Breckenridge, Colorado

Town Council Work SessionTuesday, April 23, 2019, 3:00 PM

Council Chambers150 Ski Hill Road

Breckenridge, Colorado

I. ARTS CONSULTANTS FINAL PRESENTATION (3:00-4:30pm)Executive Summary

II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS (4:30-4:35pm)Planning Commission Decisions

III. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW (4:35-5:00pm)Ordinance Amending the Town Code Concerning E-Bike Use on the Town Recreational Pathways(Second Reading)

An Ordinance to Convey Property on McCain (First Reading)

Kenington Townhomes Annexation Fact Finding Resolution (Resolution and Public Hearing)

IV. MANAGERS REPORT (5:00-5:30pm)Public Projects Update

Parking and Transportation Update

Housing and Childcare Update

Committee Reports

Financials

V. PLANNING MATTERS (5:30-5:40pm)GC8 Building 3 Employee Housing Change Call Up Discussion

1

April 17, 2019

To: Breckenridge Town Council From: AMS Planning & Research Ref: Breckenridge Creative Arts Organizational Assessment Scenarios – Executive Summary AMS was engaged by the Town of Breckenridge to assess the organizational structure of Breckenridge Creative Arts (BCA), a non-profit organization created by the Town to manage and program the Breckenridge Arts District and the various venues and studios therein. The goal of the assessment was to determine the most successful and effective organizational structure for BCA that maximizes efficiency and effectiveness of the creative and cultural resources of the community, enables collaboration between arts producing organizations, and drives a high level of participation in the arts district and associated venues under the purview of the Town.

This memorandum summarizes two options for the Town Council and Town Manager to consider. The options presented were developed based on the findings from our research that included a full review of BCA’s operations including finances, attendance, utilization, and staffing. AMS also reviewed previously developed plans and reports, conducted personal interviews with stakeholders, BCA staff, and resident companies, and researched comparable arts organizations and facilities to document best practices and obtain benchmark data. The consultants were guided by a small working group consisting of the Town Manager Rick Holman and two council members (Gary Gallagher and Elisabeth Lawrence).

BCA Review AMS noted that BCA’s current mission and vision, established when BCA was formed in 2014, portrays an organization that exists to “promote Breckenridge” as a destination for cultural tourists and place Breckenridge on the map of world-class creative destinations. This certainly complimented the Town’s existing reputation as a world class outdoor recreation destination and helped diversify the region’s draw, and therefore bolster its tourism economy.

To implement this stated vision and mission, the Town and BCA’s board of directors hired a President and CEO and staff that produced an international festival, created educational programs, curated art shows and installations from internationally known artists, and promoted Breckenridge as a cultural destination through national and international media.

2

www.ams-online.com

The current vision, mission, and goals statements are:

BCA Vision To see Breckenridge as a world-leading creative destination.

BCA Mission To promote Breckenridge as a vibrant, creative destination by delivering inspiring experiences that enrich our community and visitors.

BCA Goals • To attract visitors to Breckenridge for a creative arts experience • To build community participation and ownership in the creative arts

experience • To optimize the Town’s creative arts assets and BCA’s operational

capabilities • To power a dynamic organization that delivers independent and TOB-

Funded creative arts programming

We also noted the following about BCA’s current operations:

• Though the Town of Breckenridge supplies much of BCA’s operating budget, BCA’s financial management has resulted in modest surpluses each year indicating sound management and the ability to live within its means.

• To support BCA’s mission and maintain District facilities, the Town’s subsidy has increased year over year and represents approximately 80% of BCA’s budget. In large part, BCA acts on behalf of the Town.

• Festivals – Breckenridge International Festival of Arts (BIFA) and WAVE – have been successful in driving activity, attendance, and visitation, as well as building the reputation of Breckenridge as a creative destination. However, attendance, visitation, and participation in the District is low when festivals are not occurring. While there are a relatively high number of hours when studios are open and other activities are occurring, the data indicates that not many people participate or venture into the District. The data bare out the perception that the District could be more active with an increase in public-facing activity.

o Average use days per District venue was 92 in 2018 (workshops, open studies, special events).

o Average attendance per use day was 5 people. • Resident companies are allotted blocks of calendar dates in the venues,

are not charged rent, and are given no mandates or restrictions on utilization; often, venues are either dark or utilized for rehearsals rather than public-facing events.

• The volume of public-facing activity at Riverwalk Center is low, and peak summer months are constrained by significant resident company

3

www.ams-online.com

rehearsal use. For example, between May 31st and September 1st Riverwalk is in use 125 days, but only 53 days are used for public performances.

Throughout our research, we discovered that many stakeholders and Town Council members, were articulating goals and success indicators that represented a shift away from BCA’s original emphasis.

As key areas of focus were identified, four new or modified overarching goals for BCA were articulated. They capture the community’s desire to see an increased and more consistent level of public-facing activity and attendance, a focus on using the arts to enhance the experience of existing visitors rather than driving new visitation, improving and incentivizing greater collaboration between BCA and the resident companies, and continuing to maintain facilities at a high level.

We have drafted four goals that the Town Council could adopt as the desired impacts of the Town’s funding and the purpose of the Arts District’s facilities. As Council seats change over time, these goals should be revisited and reaffirmed on a regular basis. They should also be used as the measures of success for BCA with metrics developed for each. While they are similar to BCA’s existing goals these subtle strategic shifts and clarifications, if adopted, would result in significant tactical and operational changes.

Goal 1: Make the Arts District continually hum with activity and people Activate Historic Downtown Breckenridge and the Arts and Cultural District to heighten venue activity and increase turnout; offering programming that drives attendance from full and part-time residents, and area visitors.

A significant number of public-facing events and activities that draw people into the District on a regular basis, throughout all seasons for the benefit of the local economy needs to become the number one focus of BCA and the resident companies who receive Town funding. Clear goals about event and attendance growth should be established by the Town Council.

Goal 2: Offer arts and cultural experiences aimed at full and part-time residents and visitors already in Summit County Achieving this goal will require significant tactical changes for BCA. At close inspection this goal is quite different than the former number one goal “To attract visitors to Breckenridge for a creative arts experience.” This new, second goal is about reaching residents and visitors that are already in the area and enriching their Breckenridge experience through the arts. It is not about attracting new, cultural tourists or gaining national/international recognition as a “cultural destination.”

4

www.ams-online.com

Goal 3: Support local arts organizations and artists to not only survive, but thrive by working collaboratively toward success for all Town funding of BCA and the resident companies should be contingent, in part, on the parties’ ability to collaborate, problem-solve, grow audiences, and develop organizational capacity collaboratively. The Council expects that BCA will be the facilitator of this collaborative work, as well as a participant and beneficiary.

Goal 4: Facilities and the District as a whole are maintained at a level that shows pride of place On behalf of the Town (and with Town funds) BCA will ensure that facilities in the district are maintained at a level that positions them to most effectively support the organizations and programs they serve.

Success Measures We have developed several example success metrics that could be adopted by Council for each of the four goals. These metrics would become the Council’s “score card” for the BCA as the contracted operator of the facilities, and the measures of impact of the funding provided for arts and culture.

Goal 1:

• Increase utilization to 240 days for each venue with 150 of those days being public-facing events.

• Increase average capacity filled at Breckenridge Theater and Riverwalk Center to 70% from 49%. This would increase annual attendance to ~90,000.

• Increase Arts District Campus visitation to 430 people per week on average. The current weekly average is 174.

o For example, If BIFA attendance was increased by 10% and then spread evenly throughout the year, there would be an additional 256 participants per week for a total of 430 on average per week. WAVE and other special events represent additional attendance during peak festival periods.

Goal 2:

• 90% of BCA’s marketing budget spent in Summit County reaching residents and visitors to the area;

• Development of a marketing partnership program with local hotels and other significant attractions.

• Conduct an annual survey of arts and cultural event participants to measure effectiveness of marketing efforts.

5

www.ams-online.com

Goal 3:

• Show results of scheduling summits held with BCA and resident companies by presenting updates of a three-year rolling calendar, twice per year.

• Design a shared services program designed and in place within a 12-month period based on collective “needs assessment” from BCA and resident groups. Provide annual updates.

Goal 4:

• Evidence that 6% to 12% of the BCA’s budget has been allotted for annual maintenance/repair/replacement with breakdown of how funds have been spent presented annually.

• Annual inspection of facilities by Town Manager or designee of with written summary presented to Town Council.

Two Scenarios AMS has developed two scenarios detailed below. Both support the four goals outlined above.

Scenario 1 – BCA as Facility Manager, Content Provider, and Collaboration Facilitator Scenario1 suggests a degree of organizational shift from the current structure, with the focus being the creation of a more collaborative working relationship with the resident companies and developing program offerings that increase the number of public-facing events and attendance numbers.

Roles Town Council: Town Council needs to adopt clear goals that support the impact it wants its funding of BCA and the resident companies to have. Once clear on these goals, the Council needs to adopt measurable metrics (noted above) that can be reported on regularly, and especially when funds are being appropriated for the following fiscal year.

With other suggested changes explained later in this section, Council should not step-in to solve scheduling or other conflicts before BCA, the resident companies, and their respective boards have made earnest and considerable efforts to do so first. Furthermore, referencing Goal #3, Council should make it clear that funding for all may be jeopardized if unresolved conflicts come before Council.

BCA: For the most part, BCA’s role will continue as it is currently constituted: as a non-profit organization with a board of directors and staff that carryout the mission. It will provide content that does not duplicate or intrude on resident company activities, it will maintain and schedule the facilities, and it will promote

6

www.ams-online.com

all of the Arts District’s activities. However, there will be shifts in how these activities and responsibilities are carried out and clear goals to be achieved that are mandated by Town Council. Significant BCA operational shifts are noted throughout the remaining sections below.

Resident Companies: the resident companies will also remain, by and large, in their current roles as major facility users and content providers. They will continue to receive town support and occupy the same facilities they do now.

However, AMS recommends that one, ex officio, voting seat on BCA’s board of directors be allocated for a representative of the resident companies with one alternate representative allowed to attend board meetings. Two representatives with one vote will insure that the voice of the resident companies can be heard in the board room. If BCA’s board significantly expands its size, the number of voting seats for the resident companies should also increase accordingly.

BCA Staffing and Job Descriptions We recommend that BCA shift the job description of its CEO by assigning the CEO’s creative and artistic responsibilities to a new (or retitled) position of Artistic Director.

This would allow the CEO to move away from being the driver of BCA’s creative and programmatic vision and focus on its governance, operational management, resident company relations, and overall achievement of the four goals.

To support the creative and programmatic vision, an Artistic Director would be hired and charged with driving visual and performing arts programming, education programs, and serving diverse audiences. The Artistic Director would report directly to the CEO.

We believe that this shift, combined with the mandate from Town Council that collaborative scheduling occur, will allow the CEO to be the facilitator of scheduling summits and allow her or his focus to be on overall activation of the District (Goal #1), relying on the resident companies as well as BCA’s own programs to achieve this goal.

