HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.packet.ws.06-19-2018 p'r K I N Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Work Session Agenda
TUESDAY,JUNE 19,2018, 10:00 AM
Q/D. G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and
invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official
action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public
input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board.
12:00 PM Lunch-EMPLOYEE PICNIC &ANNIVERSARY RECOGNITION ON LIBRARY PLAZA LAWN
1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations
This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational
issues that may lead to future Board action.
1:00 PM Housing Impact Fee Study, John Ely(1 hour)
2:00 PM Placement of Hoary Alyssum on the Pitkin County Noxious Weed List, Liz Mauro and Brian
Pettet(30 minutes)
2:30 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items
This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items
that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public
Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings.
2:30 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(5 minutes)
2:35 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion
No formal written materials
2:35 PM Board Open Discussion(5 Minutes)
2:40 PM Adjourn Work Session and Break for Special Meeting-Executive Session
3:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING-Executive Session
Open Space Acquisition CRS 24-6-402 (4)(a)
3:45 PM Adjourn Executive Session and Break for Joint Meeting with P & Z
4:00 PM Joint Meeting with Planning&Zoning Commission
4:00 PM Joint BOCC/P&Z Work Session Re: Buildout/Infrastructure/Energy, Cindy Houben,
Ellen Sassano(90 minutes)
5:30PM Adjourn Joint Meeting
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
WEDNESDAY,JUNE 20,2018,5:00 PM
Lazy Glen Bridge Ribbon Cutting&BBQ
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2018
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Housing Impact Fee Study
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: John Ely, County Attorney
ISSUE STATEMENT: This is a discussion regarding a housing impact fee study generated by Rees
Consulting, Inc., with the objective of implementing a new methodology for calculating the County's
Employee Housing Impact Fee.
BACKGROUND: Since 2004, the County has used an employee housing impact fee based upon a
methodology developed by Clarion&Associates. The calculation of the impact fee was related to the
expected cost to house one full-time employee (FTE). The methodology relied upon an analysis of
construction costs and land costs to determine a fee based upon the creation of a new housing unit.
This methodology is difficult to apply due to the complexity of variables and the wide range of
construction and land costs. Soon after adoption and increasing over time, the fee calculated was
drastically inadequate to create new housing units.
The County has discussed moving away from the construction cost model but the recession and
subsequent recovery suspended this dialogue, as the County did not want to change the cost to
developers during that period.
In 2012, the County teamed with the City of Aspen and APCHA to develop a unified approach to
impact fee calculation. APCHA retained the services of Rees Consulting, Inc.to develop an approach
based upon housing sales analysis. In 2013, the city of Aspen opted to head in a different direction
and that work was also suspended.
Melanie Rees of Rees Consulting has updated her previous work and will be present at the meeting to
explain this new methodology and impact fee calculation.
It should be noted that regardless of the fee determination, the BOCC can establish legislation for the
degree of mitigation to be required This means that if the fee were calculated to be $100,000, and the
BOCC required 80% mitigation, only $80,000 would be assessed. Obviously, the County could not
require more than 100% mitigation.
No formal action is sought or expected. If the study is acceptable, the County Attorney's Office will
develop an implementation plan to use this calculation to adjust the County's Employee Housing
Impact Fee.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Livable and Supportive Community. The study recommends an
approach to the housing impact fee that is based upon a market-affordability gap, the difference
between the market price of housing and the price that is affordable for employees. This approach has
2
the potential to allow the community to gain fulfillment of all five of the "Success Factors"
encompassed by this link to the Strategic Plan.
BUDGETARY IMPACT: Potential increase in employee housing impact fee.
RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: None, discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS:
Pitkin County Affordable Housing Fee Methodology by Rees Consulting
Affordable Housing Fee Methodology
Pitkin County
June 2018
Prepared by:
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Montrose, CO
970.349.9845
reesconsultinginc.corn
With:
RRC Associates, Inc.
Boulder, CO
303.449.6558
rrcassociates.corn
4
Affordable Housing Fee Methodology
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Purpose of This Report 1
Organization of the Document 1
I. Pitkin County's Housing Fee Summarized 2
II. The Recommended Fee Calculation Approach 3
III. An Alternative Approach 5
IV. Defensibility 6
Colorado Revised Statutes 6
The Gunnison County Decision 7
V. Calculating the Fee for Pitkin County 8
The Affordable Price 9
The Market Price 10
The Per-Unit and Per-Employee Gap 13
Including an Administrative Charge 13
VI. Conclusions 14
Appendix A 15
Appendix B: Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act 21
5
Introduction
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is to provide a methodology for calculating fees assessed by Pitkin
County through its affordable housing impact fee. The methodology for calculating the fee is
compatible with existing codes and is sound, easily understood, and readily updated.
This report recommends an approach based on the difference between the market price of
housing and the price that is affordable for employees. It is referred to herein as the market-
affordability gap approach.
Organization of the Document
This report consists of six major sections:
I. Summary of Pitkin County's Housing Fee, which provides an overview of the background,
basis and amount of the current fee.
II. The Recommended Fee Calculation Approach, which describes the market-affordability
gap methodology, its benefits, and the Mountain West communities that use it.
III. The Alternative Approach through which fees are based on historic construction costs
compared to affordable prices.
IV. Defensibility, which examines statutes and case law in Colorado related to housing fees.
V. Calculating the Fee, which presents the formula and the variables within each of the
three main components—the market price, the affordable price, and the gap.
VI. Conclusions.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 1
6
I. Pitkin County's Housing Fee Summarized
Pitkin County's employee housing requirement is structured as an impact fee. It was adopted by
Pitkin County Ordinance 023-2005. Chapter 8 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code implements
the adopted employee housing impact fee. See Appendix A for the applicable provisions of the
code.
The Ordinance uses two terms: "affordable housing impact fee" and "employee housing impact
fee." The code, however, consistently uses the terms "employee housing impact fee" or
"impact fee"; the term "affordable" is used to describe units, but it is not used in tandem with
the term "fee." This report uses the refers to "employee housing impact fee," consistent with
the Land Use Code.
The specified number of employees for which new residential and commercial development
must provide housing is based upon two factors:
1) Employee generation rates established through a 2004 report by Clarion Associates, which
used survey data and information provided by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA). This report does not revisit the job generation rates established by Clarion.
2) Mitigation rates established by the Board of County Commissioners through the 2005
ordinance. No changes to the mitigation rates have been assumed.
The current fee is $44,887. It has been updated since its 2005 adoption, using the Consumer
Price Index. Compliance options allowed in lieu of paying the fee include building units, buying
and deed restricting existing units, and providing land for the construction of employee
housing.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 2
7
II. The Recommended Fee Calculation Approach
The market-affordability gap methodology is recommended for calculating fees for Pitkin
County's affordable housing requirements. It is based on the difference between the market
price of housing and the price that is affordable to households with incomes targeted by the
underlying affordable housing requirements. This methodology:
• is transparent and relatively simple, allowing for annual updating with readily available
information from highly regulated public sources—the county assessor and US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
• represents the actual cost of housing, including land and construction costs, available to
employees without public-sector subsidies and responsibilities.
• has been tested in a lawsuit in Gunnison County and found to be reasonable and sound
by the Gunnison County District Court.
• can be used to calculate fees for the existing income category (100% of the Area Median
Income -AMI) as well as other categories that may be targeted in the future.
• is applicable to both ownership and rental housing, because sales of both types of units
are included in market price calculations and the affordable housing payment is
assumed to be the same regardless of whether the targeted households own or rent.
• is based on a traditional method for examining housing affordability; the gap between
market and affordable prices is a common key metric of housing needs.
• is the methodology most used by other mountain towns and counties in the Mountain
West region for calculating housing fees.
The following ten towns and counties base their affordable housing impact fees or fees-in-lieu
on the market-affordability gap approach:
• Basalt—The Town of Basalt generally allows, with some exceptions, payment in lieu only
when a fraction of an affordable housing unit is required. It is based on a standard
market-affordability gap formula developed in 2009.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 3
8
• Crested Butte—The Town of Crested Butte adopted fees-in-lieu for two income
categories (580%AMI and 81%-120%AMI). The market price is based on all units within
the town.
• Eagle County—The Eagle County Housing Office is updating their program requirements
and their fee-in-lieu amounts using the same formula recommended herein. The revised
but not yet adopted figures show that the gap between market and affordable prices
disappears above 100%AMI.
• Glenwood Springs—The City of Glenwood Springs bases its market-affordability gap on
100%AMI. The market price is determined by taking an average of the sale prices for
two- and three-bedroom units using assessor data.
