Housing, public-space rules and water-wise landscaping

Council is being asked to adopt Resolution No. 03, Series of 2026, approve a standard deed-restriction agreement with Eagle County and authorize a $97,200 town contribution toward one home already under contract inside Basalt. Eagle County would provide an equal contribution. Each government’s payment would equal 15% of the sales price, reducing the buyer’s free-market price by a combined 30%. The packet does not identify the home’s address, neighborhood, size or number of bedrooms, apparently because the transaction is still pending. It says the buyer is a verified full-time Basalt employee.

This is the first specific purchase proposed under Basalt’s Deed Restriction Incentive Program, which council established through Resolution No. 23, Series of 2025. A deed restriction is a permanent set of ownership, occupancy and resale rules recorded against a property. Basalt’s 2020 Master Plan called for housing serving a range of incomes and for preserving existing homes to reduce displacement. The 2024 Housing Needs Assessment Update also recommended voluntary deed restrictions as a way to add workforce housing without waiting for new construction.

Basalt’s framework allows eligible buyers to receive down-payment assistance in exchange for restricting a free-market home. The program applies to properties valued at no more than $1.5 million, recommends a public contribution of 10% to 15% for a price-capped restriction and requires full-time employment verification. Every restriction includes a maximum annual appreciation rate of 3%. In this case, the town would partner with the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority through the county’s Good Deeds Community Partner Program rather than administer the restriction alone.

The proposed agreement contains detailed eligibility rules. At least one household member generally must work an average of 30 hours per week on an annual basis for a business with an office or regular operations in the Basalt Three-Mile Planning Area. A newly hired permanent worker may also qualify, as may certain retirees, people receiving a reasonable disability accommodation and qualifying employers that rent to eligible employees. The home must be the household’s primary residence for at least nine of every 12 months. Household members generally may not own other real estate, although the county may consider limited exceptions involving commercial property or vacant land.

Short-term rentals would be prohibited, and the owner would have to complete annual certification showing continued compliance. Future sales would be administered by The Valley Home Store and limited to another eligible household or qualifying employer. The maximum resale price would begin with the restricted purchase price and rise with Eagle County’s average wage, but by no more than 3% annually; it would not rise in a year when the wage measure does not increase. Certain approved capital improvements and sales costs could be added under county guidelines, but the agreement does not guarantee that an owner will receive the maximum allowed price.

The town’s $97,200 is available, according to staff, and would be specifically identified in a future quarterly budget amendment. Combined with Eagle County’s matching $97,200, the public investment would total $194,400. The packet does not name the precise fund that would supply Basalt’s contribution or give a closing date. After approval, the mayor or town manager could sign the final agreement, the restriction would be recorded with the property, and Eagle County would serve as the primary administrator and beneficiary. Basalt would be the secondary beneficiary, able to enforce the agreement if the county no longer exists or declines to act.

The central trade-off is between spending public money on one existing home and preserving that home permanently for local workers. The restriction lowers the current buyer’s cost and protects affordability for future buyers, but also limits the owner’s investment gain, prohibits short-term rental use and requires ongoing verification. In foreclosure, Eagle County would have a 30-day option to buy the property after a public trustee’s deed or deed in lieu of foreclosure; if it declined under specified circumstances, the restriction could be released. Residents may also want to ask which town fund will pay, where the property is located, how the sales price produced the $97,200 contribution and how this purchase compares with other potential housing investments.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during public comment near the start of the 6 p.m. meeting and again when this item is called. Comments may be made at Town Hall, 101 Midland Avenue, or through the meeting’s Zoom access. Residents may also email council before the meeting and ask that their comments be included in the public record.

Council is being asked to approve Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2026 on first reading and schedule a public hearing and final vote for January 27. First reading is an initial approval that allows the proposal to advance; the rules are not final at this meeting. The ordinance would add Section 11-179 to the municipal code and create a fee schedule for reserving parks, shelters, stages and other town property. Council may approve the draft, change it or send it back to staff for revisions.

Staff says the current system does not clearly distinguish an ordinary park reservation from a Special Event Activity Permit, and related information and fees are found in different places. The proposal follows continued investment in parks and facilities, including creation of Basalt River Park, and the town’s 2024 Financial Sustainability Strategy and Maintenance Asset Management Strategy for parks, trails and open space. The stated goals are clarity, consistency and fairness, along with a more efficient application process and better protection of public facilities.