Programming Shifts Programming offered would be directed at visitors already in Breckenridge and area residents – both full-time and part-time – with the goals of more public-facing activity, higher attendance and participation levels, and increased revenues.

With a shift in focus and some continued strategic planning it is believed that the Town’s arts and cultural venues can provide this increased activity. In 2018, Riverwalk had147 performance while Breckenridge Theater had 137 performances; by industry standards, venues with 240 annual uses are

7

www.ams-online.com

considered to be “fully utilized.” In short, BCA and the resident companies need to work together to offer more programs that attract more people more consistently.

Popular programming: AMS generally supports the efforts being made to bring more popular programming to Riverwalk on available high season dates and that Breck Music continues to seek ways to offer a counter-balance to the classical music National Repertory Orchestra (NRO) offers in the summer. This goal could be met if Breck Music is successful in developing its capability to present popular programming with current Town support. BCA could also add to this effort or the two could collaborate in the future to develop a unified series.

Festivals: In addition, we recommend that BCA eliminate one of its two major festivals and reallocate the funds and resources to programs and smaller-scale events that can keep the District activated and populated more consistently throughout the year. We noted that the WAVE festival had 529 more attendees than the BIFA and cost $55,000 less to produce. BIFA’s international focus may also now be somewhat out of alignment with Goal 2 noted above.

Marketing Shifts With this new direction the marketing emphasis will be more focused on reaching the Summit County community and visitors then on driving new visitation. This is not intended to diminish the quality of the artistic offerings, which should remain high. The effort would work to appeal to residents – both full and part-time – and to visitors already in the area.

Scheduling Summits A key to success working with resident companies is developing a collaborative and transparent working relationship between all parties. AMS suggests that the current resident company agreements be replaced with Memorandums of Understanding that specify the terms of use, such as rent-free use of facilities and priority access to calendar dates. In exchange, companies would agree to keep venues busy and full, and to work collaboratively with BCA and their fellow resident groups. We have attached a sample MOU term-sheet as an appendix.

Currently, BCA oversees calendar scheduling for Town venues. Calendar scheduling has been reported to be problematic and a source of conflict. In some cases, scheduling issues have been brought to the attention of Town of Breckenridge personnel (including Council), with an expectation that the Town will intervene to accommodate the needs of the requesting party. This process is not representative of an equitable or transparent approach to calendar problem solving, is inefficient and ineffective.

It is suggested that BCA and the resident companies convene twice a year for a “scheduling summit” during which parties share their preferred and secondary

8

www.ams-online.com

dates for use based on an understanding of previous use patterns and joint planning for new projects.

Scheduling should be done on a three-year rolling basis, which will give sufficient time for long-range planning. Each meeting will review the following year’s schedule and confirm all dates, then proceed to look further out into the future so that at any given time there is a three-year schedule. This structure allows time to plan for more than one priority project, manage resource allocations, and the opportunity to strategize joint partnerships for any collaborative projects. A best practice example has leadership from the various resident companies meeting to discuss their priorities, with an understanding that compromise will be necessary. Should disagreements arise, it will be the role of the BCA President and CEO, and not members of Town Council, to mediate and determine a fair outcome to the issue. For this structure to be successful, it will be necessary for the BCA leadership to operate in the spirit of fairness, and act consistently with each of the resident groups. While not necessarily an easy exercise, it has proven to be productive in other communities.

Shared Services and Collaboration BCA, with its existing support from the Town, will facilitate a shared services program. This new venture might include the development of a shared season brochure and other marketing collateral that notes all of the offerings in Breckenridge’s venues. One website that includes programming information from BCA and the resident companies should be considered. A shared patron database should also be explored. Additionally, shared bulk office purposes can save money on office supplies and bulk paper products.

If initial efforts are successful, groups could consider expanding the collaboration to include shared administrative spaces, meeting rooms, rehearsal spaces, storage and production spaces, etc.

Required Resources Currently BCA receives $2.3M from the Town and they are operating with a modest surplus. Resident companies receive modest support from the Town in addition to securing other monies on their own. This scenario does not suggest a shift away from this structure.

Funds will need to be reallocated to accommodate the recommendations of this scenario. Increased public-facing activity from rental companies will provide BCA with additional box office service fees and ancillary revenues. The elimination of the BIFA festival will also enable approximately $285,000 to be reallocated to support other programming to activate the District. Both initiatives may help stabilize BCA’s ongoing subsidy requirement from the Town of Breckenridge.

9

www.ams-online.com

Scenario 2 – BCA as Content Provider only

In this scenario, BCA would shed all of its other duties except for programming, making it, in essence, another resident company. The Town of Breckenridge would take-on the staff necessary to maintain the facilities, coordinate shared services and marketing, and facilitate scheduling.

The Town Manager and Town Council would be directly involved in overseeing day-to-day management and seeing that the four goals noted previously are attained.

As BCA would no longer be in a position of managing facilities shared by all, there would be no reason for the resident companies to have a seat on its board of directors. BCA’s staff would also be reduced accordingly and, presumably, several BCA staff members would become employees of the Town. This could result in fewer dollars for the resident companies, including BCA, due to the Town’s higher cost of pension and health benefits for employees.

While we note this scenario as a possibility, AMS does not recommend this option for three reasons:

1. The cost to operate the facilities would be higher for the Town, resulting in less cash available for arts programming.

2. The resident companies would not have a direct voice in governance and policy-making.

3. With many competing priorities (fire protection, housing, public safety, etc.) there is great risk that over time the Town’s ability to maintain and manage the facilities would become less focused on the Arts District and oversight would be continually challenged by the needs of arts organizations and programs, which are often ‘non-standard’. This could result in less activity, not more, over the long-term.

10

1

Memo To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Peter Grosshuesch, Director of Community Development

Date: April 11, 2019

Subject: Planning Commission Decisions of the April 10, 2019 Meeting

DECISIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, April 10, 2019: CLASS A APPLICATIONS: McCain Subdivision, 12965, 13215, 13217, 13221, 13250 Colorado State Highway 9, PL-2019-0060. A proposal to subdivide the existing Town-owned McCain property into four parcels. Approved. CLASS B APPLICATIONS: Preliminary Hearing Only. CLASS C APPLICATIONS: None.

TOWN PROJECT HEARINGS: None.

OTHER: None.

11

Hig

hway

9

Tiger Rd

Airp

ort R

d

Rounds Rd

SCR 450

High

lands

Dr

Hig

hfie

ld T

r

Hamilton Ct

Dyer Trl

Westerman Rd Gol

d R

un R

d

Sta

n M

iller D

r

Mai

n S

t N

Fairways Dr

Long Ridge Dr

Glen Eagle Loop

Discovery Hill Dr

Denison Placer

Shore

s Ln

Coyne Valley Rd

Silver C

irM

arks

berry

Way

Preston Way

Reiling Rd

Evans Ct

Lake Edge DrMar

ks Ln

Byron Ct

Forest Cir

Linden Ln

Park Ave N

SCR 452

Valley Brook St

Peerless Dr

Floradora Dr

Golden Age Dr

Fletcher Ct

Gol

d R

un G

ulch

Rd

Mumford Pl

Clu

bhou

se D

r

Spencer Ct

Peabody Ter

McGee Ln

Tass

els

Lp

Shek

el Ln

Barn

ey F

ord

Buffalo Ter

Sag

e D

r

Dew

ey P

lace

r

Breckenridge North J

McCain Subdivision, 12965,13215, 13217, 13221, 13250

State Highway 9

12

Ski Hill Rd

Hw

y 9

Wellington Rd

Mai

n S

t NPar

k Av

e N

Boreas Pass Rd

Fren

ch S

t S

Bridge

St

Four Oclock Rd

Rid

ge S

t S

Corkscrew Dr

Mai

n St

S

Par

k Av

e S

Fren

ch S

t N

Villa

ge R

d

Reiling Rd

French

Gulc

h Rd

Royal Tiger Rd

Hig

h S

t S

SCR 709

Stab

les

Dr

Gold Flake Ter N

SCR 708

Pin

e S

t N

Brok

en L

ance

Dr

Woo

ds D

r

Pine

St S

Adams Ave E

Rachel Ln

Logan Dr

Peerle

ss D

r

Lincoln Ave

Whi

te C

loud

Dr

Klack R

d

King

s C

row

n R

d

Har

ris S

t SBr

iar R

ose

Ln

Sunbe

am D

r

Peak Eight Rd

Gold K

ing W

ay

Beavers Dr

Peak Nine Rd

Tomahawk Ln

Airp

ort R

d

Settlers Dr

Luis

a D

r

Locals Ln

Wind

wood

Cir

Hig

h S

t N

Her

mit

Dr

Col

umbi

ne R

d

Watson Ave

Bright

Hope D

r

Grey L

n

Wolff L

yon R

d

Gra

ndvi

ew D

r

Boulder Cir

Riverwood Dr

Car

ter D

r

Timber Trail Rd

Red Feather Rd

Sawmill

Rd

Lom

ax D

r

Christie Ln

Campion Tr

Union Tr

Ambe

r Ct

Sno

wbe

rry

LnHighwood Cir

Iliff

Ct

Brookside Ln

Shep

pard

Cir

Bluf

f Ct

Sisler Green

Bre

cke

nri

dg

e S

ou

th

J

Adams/Tillet House (King Residence)Relocation, Addition, Garage, Accessory

Apartment and Landmarking; 300 N. FrenchStreet

13

Town of Breckenridge Date 4/10/2019 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 1

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Giller. ROLL CALL Christie Mathews-Leidal Jim Lamb Ron Schuman Mike Giller Steve Gerard Dan Schroder Lowell Moore - absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES With the below changes, the April 2, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes were approved. Ms. Leidal: For the record can we note there are additional findings and conditions that were handed out for the Levy hearing, and that is what we approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA With no changes, the April 10, 2019 Planning Commission Agenda was approved. PUBLIC COMMENT ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISSUES:

• No comments. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: 1. Adams/Tillet House (King Residence) Relocation, Addition, Restoration, Garage, Accessory Apartment, and Landmarking (CL), 300 N. French Street, PL-2019-0034 Mr. LaChance presented a proposal to relocate the historic house approximately 5 feet toward the interior of the lot, construct an approximately 100 sq. ft. addition, install a basement and concrete foundation, conduct a full restoration of the house, designate the historic house as a local landmark, relocate the historic secondary structure (cabin) further toward the interior of the lot and conduct a full restoration on it, construct a detached two car garage and accessory apartment with new driveway, expand the existing driveway, and install a new fence and landscaping. Mr. LaChance pointed out that the 2006 cultural resource survey mentions that the date of construction of the shed-roofed extensions to the main gable has not been determined. Based on review of Sanborn maps, staff believes the shed-roofed extensions to the south side of the residence are original, but that the garage is not original and was constructed after 1914. Mr. LaChance also pointed out that staff is reviewing this application under the previous version of the Development Code, it was submitted prior to the February changes. The following specific questions were asked of the Commission: 1. Does the Commission agree that the existing driveway should be removed, so that this project

complies with Policy 18 (Absolute) Parking and the Off Street Parking Regulations? 2. Regarding Priority Design Standard 95 and Design Standard 149, does the Commission agree that the

number of windows on the upper level of both the west and south elevation of the accessory apartment should be reduced, or that they should be spaced further apart, and that the windows on the garage/accessory apartment should be revised to be vertically oriented and double hung?