• Gunnison County—The County's affordable housing requirement is structured as an
impact fee on new residential and commercial construction rather than an option in lieu
of providing units. The residential mitigation rate increases with unit size. The County's
requirements withstood a 2009 challenge by an applicant for a building permit, their
general contractor, and the Gunnison County Contractors Association.
• Jackson and Teton County, WY—Jackson and Teton County's affordable housing
programs are administered by the Teton County Housing Authority, which has the
responsibility of annually updating fees-in-lieu for three income categories.
• Mt. Crested Butte—The Town of Mt. Crested Butte annually updates their fee for two
income categories (<_80%AMI and 81%-120%AMI) using Assessor data for all sales
other than fractional units (timeshares) in the previous year.
• Park City, UT—The City's market price calculation is based on units sold in the previous
year between 600 and 1,600 square feet, with sales excluded within areas of the
community that are primarily second/vacation homes.
• Vail—The Town of Vail annually calculates a single fee for its inclusionary and linkage
programs based on 120%AMI and the median price per square foot of all units sold in
the previous year within the town except for fractional ownership. Vail was the first
community to implement a three-year averaging approach for market price. A $3,000
administrative charge is included in the fee.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 4
9
Ill. An Alternative Approach
Aside from the market-affordability gap method, the only other approach for calculating
affordable housing fees and fees-in-lieu identified through research of towns and counties in
the Rocky Mountain region is based on the gap between the historic cost of building affordable
units and their affordable price. This is the methodology originally used by APCHA in calculation
of the fees now in their guidelines.
The market-affordability gap approach is recommended over the historic cost-affordability gap
approach for multiple reasons:
• It is easily calculated through up-to-date, reliable data on the market price of housing
from a public source (County Assessor), whereas documenting the total actual planning
and construction costs of affordable housing can be complicated and staff intensive,
especially when land might be acquired by means other than market-rate purchases.
Keeping pace when land and construction costs increase requires regular updating of
information from multiple sources.The complexity of the documentation is time
consuming and involves many figures and assumptions that are subject to challenge.
• The approach does not require adjustment factors to make the fees relevant to current
conditions. Past costs do not represent current costs. Affordable housing projects are
not built every year. Historical costs must be updated using multiple assumptions on
changes in land, design, and construction costs to be kept up to date.
• The approach involves less fluctuation in the amount of the fee. The cost to build
affordable housing has varied widely in the past. The market price of housing has gone
up and down in recent years, but the changes have been less than the differences in the
price of affordable housing construction. Averaging of the market price over a three-
year period is used to further reduce variability in the fee amount.
• It should generate sufficient revenues to build, buy, or partner with private developers to
produce housing when based on market prices.
Mountain communities that use the historic cost-affordability gap approach include Aspen,
Telluride, and Steamboat Springs.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 5
10
IV. Defensibility
The right to impose affordable housing requirements on new development is well established
and founded in the authority of municipal and county governments to:
• provide for the health, safety and welfare of residents;
• control land use; and
• require development to mitigate impacts it creates.
The existing ordinance and land use code enacting the affordable housing impact fee in Pitkin
County address authority,justification for, and purpose of the requirements.
There is little guidance in statutes or case law concerning how impact fees or fees-in-lieu
associated with affordable housing programs should be calculated. Only one lawsuit has been
brought against an affordable housing fee in Colorado, and Colorado statutes offer limited
direction. Both are examined as they relate to the calculation of affordable housing fees.
Colorado Revised Statutes
C.R.S. 29-20-104.5 expressly authorizes local governments to impose impact fees as a condition
of approval of development permits. In accordance with this statute, Pitkin County imposes an
impact fee on residential units greater than 5,750 square feet in size and on nonresidential
development.
The focus of this examination is on language in the statute that pertains to how impact fees can
be calculated. The entire statute is provided in Appendix B to this report. Among other less
relevant stipulations, the statute specifies that impact fees are allowed when:
• fees are assessed according to a schedule that is legislatively adopted and generally
applicable to a broad class of property. Fees should not be established on a case-by-case
basis. It appears, however, that annual updating of the fee could be handled
administratively if the enacting ordinances sufficiently describe the methodology and
the update process.
• local governments establish the fee at a level no greater than necessary to defray
impacts related to proposed development. Impact fees cannot be charged to remedy
existing deficiencies.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 6
11
• the statute does not give guidance as to how the fee level should be established. Using
the gap between market and affordable prices to establish the fee—and applying this
fee only when impacts and mitigation requirements have been determined based on job
generation or public policy—appears to be sound.
The statute specifically allows impact fees to be waived on the development of low- or
moderate-income housing or affordable employee housing.
The Gunnison County Decision
As mentioned previously, one significant advantage of the market-affordability gap approach as
a basis for calculating fees is that it has withstood a legal challenge. In 2008, the Gunnison
County Contractors Association, Alpine Construction, and Nicholas and Sara Mirolli, a couple
who had applied for a permit to build a new home, filed a complaint against the Gunnison
County Board of County Commissioners and the Gunnison County Housing Authority. The
plaintiffs filed the action in an attempt to invalidate a 2006 resolution creating a workforce
housing fee applied to residential and commercial construction in the county.
A summary judgment was issued by Gunnison County District Court Judge J. Steven Patrick on
March 10, 2009, finding for Gunnison County and dismissing the complaint. The judgment ruled
on many issues including the County's authority to impose an impact fee and the multiple
reasons why the fee was not a tax.
Of particular relevance to this report is that Gunnison County's workforce housing fee is based
on a market-affordability gap, as proposed in this report. The gap was calculated in a study
entitled Nexus/Proportionality Analysis for Commercial and Residential Linkage Program
(referred to as "the Analysis" in the decision) prepared by Rees Consulting, Inc. and RRC
Associates, Inc., which uses the same methodology presented in this report.
Citing case law from multiple states, the following are key findings from this judgment:
• TABOR (taxpayer bill of rights) is not applicable because "An impact fee is a type of
special fee that is not designed to rain revenue to defray the cost of a particular
government service." Judge Patrick indicated the language of the enabling statute or
ordinance is the primary determinant, not how the collected revenue is actually spent.
At that time, Gunnison County had spent little of the revenue received from the newly
created workforce housing fee.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 7
12
• Plaintiffs must bear the burden of proving that the workforce housing fee is invalid
beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an important point. It is not up to the City or County
to prove it is valid and sound; instead, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs.
• The analysis demonstrated that "The Resolution was reasonably designed to meet the
overall cost incurred by the County in alleviating the impact of residential and
commercial development on the availability of workforce housing."
• By concluding that the workforce housing fee was legitimate, the ruling found that the
data in the analysis on job generation and the fee schedule "seems reasonable."
Specifically, "The Court finds nothing inherently unsound in the methodology used by
the County in imposing the fee."
• When addressing the plaintiffs' claim that the County had not shown that the lack of
low-cost housing was caused by new development, the judge found "The recommended
fee calculation is designed to close the gap between prevailing market prices and what
low-income households can afford to pay for housing."
The District Court's decision was not appealed.
V. Calculating the Fee for Pitkin County
Simply stated, the market-affordability gap is the difference between the market price of a
housing unit and the price that is affordable for employees. This calculation should be updated
annually to reflect changes in affordable and market prices.
The basic formula involves a three-step process:
1. Calculating the amount that households in the income category specified by the 2004
Clarion Associations report (100%AMI) can afford to pay for housing.
2. Determining the market price for housing using assessor records for previous home
sales.
3. Comparing market prices to affordable amounts to determine the per-unit gap that
exists. This amount is then translated into per-employee fee based on the number of
employees per unit.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 8
13
For 2018, the per-employee fee equals $115,294, given the assumptions used in the calculation.
This estimate is conservative, however, and it could be increased by modifying one or more of
the assumptions.
Pitkin County Housing Fee per Employee, 2018
Affordable Price
2018 Household Income-100%AMI for-person $86,400
households
Affordable monthly payment (30%) $2,160
Affordable principal and interest (80%of payment) $1,728
HOA dues, property taxes, insurance (20%) $432
Mortgage interest rate 5.625%
Maximum mortgage $300,179
Maximum affordable price -5% down $315,978
Market Price Unincorporated
Sales
Median market price per SF of heated floor area $454
Average affordable unit size (sq. ft.) 1100
Market price per unit $499,400
10%Administrative Charge $18,342
Market-Affordability Gap/Fee
Per affordable unit $201,764
Per employee (per unit gap/1.75 employees per unit) $115,294
There are many variables in this equation that impact the bottom line. The following variables
are described for each of the formula's main components: 1) the affordable price, 2) the market
price, and 3) the gap per unit and the translation of the per-unit gap into the per-employee
amount in accordance with the land use code provisions. An Excel spreadsheet model was
developed to consider options for the Pitkin County housing fee as described below.