A basic reservation would allow someone to reserve a particular amenity, such as a shelter or stage, for a set period. It would not allow the organizer to exclude the public from restrooms, public waste bins, multi-use fields or playgrounds. A gathering of 50 or more people would require a Special Event Activity Permit. That more involved permit would also be required for amplified sound, ticketed events, public advertising, food, alcohol or merchandise sales, reservations made more than six months ahead, large or staked tents, and stages, barricades or fences that interfere with general public use.

Town Council approval would be required for recurring events, most street closures and any use of Basalt River Park. Staff could administratively approve closures of Harris Street, Midland Spur and Market Street between East Valley Road and Grange Street. Staff could also decide that another large or disruptive use needs a special-event permit. An ordinary reservation application would be due at least 14 days before the event. A special-event application would be due at least 45 days beforehand and require a pre-application meeting; the town could reject a late application.

The proposed fee table lists ordinary facility reservations at $50 with a $200 deposit for the Lions Park stage, Arbaney Park shelter, Willits Linear Park shelter, Fisherman’s Park shelter and Triangle Park stage. A special event using one of those facilities would cost $250 with a $500 deposit. Special-event fees would be $150 with a $300 deposit at Wildwood Park and Cliff’s Hillside Park, and $250 with a $500 deposit at Arbaney Park, Linear Park, Willits Rugby Park and Southside Park. Basalt River Park and right-of-way events are listed as “contact staff,” so the packet does not state a fixed price. A $750 additional deposit would apply when stakes are used in a town park.

Organizers would have to collect and remove trash, recycling and compost after the event and empty park receptacles. The town could use the deposit for cleanup and bill any remaining cost. Alcohol would require a town liquor license, while food trucks, bars and other vendors would need business and sales-tax licenses and potentially county health or fire approval. Security and liability insurance could be required. Up to four 10-by-10-foot pop-up tents could be used without building review; tents larger than 400 square feet would require approval from the building official and Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority. Sandbags or water could be used instead of stakes to avoid the staking deposit.

The proposal offers predictable fees and clearer expectations, but residents and event organizers may want to consider whether the amounts are affordable for small community groups, whether nonprofit or resident discounts are needed and how staff will price Basalt River Park. Other open questions include when deposits will be returned, what standards will determine required security or insurance, and how staff will distinguish an ordinary gathering from an “impactful” event. The packet says fees may change after staff review but does not provide estimated annual revenue, administrative costs or comparisons with neighboring communities.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during public comment at the beginning of the regular meeting and again when Ordinance No. 02 is called. Because this is first reading, another public hearing and second reading—the final council vote—are proposed for January 27. Comments may be made in person or by Zoom, and residents may email council beforehand for inclusion in the record.

Council is being asked to approve Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2026 on first reading and schedule a public hearing and second reading for January 27. First reading is the council’s initial decision to move a law forward, not its final adoption. The measure would amend Sections 11-1 and 11-178 of the town code to establish a standard system for private use of town sidewalks, rights-of-way and other public property. Council may approve the draft, amend it or return it to staff with direction.

The proposal follows completion of the Midland Avenue Streetscape project. Staff says Basalt now needs consistent rules for “streetscape activation,” meaning restaurant tables, commercial displays, information kiosks, art installations and similar public-facing activity along sidewalks. The goal is to encourage lively commercial areas without blocking pedestrian connections between public sidewalks and building entrances. The rules would apply townwide where businesses or institutions seek to use town property, but Midland Avenue and other commercial districts are the most direct setting described by the packet.

A business using a public sidewalk would need an encroachment license agreement. An encroachment license is town permission for a private use to occupy public property under stated conditions; it does not transfer ownership. Under the town charter, council would approve the agreements by resolution and renew them annually. Uses on private sidewalks would not need the town license, but they would still have to follow the ordinance and all applicable town, county, state and federal requirements. The underlying activity must also be permitted in the property’s zoning district.

Licensed public-sidewalk space could be used by an immediately adjacent business for seating or displays between April 1 and October 31. The proposal defines “immediately adjacent” on public property as the area between a private property line and the nearest street flow line. Outdoor seating could extend no farther than the business’s actual street frontage and must be operated by the adjoining commercial establishment. No additional off-street parking would be required for qualifying outdoor seating, although outdoor seating on private property might still require planning approval.

