Housing rules, highway speeds and new public-use fees

Council is being asked to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 04, Series of 2026. A first reading is a preliminary vote that moves an ordinance forward but does not make it final. The ordinance would allow accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts throughout Basalt and revise the town’s affordable-housing mitigation rules. An accessory dwelling unit is a smaller, independent home added to the same property as a primary home, such as a basement apartment, apartment over a garage or detached backyard unit. Staff recommends approval and proposes a final public hearing and second reading on February 24.

The proposal grows out of Basalt’s 2024 Housing Needs Assessment, completed by Economic and Planning Systems in September 2024. That assessment recommended creating incentives for accessory units and reconsidering the amount of affordable housing that new development must provide or help fund. The town later received a Colorado Department of Local Affairs Planning Capacity Grant and hired Design Workshop and Economic and Planning Systems to turn those recommendations into policy and code language. The packet does not state the grant amount or the town’s share of the consulting cost.

During 2025, the consultants developed a framework for an accessory-unit incentive program, town-wide zoning amendments and revisions to community housing mitigation. Housing mitigation is the town’s requirement that certain development help offset the demand it creates for local workers’ housing, generally through affordable homes or another approved contribution. In August 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the concepts, and council approved resolutions directing staff and the consultants to prepare formal amendments. The Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission reviewed the current proposal on January 22, 2026, and the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing February 3. Both generally supported moving forward.

The ordinance would amend definitions, residential district rules, special requirements for the R-4 Mixed Density Residential zone, planned unit development procedures and Article XIX governing housing mitigation. It would also add a new Article XXIII devoted to accessory dwelling units. A planned unit development is a customized development approval that may set site-specific uses, dimensions and other rules rather than relying only on standard zoning. The supplied packet excerpt does not include the full proposed accessory-unit standards, so it does not spell out maximum unit size, parking requirements, setbacks, owner-occupancy rules, application fees or the details of any financial incentives.

Two policy choices remain especially open. The Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission wants to preserve a mitigation exemption for smaller homes in projects containing three or fewer units, but it recommends tightening the size limits. Under its recommendation, a single-family home not deed-restricted for a primary resident could qualify only if it is no larger than 1,500 square feet, down from 3,000 square feet. The comparable limit for a multifamily unit would fall from 1,400 to 1,000 square feet. The current draft follows the earlier policy resolutions instead; staff says it can prepare the commission’s alternative before the final vote if council prefers it.

The Planning and Zoning Commission raised a different question: whether accessory units outside the town’s incentive program should still have to serve a primary resident. A primary-residence condition generally means the unit must be someone’s principal home rather than a vacation property or short-term lodging, though the exact proposed definition and enforcement system matter. Staff included alternative language in Exhibit C, but that text is not part of the supplied excerpt. Council can decide whether to add it. The packet also does not explain whether existing accessory units would be grandfathered, how compliance would be monitored or whether short-term rentals would be prohibited under other code provisions.

The proposal could affect residential property across Basalt rather than one named neighborhood. Homeowners may gain a way to house relatives, caregivers or tenants and receive rental income, while neighbors may weigh parking, privacy, building scale and enforcement. For Basalt as a whole, additional small homes could expand the year-round rental supply without requiring a separate large development. The mitigation revisions could also change project costs and the number or value of affordable-housing contributions expected from future development.

No direct town appropriation, expected accessory-unit count or construction timetable appears in the staff report. If council approves first reading, staff can revise the ordinance before the February 24 second reading. Second reading would be the final council vote, after another public hearing. Residents may want clearer information before then about unit sizes, parking, utility connections, fire access, short-term rentals, incentive costs and the practical difference between the current exemption language and the Housing Commission’s proposal.

Residents may speak for up to three minutes during public comment near the start of the February 10 meeting and again when Ordinance No. 04 is called for its public hearing. Comments should identify which occupancy or mitigation option the resident supports and why. Written comments may also be emailed to council for inclusion in the public record before the first or second reading.

Council will receive a presentation about automated speed cameras from Aaron Munch and Brandon Knox. The agenda lists this as a presentation, not an ordinance, contract or formal camera-location approval, and it includes no suggested motion. The immediate task is therefore to review a newly published speed study, understand how an automated enforcement program would work and decide whether staff should continue exploring it. The packet does not identify a proposed launch date, vendor contract price, ticket amount or council vote authorizing cameras.