The Affordable Price
Calculating the affordable price involves six inputs.
• Incomes—The 2004 Clarion Associates report established the income target of 100%
AMI (as published annually by HUD) for Pitkin County's affordable housing impact fee.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 9
14
The 2018 AMI figures range from $75,600 for one person to $125,200 for six-person
households. No changes to the 100%AMI target were considered.
• Average Household Size— Pitkin County's code does not specify the size of households
that must be housed or the number of bedrooms that must be provided; therefore, only
one gap/fee amount is needed. To get to this single number, the income for the size of
household closest to the average household size is typically used. According to the 2010
Census, the average household size in Pitkin County was 2.09 persons per occupied unit.
• Percentage of Income Spent on Housing Payment—To calculate the affordable monthly
housing cost, it was assumed that 30% of gross household income covers the monthly
mortgage (PITI—principal, interest, taxes, insurance), which is standard in the other resort
communities studied. The percentage stems from mortgage criteria and federal housing
programs. No changes to the 30% affordability standard were considered.
• Property Taxes, Insurance, and HOA Fees— It was assumed that 20%of the affordable
monthly payment will cover taxes, insurance, and HOA fees. No changes to the
assumption on taxes, insurance, and HOA fees were considered.
• Mortgage Interest Rate —The interest rate assumed for calculation of the maximum
affordable mortgage amount significantly affects the affordable price and resulting
gap/fee. Communities vary regarding the interest rate they use when calculating
affordable price from prevailing quotes on thirty-year fixed-rate conventional mortgages
to 7% among the communities examined. Communities with the higher rates are
concerned that their buyers seldom have excellent credit and therefore cannot obtain
the lowest rates available to highly qualified buyers. A rate of 5.5% has been used, which
is approximately one point above the rates for a thirty-year fixed-rate mortgage on April
17, 2018, of 4.375%-4.625%. The interest rate should be updated annually.
• Down Payment— Most of the communities examined assume that employees can afford
5% down, as is the case in the calculation shown. The higher the down payment
assumed, the lower the resulting gap/fee. Changes to the 5% down payment assumption
were not considered.
The Market Price
Calculating the market price involves five key inputs.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 10
15
• Area Covered —The most significant variable in the determination of the market price per
square foot and the resulting fee is the assumption about the location of sales. According to
sales data from the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, the median per-square-foot price for the
past three years was $454 in the unincorporated portions of the county. The countywide
price including sales within municipalities was $871 per square foot.
Prices per square foot within the municipalities ranged from $1,238 in Aspen to $314 in
Basalt. Pitkin County has used housing impact fee revenues in Aspen in the past
although opportunities to develop employee housing in the future are greater down
valley.
Using the countywide median price could nearly quadruple the amount of the
affordable housing impact fee as compared to basing it solely on sales in the
unincorporated area ($115,294 compared to $403,620, assuming other variables
remain constant). While either amount could be justified, basing the fee on the more
conservative, lower market price in unincorporated Pitkin County would more than
double the fee from the current level (from $44,487 to $115,294).
• Period Covered —The median per-square-foot market price of housing in unincorporated
Pitkin County has been relatively stable in recent years. Because of fluctuations, however, a
three-year period is recommended as the preferred approach due to the correspondingly
larger sample size of sales and the lower yearly volatility in market prices and housing fees.
Basing the fee on the prior single-year period would result in higher year-to-year changes in
the fee.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 11
16
Median Sales Price per Sq.Ft.
Unincorporated Pitkin County
$800
$701
$700 $650
$619
$600
$501 $523
$500 $444 $480 $469 $479 $468 $
$439454
: 11111111
$200
$100
$0
`L Ot Co A cb O O N 1, S O A
y y y y y y y
0o O, O'L O'� O) O� C) � � Oo) ,y0 ,yti N' ,y3 N' N'
,y0 ,y0 ti0 ti0 ti0 ti0 ti0 y0 y0 LO ti0 ti0 ti0 ON' `1, ,y0
\ \ \e \e \co \co Bey Bey \e' \e' \e' \e \e \e \e \e`'
�a �a �a �a ha ha ha ha � �a ha �a c7a �a C7a ya
Source: Pitkin County Assessor.See explanation below on units covered.
Two options calculating the three-year market price were considered: 1) using a rolling
median (i.e., calculating the median across all sales within the prior three-year period),
and 2) using an average of the separate medians for the previous three years. This latter
approach is recommended because the average of the medians for the previous three
years likely increases more quickly in times of market appreciation than the rolling
median and results in far less volatility than using sales from a single year.
• Units Included —The market price per square foot figures are for free-market condominium
and residential properties based on Pitkin County assessor records; only valid and qualified
sales used as comparable sales for property valuation/taxation are included. "Housing
authority," commercial/residential, mobile homes, exempt units, fractional ownership units,
other assessor property classifications, properties with two or more residential buildings,
and properties with parcel size of more than five acres are excluded. Sales of partial
interests, outliers where the sale price is less than $100,000, and outliers where the sales
price per square foot of living area is less than $100 or greater than $3,000 are also
excluded.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 12
17
Using all market residential unit sales other than those specifically excluded as described in
the previous paragraph provides the largest sample and less volatility from year to year than
using a subset, such as only considering the sale prices of condominiums.
• Statistical Measure—The median rather than mean/average price per square foot is
used because it is less influenced by outliers.
• Size of Employee Unit—The final step in the calculation of market price is to apply the
median or average price per square foot to the square footage of employee housing
units. The size is typically in the range of 800 to 1,200 square feet. It may be based on
the size of existing employee units, adopted guidelines, or what is desired as a policy.
The size usually increases with income at least in part due to the ability of employees
with higher incomes to afford larger units. A size of 1,000 square feet has been assumed
and seems reasonable given that the county's income target is 100%AMI.
The Per-Unit and Per-Employee Gap
The simplest step in the fee calculation process is the subtraction of the affordable price from
the market price. The result is a per-unit gap. Translating the per-unit fee into the per-
employee amount simply involves dividing the per-unit amount by the average number of
employees per unit, which was 1.75 according to a 2015 survey of 395 APCHA residents.
Including an Administrative Charge
Some communities charge an administrative fee to partially cover the costs associated with
administration of their housing impact fee or fee-in-lieu programs. Spending the funds received
to produce affordable housing through construction or acquisition and deed restriction of
market units can take considerable staff resources and involve hiring of experts in land
development, site and soils analysis, project design, and construction. A 10% administrative fee
has been included in the calculation. Monitoring County expenses associated with producing
housing with revenues from the affordable housing impact fee could be used to adjust the
administrative charge in the future.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 13
18
VI. Conclusions
The market-affordability gap method is recommended as the basis for Pitkin County's affordable
housing impact fee once the obligation is determined using existing job generation and mitigation
rates. The approach is reasonable, widely used, and transparent. It also appears to be defensible
based on based on Colorado statutes and the Gunnison County District Court judgment.
Based on assumptions explained herein, the per-employee fee would increase from $44,487 to
$115,294. Lowering the mitigation rate could adjust the fee downward if a more gradual increase is
desired.
The fee should be updated annually. The methodology should remain consistent while key variables
in the calculation are revised to reflect changes in market and affordable prices. These variables
include:
• AMI, as published annually by HUD;
• mortgage interest rates, which are expected to increase; and
• the median market price of residential sales for the previous year used to calculate the
three-year rolling median.
Other variables could be occasionally adjusted as new information becomes available including
average household size, average size of employee units, and the administrative charge.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 14
19
Appendix A
Pitkin County Land Use Code
Chapter 8 Development Exactions and Fees
8-30: EMPLOYEE HOUSING IMPACT FEE
8-30-10: INTENT
(a) The purpose of the employee housing impact fee is to require the applicable development to pay
to mitigate the impacts of development and land use to the employee housing stock managed or
controlled by Pitkin County or its housing designee, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA). All provisions of this Chapter are self-executing and severable.
(b) The employee housing impact fee constitutes a law of general applicability of Pitkin County and
as such shall be applicable to all property in unincorporated Pitkin County.
(C) The impact fee shall be applicable to the following classifications of development and land use in
the following manner:
(1) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
Structures with five thousand seven hundred fifty(5,750) square feet or less of interior space, as
measured by the International Building Code (IBC), shall not be assessed an impact fee. For
residential structures over five thousand seven hundred fifty(5,750)square feet, one hundred
(100) percent of the impact shall be mitigated for the full size of the structure. Multiple residential
structures on one property shall be considered as one structure.
