the town.
Mr. Millisor moved to approve the Resolution, Series 2008. Ms. McAtamney made the second.
The motion passed 7-0.
D.
OTHER
PLANNING MATTERS
• Planning Commission Decisions of January 15, 2008.
With no requests for call up, Mayor Blake stated the Planning Commission decisions of the
February 5, 2008 meeting will stand as presented.
• Town Council Representative Report.
Dr. Warner commented that Tim Berry opened the meeting with a discussion on conflict of
interest, point analysis, etc.
REPORT OF TOWN MANAGER AND STAFF
Tim Gagen, Town Manager, commented that
REPORT OF MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
A.
Report of Mayor (CAST)
Mayor Blake had nothing to report.
B.
Breckenridge Open Space Advisory Commission (Mr. Bergeron)
Mr. Bergeron commented on the Breckenridge Nature Series. They have tripled the
amount of business in the last year. Though they are still subsidized they are moving
in the right direction and Carin Faust is doing a great job. They did a trail review and
talked about the Peak 6 Scoping.
C.
BRC (Mr. Rossi)
Mr. Rossi had nothing to report.
D.
Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Authority (Mr. Millisor)
Mr. Millisor commented that they will be bringing a proposal to take a portion of the
5A money to help create a revolving fund that they can use for AMI’s for 100-160%.
E.
Breckenridge Heritage Alliance (Ms. McAtamney)
Page 75 of 104
PAGE 5
F.
Ms. McAtamney commented that the Carter Museum is closed for renovations and
they interviewed 2 entities for the exhibits. One was Roybal and another company
out of Estes Park. They Council was surprised that Roybal was being considered.
Liquor Licensing Authority (Mr. Bergeron)
Mr. Bergeron had nothing to report.
OTHER MATTERS
Dr. Warner commented on the woman that came in with the single use bags. He would like to see the
Town look into it. Tim Gagen commented that the Green Team is looking into it. The Council would
like to talk about it as a policy issue.
Mr. Rossi commented on something that Mike Dudick said. Try to have the events for the Snow
Sculpture through out the week and not just on one day. Maybe try to get people to park out in the
Airport Road lots for event parking. Commented on the crosswalks at Lincoln and Main and the
barndance. It should be controlled by a Police Officer or turned off during high traffic times.
Mr. Millisor commented this year that it is so much worse coming into Town northbound between 4-5pm.
Tim Gagen commented that he will have Rick come talk about it but they have also seen a lot more
workers coming in and out of Town.
Mr. Bergeron commented that we have an over capacity issue. He also commented on the light at Lincoln
and Main. Mr. Bergeron commented that the Country Boy Mine and Sleigh Rides are an amenity for this
Town.
Mr. Mamula questioned the Council as to whether they were on board with what was said about the
Gondola master planning. They confirmed that they were.
SCHEDULED MEETINGS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:26pm Mr. Rossi moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to Paragraph (b) of Section
24-6-402, C.R.S., relating to conferences with the Town Attorney for purposes of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions.
At 8:50 pm Mr. Mamula moved to convene in the Town Council’s regular meeting. Mr. Rossi
made the second. All were in favor of the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to discuss the regular meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Submitted by Alison Kellermann, Administrative Services Coordinator
ATTEST:
Mary Jean Loufek, CMC, Town Clerk
Ernie Blake, Mayor
Page 76 of 104
PAGE 6
LAW OFFICES
WEST, BROWN, HUNTLEY & THOMPSON, P.C.
100 SOUTH RIDGE STREET, SUITE 204
POST OFFICE BOX 588
BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO 80424
___________________________
TELEPHONE (970) 453-2901
FAX (970) 453-0192
STEPHEN C. WEST
D. WAYNE BROWN
FELICE F. HUNTLEY
MARK D. THOMPSON
ERIN C. HUNTER
JOSHUA N. REIDER
___________________________________
JILL D. BLOCK
Paralegal
February 21, 2008
VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Tommyknockers, Inc.
Attn: Paul Hintgen, President
P.O. Box 2332
Breckenridge, CO 80424
Re:
Provision in Lease between Town of Breckenridge and BBB, Incorporated.
Dear Paul:
This letter sets forth a brief discussion of the Golf Course Clubhouse Restaurant Lease
(“Lease”) between the Town of Breckenridge (the “Town”) and BBB, Incorporated, dated April
15, 2006. As we have discussed, the Lease contains a provision that allows the Town to make
rules and regulations regarding the Leased Premises, including the common area bathrooms.
Section 11.1 of the Lease states the following:
Tenant shall faithfully observe and comply with any rules and regulations that
Landlord shall from time to time promulgate with respect to the Leased Premises.
The rules and regulations promulgated shall be reasonable and may not
unilaterally change or significantly alter the material terms and conditions of this
Lease. The rules and regulations, and any amendments thereto, shall be binding
upon the Tenant upon delivery of a copy of them to Tenant.
This language unequivocally gives the Town the right to promulgate reasonable rules and
regulations regarding the Leased Premises.
