Sales-tax measure, workforce housing and Southside development

Council is being asked to approve Ordinance No. 20 on first reading, the first of two required votes before an ordinance becomes final. Approval Tuesday would not impose the tax and would not represent the final council decision. It would advance the proposed ballot language to a public hearing and second reading on August 25. If council ultimately adopts the ordinance, Basalt’s registered voters would decide the tax question at the coordinated election on November 3, 2026. A coordinated election means the town’s question would appear on ballots administered with Eagle and Pitkin counties rather than through a separate town election.

The proposal is a 0.5 percentage-point increase in Basalt’s existing 3% town sales tax, bringing the town rate to 3.5%. The ordinance estimates that the increase would generate no more than $1.7 million in its first full fiscal year, 2027, followed by whatever additional amounts the tax produces annually. If voters approve it, collection would begin January 1, 2027. The tax would last no more than 20 years and would end in collection year 2046. The packet does not provide a household-level estimate of how much an average resident or visitor would pay annually.

The proposed ballot language would allow the money to be used for the acquisition, planning, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of public-service facilities and related infrastructure and equipment. It is broader than funding only one building. The ordinance says the immediate need is a consolidated Public Services Building serving the Police and Public Works departments, but the ballot language could also support related facilities, infrastructure and equipment over the tax’s life. The packet does not assign fixed percentages among construction, operations, maintenance and equipment.

Town materials trace the facility need to Basalt’s 2020 Master Plan, the 2025 Strategic Workplan and council’s 2026 priorities. The Police Department currently works in a building that was not designed for law enforcement. The ordinance cites the absence of secure patrol-vehicle parking, dedicated detainee-processing space, private interview and investigation rooms, adequate evidence storage and sufficient emergency-operations space. It says those conditions create safety, privacy and operational problems for employees and the public.

Public Works, meanwhile, operates from five separate locations, including temporary structures described as having exceeded their useful life. According to the ordinance, that arrangement adds travel time and fuel costs, makes emergency coordination harder, provides inadequate employee and training space and leaves equipment outdoors, accelerating deterioration. The town also argues that aging facilities make recruiting and retaining employees more difficult. The packet does not include a final building design, site plan, construction budget or schedule for the proposed consolidated facility.

Because Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights requires voter approval for a new tax or tax-rate increase, council cannot enact this increase by itself. The ballot would also ask voters to let the town retain and spend the proceeds and their investment earnings despite otherwise applicable revenue or expenditure limits. Resolution No. 29 previously authorized the town to participate in the November election, named the town clerk as the election official and allowed agreements with Eagle and Pitkin counties for election administration.

Residents may weigh the need for safer, more efficient police and public-works facilities against the cost of a higher sales tax. A sales tax is paid by residents, visitors and businesses making taxable purchases, which spreads the burden beyond property owners but can take a larger share of income from lower-income households. Other questions include whether the allowed uses are sufficiently specific, whether 20 years is the right duration and how council would prioritize construction, maintenance and equipment if revenue differs from the estimate.

If this first reading passes, council is expected to hold the final public hearing August 25. After final adoption, challenges to the form or content of the ballot title would have to be filed in Eagle County District Court within five days after publication of the ordinance. If voters approve the measure November 3, council could adopt further code changes needed to begin collection January 1. The town manager would have authority to finalize the ballot title, substantially titled “Increase Sales Tax for Public Services Facilities.”

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during general public comment near the start of the meeting and again when Ordinance No. 20 is called for its public hearing. Comments may be made in Town Hall or through Zoom. Residents may also email council so their comments are part of the record; the packet does not list a council email address, so residents should use the contact information on the town’s website.

Council is being asked to approve Ordinance No. 21 on first reading, authorizing a lease-purchase financing structure for six condominiums at 140 Basalt Center Circle. The units are numbered 206, 207, 208, 224, 225 and 302, together with their shares of the development’s common property. The town intends to use them as workforce housing. First reading would authorize the proposal to advance, but the financing could not close until after a second reading and selection of a bank whose bid meets the ordinance’s limits.

The town has already acquired or plans to acquire the units, and proceeds from the financing would reimburse the town for that purchase. Staff has been working with Jeff Conklin, bond attorney Dalton Kelley of Butler Snow and municipal adviser Bruce Kimmel of Ehlers. The ordinance refers more broadly to financing the acquisition of property and the construction, equipping, remodeling and improvement of town-owned capital assets. However, the staff report centers on reimbursing Basalt for the six housing units and does not give a separate budget or project list for other capital work.