(2) COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
One hundred percent(100%)of the impact fee shall be mitigated for the full size of commercial
construction.
(3) TOURIST/LODGE ACCOMMODATION DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
(a) Standard Rooms
One hundred percent(100%)of the impact shall be mitigated for all rooms in excess of four
(4).
(b) Luxury Tourist/Lodge Rooms
One hundred percent(100%)of the impact and use shall be mitigated for all rooms.
(4) UNCLASSIFIED DEVELOPMENT OR LAND USE
Development or land use not fitting into the above described development or land use shall be
subject to the employee housing impact fee pursuant to Sec. 8-30-60.
(d) The employee housing impact fee shall be adjusted administratively once per year on the
anniversary date of the adoption of the current fee schedule to reflect inflation. The measure of
inflation shall be the annualized rate of inflation published in the Consumer Price Index
(Denver/Boulder/Greeley CPI-W) as established by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. If
this index should be discontinued, then reference will be to Denver/Boulder/Greeley CPI-U, and if this
is not available, then to CPI-W All Cities.
(Code revised(all sections)by Ord.No. 14-D, 2006,07-05-08;§8-30-10 amended by Ord.27-07, 11-14-07)
8-30-20: PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING FEE
Procedures for payment of the Employee Housing Impact Fee are set forth in Chapter 2. Impact Fee
for Residential Development and Land Use
(a) Impact Fee Formulas
The impact fee for residential development or land use will vary based upon the size of the residential
development. In no case shall an impact fee apply to properties improved with less than five
thousand seven hundred fifty(5,750)square feet of interior floor area as measured by the IBC. The
fee collected for residential construction shall reflect mitigation for second-home use unless a
covenant is recorded on the property restricting it to Pitkin County resident occupancy. The formula
Rees Consulting, Inc. 15
20
to determine the fee amount for each specific residential development is as follows:
(1) FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 9,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS:
(a) Construction Employment for all Units = {[0.547 * ( Unit FT2* .001)] \40}
(b) Post-Construction Employment—Locally Occupied Unit = Exponent [-4.67138 + (0.000328
* Unit FT2 )]
(c) Post-Construction Employment— Second/Vacation Home = Exponent [-4.67138 +
(0.000328 * Unit FT2 ) + 2.00514]
(d) Total Employees = Construction Employment + Post- Construction Employment
(e) Impact Fee = Total Employees * $34,173
(2) FOR UNITS OVER 9,000 SQUARE FEET:
(a)Add $1,141.67 per 1,000 square feet for locally occupied units
(b)Add $5,515.00 per 1,000 square feet for second/vacation homes
(b) Examples
Even though it will be necessary to calculate the impact fee for each individual residential
development since each will vary in size, a schedule for specific sizes of residential development that
demonstrates employees generated, the affordable housing units needed and the impact fee is set
down in Table 8.2.
TABLE 8-2: EXAMPLE FEE/SUBSIDY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Size of Residential Subsidy per Fee Subsidy @ 100% Target
Development Employee @100% Local Occupancy 2nd Home
Target
6,000 sq. ft. $34.173 S5.062 $19.772
7,000 sq. ft. $34.173 S6.412 $26.833
8,000 sq. ft. $34.173 S8,107 $36.457
9,000 sq. ft. $34.173 S10.282 $49.635
10,000 sq. ft. $34,173 $11 ,423 $55,150
8-30-30: IMPACT FEE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
The impact fee for commercial development or land use will vary based on size and type of
commercial development. The formula to determine the fee amount is:
(a) Number of Employees = Unit Size x Employee Generation
(b) Fee = Number of Employees x $34,173
(C) Employee Generation = Employee Generation Rate from Table 8-3 (Employee Generation for Commercial
Development).
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 16
21
TABLE 8-3: EMPLOYEES GENERATED BY SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT
Office- General _
Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees Unit Size in sq. ft_ No. of Employees
Generated Generated
1,000 4.5 10,000 45
2,500 11.25 15,000 67.5
5,000 22.5 20,000 90
7,500 33.75
Office-Real Estate
Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees
Generated Generated
1,000 5.9 10,000 59
2,500 14.75 15,000 88.5
5,000 29.5
7,500 44.25 11 I
Office-Non-Profit
Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees Unit Size in sq. ft. No_ of Employees
Generated Generated
1,000 3.8 10,000 38
2,500 9.5 15,000 57
5,000 19 20,000 76
7,500 28.5
Retail-Guest Market
Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees' Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees
Generated Generated
1,000 2.9 10,000 _ 29
2,500 7.25 15,000 43.5
5,000 14.5 20,000 58
7,500 21.75 25,000 72.5
Service- Repair, Personal, Business
Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees Unit Size in sq. ft_ No. of Employees
Generated Generated
1,000 1.13 10,000 11.32
2,500 2.83 15,000 16.98
5,000 5.66 20,000 22.64
7,500 8.49 25,000 28.31
Restaurant/Bar
Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees Unit Size in sq. ft. No_ of Employees
Generated Generated
1,000 7.4 10,000 37
2,500 18.5 15,000 55.5
Government
Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees Unit Size in sq. ft. No. of Employees
. Generated Generated
1,000 3.9 10,000 39
2,500 9.75 15,000 58.5
5,000 19.5 20,000 78
7,500 29.25 25,000 97.5
(Code revised(all sections)by Ord. No. 14-D, 2006. 07-05-08:§ 8-30-40 amended by Ord. 27-07,
Rees Consulting, Inc. 17
22
8-30-40: IMPACT FEE FOR TOURIST /LODGE ACCOMMODATION
DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
(a) The impact fee for tourist/lodge accommodation development or land use will vary based on the
number and type of rooms. There are two types of rooms, historic/standard and luxury.
(b) The impact fee for historic/standard tourist/lodge accommodation development or land use will
apply for all rooms in excess of four(4).
(1) Number of Employees = Number of Rooms x Employee Generation Rate (0.3 employees per
number of rooms over 4)
(2) Fee = Number of Employees x$34,173
(C) The formula to determine the fee amount for luxury tourist/lodge accommodation development or
land use is as follows:
(1) Number of Employees = Number of Rooms x Employee Generation Rate (1.1 employees per
room)
(2) Fee = Number of Employees x$34,173
(Code revised(all sections)by Ord.No. 14-D, 2006,07-05-08;§8-30-40 amended by Ord 27-07, 11-14-07)
8-30-50: IMPACT FEE FOR UNCLASSIFIED DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE
The employee housing impact fee schedule is based upon three classes of development: residential,
commercial and tourist/lodge accommodations. If the type of development proposed is not specified
as one of these three classes of development, the fee applicable shall be calculated based upon the
most comparable type of development and land use category described above. If a property owner
believes that there is no appropriate comparison between the proposed development or land use and
the three classes of development described above or that the specific instance of proposed
development would generate employees at a significantly lower rate than indicated by the impact fee
schedule, then the property owner may submit an independent fee calculation study, as described in
Section 800, to suggest an alternative impact fee payment. Unclassified development and land use
shall mitigate one hundred (100) percent of the impact of its employee generation.
8-30-60: OPTIONS TO DEFRAY THE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES
In order to mitigate the impacts of development upon the employee housing capital facilities, a
developer or property owner may be allowed to avoid full payment of the scheduled impact fee
through one or a combination of the following events. These events shall include and be limited to
the construction of deed restricted employee housing, the acquisition and deed restriction of existing
residential housing units, or the dedication of real property to Pitkin County that will be used for the
construction of employee housing. In no event shall the exercise of any of these three options cause
a developer or property owner to exceed the impact fee schedule with the value of any construction,
acquisition or dedication. The decision of whether or not to accept an offered alternative to full
payment of the impact fee is a discretionary decision of the Board of County Commissioners. The
Board of County Commissioners may accept or reject such offer based upon any reasonable
consideration including, but not limited to any of the following: the type and location of the
development to be mitigated; location of the property that is offered; the physical condition of the
offered property; the ability to utilize the property in the employee housing program; the need for the
type of property offered.
11-14-07)
(a) Construction Requirements for Employee Housing Units
Any employee housing units developed in lieu of payment of a full impact fee shall meet the following
guidelines:
(1)All construction must comply with all regulations and required permits of the Pitkin County Code.
(2) Size and materials used in the construction of employee housing shall be specifically approved
by either the Board of County Commissioners or its housing designee, the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. All employee housing units constructed shall be ready for occupancy prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the free-market development for which the deed
restricted housing is in mitigation.