3. Regarding Design Standard 136, does the Commission support the proposal for the existing garage to remain?

4. Does the Commission support the designation of the historic structure as a Local Landmark? 5. Does the Commission agree with the remainder of staff’s analysis, and the preliminary point analysis?

14


Commissioner Questions / Comments: Ms. Leidal: For clarification, I know there’s 4 historic lots here, but are we taking density and mass

calculations based off of 3 lots? (Mr. LaChance: Yes, lot 9 is not being touched other than a fence; we are using lots 10, 11, 12.) Ms. Leidal: Would it be better then to not have any improvements on Lot 9? It’s weird to have off-site improvements. (Mr. LaChance: The fence is the only thing being proposed on lot 9, and we don’t have to do calculations for that type of development, so that’s why the calculations are done this way.) Is the cabin square footage included in the mass calculations? (Mr. LaChance: We did not calculate it and it is 186 sq. ft.) Ms. Leidal: Do we have precedent where we have excluded a structure with walls and a roof because it didn’t have windows and doors? (Mr. LaChance: I will look into it.) I appreciate you opening it up and taking a look at the siding. I noticed on the plans it calls out Dutch lap siding on the east elevation. Is that on the structure? I’ve never seen Dutch in town before and wonder if that’s historic. (Mr. LaChance: Maybe Janet can clarify.) I like that we’re bringing access to the back, but I’m questioning the right to use the Sherman Street driveway. That driveway is actually in TOB right of way. The way that policy could be interpreted, when those points were awarded they were for shared drives on private property, not in a public right of way. Public alleys come to mind. Should people using alleys be getting positive points? Concerned about setting a precedent. (Mr. LaChance: I think this is a unique situation. In the 80s or 90s the gardens were built. I couldn’t find an Encroachment License Agreement for those. The Town was clear it was ROW, but not to be treated as a Town street. It’s unique because it’s private, in ROW, but not Town maintained. (Ms. Puester: We will look into that, there have been others.)

Mr. Schroder: About parking, the current curb cut, will it remain? It sounds like the applicant is interested in keeping it even if the Town Engineer isn’t supportive of it. (Mr. LaChance: It’s for the one car garage that’s been there a long time. The applicant wants to access it.) Ms. Leidal: Would it require a variance or would we even allow it? Can we override the Town Engineer? (Mr. LaChance: We want to find out how the Commission feels about it, and take that into consideration.)

Mr. Gerard: Do we know if the window to the right of the front door was historic? (Mr. LaChance: We don’t know for sure, we haven’t stated that we are requiring it to be re-introduced. The Sanborn maps say it had a wooden overhang, so it is likely it wasn’t originally enclosed and perhaps the window isn’t historic.)

Mr. Giller: Can you speak to the historic vs. non-historic. The pictures make it look substantially historic. It appears based on the Sanborn map that it is in tact and historic. We know some was added later, but probably before 1942, unless you have evidence otherwise. (Mr. LaChance: I agree, we don’t know the date of the garage but it could have been prior to 1942.) Would you speak to the moving of the structure and the changing of the relationship between the house and the cabin. (Mr. LaChance: The reason why they’re proposing to move them is over concern of potential future expansion of French Street which would be closer to the house. The structures are proposed to be moved the same amount, so the relationship would remain the same.) Mr. Giller: It appears different on the plans, and the relationship appears to change which is important to the integrity. (Mr. LaChance: Staff thinks the moves are in relation to the overall site, and the secondary structure is maintaining the relationship being behind the building, and wouldn’t be more exposed. It is proposed to remain relatively the same.) Mr. Giller: Knowing that now, do you think negative one point is reasonable? (Mr. LaChance: Yes, I think the context and relationship has remained the same.)

Ms. Leidal: Looking at the 1914 Sanborn map, there’s a third structure shown. Is that gone? (Mr. LaChance: I think it is the other building, just in a different location. We couldn’t find any additional photos than what’s in the staff report.)

15


Ms. Puester: I just want to point out that it’s very cut and dry on the points for moving structures. Janet Sutterley, Architect, Presented: When the applicants first came to me, they really wanted to restore the interior and take advantage of the density in the basement. Initially they wanted to move the house back as far as possible on the lot. That’s because they are concerned that there will be future parallel parking along their side of the street. Thinking the town would want to continue the pattern of parking like on the rest of French Street. There are no immediate plans for that now, but when we did the Brown hotel and stable, there were plans to increase the French Street parking. There is definitely a chance that could happen and it is a valid concern on the owner’s part. Thus their request to move the house back on the property. If we did that, we would want to move the cabin further from the house. We have a lot of photos, and looking at the oldest (Mr. LaChance pulled up oldest available photo). The cultural resource survey history talks about loss of integrity, and I feel strongly that the Cultural Resource Survey is incorrect. It’s very clear on the Sanborn maps that the two story shed roof has been there. It’s part of the original structure. The house is in good shape and hasn’t had things done to it. The garage isn’t original, but probably within the period of significance. Right now, the owners use it as a garage. It’s very functional. In this LUD, we have other examples of garages even closer to the street. I don’t think this is anything out of the ordinary and we don’t want to remove it. I did want to speak for a moment about the moving of historic structures. I know it’s a hot button right now, and everyone is very concerned about future downgrades. I want to point out that on the ten projects that were downgraded, there was only one downgraded because of a move and that was the Judge Silverthorn house, which was moved 20 feet. There were two others moved under 5 feet that were not downgraded. I’m bringing this up because I know we are concerned about the future. The driveway. We started out by having a driveway that came along the north of the property. Parking in the rear means having a long driveway to get there. The existing curb cut is 30 feet wide. We are not adding a new curb cut with this proposal. It was staff and Engineering’s idea to combine with the Sherman Street right-of-way and we thought it was a good idea. The curb cut that’s 30 feet (on French St.), we would reduce to 12. Clearly we don’t want to have the third parking space in the rear. From a logistical standpoint to have to drive through and walk (pointed on the map). We need to keep access to the garage. I would say we’re agreeable to do paver strips to lessen the impact, but we need access to the garage. I would like to discuss the windows on the addition. There’s a lot of projects around town that have banks of 3 windows. It’s so far from the front of the lot so I don’t think it’s noticeable, but I’ll show you some others I consider precedents (passed out sheets). I would like to maintain the bank in the back. The two other Chapin mentioned are small horizontal windows and we see a lot of those around town too. I think that historically we do have windows that size, and the porch has the same oriented windows. We don’t have to take the fence across lot 9, we would be willing to change that. Ms. Leidal: Or do it later as a Class D. (Ms. Sutterley passed out photos of the cabin.) Mr. Giller: Do we think the cabin was this low historically? (Ms. Dyer: No, it’s sunk way down.

When you walk in you can tell it’s down.) Mr. Giller: Historically if it was lower, we shouldn’t raise it. It should stay at the same relative height. It doesn’t look as tall on the elevations. (Ms. Sutterley: We should do a site visit.) (Ms. Puester: We will do a site visit prior to the next hearing.)

16


Glen Dyer, Applicant, Presented: While talking about the cabin, I think the notion of it sinking is actually that the dirt has grown up around the cabin. It’s easy to tell there is a lot of dirt built up. House has been in family since the early 70s. We want to make the house livable. We’re not proposing to take a small lot and turn it into a massive compound like others on French Street. We feel this plan keeps a beautiful home the same but livable. We are into green space and want to keep it. We also want to restore 3rd existing structure (shed) on the property. We don’t want to over develop this lot. We are very far below what we could be asking for and we would like consideration from that perspective. Ms. Leidal: Janet, is the Dutch lap siding historically accurate? (Ms. Sutterley: The Dutch lap is

historic and we do have it here. It’s on the Eberlein house and 319 N. French. It’s also called covelap siding. It’s around town and it is historic.) Ms. Leidal noted that some of the siding shown on the plan doesn’t match the material description on the plans, and Ms. Sutterley confirmed it’s a mistake in the plans.

Ms. Leidal: We’re also closing in the shed on the rear, so we’re losing fabric there? Mr. Giller: would you consider in-filling it and leaving the door? (Mr. Dyer: That shed roof area is over 50 years old, but the oldest picture, that bump out is not there. I’m unclear on what the Commission views as historic, because it’s old. It’s not as old as the rest of the house.)

Mr. Giller: Agree, and that’s informative. It’s just a note. Did you do the 1981 restoration? (Ms. Dyer: My dad did.)

Mr. Giller opened the hearing for Public Comment. Lee Edwards, 108 N. French: In the overall context, with the proposed plan, how would that play out with the contributing nature of the structure after it is approved and the work is done? (Mr. Giller: We’re hoping that we’re improving the integrity at this point.) So it is our hope and desire to keep the structure Contributing? (Mr. Giller: Yes.) Mr. Edwards: I think that will be good to bring up in future staff reports. Mr. Schroder: Thanks, Chapin, for such a comprehensive report. There’s a lot of Design Standards to

consider. I’m glad to hear the applicant is looking to restore it. It’s not currently passing the point analysis, and you are considering ways to make it work. I’m glad to hear you spoke to the main access to the garage for utilitarian needs and we will need to work through the Absolute Policy. We are bound by the code. I look forward to seeing the future work on that. I appreciate the comment about moving the structures in unison and would support that. Windows are interesting that the oldest photographs show ones that are horizontal. Looking forward to more research on that and appropriateness of horizontal vs. vertical.

Mr. Lamb: I think the garage should remain, I think it was a good approach to getting access to the back of the lot. I’m fine with the windows, as long as they are spaced. I think there is some precedent for horizontal windows in the district. I think with landscaping it would pass the point analysis. Support Landmarking. Looking forward to seeing it again.

Mr. Schuman: The Absolute Policy regarding the driveway, I’m not sure how to solve it. We’ve got a good proposal but we need to figure it out, and hopefully staff will help us work through it. The windows I agree with Jim that right now they read close, but if separate they would be good. The existing garage, I think it relates to Policy 18 and I think it has a use and does need to stay in place. Right now I support the Landmarking and staff’s point analyses.