The mechanism is called certificates of participation. In ordinary terms, investors or a bank would purchase interests in the town’s annual lease payments. Basalt would lease designated town property to UMB Bank, acting as trustee, and then lease that property back through a lease-purchase agreement. The documents include a site lease, lease-purchase agreement and indenture of trust. Those forms are on file with the town clerk and would be completed after a bank is selected.

The ordinance sets firm ceilings rather than final borrowing terms. Principal represented by the base rental payments could not exceed $2.55 million. Total repayment of those base rentals could not exceed $3.6 million, and the interest rate could not exceed 4.75%. The lease must end no later than December 31, 2036, while the underlying site lease could run through December 31, 2046. The final agreement may allow the town to prepay without penalty, but the ordinance also permits a structure with no optional prepayment, leaving that term to the bid and final documents.

Basalt expects to use rent from the six units and real estate transfer assessment proceeds from the sale of other units at the same location to pay principal and interest. The packet estimates issuance costs at $60,000. It does not state the units’ purchase price, expected monthly rents, anticipated annual real estate transfer proceeds, occupancy restrictions, tenant-selection process or a year-by-year repayment schedule. Those omissions make it difficult to compare expected dedicated revenue with the maximum annual lease payment.

The arrangement is expressly not general-obligation debt. Council would have to budget and appropriate lease payments one fiscal year at a time, and the town would not make an unconditional promise to pay in every future year. That annual-renewal feature is intended to keep the agreement from becoming a voter-approved, multi-year general obligation. The trade-off is that the leased property supports the transaction, and the packet does not spell out in plain terms what would happen to the six homes or other leased assets if a future council declined to appropriate a payment.

After second reading, the mayor, town manager or finance director could accept a binding bank bid and set the final terms, provided every term stays within the ordinance’s limits. Those officials would also be able to finalize the lease duration, rental amounts and related documents. UMB Bank is named as trustee, while Butler Snow would remain bond counsel. The ordinance would take effect 14 days after final publication and would be recorded with the Eagle County clerk and recorder.

A date discrepancy remains in the packet. The agenda’s suggested motion says to set second reading for August 28, 2026, while the staff recommendation and draft ordinance identify August 25. Council should clarify the actual hearing date. Residents may also want to ask why lease financing was selected over paying cash or using another borrowing method, how affordable the units will be, whether projected rents cover the payments and what town assets are ultimately exposed under the lease.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during public comment near the start of the meeting and again when Ordinance No. 21 is called. They may attend at Town Hall or participate through Zoom. Written comments can also be emailed to council for the record; the agenda packet does not provide a council email address, so residents should consult the town website. If first reading passes, residents will have another public-hearing opportunity at the second reading, on the date council confirms.

Council is being asked to continue the public hearing and vote on first reading of Ordinance No. 18 for 555 Basalt Avenue, the Myer’s & Company site in Southside. The ordinance would grant special review, site-plan approval and an amendment to the property’s planned unit development. A planned unit development is a site-specific zoning plan that can set customized uses, building rules and conditions. If approved Tuesday, the ordinance would return for a final public hearing and second reading August 25.

Applicant MREH LLC originally proposed 54 commercial-storage units and 47 residential units. Council reviewed versions of the application March 24, April 28, June 9 and July 14, hearing presentations and public comments each time. Discussion has covered consistency with the 2020 Master Plan, affordable housing, storage for affordable units, compatibility, requested building height, pedestrian connections, Fiou Lane, the Southside floodplain, access toward East Cody Lane, traffic, utilities, green-building measures, wildfire mitigation, agency comments, construction phases and the length of vested development rights.

The current program is 42 commercial storage spaces, 30 residential units, 12 live-work units and two community-serving commercial spaces. Of the 42 storage spaces, 18 could also be used by light-industrial businesses; the remaining 24 would be storage-only because of traffic limitations. Earlier materials also proposed offering industrial or storage spaces to artists or business incubators for 120 days before allowing sale to other permitted industrial users. Council asked that such requirements be clarified and last beyond only the first sale.

The applicant now proposes making all 12 live-work units Primary Resident units, rather than deed-restricting only six. Primary Resident restrictions would require qualifying occupancy as a main home under the town’s housing rules. The overall proposal would contain nine category-priced, for-sale homes and 18 additional Primary Resident or resident-occupancy homes, including the live-work units. Staff says that makes 64% of the project’s housing deed-restricted. Five live-work Primary Resident units would receive a local-buyer priority described in the applicant’s Mixed-Use Affordability Plan.