(3)A deed restriction to be recorded against the property shall be reviewed and accepted by the
Board of County Commissioners and its County Attorney prior to acceptance of the unit for
mitigation of development impacts and/or prior to issuance of a building permit for the unit.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 18
23
(b) Requirements for Converted/Deed Restricted Units
Free-market units acquired in lieu of full payment of the scheduled impact fee shall meet the following
requirements:
(1)All units must be specifically approved for mitigation by the Board of County Commissioners or
its housing designee, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The grant of this acceptance
will be based upon the location of the units and the physical quality of the housing units.
(2)The acquired and restricted units shall be ready for occupancy before the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the constructed free-market development whose impact the deed
restricted units mitigate.
(3) Prior to acceptance, the deed restriction recorded against the converted units shall be approved
by the Board of County Commissioners or its County Attorney.
(c) Dedication of Real Property
All real property proposed by a developer or property owner for dedication to Pitkin County in lieu of
full payment of the scheduled employee housing impact fee, shall be specifically accepted by the
Board of County Commissioners through enactment of a County ordinance. The Board of County
Commissioners may reject or accept any offered real property based upon any reasonable
consideration. Included in the criteria for consideration but not representative of all factors that may
be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in accepting a real property dedication will be:
the location of the property; the size of the property to accommodate development of employee
housing; the existing zoning of the property; the environmental, topographic and soils condition of the
offered property; and the presence of any infrastructure or utilities.
8-30-70: EXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS
(a) Exemptions from Payment of Scheduled Impact Fees
(1) EMPLOYEE HOUSING
No employee housing impact fee shall be imposed on the construction of deed restricted
employee housing as defined from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners or its
housing designee, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
(2) REPLACEMENT, RESTORATION OR REMODEL OF EXISTING UNITS
No employee housing impact fee shall be charged for replacement or restoration for an
improvement that was lost or damaged through fire, age or other event not precipitated by the
owner of the property. This exemption shall extend only so far as replacement or restoration for
the unit lost is being sought in its same location and at the same size and configuration. No
employee housing impact fee shall be charged for remodel construction that does not increase
the size of the residential structure. No exemption shall be recognized for expansion of an
existing structure.
(b) Credits
(1) PREVIOUS PAYMENT AND EXACTION
(a)Any fee imposed by this Chapter shall be subject to offset and reduced to reflect all
previous payments, exactions, dedications or other mitigation made in relation to the
proposed use and development.
(b) The value of any payment, exactions, dedications or other mitigation made to Pitkin County
shall be adjusted upward to reflect the present value not the value at the time of the original
payment, exaction or dedication. This upward adjustment shall be based upon the
annualized rate of inflation as published in the Consumer Price Index
(Denver/Boulder/Greeley CPI-W) as established by the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics. If this index should be discontinued, then reference will be to
Denver/Boulder/Greeley CPI-U, and if this is not available, then to CPI-W All Cities.
(c) If the previous dedication, contribution or exaction was made as a part of a larger approval,
i.e., subdivision or PUD review process, then the previous contribution, dedication or
exaction shall be apportioned between all the properties of the approved development for
which the previous contribution, dedication or exaction was made.
(2) CHANGE IN USE
When the imposition of the employee housing impact fee is required due to a change in use,
credit shall be recognized for any legally established use
8-30-80: IMPACT FEE FOR "SMALL" ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL
Rees Consulting, Inc. 19
24
BUSINESS"
(a)A"small" established commercial business" (a commercial business that has eight (8)or
fewer full time equivalent employees, that is less than five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of floor
area, and that has operated continuously as the same type of business with the same
ownership, and in the same location in Pitkin County for a period exceeding twenty(20)
years that relocates and abandons an old facility and that constructs and owns a new
facility to accommodate the same small established commercial business shall be required
to pay only the employee housing impact fee that would be imposed by Section 8-30-30 on
the amount of additional floor area by which the new facility exceeds the previously
occupied facility.
(b) If a new facility is exempted in conformance with Section 8-30-60(a) above, and the use of
the facility changes prior to occupancy of the new facility or within five (5) years of
occupancy of the new facility, an impact fee shall be required for the new facility in
accordance with the formula and computation of fees established in Section 8-30-30. The
fee owed will be that in effect at the time of the change in occupancy.
(c)A business utilizing this provision for reduction in/or exemption from the impact fee shall be
subject to periodic employee audits (not more than once every two years)which shall be
undertaken by Pitkin County and which will be funded by the business. Any increase in full
time equivalent employees documented by an audit will require the business to pay
additional employee impact fees at 100% of the amount that would be imposed for the
additional employees by utilizing the formula and computation of fees established in Section
8-30-30.
(Code revised(all sections)by Ord.No. 14-D, 2006,07-05-08;§8-10-60(part)amended by Ord.23-09, 09-23-09)
8-30-90: IMPACT FEE FOR CHANGE OF USE
When a "commercial development"facility(as described in Table 8-4) changes in use from one
category to a more intensive category of use in terms of employee generation, an impact fee shall be
imposed according to Section 8-30-30 for the increase in employee generation.
(Code revised(all sections)by Ord.No. 14-D, 2006,07-05-08;§8-10-70(part)amended by Ord.23-09, 09-23-09)
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 20
25
Appendix B: Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act
TITLE 29. GOVERNMENT - LOCAL
LAND USE CONTROL AND CONSERVATION
ARTICLE 20.LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONOF LAND USE
PART 1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND USE CONTROL ENABLING ACT
C.R.S. 29-20-104.5 (2012)
29-20-104.5. Impact fees
(1) Pursuant to the authority granted in section 29-20-104 (1) (g) and as a condition of issuance
of a development permit, a local government may impose an impact fee or other similar
development charge to fund expenditures by such local government on capital facilities needed
to serve new development. No impact fee or other similar development charge shall be imposed
except pursuant to a schedule that is:
(a) Legislatively adopted;
(b) Generally applicable to a broad class of property; and
(c) Intended to defray the projected impacts on capital facilities caused by proposed
development.
(2)A local government shall quantify the reasonable impacts of proposed development on
existing capital facilities and establish the impact fee or development charge at a level no
greater than necessary to defray such impacts directly related to proposed development.No
impact fee or other similar development charge shall be imposed to remedy any deficiency in
capital facilities that exists without regard to the proposed development.
(3)Any schedule of impact fees or other similar development charges adopted by a local
government pursuant to this section shall include provisions to ensure that no individual
landowner is required to provide any site specific dedication or improvement to meet the
same need for capital facilities for which the impact fee or other similar development charge
is imposed.
(4)As used in this section, the term "capital facility" means any improvement or facility that:
(a) Is directly related to any service that a local government is authorized to provide;
(b) Has an estimated useful life of five years or longer; and
Rees Consulting, Inc. 21
26
(c) Is required by the charter or general policy of a local government pursuant to a resolution or
ordinance.
(5) Any impact fee or other similar development charge shall be collected and accounted for in
accordance with part 8 of article 1 of this title.Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a
local government may waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the
development of low- or moderate- income housing or affordable employee housing as defined by
the local government.
(6)No impact fee or other similar development charge shall be imposed on any development
permit for which the applicant submitted a complete application before the adoption of a
schedule of impact fees or other similar development charges by the local government pursuant
to this section. No impact fee or other similar development charge imposed on any development
activity shall be collected before the issuance of the development permit for such development
activity. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local government from deferring
collection of an impact fee or other similar development charge until the issuance of a building
permit or certificate of occupancy.
(7) Any person or entity that owns or has an interest in land that is or becomes subject to a
schedule of fees or charges enacted pursuant to this section shall,by filing an application for a
development permit, have standing to file an action for declaratory judgment to determine
whether such schedule complies with the provisions of this section. An applicant for a
development permit who believes that a local government has improperly applied a schedule of
fees or charges adopted pursuant to this section to the development application may pay the fee
or charge imposed and proceed with development without prejudice to the applicant's right to
challenge the fee or charge imposed under rule 106 of the Colorado rules of civil procedure. If
the court determines that a local government has either imposed a fee or charge on a
development that is not subject to the legislatively enacted schedule or improperly calculated the
fee or charge due, it may enter judgment in favor of the applicant for the amount of any fee or
charge wrongly collected with interest thereon from the date collected.
(8) (a) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that the matters addressed in this section
are matters of statewide concern.
(b) This section shall not prohibit any local government from imposing impact fees or other
similar development charges pursuant to a schedule that was legislatively adopted before
October 1, 2001, so long as the local government complies with subsections (3), (5), (6), and (7)
of this section. Any amendment of such schedule adopted after October 1, 2001, shall comply
with all of the requirements of this section.