Mr. Gerard: I’d like to thank Mr. and Mrs. Dyer for taking this on, there aren’t many houses that have been in families that long. It think this is a great project but I am going to be critical. I’m not the newest to the commission, but I’ve voted no on all projects where buildings are moved and have positive points. I believe Policy 24 says you don’t move it unless it’s fully restored. And I think you have to do that any way. I don’t agree with the three positive

17


points for restoration. Moving it is your choice. I think for precedent you don’t get positive points for moving something. The cabin, I’m supportive of one point for moving it. You have to think about keeping the historic orientation. Parking, I don’t think we have a way around it and don’t have the right to grant a variance. If you keep the front curb cut and keep the garage, you’ve created two stand alone homes and more density of people using the property. I think it fails the Absolute policy. And Janet, maybe an underground connector. The historic window in front, it looks like there is one but full restoration of all windows is needed. Question 1, the driveway should be removed. 2, I am ok with the windows on the new building as long as they are spaced a little bit. There is precedence for horizontal windows. 3, I don’t support the garage to remain. 4, I do support Landmarking. Other than my objection to points getting positive points for restoration when moving the structure, I agree with the analysis.

Ms. Leidal: We all appreciate the improvements, thank you for that. In terms of questions 1 and 3, the garage and driveway. It sounds like the garage could be in the period of significance and I think it’s up to the applicant to figure out how to comply with one curb cut. Not saying you have to remove it, if you choose to keep it, I would encourage landscape strips to reduce the hardscape. I don’t support positive points for the shared driveway because it’s actually in the Town right-of-way, not private property, and I’m concerned with setting a precedent. 2, I agree with staff’s window suggestions. 4, I support designation as a Local Landmark. 5, I agree with staff’s analysis regarding landscaping and installing windows and doors on cabin to meet 24R for moving the cabin. That includes windows and doors.

Mr. Schuman: Steve, in 24R, would you recommend or advise changing the point analysis under Social Community? You are consistent with your moving comments, and I am just curious if you want to change the point analysis. (Mr. Gerard: No. I think if you are moving the house you have to fix it. Bring it up to the way it was. It’s my interpretation.)

Mr. Giller: Thank you for bringing this project. It’s great it has been in the family. It’s a good rehab. This is a preliminary, so we’re here to work together to improve it. 1, the driveway and garage, I think we all agree it’s historic. The rehab should be compatible and I urge you to look at the historic garage door and get closer to it. On the accessory apartment windows, there is precedent for horizontal windows on the main residence and it’s compatible. If windows are spaced 6 or 7 inches it’s acceptable. I would support Landmarking and happy to see the home saved. Design is great overall. Support staff’s analysis and points. I think Chapin did a great job and it was great to have such a thorough report from him and as-built plans from Janet.

COMBINED HEARINGS: 1. McCain Subdivision (JL), 12965, 13215, 13217, 13221, 13250 Colorado State Highway 9, PL-2019-0060 Mr. Lott presented a proposal to resubdivide the existing Town-owned McCain property into four parcels. Mr. Lott explained the land exchange with the Summit School District and creating that parcel, along with an access easement. It was pointed out that updated plans were received by staff this morning, and Mr. Lott had the updated plans shown on the monitors. Commissioner Questions / Comments: Mr. Gerard: I’d like to see the bike trail easement shown on the plat because it is going to go over or

adjacent to the school property. (Mr. Lott: Ok, we will show that on the plat.) Mr. Giller opened the hearing for Public Comment. Lee Edwards, 1802 Airport Rd: I’m encouraged to see the color plans for the 2018 Master Plan Update.

18


Allen Robertson, 13203 Highway 9: I’m with the bunkhouse lodge. We are the only residents that adjoin the property. We are excited about the project. I like the statement about the exchange with the school district. They could sell and we could have a Shock Hill right here. It was originally supposed to be an 80 percent open space project. The 30 percent was way under that. The traffic at the circle, there’s accidents every single night. We need a yield sign that blinks. This is my opportunity to say we are behind you guys, but the traffic and the environment are concerns. There is a little lake, with snow geese about to hatch goslings. We need to consider it and see the lake stay. It’s one of the last pits from the tailings and could be of historic value. We are behind this 100 percent but would like you take the same amount of diligence with this property as others. What we do today is what Breck will look like in 50 years. Thank you. Ms. Leidal: I support staff analysis. Thank you for reviewing the revisions. I appreciate the public

comment. Tonight we are just subdividing the property and we are not talking about the land use, but your comments will be in the record.

Mr. Schroder: I support the proposal and believe it’s in compliance. Mr. Gerard: I think this is a housekeeping matter, and once we show the bike trail easement, we’ve done

what we need to. I like the pond too. (Mr. Robertson: Why isn’t the snow pile somewhere else?) Mr. Gerard: The Town Council decided that.

Mr. Schuman: I agree, it’s in compliance. Mr. Lamb: I agree this is a housekeeping motion and it’s in compliance and I support. Mr. Giller: I agree and support. Mr. Schuman made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Schroder. The motion passed 6-0. OTHER MATTERS: 1. Class D Majors Q1 2019 (Memo Only) 2. Class C Subdivisions Q1 2019 (Memo Only) Ms. Puester: We did have our first stakeholder meeting today. We will have a few more and hopefully

get some good contributions. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 pm. Mike Giller, Chair

19

1

Memo

To: Breckenridge Town Council Members

From: Town Attorney

Date: 4/16/2019

Subject: Council Bill No. 8 (Amending Town Code Concerning E-bike Use on the Town

Recreational Pathways)

The second reading of the ordinance amending the Town Code concerning the use of electrical assisted bikes (EABs) on the Town’s recreational pathways is scheduled for your meeting on April 23rd. Per Council direction from the first reading, local bike shops have been notified of the second reading. The following changes are proposed to the version of the ordinance that was approved on first reading: 1. The language of the ordinance has been revised to provide that class 1 EABs are allowed only

on the Town’s paved recreational pathways. Class 2 and class 3 EABs are still prohibited on the Town’s paved recreational pathways. Additionally, all EABs are still prohibited from being operated on the Town’s unpaved recreational pathways.

2. For consistency, the terminology “recreational paths” has been changed to “recreational pathways” throughout the ordinance.

I will be happy to discuss this matter with you on Tuesday.

20

FOR WORKSESSION/SECOND READING – APRIL 23 1 2

Additions To The Ordinance As Approved on First Reading Are 3 Indicated By Bold + Double Underline; Deletions By Strikeout 4

5 COUNCIL BILL NO. 8 6

7 Series 2019 8

9 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE OPERATION OF ELECTRICAL ASSISTED 10

BICYCLES ON TOWN-OWNED RECREATIONAL PATHWAYS 11 12

WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that it should allow the operation of 13 class 1 electrical assisted bicycles on all Town-owned paved recreational pathways, while 14 maintaining the current prohibition against the operation of class 2 and class 3 electrical assisted 15 bicycles on all other Town-owned recreational pathways. 16

17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 18 BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO: 19 20

Section 1. Section 11-2-4 of the Breckenridge Town Code is amended to read as follows: 21

11-2-4: MOTORIZED VEHICLES PROHIBITED: 22 23 It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motorized vehicle anywhere 24 within a town park, except within those areas designated as parking areas. This 25 section shall not apply to: (i) a motorized wheelchair or other similar device 26 operated by or for a disabled person, or to (ii) an authorized maintenance or 27 emergency vehicle, or (iii) the operation of a class 1 electrical assisted bicycle on 28 the Town’s paved recreational pathways. 29 30 Section 2. Subsection (15) of that portion of the Section 7-1-2 of the Breckenridge Town 31

Code pertaining to Section 1412 of the Town’s Traffic Code is amended to read as follows: 32 33

(15) A person shall not to operate an a class 2 or class 3 electrical assisted bicycle 34 on any town-owned recreational pathway within the corporate limits of the town; 35 provided, however, that Iit is not unlawful for a person to operate a class 1 36 electrical assisted bicycle on any town-owned paved recreational pathway within 37 the corporate limits of the town. 38 39 Section 3. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Breckenridge Town Code, and the 40

various secondary codes adopted by reference therein, shall continue in full force and effect. 41

Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is 42 necessary and proper to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and 43

21

improve the order, comfort and convenience of the Town of Breckenridge and the inhabitants 1 thereof. 2

Section 5. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by Section 3 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 4

INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED 5 PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2019. A Public Hearing shall be held at the 6 regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of 7 ____, 2019, at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the 8 Town. 9 10

TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado 11 municipal corporation 12 13 14 By:______________________________ 15 Eric S. Mamula, Mayor 16 17 ATTEST: 18 19 20 _________________________ 21 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 22 Town Clerk 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 55 500-306\EAB on Rec Paths Ordinance (04-15-19)(Second Reading) 56

22

1


From: Nichole Rex

Date: 4/17/2019 (for April 23rd meeting)

Subject: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF TOWN-OWNED REAL PROPERTY (Summit School District Land Exchange) The Town and the Summit School District are developing an agreement for a land exchange where the Town would transfer ownership of two Blue 52 Townhomes and a 10 acre parcel on the McCain Subdivision in exchange for a 8.7 acre vacant Summit School District parcel on Block 11 (See Exhibit A). This Ordinance is the first reading of the Ordinance to Authorize the Exchange of Town-Owned Real Property to Summit School District RE-1.

Staff looks forward to discussing this with you and answering your questions during the April 23rd worksession.

23

P

age

2

24

FOR WORKSESSION/FIRST READING – APRIL 23 1 2

COUNCIL BILL NO. ____ 3 4

Series 2019 5 6

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF TOWN-OWNED 7 REAL PROPERTY 8

(Summit School District Land Exchange) 9 10

WHEREAS, the Town of Breckenridge is the owner of the following described real 11 property: 12 13

Parcel “A” 14 15

Tract B, McCain Subdivision, according to the plat recorded ___________, 2019 16 under Reception No. _____________ of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of 17 Summit County, Colorado; containing 10.1262 acres more or less 18

19 Parcel “B” 20

21 Units 12 and 13, Blue 52 Townhomes, according to the Map thereof recorded 22 December 13, 2017 at Reception No. 1159017 in the records of the Clerk and 23 Recorder of the County of Summit, Colorado and as defined and described in the 24 Declaration Of Covenants, Conditions, And Restrictions Of The Blue 52 25 Townhomes, dated December 12, 2017 and recorded December 13, 2017 under 26 Reception No. 1159019 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Summit 27 County, Colorado, together with any “Common Elements” of the Blue 52 28 Townhomes, in each case that are appurtenant to such Units, but subject to: (i) the 29 “Residential Housing Restriction and Notice of Lien For Blue 52 Townhomes” 30 recorded December 13, 2017 at Reception No. 1159018 of the records of the 31 Clerk and Recorder of Summit County, Colorado, and (ii) the rules and 32 regulations of the Blue 52 Townhomes Association, a Colorado nonprofit 33 corporation. 34

35 (collectively, “Property”) 36 ; and 37 38 WHEREAS, the Town desires to convey the Property to Summit School District RE-1 as 39 part of a land exchange to be negotiated by the Town Manager; and 40 41 WHEREAS, Section 15.3 of the Breckenridge Town Charter provides that the Town 42 Council may lawfully authorize the exchange of Town-owned real property by ordinance. 43 44 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 45 BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO: 46