The current dispute over access to the common area bathrooms has a very simple
solution. The Town, pursuant to Section 11.1, may promulgate rules stating that the other users
of the Clubhouse, including golfers and Nordic skiers, may have access to the common area
bathrooms. In return for having access to the common area bathrooms, the other users would
pay a proportionate share of the janitorial costs for the bathrooms. Section 4.5.4 of the Lease
sets forth the janitorial responsibilities of BBB, Incorporated for the common area bathrooms.
Page 77 of 104
PAGE 7
As you know, we have previously made a similar proposal to BBB, Incorporated, which
was rejected. This is a perfectly reasonable and logical resolution to the current dispute, and will
not significantly alter the material terms of the Lease. This solution will not adversely impact
the operation of the restaurant by BBB, Incorporated or the other users of the Clubhouse.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Joshua N. Reider
Joshua N. Reider
Page 78 of 104
MEMO
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
Town Attorney
RE:
Council Bill No. 5 (BBC Second Amended Access Easement)
DATE:
February 20, 2008 (for February 26th meeting)
______________________________________________________________________________
At your last meeting the second reading of the ordinance to approve the Second Amended
Grant of Easements for the new BBC facility was continued to February 26th to allow the Town
Engineer to review BBC’s estimate of what it would have cost to build the access road under the
old easement.
BBC’s estimate is $126,243.50. The Town Engineer has reviewed and accepted this
figure, and it has been inserted in Section 8 of the Second Amended Grants of Easement for your
consideration. It will be the agreed upon cost estimate for the old road if the ordinance is
adopted as proposed on second reading.
If the easement is approved as proposed the Town’s financial obligation for the new BBC
road will be limited to the construction costs for the new road, if any, that exceed $126,243.50.
At this point the best information that is available indicates that there should be little, if any, cost
to the Town for the new road, but that final determination will not occur until the new access
road is completed and the final costs are determined.
There are no changes proposed to the ordinance from first reading, but there are a couple
of changes to the easement agreement itself. Language has been added to Section 7(A)
acknowledging BBC’s removal of the asphalt from the soon to be abandoned roadway across the
east side of the Town property parallel to Highway 9. Section 8 has been amended to clarify that
asphalt removal is included in the cost of the new road because it was included in the amount
approved by the Town Engineer for the construction of the old road, and to include the agreed
estimate of $126,243.50 for the costs to have constructed the old road.
I will be happy to discuss this matter with you on Tuesday.
Page 79 of 104
1
FOR WORKSESSION/SECOND READING – FEB. 26
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
NO CHANGES FROM FIRST READING
COUNCIL BILL NO. 5
Series 2008
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SECOND AMENDED GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO
B & D LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, by that certain Amended Grant of Easements dated January 25, 2007 and
recorded February 1, 2007 at Reception No. 846004 of the records of the records of the Clerk
and Recorder of Summit County, Colorado (“Amended Grant”) the Town granted to B & D
Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership authorized to do business in Colorado (“B &
D”), certain easements over, across and through certain Town property; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that it is necessary to amend the
Amended Grant; and
WHEREAS, a proposed Second Amended Grant of Easements between the Town and
B & D has been prepared, a copy of which is marked Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the proposed Second Amended Grant of
Easements document; and
WHEREAS, the Town Attorney has informed the Town Council that, in his opinion,
Section 15.3 of the Breckenridge Town Charter requires that the approval of the Second
Amended Grant of Easements be authorized by ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. The Town Manager is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute,
acknowledge and deliver to B & D Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited partnership authorized
to do business in the State of Colorado, the Second Amended Grant of Easements in substantially
the form which is marked Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that it has the power
to adopt this ordinance pursuant to the authority granted to home rule municipalities by Article
XX of the Colorado Constitution and the powers contained in the Breckenridge Town Charter.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by
Section 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter.
Page 80 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of ______________, 2008. A Public Hearing shall be
held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the
____ day of ____________, 2008, at 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the
Municipal Building of the Town.
By:______________________________
Ernie Blake, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Mary Jean Loufek, CMC
Town Clerk
Page 81 of 104
SECOND AMENDED
GRANT OF EASEMENTS
THIS SECOND AMENDED GRANT OF EASEMENTS (“Second Amended Grant”) is
made and entered into at Breckenridge, Colorado this _______ day of ____________, 2008, by
and between the TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado municipal corporation, whose
address is P. O. Box 168, Breckenridge, CO 80424 ("Grantor") and B & D LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited partnership authorized to do business in Colorado, whose
address is 1480 Sequoia Drive, Aurora, IL 60506, (“Grantee”).
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee entered into an Amended Grant of Easements dated
January 25, 2007 and recorded in the Summit County, Colorado records on February 1, 2007 at
Reception No. 846004 and re-recorded on August 6, 2007 at Reception No. 863597 (“Amended
Grant”); and
WHEREAS, Grantor has requested that Grantee obtain access to Grantee’s property
described in Exhibit A attached hereto (“Benefited Property”) by means of the ingress and egress
easement described in Exhibit B attached hereto (“New Easement Premises”), which New
Easement Premises the Town intends ultimately to become a public road (“New Road”); and
WHEREAS, construction of the New Road would mean that portions of the two access
easements provided for in the Amended Grant would not need to be improved and, therefore,
could be eliminated.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following
grants, agreements, covenants and restrictions are made:
1.