Rees Consulting, Inc./RRC Associates, Inc. 22
27
(9) If any provision of this section is held invalid, such invalidity shall invalidate this section in
its entirety, and to this end the provisions of this section are declared to be nonseverable.
Rees Consulting, Inc. 23
1/3
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
WORK SESSION DATE: June 19, 2018
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Request to Add the Invasive Species Hoary Alyssum to List B of the
Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management Plan, for Eradication
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Liz Mauro, Environmental Compliance Specialist
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Land managers in Colorado have noticed a new invasive species in the past few years: hoary
alyssum (berteroa incana). This plant can be poisonous to horses and has a negative impact on
ecosystems it invades. It tends to invade overgrazed pasture and range and thrives in disturbed sites. It
is not currently listed as a"Noxious Weed"under Lists A, B, or C of county code 6.32 or the Colorado
Noxious Weed Act; there is no current enforcement of control efforts.
BACKGROUND:
The invasive plant hoary alyssum is native to central Europe and western Asia. It is a
member of the mustard family. It probably came to North America in alfalfa and clover seed in
the 1800s. Most spread still occurs through transport of contaminated hay.
It is used for revegetation of mining sites in Ukraine and Germany,where it is a part of the
native ecosystem. In North America it disrupts native plant communities, reduces the nutritional
value of forage, and reduces the quality of hay. Hay that is contaminated with 30% or more hoary
alyssum can be toxic to horses - causing laminitis, limb edema, diarrhea, intravascular haemolysis,
and hypovolemic shock. In lower concentrations this invasive species reduces the nutritional value
of hay and lowers the economic value of the product.
Hoary alyssum is an ongoing issue in agricultural land in the central US where it was first
recognized as a problem in the 1950s. As of 2017, it was listed as a noxious weed in California,
Idaho, Montana, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Alberta, British Columbia, and
Saskatchewan.
Management strategies:
-cultural controls are effective against hoary alyssum:
-maintain healthy vegetation in range and pastures and do not overgraze
-reseed with native perennials after any disturbance
2/3
-irrigate (hoary alyssum loves dry conditions)
-hand-pulling is an effective mechanical control
-chemical control with metsulfuron-methyl based products can be effective
-there are no biological controls available yet
Authority
Colorado Revised Statutes Title 35-5.5-101 (2003) requires each county to manage noxious
weeds identified in the State Noxious Weeds List and to have a current Weed Management Plan
(WMP) - section 6.32 of the county code.
An invasive species recommended for management by Staff and the Weed Advisory Board
(WAB) can be approved for addition to List B by the BOCC; once approved by the BOCC this
addition will be communicated to the Commissioner of Agriculture. Hoary alyssum is currently on
the Colorado Department of Agriculture watchlist, but is not listed for management under Lists A,
B, or C.
Staff has identified three options for the BOCC:
• Option 1: Add hoary alyssum to List B for eradication under the WMP immediately.
• Option 2: Wait until the WMP is updated to add hoary alyssum to List B; this will happen
in the winter of 2018/19.
• Option 3: Do not regulate hoary alyssum unless required by the State Weed Act CSR
35-5.5-101.
Budget Impacts
Eradication of this species can be accomplished with no budget increase.
SUMMARY
Hoary alyssum is an invasive species that is present in Pitkin County and has the potential
to cause ecological damage and economic loss. It is already designated and managed as a noxious
weed in several other states and provinces. The earlier management and education efforts start, the
better the outcome will be for eradication of this species and prevention of ecological damage.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Conserve Natural Resources and Environment of the Flourishing Natural and Built Environment Core
Focus Area of the Pitkin County Strategic Plan.
3/3
KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Does the BOCC require additional information to make a decision?
RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION:
Staff and the WAB recommend that the BOCC choose Option 1 so that education and
eradication efforts may begin immediately. Direct staff to amend the existing WMP through formal
resolution as soon as possible.
Future Agendas
p'r K I N Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Work Session Agenda
TUESDAY,JUNE 26,2018, 11:00 AM
Q/D. G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
(Commissioner Poschman not attending)
A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and
invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official
action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public
input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board.
11:00 AM Staff/Community Presentations
This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational
issues that may lead to future Board action.
11:00 AM Healthy Community Fund Review of Poll Results,Mitzi Ledingham,Nan Sundeen,Karen
Koenemann(1 hour)Invited guests
12:00 PM Lunch Break
1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentation(cont.)
1:00 PM Annual Audit Presentation,Ann Driggers, Liz Woods, Michael Jenkins McMahan &Assoc.
(20 minutes)
1:20 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items
This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items
that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public
Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings.
1:20 PM Budget Update,Connie Baker(20 minutes)
1:40 PM 2nd Quarter Budget Supplementals, Connie Baker(30 minutes)
2:10 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(10 minutes)
2:20 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion
No formal written materials
2:20 PM Administration and Sheriffs Office/Ambulance Building Updates,Rich Englehart,Chandler Deimund,
Gabe Meuthing(15 minutes)
2:35 PM Courthouse Renovation Update,Jodi Smith(15 minutes)
2:50 PM Board Open Discussion(10 Minutes)
3:00 PM Adjourn Work Session to Travel to Carbondale for Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail Listening
Session at Third Street Center in Carbondale(Box lunches provided)
4:00 PM JOINT BOCC/OPEN SPACE & TRAILS LISTENING SESSION RE: CARBONDALE TO
CRESTED BUTTE TRAIL AT THIRD STREET CENTER IN CARBONDALE (CALLAWAY
ROOM)
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
‘pfT'K I N Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Regular Meeting Agenda
WEDNESDAY,JUNE 27,2018, 12:00 PM
@/-DEC--N Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
(Commissioner Poschman not attending)
Proclamation-2017 Employee of the Year Presentation
Additions/Deletions to Agenda
Public Comments(please limit to 3 minutes per speaker unless otherwise advised by the Chair)
Commissioner Comments
Consent Items: Consent items are generally perceived as non-controversial and allow the Board to spend its time on more
complex items elsewhere on the agenda.A Board member or member of the public may ask for a Consent item be removed for
individual consideration.Consent items typically have been discussed in work sessions with the Board and are approved by a single
motion.
Consent Items-Single Reading:
1. Minutes of
Consent Items Set for Public Hearing on DATE:
Individual Consideration Items:
Individual Consideration Items/First Readings set for Public Hearings on July 11, 2018:
2. Resolution Approving 2nd Quarter Budget Supplementals, Connie Baker
Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, One Reading:
Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, 2nd Readings:
3 Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)with Garfield County to Provide Middle Mile Broadband,Kara
Silbernagel.
4. Ordinance Accepting a Trail Easement for the Verena Mallory Trail, Richard Neiley III
5. Resolution Authorizing the Chair of the BOCC to Sign and Enter Pitkin County into an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the State of Colorado for Off-System Bridge Grant Funding, G.R. Fielding
Individual Consideration Items/Emergency Ordinance and Resolution Confirmatory Reading:
Land Use Items:
Land Use Public Hearings:
6. Resolution Denying the White Tip Ranch LLC Minor Amendment to Resolution No. 97-139 to Eliminate the
Dog Prohibition, Tami Kochen(Continued from June 13, 2018)
Land Use Actions:
Open Discussion
Adjourn Regular Meeting
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
‘pt1'K I N Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Work Session Agenda
TUESDAY,JULY 3,2018, 10:00 AM
Q/D• G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and
invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official
action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public
input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board.
10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING-EXECUTIVE SESSION
12:00 PM Adjourn for Executive Session
12:00 PM Lunch Break
1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations
This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational
issues that may lead to future Board action.
1:00 PM Healthy Community Fund Ballot Question Discussion,Nan Sundeen,Mitzi Ledingham,Karen
Koenemann(1 hour)
2:00 PM Women Infant Children(WIC)Program Changes,Karen Koenemann(1 hour)
3:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items
This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items
that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public
Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings.
3:00 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes)
3:30 PM Break
3:45 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion
No formal written materials
3:45 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes)
4:00 PM Department Updates and Board Membership Reports
Department Updates provide an opportunity for staff to share accomplishments, trends, issues and
challenges with the Board. Board Membership Reports is time set aside for Board members to report on
the activities of other boards, commissions and entities they have been appointed to as representative of
Pitkin County.
4:45 PM Adjourn (P&Z Meeting begins at 5 PM)
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
‘pt1'K IN Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Work Session Agenda
TUESDAY,JULY 10,2018, 10:00 AM
Q/D• G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and
invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official
action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public
input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board.
1:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items
This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items
that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public
Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings.