The study was prepared by DacraTech and published January 8, 2026. Basalt identified two locations where speeding was considered a public-safety risk: Highway 82 north of Original Road and Highway 82 south of Two Rivers Road. Rekor Systems collected vehicle-speed data from December 16 through December 22, 2025, for northbound and southbound traffic at both sites. DacraTech then converted that one-week sample into average daily and estimated monthly traffic figures. Residents should note that the monthly figures are projections from seven December days, not a full month of direct observation.

North of Original Road, the posted limit was 55 mph in both directions. Northbound traffic had a median speed of 54 mph and an 85th-percentile speed of 60 mph. The 85th percentile means 85% of measured vehicles were traveling at or below that speed, while 15% were going faster. The study counted 81,537 northbound vehicles during the week and projected 349,444 per month. It estimated 8,734 monthly events in its “automated speed enforcement citable” category, or 2.5% of traffic. Most vehicles were at or below 65 mph, though the study projected about 210 monthly trips at 76 mph or faster.

Southbound at the same Original Road site, the median was 56 mph and the 85th-percentile speed was 62 mph in the 55 mph zone. The week included 85,490 vehicles, projected to 366,386 monthly. DacraTech estimated 25,200 monthly citable events, representing 6.9% of traffic. Its monthly projection included 20,396 vehicles traveling 66 to 70 mph, 4,024 traveling 71 to 75 mph and 780 at 76 mph or faster. These figures indicate a larger southbound speeding issue than northbound at this location.

Northbound south of Two Rivers Road also had a 55 mph limit. The median speed was 51 mph, and the 85th-percentile speed was 56 mph. The study recorded 82,335 vehicles over the week and projected 352,864 per month. Only 0.4%, or an estimated 1,346 monthly trips, fell into the study’s citable category. This was the least severe of the four measured directions, although roughly one-fifth of projected traffic was between 56 and 65 mph.

The sharpest result came southbound south of Two Rivers Road, where the posted limit drops to 45 mph. The median measured speed was 53 mph, eight miles above the limit, and the 85th-percentile speed was 59 mph. Of 80,609 vehicles measured during the week, only 8.3% were at or below 45 mph. The monthly projection shows 345,467 vehicles, including 191,190 traveling 46 to 55 mph, 81,707 traveling 56 to 60 mph, 28,916 traveling 61 to 65 mph and 15,069 traveling 66 mph or faster. DacraTech classified 125,691 monthly events, or 36.4%, as citable.

The vendor presentation outlines the steps needed for a Colorado automated vehicle identification system. Those include state permit approval, selecting an automated-speed-enforcement partner, adopting a local ordinance, configuring software, holding public hearings and installing equipment. Adding later sites would require a permit amendment and another site hearing. The cameras can be mounted 10 to 14 feet high, use alternating-current or solar power, operate in temperatures from minus 40 to 140 degrees and capture images at night. The packet does not say which equipment or power source would be proposed for Basalt.

DacraTech describes a system in which images are captured, violations are reviewed, notices are mailed and drivers can pay, appeal or ignore the notice, with later processing depending on local rules. The company says the municipality owns its data and that information is deleted according to state law. It lists access for the alleged violator, Dacra staff, vehicle-owner lookup services, printing and mailing services, online payment providers, municipal staff, courts and approved collection or software vendors. The packet does not provide the proposed retention period, privacy policy, appeal procedure or limits on using images for purposes beyond speeding cases.

The core trade-off is whether cameras would slow drivers and improve safety without becoming an unfair or overly broad ticketing system. Residents may ask whether roadway design or clearer speed-limit transitions should accompany enforcement, how warnings would work, how much of each fine a vendor would receive, and whether a one-week winter sample is enough. The large southbound difference near Two Rivers Road also raises a practical question about whether drivers have adequate notice and road cues when entering the 45 mph zone.

Residents may speak for three minutes during public comment at the beginning of the meeting. Because this is listed as a presentation rather than a public hearing, anyone wanting to speak again when the item is called should ask the mayor for that opportunity; council controls presentation comments. Residents may also email council so questions about locations, privacy, ticket thresholds, finances and alternatives become part of the meeting record.