Termination of Amended Grant. The Amended Grant is hereby terminated and
shall no longer encumber the Easement Premises described therein.
2.
Easement for New Road. The Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee, its successors
and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over, under, upon, in, across and
through the New Easement Premises.
3.
Temporary Delivery Easement. The Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee, its
successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over, under, upon, in,
across and through the following parcel of real property situate in the County of Summit and
State of Colorado, to wit:
See Exhibit C attached hereto
(“Temporary Easement Premises”).
Page 82 of 104
4.
Easements Appurtenant. The easements herein granted are for the benefit of and
appurtenant to the Benefited Property.
5.
Use of New Easement Premises and Temporary Easement Premises.
A.
The New Easement Premises are intended to be used to provide ingress and
egress for the Grantee, its agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees,
successors and assigns for deliveries to and from the Benefited Property. No other use of the
Easement Premises shall be made or permitted by Grantee without Grantor's prior permission.
B.
The Temporary Easement Premises are intended to be used to provide ingress and
egress for the Grantee, its agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees,
successors and assigns for deliveries to and for the Benefited Property for so long as the
Colorado Department of Transportation permits access to and from the Temporary Easement
Premises from Colorado Highway 9. No other use of the Temporary Easement Premises shall be
made or permitted by Grantee without Grantor’s prior permission.
6.
Grantor's Use Of New and Temporary Easement Premises. Grantor shall have the
right to use and occupy the New and Temporary Easement Premises for any purpose not
inconsistent with Grantee's full and complete enjoyment of the rights hereby granted.
7.
Improvements to New Easement Premises and Temporary Easement Premises.
A.
Grantee has constructed upon the New Easement Premises, at the direction of the
Grantor, road improvements sufficient to allow for a certificate of occupancy to be issued for
improvements under construction on the Benefited Property and will construct the remainder of
the improvements, including asphalt, to complete the New Road within the New Easement
Premises to meet Town standards for a public road, as reasonably determined by the Town
Engineer, and, in addition, Grantee has removed from the Town’s property the asphalt remaining
within all abandoned roadway areas located between the New Easement Premises and Colorado
Highway 9 (“Acceptance”).
B.
Grantee, at its sole cost, may construct upon the Temporary Easement Premises
any and all improvements necessary or desirable in order to make the Temporary Easement
Premises useable for the stated purpose. Grantee shall indemnify and hold Grantor harmless
from all costs (including Grantor's reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of the construction of
improvements to the Temporary Easement Premises.
8.
Payment for Improvements to New Easement Premises. Grantor agrees to pay
Grantee for the difference between the cost of construction of the New Road within the New
Easement Premises and of asphalt removal as provided for in paragraph 7.A. above and
$____________126,243.50, which amount Grantor and Grantee have agreed upon as the fair and
reasonable estimated cost for Grantee to have completed the improvements to the Easement
Premises described in the Amended Grant as required to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the
improvements under construction on the Benefited Property. Such payment shall be made by
Grantor to Grantee within fifteen (15) days after submission of invoices evidencing the total cost
Page 83 of 104
of construction of the New Road within the New Easement Premises as required by paragraph
7.A. above.
9.
Maintenance Of New Easement Premises and Temporary Easement Premises.
A.
Until Acceptance, Grantor shall have no responsibility for the maintenance and
upkeep of the New Easement Premises and Grantee, along with other beneficiaries of access
over some or all of the New Easement Premises, together shall provide such maintenance or
upkeep as is required with respect to the New Easement Premises and the improvements thereto,
which maintenance and upkeep shall include any required plowing and removal of snow.
B.
Grantor shall have no responsibility for the maintenance or upkeep of the
Temporary Easement Premises. Grantee, along with the other beneficiaries of non-exclusive
easements over portions of the Temporary Easement Premises, together shall provide such
maintenance or upkeep as shall be required with respect to the Temporary Easement Premises
and the improvements thereto and landscaping thereon, which maintenance and upkeep shall
include any required plowing and removal of snow.
10.
Non-Waiver Of Governmental Immunity. The parties hereto understand and
agree that Grantor is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this
Second Amended Grant, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000 per person and $600,000
per occurrence) or an other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended,
or any other law or limitation otherwise available to Grantee, its officers, or its employees.
11.
due care.
12.
Grantee's Duty Of Care. Grantee shall exercise the rights herein granted to it with
Indemnification.
A.
Until Acceptance, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Grantee shall indemnify,
and hold Grantor harmless from all claims, demands, judgments and causes of action (including
Grantor's reasonable attorney's fees) arising from the use of the New Easement Premises by the
Grantee, its agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees, successors and
assigns, provided, however, Grantee shall have no obligation under this paragraph to the extent
any claim, demand, judgment or cause of action is caused by the negligence or intentional act of
either other beneficiaries of non-exclusive easements over the New Easement Premises, their
agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees, successors or assigns or
Grantor, its agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees, successors or
assigns.