1:00 PM Commercial Recreation Use Discussion, Cindy Houben, Gary Tennenbaum,Brian Pettet(1
hour)
2:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations
This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational
issues that may lead to future Board action.
2:00 PM RFTA Mill Levy Polling Results,Brian Pettet(30 minutes)invited guests-do not move
2:30 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items(continued)
2:30 PM Citizen Board Interview/Barbara Reid, Citizen Grant Review Committee, Charlotte
Anderson(15 minutes)
2:45 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes)
3:00 PM Break
3:15 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion
No formal written materials
3:15 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes)
3:30 PM Clerk&Recorder Update, Janice Vos Caudill, Shelley Popish(15 min.)
4:30 PM Department Updates and Board Membership Reports
Department Updates provide an opportunity for staff to share accomplishments, trends, issues and
challenges with the Board. Board Membership Reports is time set aside for Board members to report on
the activities of other boards, commissions and entities they have been appointed to as representative of
Pitkin County.
5:00 PM Adjourn
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
priCKIN Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Regular Meeting Agenda
WEDNESDAY,JULY 11,2018, 12:00 PM
@ D• Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
Additions/Deletions to Agenda
Public Comments(please limit to 3 minutes per speaker unless otherwise advised by the Chair)
Commissioner Comments
Consent Items: Consent items are generally perceived as non-controversial and allow the Board to spend its time on more
complex items elsewhere on the agenda.A Board member or member of the public may ask for a Consent item be removed for
individual consideration.Consent items typically have been discussed in work sessions with the Board and are approved by a single
motion.
Consent Items-Single Reading:
1. Minutes of
Consent Items Set for Public Hearing on DATE:
Individual Consideration Items:
Individual Consideration Items/First Readings set for Public Hearings on DATE:
Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, One Reading:
Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, 2nd Readings:
2. Resolution Approving 2nd Quarter Budget Supplementals, Connie Baker
Individual Consideration Items/Emergency Resolution Confirmatory Public Hearing:
3. Emergency Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Aurora Concerning
Busk-Ivanhoe Water Rights,John Ely
Land Use Items:
Land Use Public Hearings:
4. Elam/Vagneur Gravel Permit Annual Review 2017,PH(PN 6/7/18),M. Kraemer
5. Resolution Approving the Celestial Land Company Ltd Reinstatement of Vested Rights, Continued from
5/9/18 (PN 9/7/17), Suzanne Wolff
Land Use Actions:
Open Discussion
Adjourn Regular Meeting
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
p'fKIN Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Work Session Agenda
TUESDAY,JULY 17,2018, 10:00 AM
Q/D• G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and
invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official
action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public
input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board.
10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING-EXECUTIVE SESSION
12:00 PM Adjourn for Executive Session
12:00 PM Lunch Break
1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations
This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational
issues that may lead to future Board action.
2:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items
This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items
that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public
Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings.
2:00 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes)
3:00 PM Break
3:15 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion
No formal written materials
3:15 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes)
4:00 PM Department Updates and Board Membership Reports
Department Updates provide an opportunity for staff to share accomplishments, trends, issues and
challenges with the Board. Board Membership Reports is time set aside for Board members to report on
the activities of other boards, commissions and entities they have been appointed to as representative of
Pitkin County.
5:00 PM Adjourn (P&Z Meeting begins at 5 PM)
SATURDAY,JULY 21,2018
Aspen Valley Land Trust Grand Land Dance
Emma Farms
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
‘pt1'K IN Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Work Session Agenda
TUESDAY,JULY 24,2018, 10:00 AM
Q/D• G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and
invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official
action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public
input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board.
1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations
This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational
issues that may lead to future Board action.
1:00 PM Healthy Community Fund Ballot Question Discussion,Nan Sundeen, Mitzi Ledingham, Karen
Koenemann(1 hour)
2:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items
This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items
that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public
Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings.
2:00 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes)
2:30 PM Recycling Discussion, Cathy Hall and Brian Pettet(1 hour)
3:00 PM Break
3:15 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion
No formal written materials
3:15 Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes)
4:00 PM Department Updates and Board Membership Reports
Department Updates provide an opportunity for staff to share accomplishments, trends, issues and
challenges with the Board. Board Membership Reports is time set aside for Board members to report on
the activities of other boards, commissions and entities they have been appointed to as representative of
Pitkin County.
5:00 PM Adjourn
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
priCKIN Board of Commissioners
COUNT1 Regular Meeting Agenda
WEDNESDAY,JULY 25,2018, 12:00 PM
@/-DEC--N Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room
120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611
Proclamation-Mark Fuller Recognition
Additions/Deletions to Agenda
Public Comments(please limit to 3 minutes per speaker unless otherwise advised by the Chair)
Commissioner Comments
Consent Items: Consent items are generally perceived as non-controversial and allow the Board to spend its time on more
complex items elsewhere on the agenda.A Board member or member of the public may ask for a Consent item be removed for
individual consideration.Consent items typically have been discussed in work sessions with the Board and are approved by a single
motion.
Consent Items-Single Reading:
1. Minutes of
Consent Items Set for Public Hearing on DATE:
Individual Consideration Items:
Individual Consideration Items/First Readings set for Public Hearings on DATE:
Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, One Reading:
Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, 2nd Readings:
Individual Consideration Items/Emergency Ordinance and Resolution Confirmatory Reading:
Land Use Items:
Land Use Public Hearings:
Land Use Actions:
Open Discussion
Adjourn Regular Meeting
AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2018
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Joint BOCC/P&Z Worksession
Re:Buildout/Infrastructure/Energy
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
Ellen Sassano, Senior Long Range Planner
ISSUE STATEMENT: The purpose of this joint worksession is to present data regarding Zoning
Buildout as it relates to County Infrastructure and Energy Consumption in the context of Pitkin
County land use plans ( including the Climate Action Plan,)regulations and policies. No action is
requested of either Board.
BACKGROUND: On July 18, 2017 the P&Z and BOCC met to discuss the issues surrounding
current zoning as it relates to land use issues such as infrastructure and energy consumption. Please
see the attached memorandum to refresh your memory about the discussion. At the meeting, Staff
was directed to develop more data about infrastructure, demand and capacity, relative to the current
zoning allowances (buildout) for Pitkin County. RPI Consulting was hired to gather existing data
and analyze the following:
• Road capacity and maintenance;
• Energy usage as it relates to residential square footage and the goals of the Pikin County
Climate Action Plan;
• Potential demand for TDR's (Maximizing TDR use under current zoning
allowances);
• Landfill capacity as it relates to construction and demolition
• Airport capacity and accommodations
Gabe Preston from RPI Consulting will be present at the meeting to run through preliminary
findings on the topic areas listed above. Staff from the Pitkin County, Landfill, Airport and
Public Works Departments will also be present.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Supports the Core Focus Area of a Flourishing Built and Natural
Environment;
KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: The intent of the meeting is to review and clarify data and
preliminary findings. Staff anticipates scheduling a subsequent worksession to review potential
policy direction.
2
BUDGETARY IMPACT: None, at this time.
RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: No action is requested.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. August 22, 2017 P&Z Memorandum: Follow-Up to July 18, 2017 Joint BOCC/P&Z
Worksession
3
Attachment 1
MEMORANDUM
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Follow-Up to July 18, 2017 Joint BOCC and Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session RE:
Updating TDR& GMQS Provisions to Address Current
Community Objectives
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
Ellen Sassano, Senior Long Range Planner
MEETING INTENTBACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Staff wishes to follow-up on the
July 18, 2017 Joint BOCC/Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review topics discussed, and
summarize outcomes prior to moving forward with potential Code amendments. This will be an
opportunity to ensure that the Planning Commission is able to fully explore the issues and
Community objectives driving the direction to re-calibrate some of the key provisions of our Land
Use Code. Specifically, modifications relating to zoning and growth management are being
considered in the context of new data regarding greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure capacity
issues, and unintended change to rural character, as depicted in the following graphic (Figure 1):
Addressing Community Objectives Via Land Use Direction
-* Build Our Way Out-Grow Infrastructure to Accommodate Development;
- Mitigate-(Buy Our Way Out)-Purchase Development Rights or Energy Credits to offset development impacts;
(TDRs,REMP)
- Set Limitations That Are Concurrent With Infrastructure&Community Values;
-* A Blend of All of the Above.
Infrastructure Ca•aci I uali of Life
GHG Emissions Transportation
Waste Residential Saa tisfactt
ion/
&Climate Roads/Parking/ Management Energy
Action Planning Airport Quality of Life
J
25%of GHG 5%ofGHG Energy Use
70%of GHG Emissions are Emissions are Increases 35% Rural
Emissions are Attributed to Attributed to for Homes Character
Attributed to
Buildings Transportation Waste Above 7,500
S.F.