At the July 14 meeting, six live-work units had been proposed for Primary Resident or business-owned employee restrictions, requiring occupants to use them as their main residence for at least nine months each year. The other six would have been offered initially for 90 days to Basalt residents and Basalt business owners. Council asked for a clearer definition of live-work use and stronger, continuing rules. The new affordability plan is intended to explain administration of the housing and commercial programs, although the excerpts supplied do not reproduce all of that plan’s enforcement details.

Two 880-square-foot commercial spaces are proposed on the first floors of the two residential buildings at the north end of the property. Earlier terms called for offering them for 90 days to community-serving buyers at 80% of market value, with annual appreciation capped at 3%. Eligible users included government or qualifying nonprofit offices and meeting rooms, educational facilities, a community center, a local chamber of commerce and maker or craft-industry space. Council asked that these protections and the artist-incubator provisions operate in perpetuity rather than ending after the first transaction.

Road and drainage commitments have also become more specific. The applicant proposes paying up to $175,000 for Fiou Lane work based on Alternative No. 4 recommended by transportation consultant Jim Charlier. That estimate came from Roaring Fork Engineering and excludes preparation of construction drawings. For Cody Lane, the applicant proposes up to $180,000 to correct drainage, based on a concept replacing the full road width for about 90 feet. The packet does not say who would cover costs above either cap or provide a final construction schedule.

Planning and Zoning and the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission recommended approval of the original application within their areas of review, subject to conditions. Planning and Zoning encouraged more deed-restricted housing, which the revisions address. Staff recommends hearing the updated presentations, taking public comment and discussing the revised ordinance. If first reading passes, staff plans to bring a separate resolution at second reading to change the 2020 Master Plan’s future-land-use map for the property.

Residents may weigh additional local housing and commercial opportunities against building scale, traffic, floodplain concerns and the long-term shift in Southside land use. Open questions include how live-work requirements will be enforced, whether commercial affordability survives every resale, what happens if road costs exceed the caps and how construction will be phased. The supplied excerpts do not give final building heights, a complete construction timeline or the project’s total private cost.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during general public comment at the start of the meeting and again during the continued hearing when 555 Basalt Avenue is called. Participation is available at Town Hall and through Zoom. Residents may also email comments to council for inclusion in the record; no council email address is printed in the packet. If first reading passes, the August 25 second reading and accompanying master-plan decision would provide another opportunity to comment.

Council will receive a presentation and give direction on winter sidewalk maintenance for the completed Midland Avenue Streetscape. Unlike the ordinance items, the agenda does not include a formal resolution, public hearing or suggested motion. Public Works Director Justin Forman and Streets Foreman Jeff Blevins are asking council to choose a long-term approach for sidewalks, the Lucksinger stairs and two center pedestrian walkways. Staff recommends continuing to hire a contractor while town crews plow Midland Avenue and public parking areas.

The streetscape has shifted from construction into routine town maintenance. Its changes include stronger pedestrian connections, renovated public spaces, updated infrastructure and a center-drainage design. Previously, town plows pushed street snow into landscaped areas, while businesses generally pushed sidewalk snow toward the gutter after roadway plowing. Repeated snowfall and overnight freezing allowed curbside ice to build up, sending meltwater back over sidewalks where it could refreeze and require removal with larger town equipment.

The new design removes the traditional curb-and-gutter arrangement and directs meltwater toward the center, reducing the chance of water pooling and freezing along pedestrian routes. It also makes the timing of sidewalk and street work more important. Sidewalk snow must first go into landscape islands or temporarily into nearby parking spaces, where it can be collected during street plowing and transported to designated storage. That system works best early in the morning, before vehicles occupy the on-street spaces and businesses open.

For the past two winters, Basalt has contracted sidewalk clearing in the Midland Avenue downtown core. The contractor worked ahead of business hours, coordinated snow placement with Public Works and maintained pedestrian access. The covered area includes north-side public sidewalks from Midland Spur to 234 Midland Avenue, stopping at the Boon driveway, and south-side sidewalks from the property previously known as Codger’s Corner—being named Dallenbach Park—to the eastern property line of 211 Midland Avenue. It also includes the Lucksinger stairs to Homestead Drive and both center walkways.

Under Option 1, the town would continue that contract. Staff says a dedicated contractor can start before parking spaces fill, provide a consistent level of service, protect the town’s streetscape investment and leave Public Works employees available for roads and parking lots across Basalt. The town paid about $15,833 per month over a six-month season running November 1 through April 30 during each of the past two winters. That arrangement required manual clearing to protect new sidewalks during their warranty period.