B.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Grantee shall indemnify, and hold Grantor
harmless from all claims, demands, judgments and causes of action (including Grantor's
reasonable attorney's fees) arising from the use of the Temporary Easement Premises by the
Grantee, its agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees, successors and
assigns, provided, however, Grantee shall have no obligation under this paragraph to the extent
any claim, demand, judgment or cause of action is caused by the negligence or intentional act of
Page 84 of 104
either other beneficiaries of non-exclusive easements over the Temporary Easement Premises,
their agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees, successors or assigns or
Grantor, its agents, employees, officers, contractors, licensees, lessees, invitees, successors or
assigns.
13.
Elimination of New Easement Premises and Temporary Easement Premises.
A.
At such time as the Town records in the Summit County, Colorado real estate
records a deed of dedication to make the New Easement Premises a right-of-way for use of the
public, the easement hereby granted to and for the New Easement Premises automatically will be
terminated.
B.
In the event that a right-of-way is created adjacent to the westerly property
boundary of the Benefited Property; such right-of-way continues along and adjacent to such
westerly boundary for at least six hundred-fifty feet (650') from the southwesterly corner of
Benefited Property; such right-of-way is improved, at no cost to Grantee, to Grantor’s standards
for a municipal street serving the types of uses permitted for the Benefited Property; and the
Grantor permits and the improvement of the right-of-way is constructed to allow for four (4) full
turning access locations reasonably acceptable to Grantee, including the curb cuts required for all
four of such locations, the easement to and for the Temporary Easement Premises will terminate.
In connection with the creation of such right-of-way, Grantee agrees to dedicate to the Town, at
no cost to the Town, the two small portions of the Benefited Property identified on Exhibit D
attached hereto in order to provide for a consistent width for such right-of-way and to make such
right-of-way contiguous with the Benefited Property. Further, at such time as the conditions of
this paragraph 13.B. have been satisfied, Grantee agrees to execute such reasonable document for
recording in the Summit County, Colorado real estate records may be requested by the Grantor to
effect the termination of the Temporary Easement Premises.
C.
After the easement to and for the New Easement Premises has been terminated in
accordance with paragraph 13.A. above and the easement to and for the Temporary Easement
Premises has been terminated in accordance with paragraph 13.B. above, Grantor and Grantee
shall execute a document reasonably acceptable to their respective attorneys terminating this
Second Amended Grant and such document shall be recorded in the Summit County, Colorado
real estate records.
14.
Binding Effect. The provisions of this Second Amended Grant shall be binding
upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
15.
Notices. All notices required or permitted under this Second Amended Grant,
shall be given by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed
to the parties at their addresses first set forth above, or at such other address as either party may
provide to the other party in writing. Any notice delivered by mail shall be deemed to have been
duly given on the third (3rd) business day after the same is deposited in any post office or postal
box regularly maintained by the United States Postal Services.
16.
Remedies: In addition to such other remedies as the parties may be entitled to in
connection with the enforcement of the terms of this Second Amended Grant, Grantor and
Page 85 of 104
Grantee each shall have the right of specific performance of the terms of this Second Amended
Grant and the right to obtain from any court of competent jurisdiction a temporary restraining
order, permanent injunction and permanent injunction to obtain such performance. Any
equitable relief provided for in this paragraph may be sought singly or in combination with such
legal remedies as the Grantor or Grantee may be entitled to, either pursuant to the provisions of
this Second Amended Grant or under the laws of the State of Colorado.
17.
Attorney’s Fees. If any action is brought in a court of law by either party to this
Second Amended Grant concerning the enforcement, interpretation or construction of this
Second Amended Grant, the prevailing party, either at trial or upon appeal, shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney’s fees as well as costs, including expert witness fees, incurred in the
prosecution or defense of such action.
GRANTOR:
TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado
municipal corporation
ATTEST:
________________________________
By_______________________________________
Timothy J. Gagen, Town Manager
GRANTEE:
B & D LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois
limited partnership authorized to do business in
Colorado
By:
DSB Holdings, Inc, an Illinois corporation
as General Partner
By:_________________________________
Jon A. Brownson, Vice President
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF SUMMIT
)
) ss.
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
__________________, 2008, by Timothy J. Gagen, Town Manager, and Mary Jean Loufek,
CMC, Town Clerk, of the Town of Breckenridge, a Colorado municipal corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: _____________________.
__________________________________
Notary Public
Page 86 of 104
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF SUMMIT
)
) ss.
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this _____ day of
_______________________, 2008, by Jon A. Brownson, Vice President of DSB Holdings, Inc.,
an Illinois corporation, as General Partner of B & D Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited
partnership authorized to do business in Colorado.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: __________________________.