Council will hold a public hearing and consider the first reading of Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2026. The ordinance would add electric-vehicle charging prices and use policies to Basalt’s municipal traffic code. Staff recommends preliminary approval, followed by a final public hearing and second reading on February 24. If ultimately adopted, the ordinance would become effective 14 days after final publication, although staff describes spring 2026 as the expected start for the fee program.

Charging for use of the town’s stations is part of Basalt’s 2026 strategic work plan. Staff says electric-vehicle ownership and use have been increasing, along with the town’s electricity, software, payment-processing and maintenance costs. The report cites Eagle County’s Climate Action Plan as estimating a two-percentage-point annual increase in electric vehicles as a share of registered Eagle County vehicles as of 2020, with the rate projected to increase to five percentage points after 2030. Basalt’s addendum to that plan commits the town to cutting emissions 25% by 2025 and 80% by 2050.

Basalt currently operates six charging stations with 12 plugs: four Level 2 stations and two direct-current fast chargers, also called Level 3 chargers. Level 2 equipment generally charges more slowly, while direct-current fast charging can add energy much more quickly. Packet maps show stations in Old Town and Willits, and the report specifically identifies a Level 2 station at Lions Park that has seen charging sessions increase since its installation in August 2022. The supplied pages do not list every charger’s street address or the number of plugs at each location.

During September through December 2025, the six stations supplied more than 78,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Using the United States Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse-gas calculator, staff says that amount of energy corresponds to the carbon emissions from 4,720 gallons of gasoline, 4,121 gallons of diesel or 46,598 pounds of coal. These comparisons describe emissions equivalents; they do not establish that every charging session directly replaced a gasoline or diesel trip.

The proposed base rate is 15 cents per kilowatt-hour at Level 2 stations and 40 cents per kilowatt-hour at Level 3 fast chargers. Staff estimates that charging a standard-range Tesla Model 3 from 25% to 100% would require roughly 40 to 60 kilowatt-hours, depending on temperature, battery condition and other variables. At the proposed base rates, that would cost about $6 to $9 at a Level 2 station or $16 to $24 at a Level 3 station. Customers would also pay a 9% network and processing fee, plus any applicable taxes.

An overstay fee would apply after a vehicle finishes charging. Drivers would receive a 15-minute grace period and then pay 25 cents for each additional minute the vehicle remains connected or occupying the station under the proposed policy. That equals $15 per hour. Overstay fees would not be charged between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Other parking rules would still apply, and the existing fine schedule lists a $60 fine, plus surcharges, for a non-electric vehicle parked in an electric-vehicle charging space. The proposal is intended to free plugs for other users rather than allow fully charged vehicles to remain indefinitely.

Staff estimates average monthly gross charging revenue of $5,968.96 based on current use. The average monthly Holy Cross Energy bill is listed as $2,448.05, leaving $3,520.91 before other costs. Staff then assumes charging use will decline 40% once fees begin, producing estimated annual revenue of $25,350.53. Annual operating and maintenance costs are projected at $11,650: $7,200 for four hours per month of Arcos maintenance, $2,800 for Level 2 AmpUp software and $1,650 for Level 3 AmpUp software.

That calculation leaves an estimated annual balance of $13,700.53. Staff says the money could cover unexpected repairs or be reinvested in Basalt’s green infrastructure. The estimate does not include overstay-fee income, so actual revenue could be higher, but it also depends on uncertain future use and repair needs. The packet does not identify a dedicated fund, set a cap on reserves or promise that charging revenue will be spent only on the existing stations. It also does not state the town’s original capital cost for buying and installing the chargers.

Staff reviewed charging costs used by other Roaring Fork Valley municipalities and Holy Cross Energy and says Basalt’s proposal is consistent with area trends. Staff plans to monitor the rates and recommend adjustments as electricity costs change. Residents may weigh cost recovery against the town’s climate goal: free charging encourages electric-vehicle use but shifts the expense to general town resources, while user fees place more cost on drivers but may reduce use by the projected 40%. The difference between the slower and faster rates also reflects the higher cost and value of fast charging.

Residents may comment for up to three minutes near the beginning of the meeting and again during the Ordinance No. 03 public hearing. Useful questions include whether the 9% processing fee can be avoided, how prices compare with home charging, whether nighttime overstay rules are clear and how the town will use any surplus. Written comments may be emailed to council for the record before February 10 or the proposed final hearing February 24.