25

1 Section 1. The Town Manger is authorized, empowered, and directed to convey the 2 Property to Summit School District RE-1 as part of a land exchange to be negotiated with the 3 District. 4 5 Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that it has the power to 6 adopt this Ordinance pursuant to the authority granted to home rule municipalities by Article XX of 7 the Colorado Constitution and the powers contained in the Breckenridge Town Charter. 8 9 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published and become effective as provided by Section 10 5.9 of the Breckenridge Town Charter. 11 12 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED 13 PUBLISHED IN FULL this ____ day of _____, 2019. A Public Hearing shall be held at the 14 regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado on the ___ day of 15 ____, 2019, at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Municipal Building of the 16 Town. 17 18

TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, a Colorado 19 municipal corporation 20 21 22 23 By: ______________________________ 24 Eric S. Mamula, Mayor 25 26 ATTEST: 27 28 29 30 _________________________ 31 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 32 Town Clerk 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 600-314\Exchange Ordinance (04-15-19)(First Reading) 46

26

1


From: Nichole Rex


Subject: Public Hearing and Fact Finding Resolution – Kenington Townhomes

Kenington Townhomes is a 36 unit townhome project located east-adjacent to Huron Landing in unincorporated Summit County. These townhomes have received Town water since they were developed in 1995 and they are deed restricted for long-term occupancy only. The deed restriction was a condition of the out of Town "Water Service Agreement" that was signed by the project developer and the Town on February 22, 1995. The Water Service Agreement was recorded in the real estate records of the Summit County Clerk and Recorder on April 19, 1995 under Reception No. 513376. Pursuant to Section 22 of the Water Service Agreement the owners of the Kenington Townhomes are required to join in a valid annexation petition when directed to do so by the Town.

When the Huron Landing property was annexed into the Town of Breckenridge in 2015, Kenington Townhomes became eligible for annexation because of the contiguity to the Town boundary (Exhibit A). In summer of 2018, the Town requested that Kenington Townhome Owners join in a valid annexation petition. The Town Clerk received their petition seeking annexation of the Kenington Townhomes to the Town, and on February 26th, the Town Council approved a Sufficiency Resolution for the annexation of Kenington Townhomes. That Resolution confirmed that the Petition was complete, and the next steps in the annexation process could proceed.

During today’s meeting, there will be a Public Hearing for the annexation of Kenington Townhomes and a Fact Finding Resolution. This resolution makes specific “findings” that the Kenington Townhomes property meets all of the statutory and constitutional requirements, and the property is therefore eligible for annexation to the Town. The first reading of the Annexation Ordinance (which will be the next step) will occur at a later date. Attached is a memo from the Town Attorney and proposed form of the Fact Finding Resolution.

Staff looks forward to discussing this with you and answering your questions during the April 23rd worksession.

27

NORTH

28


From: Town Attorney


Subject: Kenington Townhomes Annexation

The public hearing on the proposed Kenington Townhomes annexation is scheduled for next Tuesday. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, state law requires the Council to adopt what is commonly referred to as the “Fact Finding Resolution.” This resolution makes specific “findings” that the Kenington Townhomes property meets all of the statutory and constitutional requirements, and is therefore eligible for annexation to the Town. You should note, however, that by adopting the Fact Finding Resolution and establishing the property’s eligibility for annexation to the Town, the Council is not agreeing to annex the property. The Council will retain its discretion with respect to that question until the time of the adoption of the actual Annexation Ordinance. A copy of a proposed Fact Finding Resolution for the Kenington Townhomes property is enclosed. Staff has reviewed the Fact Finding Resolution and believes that each of the findings set forth in the resolution is correct. I will be happy to discuss these matters with you next Tuesday.

29

FOR WORKSESSION/ADOPTION – APRIL 23 1 2

RESOLUTION NO. _____ 3 4

SERIES 2019 5 6

A RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 7 REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE OF 8

A PARCEL OF LAND 9 (Kenington Townhomes – 2.80 acres, more or less) 10

11 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge has previously found a 12 petition for the annexation of the hereinafter described parcel of land to be in substantial 13 compliance with the requirements of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has given notice of a public hearing on the proposed 16 annexation by publication of such notice once a week for four consecutive weeks and by mailing 17 notice of such hearing by registered mail to the Board of County Commissioners of Summit 18 County, the County Attorney, the school district, and to any special district having territory in the 19 area proposed to be annexed as required by Section 31-12-108(2), C.R.S.; and 20 21 WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on April 23, 2019 to determine if 22 the proposed annexation complies with Sections 31-12-104 and 105, C.R.S., and is, therefore, 23 eligible for annexation to the Town. 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 26 BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO: 27 28 Section 1. With regard to the proposed annexation to the Town of the following described 29 real property, to wit: 30 31

Kenington Place Townhomes, including all buildings and units thereof, and all 32 common areas, according to the plats thereof recorded in the real property records 33 of the Clerk and Recorder of Summit County, Colorado. 34 35 The parcel is more particularly described as follows: 36 37 A tract of land being all of Kenington Place Townhomes (previously Lot 67, 38 Huron Heights), located in Summit County Colorado, and being more particularly 39 described as follows: 40 41 Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Kenington Place Townhomes (Lot 67, 42 Huron Heights); thence along the following 5 courses: 43

44 1.) N54˚12'03"W a distance of 579.76 feet; 45 2.) N10˚00'29"W a distance of 147.77 feet; 46

30

3.) N57˚15'00"E a distance of 150.00 feet; 1 4.) S44˚09'25"E a distance of 640.54 feet; 2 5.) S35˚44'24"W a distance of 130.91 feet; 3 To the Point of Beginning, containing 2.80 acres, more or less 4 5

the Town Council of the Town of Breckenridge (“Town”) hereby finds, determines, and 6 concludes as follows: 7 8

A. The finding made by the Town Council in Resolution No. 6, Series 2019 that the 9 Petition For Annexation filed in this matter is in substantial compliance with the 10 requirements of Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S., is reaffirmed and incorporated into 11 this resolution by reference. 12

B. In connection with this annexation proceeding Section 30(1) of Article 2 of the 13 Colorado Constitution has been complied with because the Town has received a 14 petition for annexation signed by persons comprising more than fifty percent of 15 the landowners in the area proposed for annexation and owning more than fifty 16 percent of the area proposed for annexation, excluding public streets, and alleys 17 and any land owned by the Town. 18

C. Not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is 19 contiguous with the existing boundaries of the Town and, therefore, because of 20 such contiguity, a community of interest exists between the territory proposed to 21 be annexed and the Town. 22

D. No portion of the required contiguity for this annexation was achieved by 23 annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or 24 private transportation right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other 25 natural or artificial waterway. Therefore, the requirements of Section 31-12-26 105(1)(e)(II), (e.1), and (e.3) do not apply to this annexation. 27

E. The contiguity required for this annexation was not established by use of any 28 boundary of an area which was previously annexed to the Town but which, at the 29 time of its annexation, was not contiguous at any point with the boundary of the 30 Town; was not otherwise in compliance with the requirements of Section 31-12-31 104(1)(a), C.R.S.; and was located more than three miles from the nearest 32 boundary of the Town; nor was such contiguity established by use of any 33 boundary of territory which has been subsequently annexed directly to, or which 34 was indirectly connected through subsequent annexations to, such area. 35

F. The territory proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near 36 future. 37

G. The territory proposed to be annexed is integrated with, or is capable of being 38 integrated with, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado. 39

31

H. No land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of 1 real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels or real estate, has been 2 divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the 3 landowners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a dedicated 4 street, road, or other public way. 5

I. No land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of 6 real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels or real estate, comprising 7 twenty (20) acres or more (which, together with the buildings and improvements 8 situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in excess of Two Hundred 9 Thousand Dollars [$200,000] for ad valorem tax purposes for the year preceding 10 the annexation) has been included without the written consent of the landowners 11 unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of the 12 Town as they exists at the time of annexation. 13

J. No annexation proceedings concerning the territory proposed to be annexed have 14 been commenced by another municipality. 15

K. The proposed annexation will not result in the detachment of area from a school 16 district. 17

L. The proposed annexation will not result in the extension of the boundaries of the 18 Town more than three miles. 19

M. The Town has in place a plan for the area proposed to be annexed. 20

N. In establishing the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed the entire width 21 of any street or alley is included within the area to be annexed. 22

O. Nothing in either Section 31-12-104 or Section 31-12-105, C.R.S., prevents the 23 annexation of the subject property to the Town. 24

P. The area proposed to be annexed meets all applicable requirements under 25 Colorado law, and is eligible for annexation to the Town. 26

Section 2. An election is not required in connection with the proposed annexation. 27 28 Section 3. No additional terms or conditions are to be imposed upon the area proposed to 29 be annexed. 30 31 Section 4. This resolution is effective upon adoption. 32 33 RESOLUTION APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _____ DAY OF __________________, 34 2019. 35 36 37 38

32

TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE 1 2 3 4

By:__________________________________ 5 Eric S, Mamula, Mayor 6 7 8 ATTEST: 9 10 11 12 ___________________________ 13 Helen Cospolich, CMC, 14 Town Clerk 15 16 APPROVED IN FORM 17 18 19 20 ____________________________ 21 Town Attorney date 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1300-44 \Fact Finding Resolution (04-15-19) 46

33

1

Memo


From: Shannon Smith, Town Engineer

Date: 4/17/2019

Subject: Public Projects Update

Ice Arena Locker Room Addition Schedule: The construction drawings for the project have been finalized by Matthew Stais Architects and the contractor, MW Golden Constructors (MWGC), has submitted pricing to establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the project. Construction work is still scheduled to begin in May 2019 and be completed by November 2019. Ice Arena facility closures are expected to be minimal during construction.

Budget: The Design Development budget presented at the March 12th Council meeting showed a total estimated project cost of $2,315,960. The updated GMP budget presented below totals $2,300,000 for the project. $2,000,000 was budgeted in the 2019 CIP, prior to completion of design and contractor input. Staff is requesting Council approval of $300,000 in a supplemental appropriation.

Design/Utilities

Ice Arena 3/12/2019 Estimate

GMP Costs (4/17/19)

Design Costs $88,934.00 $92,000.00 Upper Blue San District PIFs $44,587.00 $45,000.00 Other Owner Costs $34,000.00 $27,000.00 Locker Room Additions $1,723,445.00 $1,740,000.00 Office Alterations $122,913.00 $126,000.00 Owner Contingency $302,081.85 $270,000.00

Total $2,315,960.85 $2,300,000.00

2019 Concrete Replacement & Additions Schedule: The 2019 concrete replacement and additions project is scheduled to begin on April 29th. Traffic delays, detours, and parking closures should be expected until project completion (late June) at the following locations:

West French Street Ridge Street Wellington Road Gold Flake Terrace Royal Tiger Road Broken Lance Drive Wellington Lot and Courthouse Lot

34

CIP projects with no updates: Asphalt Overlay (updated 4/9/19) McCain Property Improvements – School Parcel Coyne Valley Pedestrian Underpass Coyne Valley River Crossing Airport Road Improvements Sand Storage Structure Infrastructure Improvements – Culverts SH9 Property Improvements – Landscape Berm Softball Field LED Lights Pool Area Lights and Window Replacement (Updated 9-26-17)

35

-1

Town of Breckenridge North Water Treatment Plant Prepared by M. Petters/HDR Engineering, Inc.