Every setup would have to preserve pedestrian and accessibility routes. The ordinance requires compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and, at minimum, a clear walkway at least three feet wide around an obstruction. Building entrances must remain open across their full width, and tables, displays or other items could not block public restrooms or transit stops. The seating area itself must be accessible to people with disabilities. Materials would need to be durable, stable, slip-resistant and compatible with the project’s design so people of differing abilities can move comfortably through the space.

Food preparation, busing stations, storage and privately added trash cans would not be permitted on public sidewalks. Existing receptacles installed as part of the street improvements could remain. Tables, chairs and related surfaces would have to be kept clean, attractive and in good condition. Furnishings could not be stored on the sidewalk outside their operating season. Failure to meet the rules could cause the town to revoke the encroachment license, although the packet does not describe a warning period, appeal process or escalating penalties before revocation.

Alcohol service would require a liquor license covering the outdoor area. Businesses would have to mark a clear perimeter matching the licensed premises, post signs directing customers to keep drinks inside that area and comply with all license conditions. Alcohol would otherwise remain prohibited on town property. The packet does not propose a license fee, identify how many businesses currently use public sidewalks or explain how existing outdoor arrangements would transition into the annual licensing system. Those are practical questions residents and merchants may want clarified before final adoption.

The trade-off is between encouraging active, inviting sidewalks and preserving public access. A three-foot minimum path creates a measurable standard, but council may consider whether that width is sufficient on busy Midland Avenue blocks, around mobility devices or near transit stops. Businesses may also weigh the value of added seating against annual council approval, seasonal limits and maintenance responsibilities. Residents may ask how consistently the town will measure clear paths, whether art or nonprofit kiosks will be treated like commercial displays, and whether licenses can be suspended for construction, snow removal or public events.

Residents can comment for up to three minutes at the start of the meeting and again when the ordinance is called. The meeting is available in person at Town Hall and through Zoom. If council advances the measure, January 27 would bring the formal public hearing and second reading, meaning the final adoption vote. Written comments may be emailed to council beforehand for the public record.

Council is being asked to approve the 2026 discretionary grant recommendations as part of the consent agenda. A three-member council subcommittee—Dieter Schindler, David Knight and Angela Anderson Ward—reviewed the applications and recommends funding 35 organizations. Consent agenda items are normally approved together with little discussion, although a council member may ask to remove an item for separate consideration. The proposal would distribute the town’s full $35,000 discretionary-grant budget and $37,000 in tobacco-tax money.

The original 2026 grant budget totals $62,000: $35,000 from account 10-41-671, Community Grants, and $27,000 from account 20-76-699, tobacco tax. The subcommittee is requesting an additional $10,000 from the Tobacco Tax Fund, bringing proposed tobacco-tax spending to $37,000 and total awards to $72,000. Staff says the tobacco-tax account has a current surplus and can absorb the extra amount within the adopted 2026 budget. The packet does not state the remaining tobacco-tax balance after these awards.

Applicants requested a combined $136,908, so recommended funding would cover a little more than half of the dollars sought. The staff report says there were 38 applicants and that 35 would receive funding. The attached table, however, states there were 39 applications. The packet does not explain that one-application discrepancy. It also says the committee prioritized tobacco-tax funding for organizations that qualify under the ballot language, allowing the general discretionary account to reach more applicants.

Some of the largest recommended awards are $5,000 each for Food Bank of the Rockies and Lift-Up. English in Action, Home Care and Hospice of the Valley and Summit 54’s Summer Advantage in Basalt are each recommended for $4,000. Alpine Legal Services and the Family Resource Center of the Roaring Fork Schools are each recommended for $3,500. A Way Out, Harvest for Hunger and Mountain Family Health are recommended for $3,000 apiece, while HeadQuarters, formerly Aspen Strong, and Raising A Reader are recommended for $2,500 each.

Other recommended awards include $2,000 each for Aspen Public Radio, Community Health Services and The Buddy Program; $1,500 each for Aspen Science Center, FocusedKids, Junior Achievement of the Roaring Fork Valley, River Bridge Regional Center, Roaring Fork Music Society, Stepping Stones and The Meeting Place; and $1,000 each for Aspen Dance Connection, High Country Sinfonia, KDNK Community Access Radio, Mount Sopris Nordic Council and YouthZone. Several school and recreation groups are recommended for $500, including the Basalt High School Booster Club, Basalt High School Project Graduation, Basalt Middle School Wrestling Club, Aspen Valley Ski and Snowboard Club, Red Hill Council, Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association and Science in Schools at Basalt Elementary School.