Council will hear a presentation from Anna Feis and Ryan Honey about a proposed Youth Empowerment Center, described as the “Corner Store” concept. The proposal would place youth arts, education and community programming in an unoccupied town-owned space on East Valley Road in Willits. This agenda item is a presentation rather than a listed action item: there is no ordinance, resolution, contract or suggested motion. Council may discuss the proposal and direct staff, but the agenda does not clearly schedule final funding or lease approval.

The proposal comes from TACAW, the name used throughout the packet; the supplied pages do not spell out the organization’s initials. TACAW says its current facility has reached its capacity for youth and education programs, limiting the number and type of classes it can offer. It points to its earlier temporary home, called The Temporary, as evidence that the shared-space model can work. The organization proposes managing the new center and coordinating scheduling among its own programs, nonprofit partners, artists and other community users.

The center is described as youth-first, meaning students would help shape programming rather than simply attend activities designed entirely by adults. Existing examples include after-school hip-hop classes, teen nights and an Arts Influencer program. Proposed additions include summer camps, more after-school and weekend classes, youth film screenings, small performances, digital-media instruction and arts training. The center would also provide a place outside school and home where young people could spend time, build friendships and work with teaching artists and other professionals.

TACAW envisions flexible rooms for classes, workshops, events and performances rather than a single-purpose venue. Other nonprofit organizations could use the space for youth activities, and adult or community education could be scheduled while students are in school. The presentation lists potential partners including the Art Base, Aspen Art Museum, Aspen Film, Aspen Science Center, Buddy Program, Carbondale Arts, Jazz Aspen, Raising a Reader, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers, Theatre Aspen, Youthentity and many others. The list is labeled partial, and the packet does not specify which groups have made binding commitments.

The organization reports serving 2,626 young people through educational programs and partnerships in 2024, with participation growing each year. It also says it has collaborated with more than 100 nonprofits and schools and partnered with more than 45 local businesses. TACAW’s 2025 organizational budget is listed as $3.2 million. The presentation estimates that its patrons generate nearly $1 million annually in additional spending at nearby businesses, restaurants and hotels, though the packet excerpt does not include the methodology behind that estimate.

The expected infrastructure construction subtotal is $189,981. The budget adds $3,800 for bonds and insurance, a 15% construction contingency of $28,497, a 5% contractor fee of $9,499 and $42,350 for fees and permits, producing an infrastructure total of $274,127. Furniture, fixtures and equipment are estimated at $90,222. That includes $19,818 for lighting, $7,098 for audio, $10,229 for video, $1,076 for software and $40,233 for furniture and theatrical equipment, plus an $11,768 contingency.

The full funding request also includes a $110,234 first-year operating deficit, a projected $130,000 real estate transfer assessment drawdown and a $90,688 contingency. The slide states a total request of $695,270 from real estate transfer assessment funds. The listed components add to $695,271, creating a one-dollar difference that may simply reflect rounding or a typographical error. TACAW reports that it currently holds $1,308,449 in these funds. The packet uses the abbreviation “RETA” but does not provide the complete legal terms, restrictions or history of that funding source in the supplied pages.

The proposal would primarily affect Willits because the town-owned East Valley Road space would become an active youth and community facility. Families throughout Basalt and the broader valley could use it, and nearby businesses could benefit from added activity. Neighbors may also want information about evening hours, noise, parking, pickup and drop-off, security and the mix of youth and adult use. The supplied floor-plan slide contains no readable dimensions, address or square footage, and the packet does not identify planned occupancy limits or building-code upgrades beyond the budget categories.

A five-year plan is referenced, but its detailed finances are not included in the supplied text. The packet therefore does not show how long the center would rely on real estate transfer assessment funds, what happens after the first-year deficit, whether TACAW would pay rent or utilities, who owns installed equipment, or who covers future repairs. It also does not provide lease terms, performance measures, construction dates or a target opening date. Those omissions matter because the town owns the space while TACAW would apparently operate the center and use funds it holds for an assessment-related public purpose.

Residents may weigh the value of a dedicated youth gathering place against the cost, long-term operating risk and alternative uses for the Willits property and funds. They may speak for three minutes during public comment at the start of the meeting. Because the item is a presentation rather than a formal public hearing, residents wishing to speak again when it is called should ask the mayor for permission. Emails to council can place questions about the lease, budget, opening schedule, parking and long-term funding into the public record.