Residuals Steel Reinforcing 3/7/2019 Main Treatment Building Structural Steel Frame 3//27/2019

March 2019

Contractor: Moltz Construction, Inc.

Designer:

HDR Engineering, Inc. Tetra Tech

Award Date:

December 8, 2017

Notice to Proceed: December 15, 2017

Notice to Mobilize:

March 21, 2018

Substantial Completion Date: August 3, 2020

Original Duration: 867 Days Days Added by CO: 0 Time Percent Complete: 43.3 % Cost Percent Complete: 51.9 % Guaranteed Maximum Price:

$42,000,000 Change Order Total: $225,826 Current Contract Value: $42,225,826 Invoiced to Date: $21,910,096 Cost Growth: 0.54 % Schedule Growth: 0 Days

36

-2

Schedule and Budget Status

Moltz Construction Inc. (MCI) has completed work for 51.9% of the project value within 43.25% of the available contract time. Their current schedule update shows them completing the contract on time.

Seven Change Orders have been issued to date on the project. There have been 14 Work Change Directives, 30 Change Proposal Requests and 25 Field Orders initiated on the project.

Accomplishments/Highlights Administration Building: Triangle Electric continued installing above floor conduits and boxes. Sierra Blanca (SB) completed roughing in the sanitary and potable water piping. SB installed the shower. Horizon Mechanical completed the ductwork. Allman completed the framing. Finished Water Pump Station: Mendoza completed the structural steel frame, installed the roof panels and the exterior wall panels. Residuals Building: MCI and Rumbler Rebar have completed the concrete walls for the Backwash Waste Tanks 1 and 2 and the Recycle Equalization Basin. They have one more concrete placement to complete the thickened sludge equalization tank and the stairwell. Raw Water Pump Station: Triangle Electric continue installing conduits for outlets and lighting. Horizon Mechanical and Breckenridge Crane set the packaged air conditioner unit on the roof. Horizon Mechanical installed ductwork.

Main Treatment Building (MTB): Moltz Construction Inc. (MCI) has completed all the stem walls at west and east sides of the Sedimentation Basin Pipe Gallery. Raw Water Pump Station: MCI completed the concrete intake structure. They have installed the piping and the plug valves between the intake structure and the low lift pump station manholes. They have laid the overflow piping from the intake structure to the river and started laying overflow piping to the raw water pump station. Finished Water Pump Station: Horizon Mechanical set the packaged air conditioner unit. Main Treatment Building (MTB): MCI set the shoring and decking in Sedimentation Basin 2 and 3 for the crossover walk. They placed and finished the concrete walk over Basin 2 and 3. Raw Water Pipeline: Stan Miller Inc. has completed crossing the River Crossing with the raw water pipe. They still need to complete the connection to the pipeline.

37

-3

Construction Progress Photos

Town of Breckenridge – North Water Treatment Plant

03/01/2019- Residuals Southwest Corner Stairwell Gang Forms

03/05/2019- Raw Water Intake Structure Wall Forming

Town of Breckenridge – North Water Treatment Plant 3/06/2019- Raw Water Pump Station

Air Handling Unit

3/07/2019- Raw Water Pump Station Low Lift Pump Station Walls

38

-4


3/12/2019- Raw Water Pump Station Ductwork 3/13/2019- Administration Building plumbing and electrical work

Town of Breckenridge – North Water Treatment Plant 3/14/2019- Residuals Building Constructing Gang

Forms 3/15/2019- Intake Structure Suspended Slab

Formwork

39

-5


3/18/2019- Residuals Rigging Forms 3/19/2019- Finished Water Pump Station Exterior Wall Panels

Town of Breckenridge – North Water Treatment Plant 3/20/2019- Residuals Removing Snow From

the Basins 3/21/2019- Recycle Equalization Basin Shore

Towers

40

-6


3/26/2019- Blue River Diversion 3/27/2019- Sed Basin 1 Snow Removal


3/27/2019- South Side Blue River Crossing 3/27/2019- MTB Roof Beams

41

-7


3/28/2019- MTB Crossover Walkway 3/2/2019- Residuals Recycle Equalization Basin Decking


3/28/2019- MTB Clearstory Section 3/29/2019- Low Lift Station to Intake Structure Piping

42

-8

Upcoming Activities/Milestones Planned Date

Administration Building: Triangle Electric will complete electrical conduits rough in and have a rough electrical Inspection. Sierra Blanca will continue pressure testing pipe and getting a rough plumbing inspection. Allman will get a rough framing inspection.

4/15/2019

Administration Building: Allman will install the hollow metal door frames.

4/12/2019

Residuals Building: MCI will complete forming and placing walls. They will continue shoring, decking, edge forms and start placing the suspended slabs.

3/26/2019

Intake Structure: MCI will install the air diffuser, trash rack and the fish screen. They will install some underground HDPE air piping.

4/9/2019

Intake Structure: MCI will restore the Blue River and place boulders in the Blue River.

4/19/2019

Raw Water Pipeline: Stan Miller Inc. will complete the Blue River Crossing and the remaining piping in their contract.

4/3/2019

Treatment Building: Mendoza will continue to build the structural steel frame.

Ongoing

43

-9

Treatment Building: MCI will start the backfill, tie steel reinforcing, place and finish the main treatment slab(s).

Ongoing

Water Treatment Plant: MCI will install the plate settlers.

4/16/2019

Treatment building: MCI will shore, form and cast the filter effluent deck and start the effluent channel wall formwork.

Ongoing

Administration Building: Allman will start hanging the drywall.

Start 4/30/2019

Clearwell: MCI will install and encase the underground pipe connecting the Clearwells and the wet well.

4/18/2019

Finish Water Pipeline: Stan Miller will install the piping from the west end of the bore under Highway 9 to the blowoff at Station 10 + 62.

4/19/2019

Finished Water Pump Station: Mendoza will finish the trim for the windows and Horizon Mechanical will complete the ductwork.

4/30/2019

44

Housing Committee Minutes

Date: Tuesday, April 9th, 2019

Time: 1:00-3:00 PM

Location: Town Hall-Planning Conference Room

Attendees: Rick Holman, Wendy Wolfe, Gary Gallagher, Peter Grosshuesch, Mark Truckey, Laurie Best, Nichole Rex,

Other: Carre Warner attended as a guest to give presentation on Housing Works Initiative

Programs and Strategies:

- Review 2019 Work Plan and Priorities: Staff created a 2019 Housing Work Plan to guide committee priorities for the next year (see exhibit A). While staff continues to work on the day-to-day tasks (black text), the committee has prioritized specific tasks from this list (red text) to focus on for this year. These priority tasks include:

o Focus on developing and implementing a long term rental incentive program. o Implement a Vail InDeed/Buy Down Program. o Plan for the next affordable rental project that will target low rental rates. o Pursue private sector deed restricted development opportunities (Stan Miller). o Develop criteria for the condition of deed restricted units at the time of sale. This is in

response to the vast difference in the upkeep of deed restricted homes and the ability to sell for the maximum sale price when essential life and safety functions of the home are not being met. This will be integrated into our overall housing guidelines.

Staff is now working on these projects and is going to provide more details on each of the program descriptions, strategies, metrics, and timeframes at the next committee meeting on May 14th.

- Housing Works Initiative Update: During the committee meeting, Carre Warner gave a presentation on the Housing Works Initiative Program (HWI). The HWI Program is administered through FIRC and aims to convert short term rentals to long term rentals by providing reduced management fees, guaranteed rent, and tenant qualification. Knowledge of HWI is important as we begin to develop long term rental incentive programs and staff plans to work with FIRC to ensure that the HWI Program and the LTR Incentive Program that staff develops complement each other.

45

- Non-Profit Housing Collaboration Update: The committee discussed progress made between staff and nonprofit housing collaboration opportunities. Our conversation focused on updating the group that the NRO Executive Director is now working with the Cultural Coalition to determine their housing needs as a whole. Staff will meet with the group once they have developed their proposal.

Policies:

- Ownership of other units (SCHA Inquiry): The Town was asked if we would consider implementing a policy that allows Owners who are purchasing a deed restricted home and currently own a non-deed restricted market unit, to keep their existing unit if they applied a light deed restriction to the property. The committee asked staff to research this opportunity further and bring it back as a policy question with the housing guidelines.

Project Updates:

Ongoing:

No Update

Future:

No Update

Inventory Management and Project Oversight Updates: No Update

Financials/Proforma Updates: No Update

What’s Happening in Housing: No Update

Other Matters: No Update

46

2019 Housing Workplan-March 2019(italics are initiatives to reiew/prioritize with Committee)

On-going Deed Restriction Administration Manage the Prop Mgmt (COTO, HL, PW1, PW2) Long Term Rental Incentives (carrots) Master Plan/TOB Vision for Block 11Refi-Subordinations (approx 10/year) Policies-pets, parking, waranty, etc. STR survey Vertical 2020?Resale-Subordinations and DOT releases (approx 20-25/year) Budgets/rates/reserves HWI collaborationResale/ownership tracking Comcast/wifi issue Rental Voucher Program McCain PropertyCapital Improvement Certificates Coordination w partners Research Denver/JacksonMonitoring/Enforcement Incentives for Rooms PW SiteLogs-CI/resale/churn/inventory Pinewood 2-LIHTC ComplianceCheat Sheet for DR terms Vail Indeed for Breck (Paying for DR in lieu of building new) StillsonCustomer Service/Interpretations Huron Landing Authority-Board/DOLA reports/County Cash to help buyers at time of purchase in return for DRCondition of units at resale Cash to owners for REHABS/repair/upgrades in return for DR Miller PropertyMore control of sale process (buyer, price) Point Person-Transition Units (TOB employee units) Regular buy downs-TOB acquire-target neighborhoodsTrack metrics/outcomes-Housing Census HOA Cash or land into deals (Thaemert model) Collaboration with NRO, BM, FF,(ie loss of unit, price creep, % of employee living in Town) insurance

maintenance/repair Web Site/Outreach/Tours/Marketing Pursue Public/Private PartnershipsSpecial Projects manage the manager (SCHA, Alpine, TOB,VR)

Formalize Guidelines/Internal Procedures/Policies/Precedent Breck Terrace beds Continue to Land Bank Berlin Placer DealDeed Restriction swaps (upgrade to current template) rates and policiesData Management Software-scan hard files leases and employees Committee B52 HOA/WarrantyHousing Code/Mitigation Rate budgetsKennington AnnexationSSD Land Trade Gateway Property Point PersonSubordination Policy

Housing Program Budget/Proforma

SCHA Collaboration/Needs AssessementOne stop shop for buyers, sellers, landlords, tenants

Development Projects

(approximately 1,000 deed restricted units-on average 50 new units added/year since 2000)

Administrative Programs/PoliciesAsset Management(ownership in 4 apartment complexes-154 units)

15 long term employee units and 32 short term employee units including Breck Terrace

47


From: Rick Holman, Town Manager

Date: 4/17/2019

Subject: Committee Reports

No committee reports were submitted for this meeting.