__________________________________
Notary Public
Page 87 of 104
MEMO
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
Town Attorney
RE:
Council Bill No. 7 (Town Council/Mayor Salary Ordinance)
DATE:
______________________________________________________________________________
The second reading of the ordinance establishing the salaries of the Mayor and Town
Councilmembers who are elected at the April 1st election is scheduled for your meeting on
February 26th. There are no changes proposed to ordinance from first reading.
Page 88 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Additions To The Current Breckenridge Town Code Are
Indicated By Bold + Dbl Underline; Deletions By Strikeout
COUNCIL BILL NO. 7
Series 2008
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1-7-1 OF THE BRECKENRIDGE TOWN CODE
CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ELECTED OR APPOINTED ON OR AFTER APRIL 1, 2008
WHEREAS, Section 4.7 of the Breckenridge Town Charter provides that the members of
the Town Council shall receive such compensation and the mayor shall receive such other
compensation as the Town Council shall prescribe by ordinance; provided, however, that the
Town Council shall neither increase nor decrease the compensation of any member during his or
her term of office; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to fix the compensation of those members of the
Town Council and the Mayor who are elected or appointed on or after April 1, 2008.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 1-7-1(A) of the Breckenridge Town Code is hereby amended so as to
read in its entirety as follows:
1-7-1: SALARIES:
A. Elected Officials:
1. Councilmembers: Compensation for Councilmembers elected before April 7 1,
1992 2008, and thereafter , shall be six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) annually for
each, payable at the rate of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per month.
Compensation for Councilmembers elected April 1, 2008, and thereafter,
shall be nine thousand six hundred dollars ($9,600.00) annually for each,
payable at the rate of eight hundred dollars ($800.00) per month.
2. Mayor: Compensation for the Mayor elected April 7, 1992 April 1, 2008 and
thereafter, shall be nine thousand six hundred fourteen thousand four hundred
Page 89 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
dollars ($9,600.00 14,400.00) annually, payable at the rate of eight hundred one
thousand two hundred dollars ($800.00 1,200.00) per month.
3. Deduction for Absence From Meetings: One twenty-fourth (1/24) of the
abovementioned salaries may be deducted for the failure of any elected official to
attend any regular meeting of the Council, by a majority vote of the Council.
4. Further Compensation: Councilmembers and the Mayor elected April 4, 2006
and thereafter shall receive a credit of five hundred dollars ($500.00) each twelve
month period commencing April 15 of one year and ending April 14 of the
following year. Such sum may be used by such elected official only to pay to the
Town the cost of the elected official and his or her family (if applicable) accessing
Town-owned recreational facilities for which a fee is charged. No unused portion
of the five hundred dollar ($500.00) credit may be carried over to the following
year. The additional compensation described in this section 4 shall not apply to
Councilmembers or the Mayor who were elected prior to April 4, 2006.
5. A person appointed to fill a vacancy on the Town Council pursuant to Section
4.8(c) of the Town Charter shall receive the same compensation as the person
who held the office immediately prior to the vacancy being created.
Section 2. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Breckenridge Town Code, and the
various secondary codes adopted by reference therein, shall continue in full force and effect.
Section . The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that it has the power
to adopt this ordinance pursuant to Section 4.7 of the Breckenridge Town Charter.
PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2008. A Public Hearing shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of
____, 2008, at 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the
Town.
By______________________________
Ernie Blake, Mayor
Page 90 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
ATTEST:
_________________________
Mary Jean Loufek, CMC,
Town Clerk
Page 91 of 104
MEMO
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
Town Attorney
RE:
Council Bill No. 8 (Model Traffic Code Amendment—Angle Parking)
DATE:
______________________________________________________________________________
The second reading of the ordinance amending the Town’s Traffic Code concerning
angle parking is scheduled for your meeting on February 26th . There are no changes proposed to
ordinance from first reading.
Page 92 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
COUNCIL BILL NO. 8
Series 2008
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1205 OF THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE FOR
COLORADO, 2003 EDITION
WHEREAS, Section 42-4-110(1)(b), C.R.S., authorizes local authorities to adopt by
reference a model traffic code embodying the rules of the road and vehicle requirements set forth
in Article 4 of Title 42, C.R.S., and such additional local regulations as are provided for in
Section 42-4-11, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, in 2003 the Town of Breckenridge adopted (and amended) the Model
Traffic Code For Colorado, 2003 edition, as the Traffic Code for the Town; and
WHEREAS, Section 42-4-111(1)(a), C.R.S., authorizes local authorities to regulate the
stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on streets and highways under their jurisdiction, except
those streets and highways which are part of the state highway system subject to the provisions
of Section 43-2-135, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, both Section 42-4-1205, C.R.S., and Section 1205 of the Model Traffic
Code For Colorado, 2003 edition, provide that local authorities may by ordinance permit angle
parking on any Town roadway that is not a part of the state highway system; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge finds, determines and
declares that the Model Traffic Code For Colorado, 2003 edition, should be amended to allow
angle parking on Town roadways that are not part of the state highway system when determined
to be appropriate by the Town Engineer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 7-1-2 of the Breckenridge Town Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new paragraph L.5, which shall read in its entirety as follows:
L.5. Section 1205(3) of the Article I is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
Page 93 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(3) Angle parking is permitted on any Town roadway, except any
roadway that is part of the state highway system, when determined to
be appropriate by the Town Engineer. As used in this section, the
term “angle parking” means the head-in parking of a vehicle at an
angle to the curb or edge of the roadway, instead of parking parallel
to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, and includes, but is not
limited to, “straight in” parking perpendicular to the curb or edge of
the roadway.