Nee•for Larger
Increasing Running Out Infrastructure: Length of
Costs For of Space at Service Lines& Construction
Road Landfill:7 Compressor Activity
Maintenance More Years? Stations
7% •crease in
Congestion Construction
Impacts on Amount of
P Waste is 2017; Construction
Lifestyle& More ForavaUon
Tourist Dirt Fang Activity
Experience
De uret
to Sip our
Waste to dee
Figure 1 caedenr
4
Direction From July 18, 2017 Joint P&Z/BOCC Meeting: At the meeting on July 18th, it
was acknowledged that TDRs have been and continue to be a viable and effective tool for
providing an equitable alternative to developing in areas of the County that are constrained, or
have qualities that are in the best interest of the community to preserve. However, it was also
determined that, moving forward, it is important to maintain a semblance of balance between the
use and the impacts of TDRs to ensure that Community priorities continue to be at the forefront.
Recognizing the need to address the implications of energy consumption/climate change on a
county-wide basis, and to address what is, in some areas, perceived as a loss of defining rural
character as a result of the use of TDRs, Staff was given direction to explore several potential
Code amendments for further consideration by appointed and elected officials.
The following table lists the Code amendments identified by the BOCC and P&Z for further
exploration(in the left-hand column,) and the potential influence each Code amendment may
have on resolution of Community issues identified in Figure 1, above. Clearly, these Code
amendments were identified by elected and appointed officials due to their potential to "move-
the-needle" in terms of addressing the issues of greenhouse gas emissions reduction,
infrastructure capacity issues and preservation of rural character:
Potential Amendments Influence on Topic Areas
GHG Energy Traffic Rural Waste
Emissions Consumption Character
1. Lower Maximum x x x x x
House Size
2. Lower Growth x x x x x
Management Exemption
3. Reduce Available x x x x x
GMQS Allocations
4. Develop a Sliding Scale x x x x x
for TDRs Required to
Increase Size
5. Prioritize Building x x x x x
Permit Issuance for
Smaller Homes
6. Count All Below-Grade x x x x
Space as Floor Area
Figure 2
At the meeting, Staff will provide an update on data being collected to facilitate the development
of Code amendments, initiate discussion and request feedback regarding amendment options
under consideration.
Process In terms of process for development of Code amendments, Staff anticipates the
following steps:
1. August 22, 2017 Receive direction from PZ;
5
2. Yet-to-be-scheduled BOCC Worksession Present data to facilitate Code amendment
development discussion and receive further direction;
3. P&Z&Staff Host Meetings with citizens and hold Caucus Roundtables to discuss issues
and get feedback;
4. Develop Code amendment alternatives for P&Z review and recommendations at
scheduled public hearings;
5. Schedule Code amendments for BOCC review/adoption in public hearing(s).
RECOMMENDED PZ ACTION: Provide Staff with direction regarding further development
of Code amendments for subsequent review.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Notes From July 18, 2017 Joint PZ/BOCC Meeting
Attachment 1 6
BOCC/PZ Joint Worksession 7/18/17
Present:
BOCC: George Newman, Steve Child, Patti Clapper, Greg Poschman, Rachel Richards
P&Z: Jeff Conklin, Monty Thompson, Joe Krabacher, Jim VeShancey, Paul Rudnick
Staff. Cindy Houben, Ellen Sassano, Suzanne Wolff
Cindy Houben outlined the intent of the meeting:
• To review potential Transferable Development Rights (TDR)&Growth Management Code
amendment options in the context of maintaining rural character&addressing climate change;
and
• To obtain direction on priorities for identified Code amendments to achieve overarching
community objectives around greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the transportation, waste
management and residential energy sectors.
Commissioner discussion provided the following direction:
It's important to address the impacts of development and growth as we develop a framework for
addressing greenhouse gas emissions in our draft Climate Action Plan;
Consider providing incentives for repurposing/re-using existing buildings, and dis-incentivizes for
demolition and de-construction of buildings. Determine whether or not TDRs could be
incorporated as part of the incentive/dis-incentive approach; considering the ability to provide a
nexus between the proposed action and the use of TDRs.
If there's agreement to modify the TDR program, do the following:
o Analyze the impacts of Code amendments on the balance between TDR supply and
demand, and on the monetary value of TDRs;
o Continue to discuss the tradeoffs of maintaining the goal(s)of(large ranch/agricultural)
preservation achieved through the TDR program.
o Always ensure that there is a rational nexus when TDRs are used as an incentive to
achieve community goals.
The following table identifies the top five areas (in yellow) in which there was (the most)support for
development of Code amendments to address Community goals of reducing GHG emissions and
maintaining rural character:
Land Use Approaches Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Increase TOR increase TDR Demand- Fully Leverage TDR,a
Demand-Light St Modify Growth GMQS to Influence
Management Change
t OHS Lr wtntnacul&Tut_1,t
Attanmuc:atiout
TDW far Op ani,rc .. ..
TM tor Guesthouses x ,
TOW tar SpecLil Events Venue x >.
Reduce TDR like*um:.SOJ-L"_50 sq.ft * .
Develop SRangSuk,inaemeratiy increasing P6' n ..
•oft Rs for haler hang k -}10
, Sititfasiblew Goa&FloorArse /0/W07.
Lowe.GM Eton from VS0 to___1 .a).
ssi�' T>tA
Reduoe.ciWpAlkustfnm
Aortic faltoj
laser Mae4nr Roan SneTo_7
r
Schedule lauxaa o f Bldg.Put-roils to mama, x
inyxacls (Ohl.- rt
Priori time Greer[7SnuL Bldg"1'erm!ti )0x
Advil Sanger Energy Ludes e_..
7
The top five areas include:
✓ Lower Maximum House Size; (Staff was directed to explore reducing the maximum house
size from 15,000 sq. ft. to, or below 10,000 sq.ft.)
✓ Lower Growth Management exemption from 5,750 to 4,750 sq.ft. (While lowering the
Growth Management exemption from 5,750 to 4,750 was a concept that was identified as
one of the top five to consider, concern was expressed about the potential impact to"locals,"
who might want to build up to 5,750 sq. ft. and may not be able to afford to purchase a TDR
to do so.)
✓ Reduce Available Growth Management Allocations(Also consider updating scoring criteria
to address issues identified by P&Z and in Caucus Master Plans.)
✓ Develop a Sliding Scale, incrementally increasing number of TDRs required as house size is
increased.
✓ Require TDRS for Below Grade Floor Area (or count all below-grade space as floor area.)
The concept of adopting stronger Energy Codes did not receive a lot of discussion, but was
generally acknowledged as a worthwhile endeavor that is supported, and already under-way.
Staff was requested to explore a Code amendment that would limit the growth management
allocation for a new development right to no more than 5,750 square feet of floor area; only
allowing the 5,750 sq.ft. threshold to be exceeded (under any circumstances,)through the use of
a TDR(s).
There was also modest support for prioritizing building permits for smaller, and/or"greener"
homes.
While there was not an outpouring of support for it, there was a fair amount of discussion about
the option of Scheduling the Issuance of Building Permits to Manage Impacts, also known as,
"pacing development."The following recommendations were made around this concept, in the
event that it is pursued at any time:
• Consider the implications of"pacing" permit issuance, on boom/bust cycles in the economy;
During a significant economic downturn, pacing of the issuance of permits may have the
unintended consequence of slowing the rate of development when it is not necessary or
desirable; Consider developing a system that can fluctuate depending on demand level.
• Exempt small remodels from development"pacing" limitations;
• Pace permit issuance by Caucus area;
• Consider impacts on vested rights timelines for initiation of development;
• Address equity issues if pacing system is implemented.
Recognize that all of the proposed amendments are interwoven in terms of implications, and
must be looked at comprehensively.
As one of the impacts directly related to large homes is traffic congestion, one Commissioner
recommended developing a transportation impact fee to raise money for better public mass
transit.
Concern was expressed by one Commissioner regarding the increasing impacts of transferring
development rights to urban areas, suggesting that tools other than TDRs for additional floor
area, be developed to preserve back-country and agricultural lands.
Staff was directed to work through the Board of Realtors to set up a BOCC site visit to look at
residences of varying sizes to provide some on-the-ground reference for making decisions
relating to the issues of house size, energy consumption, below-grade space, and excavation
required to develop a typical 4000 sq.ft. exempt basement, among other things.
Staff was also directed to research other similar communities to find best practices for addressing
identified issues.