Committees* Representative Report Status CAST Mayor Mamula/ Erin Gigliello No Meeting/Report CDOT Rick Holman No Meeting/Report CML Rick Holman No Meeting/Report I-70 Coalition Rick Holman No Meeting/Report Mayors, Managers & Commissioners Mayor Mamula/ Rick Holman No Meeting/Report Liquor and Marijuana Licensing Authority Helen Cospolich No Meeting/Report Summit Stage Advisory Board Jennifer Pullen No Meeting/Report Police Advisory Committee Chief Jim Baird No Meeting/Report CMC Advisory Committee Rick Holman No Meeting/Report Recreation Advisory Committee Scott Reid No Meeting/Report Workforce Housing Committee Laurie Best No Meeting/Report Child Care Advisory Committee Jennifer McAtamney Included as a separate agenda item Breckenridge Events Committee Shannon Haynes No Meeting/Report Transit Advisory Committee Jennifer Pullen No Meeting/Report Water Task Force Gary Gallagher No Meeting/Report Communications Haley Littleton No Meeting/Report *Note: Reports provided by the Mayor and Council Members are listed in the Council agenda.

48

March 31, 2019Financial Reports

Department of Finance

Town Hall Pool Vehicles - March 2, 2019

49

YTD Actual YTD Budget % of Budget Annual BudgetPrior YTD

ActualPrior Annual

ActualSALES TAX 4,377,424$ 4,171,534$ 105% 23,981,000$ 4,156,159$ 23,554,246$ ACCOMMODATIONS TAX 1,017,044 1,010,827 101% 3,514,000 1,000,514 3,474,390 REAL ESTATE TRANSFER 1,432,783 1,253,455 114% 5,400,000 1,080,585 6,156,695 OTHER* 85,413 94,264 91% 845,354 82,325 863,336

TOTAL 6,912,663$ 6,530,080$ 106% 33,740,354$ 6,319,583$ 34,048,667$ * Other includes Franchise Fees (Telephone, Public Service and Cable), Cigarette Tax, and Investment Income

March 31, 2019

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

$5,000,000

SALES TAX ACCOM TAX RETT OTHER

YTD Actual

YTD Budget

Excise YTD Actual vs. Budget - by Source

SALES TAX63%

ACCOM TAX15%

RETT21%

OTHER1%

YTD Actual Revenues - Excise

Executive Summary

This report covers the first 3 months of 2019. March is largely reflective of February tax collections. We are approximately $383k over 2019 budgeted revenues in the Excise fund. This is mostly due to sales tax being $206k over budget and Real Estate Transfer Tax up $179k over budget. Sales Tax is $221k ahead of prior year; RETT is up $352k over prior year.

See the Tax Basics section of these financial reports for more detail on the sales, accommodations, and real estate transfer taxes.

Expenditures are holding the line, with the General Fund tracking slightly below YTD budgeted expense amount (see General Fund Expenditures Summary for details).

50

Description YTD 2016 YTD 2017 YTD 20182018

% of Total YTD 20192018/2019

$ Change2018/2019

% Change2019

% of TotalRetail $30,294,356 $32,136,543 $35,030,693 23.94% $39,910,732 $4,880,039 13.93% 26.24%Weedtail $2,226,197 $2,339,606 $2,376,788 1.62% $2,422,461 $45,673 1.92% 1.59%Restaurant / Bar $30,485,455 $31,458,164 $35,219,211 24.07% $36,120,614 $901,403 2.56% 23.75%Short-Term Lodging $44,006,186 $43,357,540 $49,529,912 33.85% $50,331,314 $801,402 1.62% 33.10%Grocery / Liquor $12,700,379 $12,926,156 $14,646,716 10.01% $13,302,916 ($1,343,800) -9.17% 8.75%Construction $4,451,506 $4,168,130 $3,920,372 2.68% $4,020,832 $100,460 2.56% 2.64%Utility $5,396,568 $5,858,607 $5,507,293 3.76% $5,717,659 $210,366 3.82% 3.76%Other* $75,899 $312,034 $100,121 0.07% $246,043 $145,922 145.75% 0.16%Total $129,636,546 $132,556,780 $146,331,105 100.00% $152,072,571 $5,741,466 3.92% 100.00% * Other includes activities in Automobiles and Undefined Sales.

Net Taxable Sales by Industry-YTD

The Tax Basics: February 2019

Retail26%

Weedtail1%

Restaurant / Bar24%

Short-Term Lodging

33%

Grocery / Liquor9%

Construction3%

Utility4% Other*

0%

YTD 2019

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

Retail Weedtail Restaurant /Bar

Short-TermLodging

Grocery /Liquor

Construction Utility Other*

YTD 2016

YTD 2017

YTD 2018

YTD 2019

New Items of Note:● February net taxable sales are currently ahead of February 2018 by 4.16%.● For February 2019, there were increases in Grocery/Liquor (1.08%), Restaurant/Bar (1.18%), Construction (4.04%), Weedtail (6.18%)and Retail (15.73%) sales sectors. The Retail sector increase is being attributed to an increase in the number of filed returns. ● Short Term Lodging experienced a decrease of 0.56% as compared to February 2018. ● Distribution of disposable bags experienced an increase over prior year, the increase was 7.43% as compared to February 2018. The increase is being attributed to the increase in the Grocery/Liquor & Retail sales sector for the month of February.Continuing Items of Note:● In 2014, a new category was added to the Sales by Sector pages for the Weedtail sector. The category encompasses all legal marijuana sales, regardless of medical or recreational designation.● A section on Disposable Bag Fees was added in 2014.● A section on Short Term Rentals was added in 2018.● Taxes collected from the customer by the vendor are remitted to the Town on the 20th of the following month.● Quarterly taxes are reported in the last month of the period. For example, taxes collected in the first quarter of the year (January – March), are included on the report for the period of March.● Net Taxable Sales are continually updated as late tax returns are submitted to the Town of Breckenridge. Therefore, you may notice slight changes in prior months, in addition to the reporting for the current month.● "Other" sales relate to returns that have yet to be classified. Much of this category will be reclassified to other sectors as more information becomes available.

Retail24%

Weedtail1%

Restaurant / Bar24%

Short-Term Lodging

34%

Grocery / Liquor10%

Construction3%

Utility4% Other*

0%YTD 2018

51

2016 2017 2018 2019% change from PY

Jan $65,802,624 $67,796,402 $76,052,368 $78,867,458 3.70%Feb $63,833,922 $64,760,379 $70,278,737 $73,205,112 4.16%Mar $79,651,221 $79,411,208 $91,162,078 $0 n/aApr $26,892,468 $28,627,586 $27,903,646 $0 n/a

May $17,805,725 $21,491,457 $20,231,938 $0 n/aJun $31,662,174 $35,781,806 $41,618,065 $0 n/aJul $46,932,739 $48,875,392 $52,185,849 $0 n/a

Aug $39,076,444 $40,979,172 $44,261,259 $0 n/aSep $37,539,781 $40,520,249 $42,730,258 $0 n/aOct $24,724,775 $24,963,263 $26,795,364 $0 n/aNov $26,735,820 $28,815,404 $33,023,918 $0 n/aDec $79,728,602 $82,367,578 $87,334,292 $0 n/a

Total $540,386,294 $564,389,896 $613,577,771 $152,072,571

Retail

2016 2017 2018 2019% change from PY




Total $141,986,964 $148,589,500 $168,179,396 $39,910,732

2016 2017 2018 2019% change from PY

Jan $1,181,014 $1,263,370 $1,299,492 $1,278,628 -1.61%Feb $1,045,184 $1,076,236 $1,077,296 $1,143,834 6.18%Mar $1,170,045 $1,343,407 $1,360,559 $0 n/aApr $647,524 $683,486 $603,052 $0 n/a

May $424,305 $436,712 $432,876 $0 n/aJun $561,981 $608,808 $646,541 $0 n/aJul $768,474 $798,038 $884,964 $0 n/a

Aug $731,985 $756,690 $804,530 $0 n/aSep $607,308 $596,781 $624,657 $0 n/aOct $499,149 $484,253 $496,522 $0 n/aNov $542,237 $554,576 $615,385 $0 n/aDec $1,013,140 $1,112,445 $1,131,042 $0 n/a

Total $9,192,345 $9,714,804 $9,976,918 $2,422,461

Weedtail

Net Taxable Sales by Sector - Town of Breckenridge Tax Base

Total Net Taxable Sales

Retail

$0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000

DecNovOctSepAug

JulJuneMayApr

MarFebJan

2019

2018

2017

2016

$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000

DecNovOctSepAug

JulJuneMayApr

MarFebJan

2019

2018

2017

2016

$0 $500,000,000 $1,000,000,000

DecNovOctSepAug

JulJuneMayApr

MarFebJan

2019

2018

2017

2016

52

2016 2017 2018 2019% change from PY




Total $117,125,970 $126,504,293 $140,008,084 $36,120,614

2016 2017 2018 2019% change from PY

Jan $21,935,475 $21,591,426 $25,647,535 $26,582,266 3.64%Feb $22,070,711 $21,766,114 $23,882,377 $23,749,048 -0.56%Mar $30,023,579 $29,381,050 $34,352,694 $0 n/aApr $5,135,347 $5,337,651 $5,032,593 $0 n/a



Total $148,960,209 $148,953,380 $167,096,334 $50,331,314

2016 2017 2018 2019% change from PY

Jan $6,250,584 $6,450,303 $7,922,442 $6,506,203 -17.88%Feb $6,449,794 $6,475,853 $6,724,274 $6,796,713 1.08%Mar $6,769,678 $6,527,831 $7,034,396 $0 n/aApr $3,850,758 $4,195,465 $3,682,388 $0 n/a



Total $62,692,608 $64,306,218 $67,779,218 $13,302,916

Restaurant / Bar

Short-Term Lodging

Grocery / Liquor

$0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000

DecNovOctSepAug

JulJuneMayApr

MarFebJan

2019

2018

2017

2016

$0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000

DecNovOctSepAug

JulJuneMayApr

MarFebJan

2019

2018

2017

2016

$0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000

DecNovOctSepAug

JulJuneMayApr

MarFebJan

2019

2018

2017

2016

53

2016 2017 2018 2019% change from PY




Total $32,236,255 $37,199,625 $32,212,484 $4,020,832

Construction

2018 2019

Total 1,032,864 224,708

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Disposable Bag FeesThe Town adopted an ordinance April 9, 2013 (effective October 15, 2013) to discourage the use of disposable bags, achieving a goal of the SustainableBreck Plan. The $.10 fee applies to most plastic and paper bags given out at retail and grocery stores in Breckenridge. The program is intended to encourage the use of reusable bags and discourage the use of disposable bags, thereby furthering the Town’s sustainability efforts. Revenues from the fee are used to provide public information about the program and promote the use of reusable bags.