Whenever the Town Engineer designates any roadway or portion of a
roadway upon which angle parking is permitted, the Town shall mark
or sign such roadway indicating that angle parking is permitted and
the angle at which vehicles shall be parked.
When signs or markings are in place indicating angle parking as
herein provided, no person shall park or stand a vehicle other than at
the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by such signs
or markings with the right front wheel of the vehicle within eighteen
inches of the curb or edge of the roadway.
Section 3. All angle parking established by the Town, or any officer or employee of the
Town, prior to the adoption of this ordinance is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved.
Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and
improve the order, comfort and convenience of the Town of Breckenridge and the inhabitants
thereof.
Town.
Page 94 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
By______________________________
Ernie Blake, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Town Clerk
Page 95 of 104
MEMO
TO:
Town Council
FROM:
Town Attorney
RE:
Amendment to Joyriding Ordinance
DATE:
______________________________________________________________________________
You will recall that several months ago the Council adopted an ordinance dealing with
value-based municipal offenses. This occurred as a result of a change in the state law raising the
jurisdictional limits for certain municipal offenses (such as theft) from $500 to $1000. As a result
of the state law amendment, theft of any item valued at $1000 or less can now be prosecuted in
the Town’s municipal court, while theft of any item valued at more than $1000 became a felony
and must be handled through the state court system.
In the process of preparing the periodic update to the Town Code the Town’s codifier
pointed out that the Town’s “Joyriding Ordinance” contains a value-based reference that was not
changed. The codifier inquired whether we should have changed this reference when we did the
prior ordinance, or whether the current value-based reference in the Joyriding Ordinance is still
correct.
I have reviewed the matter and concluded that the current value-based reference in the
Joyriding Ordinance is still correct and should not be changed. However, in the process of
reviewing this issue I came across another problem with the Joyriding Ordinance that does
require your attention. The fix to the ordinance is simple. The explanation for the need for the
fix, unfortunately, is a bit more complicated. Here’s the problem.
As I have mentioned before, municipal ordinances may only regulate conduct that
constitutes a “misdemeanor” under state law (misdemeanors are less serious crimes than
felonies). Simply stated, the Town cannot make a municipal offense out of what would otherwise
be a felony under state law.
Section 6-3B-10 of the Town Code defines the municipal offense of “Joyriding.”
Joyriding is basically taking someone else’s vehicle on a temporary basis without permission.
The ordinance was carefully drafted so that it did not apply to criminal conduct that constitutes a
“felony” under Colorado law. To understand how the ordinance did that you need to understand
how the state motor vehicle theft law works.
State law provides several classifications of motor vehicle theft ranging from a
misdemeanor offense to the more serious felony crime of “aggravated motor vehicle theft in the
first degree.” Both classifications of state law violations require the culprit to knowingly obtain
control or exercise control over the motor vehicle of another person. However, what changes the
misdemeanor violation into the felony crime is if the person also does one of a series of other bad
Page 96 of 104
things while in possession of the stolen vehicle. The list of aggravating factors that can turn the
misdemeanor violation into the felony includes causing $500 or more of property damage while
in possession of the stolen vehicle. Thus, a person who steals a car and causes $500 or more of
property damage may be prosecuted in the state court for the felony crime of motor vehicle theft.
In order to make it clear that the Town’s Joyriding Ordinance does not apply to felony
auto theft the ordinance expressly provides that it does not apply if the perpetrator commits $500
or more of property damage in the course of the joyride. This is this value-based reference that
the codifier inquired about.
I have checked the state law and determined that the state did not change this particular
$500 property damage provision when it changed the other value-based crimes earlier this year.
As a result, a person taking another person’s car without permission and causing $500 or more of
property damage is still subject to prosecution for the felony crime of aggravated motor vehicle
theft under state law. Because the Town’s ordinance cannot regulate conduct that would be a
felony under state law, the $500 property damage reference in the Town’s joyriding ordinance is
still correct and the Town’s ordinance does not need to be changed.
However, as noted above, the state’s first degree aggravated motor vehicle theft statute
contains a list of bad conduct which, if combined with the simple act of stealing a vehicle, can
turn a lesser crime into the more serious crime of first degree aggravated motor vehicle theft. As
noted above, one of those aggravating factors is causing $500 or more of property damage while
in unlawful possession of someone else’s vehicle. The list of aggravating factors, however,
includes more than the property damage provision, and refers to such other bad conduct as
causing bodily injury to another person while in possession of the other person’s vehicle, or
using the vehicle in the commission of a crime other than a traffic offense.