Three listed organizations appear to receive no recommended 2026 award: College Outreach, Pathfinders and The Arts Campus at Willits. The table shows some large gaps between requests and recommendations. The Family Resource Center requested $10,000 and is recommended for $3,500; FocusedKids requested $10,000 and is recommended for $1,500; YouthZone requested $10,000 and is recommended for $1,000; and The Meeting Place requested $6,000 and is recommended for $1,500. The packet provides the committee’s broad reasoning—essential services and vulnerability to federal funding cuts—but does not give an individual explanation for each reduction or denial.

Staff says it reviewed each proposed tobacco-tax recipient and believes the awards comply with the voter-approved tobacco-tax language. The materials do not reproduce that ballot language or identify which services are being paid from the tobacco account rather than the general grant account beyond the amounts shown in the table. They also do not give payment dates, reporting requirements, performance measures or conditions for recipients. Council’s approval would authorize the recommendations, including the additional $10,000 use of the tobacco-tax surplus.

Residents may weigh the value of spreading limited money among 35 organizations against making larger awards to fewer providers. They may also consider whether arts, media, recreation and direct human services should compete in one process, and whether the extra tobacco-tax spending should be reserved for later needs. Reasonable questions include why the applicant count differs between the staff report and table, how the committee ranked essential services, and why certain organizations received no award while most applicants received partial support.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during public comment near the start of the meeting and again if the grant item is pulled from consent or taken up separately. Because consent items can move quickly, written comments should be sent to council before the meeting with a request that they be entered into the record. Residents may attend at Town Hall or use the listed Zoom connection.

Council will hold a public hearing and final vote on Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2025. The ordinance would add Section 16-188 to the town code, bringing Basalt’s development rules into line with Colorado laws restricting nonfunctional turf, nonfunctional artificial turf and invasive plants. Second reading is the final council consideration after an ordinance has already passed an initial vote. Staff recommends adoption, and the suggested motion is to approve the ordinance as presented.

The change originates with Colorado Senate Bill 24-005, signed by Governor Jared Polis on March 15, 2024, and House Bill 25-1113, adopted in 2025. The state legislation responds to climate pressures and limited water supplies by limiting resource-intensive landscaping on specified properties. The 2025 law modified the original prohibition by distinguishing functional artificial turf from artificial turf that serves no regular recreational, civic or infrastructure purpose. Basalt was required to adopt these initial local provisions by January 1, 2026, and the state requires additional local measures by January 1, 2028 that are not part of this ordinance.

The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the measure on November 18, 2025 and recommended approval. Council approved first reading 7-0 on December 9. No council changes were requested. The town arborist and horticulturalist and the parks foreman also proposed no stricter local amendments, so the draft generally follows state requirements rather than creating a more restrictive Basalt-specific policy. The packet contains a date error in the ordinance, saying first reading occurred December 9, 2026; the meeting minutes and surrounding record show it occurred in 2025.

The rules would apply to new commercial, institutional and industrial development; state and other publicly owned property; homeowners-association common areas; street rights-of-way, parking lots, medians and transportation corridors; and multifamily residential property containing more than 12 homes. Ordinary single-family properties are not listed as applicable property. Covered redevelopment would trigger the restriction only when it requires a building or landscaping permit, plan check, design review or similar town review and disturbs more than 50% of the property’s combined landscaped area.

The ordinance defines nonfunctional turf as grass that is not in a space regularly used for recreation, civic activity or community purposes. Examples of functional locations that could still use turf include playgrounds, sports fields, picnic grounds, amphitheaters, portions of parks and golf-course playing areas. Nonfunctional turf specifically includes grass in street rights-of-way, parking lots, medians and transportation corridors. Turf used as a non-irrigated water-quality treatment required by a permit, without herbicide application, would not fall under the prohibition.

Functional artificial turf would remain possible in the same kinds of regularly used recreational or community spaces, including sports fields, playgrounds and golf playing areas. It could also be used as part of a professionally engineered civil-infrastructure product, such as covers for solid-waste or brownfield sites and protective surfaces for slopes, channels, levees or dams. Artificial turf without one of those functions would be prohibited in covered new development and qualifying redevelopment. Invasive plants would also be prohibited according to the state definition.