Council is being asked to approve Response and Mountain Family Health as beneficiaries of the 2026 Roaring Fork Charity Classic golf tournament. The selection appears on the consent agenda, meaning council normally approves it with other routine business in one vote unless a member asks for separate discussion. The recommendation comes from a committee made up of two councilors, the town manager, assistant planning director and Roaring Fork Club general manager. No town appropriation or tournament-proceeds estimate is included.

The tournament is a public benefit promised when Basalt annexed the Roaring Fork Club. Under the annexation agreement, the club must sponsor a tournament each year to raise money for Basalt-oriented charities, public causes and the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Beneficiaries must serve Basalt or sponsor a project benefiting the community. The town runs an application and review process, while selected organizations take a major role in organizing, promoting and conducting the event.

Staff advertised the opportunity in December through the Aspen Daily News, the town website and emails to Basalt nonprofits and previous beneficiaries, including the Roaring Fork School District. Applications were due January 16. Three were received: Response, Ascendigo Autism Services and a joint health-care application. The staff summary refers to Mountain Valley Health Services and Community Health Services Aspen, while the application itself identifies Mountain Family Health Centers and Community Health Services Aspen. Council may want the final motion and records to use the applicants’ correct legal names.

Response supports survivors of domestic and sexual abuse in western Eagle and Pitkin counties. It reports serving 201 survivors and their children in 2024, answering 254 calls to its 24-hour helpline and providing prevention education to 684 upper Roaring Fork Valley students. Its Center for Hope and Healing opened in Basalt in February 2025. The center includes Response’s offices, seven efficiency shelter units for survivors and children, a secure outdoor play area, shared living space and a communal kitchen.

Response would use tournament proceeds for general programs and operations at the Center for Hope and Healing. Services include crisis intervention, safety planning, medical and legal accompaniment and community outreach. Response also works with the Basalt Police Department through an Advocate Initiated Referrals program, intended to connect survivors quickly with free advocacy. The organization has previously benefited from the tournament in 2019 and from 2021 through 2025, and it says recent events have been popular enough to require waiting lists for golf teams.

The health-care application comes from Mountain Family Health Centers in partnership with Community Health Services Aspen. Mountain Family operates an integrated clinic off Highway 82 that serves nearly 3,000 patients annually. It provides medical, dental, behavioral, pharmacy and pediatric care, including bilingual and bicultural support. The organization says about 44% of its Basalt patients are uninsured—almost 1,300 people—and uninsured visits are reimbursed at only about 20% of their total cost.

Mountain Family proposes placing its share in the Health for All Fund, which helps cover sliding-scale care for people with lower incomes or no insurance. Its application says community health-center care saves Colorado an estimated $636 per patient each year by emphasizing prevention, early detection and management of chronic conditions such as diabetes. Integrated behavioral-health staff also screen for depression, suicide risk, anxiety and substance or alcohol use and can provide short-term care alongside a patient’s other treatment.

Proceeds would be divided evenly with Community Health Services Aspen. That organization would support prenatal and maternal monitoring, the Smiles for Students school-sealant program, and joint breast and cervical cancer screening work that includes free mammograms, ultrasounds and biopsies. Community Health Services has operated since 1971 and gives priority to uninsured or underinsured clients at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. Both organizations accept major insurance and are among relatively few upper-valley providers accepting Medicaid and Medicare.

Ascendigo Autism Services applied but was not recommended. Its application proposed supporting therapeutic recreation, school and in-home services, life-skills programming and employment coaching for people with autism and other intellectual or developmental disabilities. Ascendigo highlighted potential work with Basalt High School, local employers and a trades-training Learning Lab. It partnered with Response for the 2025 tournament. The packet does not explain the committee’s comparative scoring or why the health organizations were selected over Ascendigo.

The selected groups would be expected to help recruit teams and sponsors, secure auction items, promote the tournament and assist during the event. No tournament date, fundraising target or allocation formula beyond the health partners’ planned even split appears in the packet. Residents may speak during the three-minute public-comment period at the start of the meeting. Because this is a consent item rather than a scheduled hearing, anyone seeking discussion or another chance to comment when it is called should ask council to pull it from consent. Written comments may also be emailed to council for the record.