$0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000

DecNovOctSepAug

JulJuneMayApr

MarFebJan

2019

2018

2017

2016

$0

$10,000

$20,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Bag Fees Remitted by MonthNet of Retained Percentage*

2018

2019

*Retailers are permitted to retain 50% of the fee (up to a maximum of $1000/month through October 31, 2014; changing to a maximum of $100/month beginning November 1, 2014) in order to offset expenses incurred related to the program. The retained percent may be used by the retail store to provide educational information to customers; provide required signage; train staff; alter infrastructure; fee administration; develop/display informational signage; encourage the use of reusable bags or promote recycling of disposable bags; and improve infrastructure to increase disposable bag recycling.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Change -20,531 7,831

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

# of Disposable Bags Reported by Month

2018

2019

54

2017 2018 2019 % change 2019 budget +/- Budget

Jan $432,417 $350,102 $536,802 53.33% $377,225 $159,577

Feb $436,538 $338,813 $441,511 30.31% $380,820 $60,691

Mar $579,302 $391,670 $454,470 16.03% $505,362 -$50,892

Apr $439,375 $532,220 $103,621 -80.53% $383,295 -$279,674

May $510,213 $618,610 $0 n/a $445,091 n/a

Jun $533,957 $468,350 $0 n/a $465,805 n/a

Jul $533,735 $564,797 $0 n/a $465,611 n/a

Aug $564,623 $778,848 $0 n/a $492,557 n/a

Sep $478,875 $398,296 $0 n/a $417,753 n/a

Oct $730,352 $622,750 $0 n/a $637,132 n/a

Nov $550,457 $598,966 $0 n/a $480,199 n/a

Dec $400,236 $500,878 $0 n/a $349,151 n/a

Total $6,190,080 $6,164,300 $1,536,404 $5,400,000*April #s are as of 04/09/2019

by Category

2018 YTD 2019 YTD $ change % change % of Total

15,548$ 153,800$ 138,252 889.21% 10.74%

306,761 217,324 (89,437) -29.16% 15.17%

308,518 376,980 68,462 22.19% 26.32%

305,738 567,418 261,680 85.59% 39.61%

110,680 73,191 (37,488) -33.87% 5.11%

33,340 43,680 10,340 31.01% 3.05%

1,080,585$ 1,432,393$ 351,809 32.56% 100.00%

Real Estate Transfer Tax

Commercial

Total

Vacant Land

Description

Condominium

Timeshare

Single Family

Townhome

Total RETT

* YTD as of March 31st

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Jan Feb Mar

YTD Churn Analysis

2018 YTD 2019 YTD

$- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000

Mar

Feb

Jan2019

2018

$- $1,000,000

Commercial

Condominium

Timeshare

Single Family

Townhome

Vacant Land

2019YTD

2018YTD

New Items of Note:● Revenue for the month of March was ahead of prior year by 16.03%, yet behind monthly budget by $50,892.● Year to date, revenue is ahead of prior year by 32.56%, and has surpassed budget by $169,376.● Single Family Home sales accounted for the majority of the sales (39.61%), with Timeshare sales in the second position of highest sales (26.32%) subject to the tax. Condominium sales were in third position with sales (15.17%) in sales level for the year.● March 2019 churn was 30.66% above March 2018.

Continuing Items of Note:● 2019 Real Estate Transfer Tax budget is based upon the monthly distribution for 2017.

55

Description YTD 2016 YTD 2017 YTD 20182018

% of Total YTD 20192018/2019

$ Change2018/2019 % Change

2019 % of Total

Retail $1,342,040 $1,423,649 $1,551,860 18.65% $1,768,045 $216,186 13.93% 20.55%Weedtail $243,323 $255,719 $259,783 3.12% $264,775 $4,992 1.92% 3.08%Restaurant / Bar $1,350,506 $1,393,597 $1,560,211 18.75% $1,600,143 $39,932 2.56% 18.59%Short-Term Lodging $3,445,684 $3,394,895 $3,878,192 46.61% $3,940,942 $62,750 1.62% 45.80%Grocery / Liquor $562,627 $572,629 $648,850 7.80% $589,319 ($59,530) -9.17% 6.85%Construction $197,202 $184,648 $173,672 2.09% $178,123 $4,450 2.56% 2.07%Utility $239,068 $259,536 $243,973 2.93% $253,292 $9,319 3.82% 2.94%Other* $3,362 $13,823 $4,435 0.05% $10,900 $6,464 145.75% 0.13%Total $7,383,812 $7,498,496 $8,320,976 100.00% $8,605,540 $284,563 3.42% 100.00% * Other includes activities in Automobiles and Undefined Sales.

TAXES DUE - SALES, ACCOMMODATIONS, AND MARIJUANA TAXES

Tax Due by Industry-YTD

Retail20%

Weedtail3%

Restaurant / Bar19%

Short-Term Lodging

46%

Grocery / Liquor

7%

Construction2%

Utility3%

Other*0%

YTD 2019

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Retail Weedtail Restaurant /Bar

Short-TermLodging

Grocery /Liquor

Construction Utility Other*

YTD 2016

YTD 2017

YTD 2018

YTD 2019

Items of Note:● The general sales tax rate includes the 2.5% Town sales tax + 1.93% County sales tax distributed to the Town.● The Short -Term Lodging sector includes an additional 3.4% accommodation tax. ● Weedtail includes an additional 5% marijuana tax (recreational and medical). The 1.5% distribution from the State is also included in this category. While the State distribution is only due on recreational sales, the majority of weedtail sales are recreational and the distribution has been applied to the entire sector.● Report assumptions include: applying tax specific to a sector to the entire sector, as well as assuming the same tax base across the State, County, and Town taxes due. As a result, the numbers indicated above are a rough picture of taxes due to the Town and not an exact representation. Additionally, the data is representative of taxes due to the Town and not necessarily taxes collected year to date.

Retail19%

Weedtail3%

Restaurant / Bar19%Short-Term

Lodging46%

Grocery / Liquor

8%

Construction2%

Utility3% Other*

0%

YTD 2018

56

General Fund Revenues Summary

March 31, 2019

These next two pages report on 2019 year-to-date financials for the General Fund. This area contains most "Government Services," such as public works, police, community development, planning, recreation, facilities, and administrative functions.

General Fund Revenue: At the end of March, the Town's General Fund was at 101.5% of YTD budget ($5.81M actual vs. $5.72M budgeted).

Community Development is over budget due to Building Permit Fees being over budget.

Recreation exceeded budget primarily in youth programs, pass revenue, & ice rink facility rental.

GENERAL FUND YTD REVENUES

39,507 185,951 130,716

887,035

65,967 110,210 100,950

778,890

$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

Public Safety Community Dev. Public Works Recreation

YTDActual

YTDBudget

Gen. Fund YTD Revenue Act vs. Bud - by Program

Public Safety1%

Community Dev.3%

Public Works2%

Recreation15%

Transfers/other60%

Property Tax19%

57

General Fund Expenditures Summary

March 31, 2019

666,986

513,869

280,718

1,286,859

663,563

119,823

710,890

527,623

287,359

1,484,987

766,004

429 $-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

Public Safety Admin. Comm Dev Public Works Rec. Other

YTDActual

YTDBudget

Gen. Fund YTD Expenditures Act. vs. Bud. - by Program

The General Fund as of March 31, 2019 was at 93.5% of budgeted expense ($4.97M actual vs. $5.55M budgeted). The below graphs represent the cost of providing the services contained in this fund (Public Safety, Recreation, Public Works, Community Development, and Administration).

Variance Explanations:The main factor in departmental variances are differences in actual personnel costs versus budgeted personnel costs. This early in the year, we can see distinct variations simply due to how far into the year the first paydate falls. This timing will even out as the year progresses.

Timing of large invoices, such as the Engineering architectural costs also impact the YTD expenses. This is expected to even out as the year progresses.

Public Safety19%

Admin.15%

Comm Dev 8%

Public Works36%

Rec.19%

Other3%

YTD Actual Expenses

58

Complaints Made by Type

Complaint Type Quarter 1 April Total Calls Percentage

Parking 15 1 16 27%

Trash 7 0 7 12%

Noise 24 2 26 44%

Nuisance 10 0 10 17%

Total 56 3 59 100% * "Nuisance" includes complaints not concerning Parking, Trash, or Noise.

The Short Term Rental Basics

Parking27%

Trash12%

Noise44%

Nuisance17%

Complaints by Type

New Items of Note: • Magnets with the STR Helper Hotline information have arrived.• Magnets will be given to Homeowner Associations with information on the purpose of the hotline.• AirBnB sales fall into all management categories.• Total active licenses fluctuates throughout the year. We use the number of active licenses on January 1 to determine annual number of licenses.• The Finance Department is working closely with other Summit County jurisdictions on the implementation of STR Helper.

Continuing Items of Note:• STR Helper Hotline began accepting calls on January 1, 2019. • The number to lodge a complaint is (970)‐368‐2044.• The STR Helper Hotline number was shared with the public through the Council Update Newsletter, Facebook, and Twitter.• The Town of Breckenridge will be collaborating with all Jurisdictions in Summit County in June 2019 on a county wide marketing campaign.• The phone number to lodge complaints was included on the most recent water bill as additional marketing.• This report will be provided to Town Council on a monthly basis.

* April #s are as of 4/10/2019

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2,899 2,881 2,9113,341 3,385 3,388 3,572 3,737 3,783

Number of Short Term Rental Licenses by Year

$‐

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

Self Managed Lodge Other Mgmt Condo/Hotel

Taxable Sales by Mgmt Type

2011 2015 2018

* In 2014, licensing of timeshares changed causing a spike.

*

59

1

Memo


From: Chris Kulick, AICP, Planner III

Date: 4/23/2019

Subject: GC8 Building 3 Employee Housing Change Call Up, PL-2019-0031, a modification of

PC#2015-0215

At the request of the applicant, the proposed change to the approved point analysis for PC#2015-0215 has been withdrawn. The proposal requested to eliminate 3,500 sq. ft. of deed restricted employee housing associated with the Grand Colorado Peak 8 Building 3, a 105 unit interval ownership resort condominium at the base of Peak 8 ski area currently under construction.

With the withdrawal of the application, the applicant will provide 3,500 square feet of employee housing within the Upper Blue as originally approved. The project will maintain a passing point analysis of positive ten (+10) points as originally approved under Planning Case PC#2015-0215.

I will be available at the work session on Tuesday, January 23rd to answer any questions pertaining to this withdrawal.

60

Breckenridge, Colorado

Documents

Transcript of Breckenridge, Colorado