When the Town’s Joyriding Ordinance was enacted many years ago it adopted verbatim
the list of aggravating factors that were present in the state motor vehicle theft law at that time.
However, subsequent to the adoption of the Town’s ordinance the state’s list of aggravating
factors has changed in a number of respects, and the Town ordinance was not updated. As a
result, the list of state law aggravating factors in the Town’s ordinance is out of date and requires
revision.
Instead of updating the ordinance by once again adopting verbatim the list of aggravating
factors from the revised state law (and running the risk of the updated list itself becoming
outdated at some point in the future), I have instead just eliminated the list entirely and replaced
it with generic language providing that the Town’s Joyriding Ordinance does not apply to a
felony violation of the state motor vehicle theft law. That approach will keep our ordinance from
becoming outdated the next time the state motor vehicle theft law is updated by the legislature.
I hope the lengthy explanation of the effect of this proposed ordinance is sufficiently
clear, and I look forward to discussing this ordinance with you next Tuesday.
Page 97 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
FOR WORKSESSION/FIRST READING – FEB. 26
COUNCIL BILL NO. ___
Series 2008
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-3B-10 OF THE BRECKENRIDGE TOWN
CODE CONCERNING THE MUNICIPAL OFFENSE OF “JOYRIDING”
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 6-3B-10 of the Breckenridge Town Code, entitled “Joyriding”, is
hereby amended so as to read in its entirety as follows:
6-3B-10:
JOYRIDING:
Any person who drives or takes any motor vehicle without the consent of the
owner or lawful possessor thereof, with the intent of temporarily depriving the
owner or possessor of the use of the same, or temporarily making use thereof,
commits joyriding, which is unlawful. This section shall not apply if the
person’s conduct constitutes the offense of aggravated motor vehicle theft in
the first degree as defined by section 18-4-409(2), C.R.S., or a felony violation
of the offense of aggravated motor vehicle theft in the second degree as
defined by section 18-4-409(4), C.R.S.
If the person who in the course of so driving or taking the motor vehicle does one
or more of the following, joyriding has not occurred:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Retains possession or control of the motor vehicle for more than
seventy two (72) hours; or
Attempts to alter or disguise or alters or disguises the appearance
of the motor vehicle; or
Attempts to alter or remove or alters or removes the vehicle
identification number; or
Uses the motor vehicle in the commission of a crime other than a
traffic offense; or
Causes five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more of property damage
in the exercise of control of the motor vehicle; or
Causes bodily injury to another person while in the exercise of
control of the motor vehicle; or
Removes the motor vehicle from the State of Colorado for a period
of time in excess of forty eight (48) hours; or
Page 98 of 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
H.
Unlawfully attaches or otherwise displays in or upon the motor
vehicle license plates other than those officially issued for the
motor vehicle.
Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and
improve the order, comfort and convenience of the Town of Breckenridge and the inhabitants
thereof.
Town.
By______________________________
Ernie Blake, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Town Clerk
Page 99 of 104
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor and Town Council
From:
Finance Department
Date:
February 20, 2008
Subject:
2007 & 2008 Supplemental Appropriation Resolutions
Purpose: The two attached resolutions have been prepared for Council’s review during the
February 26th Work Session and subsequent action as appropriate during the Council meeting.
Description: The Resolution, titled “A Resolution Making A Supplemental Appropriation
to the 2007 Town Budget” requests changes to the 2007 budget authority for the following
purposes:
Section 1 authorizes an increase of $150,000 in additional budget authority within the
Water Utility Fund for water line repairs.
Description: The Resolution, titled “A Resolution Making A Supplemental Appropriation
to the 2008 Town Budget for Projects not Completed in Budget Year 2007” requests changes
to the 2008 budget authority for the following purposes:
Section 1 authorizes $191,167 of 2007 General Fund budget authority be rolled-over to
2008 to fund ongoing projects and programs budgeted and/or initiated in 2007, but not
completed by year end. Attachment A provides an overview of the specific departmental
projects.
Section 2 authorizes $167,687 of additional Affordable Housing Fund spending authority
be rolled over from 2007 to 2008 for childcare scholarships and supplements.
Section 3 authorizes $37,000 of additional Marketing Fund authority be rolled over to
offset expenses related to relocation of Spring Massive.
Recommended Action: We request that Council review the attached resolutions named above.
Staff will be present during the February 26th Work Session to respond to any questions that
Council may have. It is also requested that Council hold a public hearing and be prepared to
vote on the resolutions during the February 26th Council Meeting.