Town staff would check compliance through existing development reviews, including building permits, site-plan reviews and slope reviews. The packet does not estimate water savings, identify current properties that would have been affected, list enforcement penalties or attach a local plant list. It says there is a state-approved list of acceptable species, but the ordinance primarily incorporates state definitions. Existing landscaping that is not part of a covered redevelopment does not appear to be ordered removed under this proposal.

The main policy is mandated by the state, but council retains some ability to adopt stricter local rules. Council could approve the state-level standard now or consider broader restrictions, though staff has not proposed any. Residents may weigh water conservation and drought resilience against installation costs, maintenance choices and design flexibility. They may also ask how staff will decide whether a lawn has a genuine civic or recreational function, how mixed-use projects will be classified and what additional rules will be required before the January 1, 2028 state deadline.

Residents may speak for up to three minutes during general public comment at the beginning of the meeting and again during this item’s public hearing. Comments can be offered in person or through Zoom. Written comments may be emailed to council and requested for inclusion in the record. If adopted, the ordinance would take effect 14 days after final publication.

Council will hold a public hearing and consider final adoption of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2025. The ordinance would approve a permanent waterline easement at 135 East Homestead Drive and authorize the mayor or town manager to sign the agreement. An easement is a recorded legal right to use part of someone else’s property for a specific purpose. Here, the purpose is to locate, operate, inspect, maintain, repair, replace, reconstruct or relocate an existing underground town waterline.

The issue surfaced during review of a recent building-permit application for the property. Town staff found that Basalt owns and operates a waterline connecting the East Homestead Drive area toward Midland Avenue, but could not find a written easement covering the portion beside or crossing this parcel. The line is already in place; this is not approval to install a new main. Property owner Melissa McManus has agreed to grant the permanent easement, according to the packet.

Basalt’s standard waterline easement is 20 feet wide, extending 10 feet to either side of a pipe’s centerline. Physical constraints at 135 East Homestead Drive prevent that standard width. Staff instead proposes a three-foot-wide easement along the property’s eastern boundary for the parcel’s full north-to-south length. Most of the waterline is also within an existing 7.5-foot-wide alley easement, which staff says will provide additional practical access beyond the new three-foot strip.

The easement would be nonexclusive, meaning the owner retains the property subject to the town’s access rights. The owner could not construct, place or locate improvements inside the easement area without town permission. If town work disturbs the property, Basalt would have to repair, restore and reseed the affected area to a condition similar to the rest of the property, using the town’s reasonable judgment. The agreement would run with the land, so its rights and obligations would bind future owners as well as the current owner.

Basalt would add the property owner as an additional insured under its general liability coverage, at limits no lower than those established under Colorado law. The agreement preserves the town’s governmental immunity and other legal protections. Each party would pay its own preparation and legal costs. Any lawsuit involving the agreement would be heard in Eagle County District Court, and the parties would waive a jury trial. The prevailing party in litigation or arbitration could recover reasonable attorney fees.

The financial effect appears limited. Staff says the Water Department operating budget has enough money to pay a professional surveyor to prepare a stamped and certified easement exhibit. The packet does not give the survey cost, identify any payment to the owner or estimate future maintenance expenses. The agreement describes mutual consideration but does not list a purchase price for the easement. Any future town spending would remain subject to annual budget approval under Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights provisions.

Council approved first reading unanimously, 7-0, on December 9, 2025. At that meeting, Public Works Director Justin Forman described securing easements as standard practice and said the building-permit review created an opportunity to correct the missing documentation. If council gives final approval, the ordinance and easement agreement would be fully executed and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The ordinance would become effective 14 days after final publication.

The practical benefit is clear legal access for emergency repairs and routine work on public water infrastructure. The narrower-than-standard width is the main trade-off. Staff believes the adjoining 7.5-foot alley easement makes the reduced strip workable, but residents or council members may want to ask whether large equipment can reach every relevant part of the line, what physical constraints prevent a wider easement and whether future construction on the parcel could complicate access. The packet’s easement maps and legal descriptions are blank in the supplied text, so the exact surveyed line is not visible here.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during general public comment at the start of the meeting and again during the public hearing for this ordinance. Participation is available at Town Hall or through Zoom. Residents may also email council before the meeting and ask for their comments to be entered into the record.