The warranty has ended, so appropriately sized mechanical equipment can now be used where suitable. Following informal contractor discussions, staff estimates a lower monthly cost of about $6,000 to $9,000 while maintaining the current service level. Over six months, that estimate implies a seasonal cost range, but the packet itself provides only monthly figures and no formal bids. Staff would compare a fixed monthly retainer, per-event or per-visit billing, or a combination. Funding has been included in the approved Streets operating budget during the past two seasons.

Option 2 would return responsibility to adjacent businesses under Section 11-95 of the Basalt Municipal Code. That law requires property owners to remove snow and ice from adjoining sidewalks within 24 hours after snowfall ends and prohibits putting it in streets, alleys or other public rights-of-way. This would reduce direct town costs, but service could vary among properties. Businesses clearing after street plowing or after cars arrive might have to carry snow manually to landscape or median islands because many properties lack on-site storage.

A variation on Option 2 would have downtown businesses form a shared private arrangement or business district to hire and manage one contractor. That could preserve coordinated service while shifting funding to businesses, but it would depend on participation, agreement about costs and cooperation among multiple owners. Option 3 would assign the work to Public Works employees. It would provide direct town control but require more early-morning labor, equipment and possibly overtime, potentially pulling crews away from neighborhood streets and other snow priorities.

Residents may weigh reliable accessibility and protection of the renovated corridor against an ongoing public subsidy for sidewalks that businesses ordinarily must clear. The packet does not include formal bids, a final seasonal budget, performance standards or a proposed cost-sharing formula. If council supports contracting, staff plans to prepare bid documents and advertise in early fall so a service is ready before winter.

Residents can use the three-minute public-comment period near the meeting’s start and may ask to comment again when the Midland snow-removal presentation is called, although it is listed as a presentation rather than a formal hearing. Comments can be made in person or through Zoom. Residents and businesses may also email council for the record; the packet does not provide a council email address.

Council is being asked to adopt Resolution No. 33 and authorize $103,500 for a deed restriction on Unit B-5 at 405 Park Avenue in Oak Grove Townhomes. The home is under contract to a verified full-time employee in Basalt. The town would partner with Eagle County through the Good Deeds program, with each government contributing 15% of the $690,000 purchase price. Together, the contributions would reduce the free-market cost by 30% in exchange for permanent occupancy and resale restrictions.

A deed restriction is a recorded legal agreement that limits how a property may be occupied and resold. In this case, it is intended to keep the unit available to qualifying local workers for the current purchase and future sales. The final form must be approved by the town attorney. The packet says the restriction would include full-time employment verification and a 3% annual appreciation cap, meaning the allowable resale price could generally grow no faster than that annual rate under the program’s terms.

Basalt adopted its Deed Restriction Incentive Program in Resolution No. 23, Series of 2025. The framework allows buyers employed in the Basalt area to receive down-payment help in return for restricting a free-market home. Eligible properties have a maximum value of $1.5 million. The program generally recommends a contribution equal to 10% to 15% of the purchase price for an appreciation-capped restriction. Resolution No. 3, Series of 2026 later authorized the partnership framework with Eagle County’s Good Deeds program.

Staff connects the purchase to the 2020 Basalt Master Plan, which calls for housing serving a range of residents, incomes and needs and for preserving existing homes to reduce involuntary displacement. The 2024 Housing Needs Assessment Update also identified voluntary deed-restriction incentives as a way to add workforce inventory without constructing a new building. Staff says Basalt has previously acted on one other Good Deeds partnership opportunity, although this packet does not identify that property or summarize its cost and terms.

The unit is inside town limits, and the buyer has been verified as working full time in Basalt. The town’s $103,500 would come from Basalt Forward affordable-housing bond money. Eagle County’s matching 15% contribution would provide the other half of the public buy-down. The packet does not state the buyer’s resulting mortgage amount, household income, unit size, bedroom count, monthly homeowners’ association dues or the exact process for verifying employment in future years.

The central budget trade-off involves Parcel 9 at Sopris Meadows, also known as the Pitchview affordable-housing project. Remaining affordable-housing bond money is being considered as one source for that project’s funding gap. Spending $103,500 at Oak Grove would therefore make the Pitchview gap slightly larger. The packet does not quantify Pitchview’s current gap or say how many planned units could be affected. Staff identifies lodging-tax revenue earmarked for affordable housing as another source council could use instead of bond proceeds.