Page 100 of 104
ATTACHMENT A
GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY OVERVIEW-2007 ROLLOVERS
BUDGET
PUBLIC WORKS
7,959,858
ACTUAL
EXCESS
7,540,169
419,689
(23,948) PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(11,000) WASH BAY RENOVATIONS
HUMAN RESOURCES
466,027
384,577
(34,948)
TOTAL
384,741
REMAINING BALANCE
81,450
(8,850) COMPENSATION CONSULTANT
(15,000) EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES
(23,850)
57,600
RIVERWALK
646,159
568,024
TOTAL
REMAINING BALANCE
78,135
(3,400) OFFICE FURNITURE
(2,000) PHOTOGRAPHY SUPPLIES
(2,500) CONSULTANTS-RWC
(14,000) RWC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS
(21,900)
56,235
PUBLIC SAFETY
3,194,358
3,031,339
TOTAL
REMAINING BALANCE
163,019
(7,500) POLICE EQUIPMENT-DOOR LOCKS
(2,000) POLICE EQUIPMENT-DVR SYSTEM
(16,377) POLICE EQUIPMENT-AMPLIFIERS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1,811,802
1,530,948
(25,877)
TOTAL
137,142
REMAINING BALANCE
280,854
(7,000) ARTS DISTRICT PROGRAMMING-FUNDED BY DONATIONS
(11,500) DIPPING STATION-DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
(15,000) MINE SITE INVENTORY PHASE II
(7,024) CHILDHOOD MEMORIES VIDEO
(9,000) IOWA HILL PUBLICATION
(5,068) PIONEER REMEMBERED VIDEO
(30,000) WIND POWER
REQUESTED ROLLOVERS FROM GENERAL FUND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
2,831,303
$
1,118,573
(84,592)
TOTAL
196,262
REMAINING BALANCE
(191,167)
1,712,730
(53,310) CHILDCARE SCHOLARSHIPS
(114,377) CHILDCARE SUPPLEMENTS
(167,687)
1,545,043
MARKETING FUND
1,338,611
1,293,224
TOTAL
REMAINING BALANCE
45,387
(37,000) SPRING MASSIVE
(37,000)
8,387
TOTAL
REMAINING BALANCE
Page 101 of 104
A RESOLUTION
SERIES 2008
A RESOLUTION MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 2007 TOWN BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge desires to amend the Town's 2007
budget by making supplemental appropriations in the amount of $150,000; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.12(a) of the Breckenridge Town Charter, the Finance
Department, on behalf of the Town Manager, has certified that there are available for appropriation
revenues in excess of those estimated in the Town's 2007 budget or revenues not previously
appropriated in an amount sufficient for the proposed supplemental appropriation; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed supplemental appropriation was held on
February 26, 2008, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10.12(a) of the Breckenridge Town
Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO, as follows:
Section 1. A supplemental appropriation is made to the Water Utility Fund in the amount of
$150,000 to provide additional spending authority for unexpected water line repairs.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
RESOLUTION APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.
ATTEST
By_______________________________
Ernie Blake, Mayor
______________________________
APPROVED IN FORM
__________________________________
Town Attorney
Date
Page 102 of 104
A RESOLUTION
SERIES 2008
A RESOLUTION MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 2008 TOWN
BUDGET FOR PROJECTS NOT COMPLETED IN BUDGET YEAR 2007
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge desires to amend the Town's
2008 budget by making supplemental appropriations in the amount of $395,854; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.12(a) of the Breckenridge Town Charter, the Finance
Department, on behalf of the Town Manager, has certified that there are available for appropriation
revenues in excess of those estimated in the Town's 2008 budget or revenues not previously
appropriated in an amount sufficient for the proposed supplemental appropriation; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed supplemental appropriation was held on
February 26, 2008, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10.12(a) of the Breckenridge
Town Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO, as follows:
Section 1. A supplemental appropriation is made to the General Fund in the amount of
$191,167 to rollover 2007 authority to continue funding of consulting, training,
improvements, programming and equipment.
Section 2. A supplemental appropriation is made to the Affordable Housing Fund in the
amount of $167,687 to rollover 2007 authority to continue funding for childcare scholarships
and teacher supplements.
Section 3. A supplemental appropriation is made to the Marketing Fund in the amount of
$37,000 to rollover 2007 authority to fund additional expenses expected with the relocation
of Spring Massive.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
RESOLUTION APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.
ATTEST
______________________________
By_______________________________
Ernie Blake, Mayor
APPROVED IN FORM
__________________________________
Town Attorney
Date
Page 103 of 104
Scheduled Meetings, Important Dates and Events
Shading indicates Council attendance – others are optional
The Council has been invited to the following meetings and events. A quorum may be in attendance at any or all of
them. All Council Meetings are held in the Council Chambers, 150 Ski Hill Road, Breckenridge.
FEBRUARY 2008
Tuesday, February 26
Second Meeting of the Month
MARCH 2008
Tuesday, March 11
First Meeting of the Month
Tuesday, March 25
Second Meeting of the Month
Page 104 of 104

BRECKENRIDGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Tuesday

Transcription

Similar documents

17th CAPE TOWN Jazz-fest-2016-JHB

Town Center at Sterling

Westfield University Town Center - UTC Ice Rink

Citizen Service Request Dashboard Written

Plus | Brooklyn Balı Amsterdam hina Whistler Australia

B.1.1 Timo Hotari Re Development Charges

la macarena - Programa de Transformación Productiva

Historic Newburgh Historic Newburgh

Young Ameritowne Parent Letter

FOR SALE Co Kildare