Council’s choice is not simply between affordable housing and no affordable housing. It can decide whether preserving one existing home now is the best use of limited funds compared with supporting a larger new-construction project. The Good Deeds purchase offers an immediate, location-specific unit without development risk, but it commits public money to a single transaction. Pitchview may deliver more units, yet the packet indicates it still has a financing gap and does not provide a direct cost-per-home comparison.

If approved, the town manager would be authorized to take the steps needed to complete the transaction, and the town attorney would approve the deed restriction’s final form. The resolution does not give a closing date, describe what happens if the pending home purchase fails to close or state whether the money would automatically return to the bond fund. Residents may reasonably ask for those details, along with information about monitoring, enforcement, inheritance and future resale selection.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during general public comment near the start of the meeting and again when Resolution No. 33 is called. Participation is available in person and through Zoom. Written comments may be emailed to council for the public record, though the packet does not print a council email address. This resolution is scheduled for a decision Tuesday and does not require a later second reading.

Council is being asked to adopt Ordinance No. 15 on second reading, the final council vote, for 739 Hillcrest Drive in the Pinon Pines subdivision. Glenn and Laura Yaeger seek a planned unit development amendment increasing the property’s allowable floor area from 5,000 to 5,474 square feet. The purpose is to expand the first floor with an accessible bedroom and bathroom for Mr. Yaeger’s mother, who has developed physical disabilities.

Basalt Town Code Section 16-22.5 generally limits residential units to 5,000 total square feet unless a site-specific approval permits more. Because Pinon Pines is governed through a planned unit development, changing the limit for this property requires an amendment to that development approval. A planned unit development is a customized zoning plan for a property or subdivision. The applicants argue that an exception is a reasonable accommodation required under the federal Fair Housing Act.

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing June 16 and recommended approval with conditions. Council then heard the request July 14 and approved first reading by a 6-0 vote. Staff reports that no substantive changes have been made to the ordinance since that vote. Second reading allows council to consider final testimony and either adopt, reject or amend the ordinance before it becomes effective.

The application summary describes a 605-square-foot first-floor addition and a final total of 5,474 square feet. A separate June 12 town-attorney memorandum describes the existing residence as about 4,870 square feet and the addition as roughly 630 square feet. Those approximate figures do not align exactly with the final 5,474-square-foot cap, so the controlling number in the ordinance is important. The town planner would verify the addition at the building-permit stage and ensure the total does not exceed 5,474 square feet.

The Fair Housing Act requires governments to make reasonable exceptions to rules when needed to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a home. The town attorney advised council to consider whether the exception would undermine the purpose of Basalt’s size limit, what benefit it would provide to the disabled resident and whether a more efficient alternative could achieve the same result. An accommodation need not be granted if it fundamentally changes a program or imposes an undue financial or administrative burden.

One alternative would be to “decommission” an equal amount of existing living space—meaning physically or legally convert it so it no longer counts as habitable floor area—allowing the accessible addition while keeping the home under 5,000 square feet. The applicants seek to build without decommissioning existing space. The draft ordinance finds that more efficient alternatives do not exist, that the addition would provide a legitimate accessibility benefit and that allowing it would not undermine the purposes of the town’s zoning rules.

Approval comes with seven listed conditions. The applicants must follow the written application and material statements made to Planning and Zoning and council. They must obtain a building permit and pay applicable permit and development-improvement fees before construction. A tree-removal permit is required before any trees are removed. The packet does not state how many trees may be affected, the estimated permit fees, construction cost or expected construction schedule.

The applicants must also prepare a recorded planned unit development amendment identifying the 5,474-square-foot limit. The town planner and town attorney must approve that document, and it must be signed and recorded within 180 days of approval and before a building permit is issued. The approvals would bind future owners. The planner could approve minor changes consistent with council’s decision, while the applicants could appeal a planner decision to council after receiving 15 days’ written notice of the meeting.

Residents may weigh the direct need for a ground-floor accessible living area against consistency in enforcing Basalt’s residential size cap. The decision is written as a disability-specific, property-specific exception rather than a townwide increase, but residents could ask how similar future requests would be evaluated. The attorney’s cited case law emphasizes that such exceptions depend on individual facts and do not automatically require approval for nondisabled households.

Residents can speak for up to three minutes during general public comment at the beginning of the meeting and again during the public hearing when Ordinance No. 15 is called. They can participate at Town Hall or through Zoom and may email council to place written comments in the record; the packet does not list a council email address. If adopted, the ordinance will be recorded with Eagle County and followed by the amendment-document and building-permit process.