Southside redevelopment, speed cameras and Basalt Connect funding

Council is being asked to hold an introductory public hearing on MREH LLC’s redevelopment application for 555 Basalt Avenue, the current Myers & Company property. The proposal needs special review, amendments to the property’s planned unit development and related land-use approvals. A planned unit development is a customized zoning plan governing a particular property. Staff recommends hearing presentations, taking public comment, discussing unresolved issues and continuing the hearing to April 14 rather than approving or rejecting the project March 24.

The 4.84-acre property is in the Basalt Business Center South planned unit development, directly south of the Basalt park-and-ride and within the town’s designated growth boundary. Existing structures at 555 and 565 Basalt Avenue would be demolished. The application proposes three three-story residential buildings on the northern portion and four single-story commercial storage or flexible warehouse buildings on the southern portion. The design is intended to step down toward the single-family neighborhood to the south.

The latest plan contains 47 for-sale homes: 11 deed-restricted homes and 36 market-rate homes. The affordable mix is one studio, nine one-bedroom homes and one two-bedroom home. The 11 restricted homes equal 23.4% of all units and 25.04% of residential floor area. Town code requires at least 20% of units and 25% of residential floor area to be deed-restricted. The applicant proposes prices averaging no more than Category 2, while the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission recommended a Category 3 average because that level may make mortgage qualification more realistic. Planning and Zoning suggested considering additional primary-resident or resident-occupied housing.

The project also includes 54 individually owned commercial storage units. The applicant expects most to store personal vehicles, recreational equipment or business materials, with about 20% used by small businesses. Staff and the town’s traffic reviewer stress that these spaces must remain storage rather than offices or customer-facing businesses, which would create more traffic. A proposed condition would make the owners association responsible for enforcement. The applicant says the overall development could generate about nine full-time-equivalent jobs, compared with approximately 50 people currently employed by Myers Steel.

Access and traffic are major unresolved questions. Homes would use an existing connection to East Cody Lane, while storage traffic would enter from Fiou Lane. The Colorado Department of Transportation’s current permit limits the Cody Lane driveway to five cars daily, but the department has offered a permit allowing the traffic projected for the new homes. Fiou Lane is nominally two-way but narrows substantially. Neighbors have requested one-way operation, while town standards could point toward widening. Independent traffic consultant Jim Charlier is evaluating those choices before council’s final decision.

Kimley-Horn’s traffic report concludes the project would not create more traffic than Myers & Company currently generates, but its original existing-use count came from one day in May 2025. A second count was later added. Staff says holding the redevelopment to the property’s existing peak-hour traffic is important because Southside has only one connection to Highway 82 and future road capacity has been allocated partly for vacant parcels. The project would pay $944 per residential unit toward a possible miniature roundabout at Cody Lane and Basalt Avenue. The packet says roughly another $1 million would eventually be needed to construct that improvement.

Flooding and construction sequencing also require decisions. Significant portions of the property lie in the Southside floodplain. Storage floors would be at least one foot above the base flood elevation, and residential floors at least two feet above it. Matrix Design, the town’s floodplain consultant, found the current design satisfies floodplain criteria and produces no increase in modeled flood elevation. Buildings would have sprinklers, and the plans include three hydrants, electric-vehicle charging, efficient heating and cooling, and water-conscious landscaping. The plan provides 22% landscaped open space, compared with a 10% minimum, while retaining about 40% of existing trees.

The applicant seeks three years of protected development rights. One sequencing proposal would require deed-restricted homes to receive occupancy approvals proportionally with market-rate homes and no later than two and a half years after the residential building permit. If storage units open first and the affordable homes miss that deadline, two storage units would temporarily be dedicated to the town. Another option would allow approximately 38,000 square feet of storage—the amount said to resemble the current commercial space—to open before affordable housing is finished. Council also must weigh the applicant’s request to allow market-rate homes to operate as short-term rentals for up to 60 days annually.

Residents may speak for up to three minutes during the general public-comment period near the meeting’s start and again when the 555 Basalt Avenue hearing is called. Comments can address Fiou Lane, traffic assumptions, affordable-home pricing, short-term rentals, flooding, building height or construction timing. Written comments may also be emailed to council for inclusion in the public record before the continued hearing on April 14.

Council will hold a public hearing and vote on final adoption of Ordinance No. 05, Series of 2026. The ordinance would add Section 8-8 to Basalt’s code, authorizing automated vehicle identification systems, and would amend the penalty schedule in Appendix C. “Second reading” means the ordinarily final council vote after preliminary approval. If adopted, the ordinance would create the local legal framework for camera-based traffic enforcement, although equipment placement and state approvals would still have to follow.

This is the third consecutive council agenda involving the proposal. Council first discussed automated enforcement after a February 10 presentation from Police Lieutenant Aaron Munch and Dacra Tech representative Brandon Knox. A preliminary vote scheduled for February 24 was postponed because the vendor agreement and privacy material arrived too late for full review. On March 10, council approved the ordinance on first reading and considered the related Dacra Tech agreement. The police activity report now lists second reading, a public hearing, contract approvals and Colorado Department of Transportation approvals as remaining steps.

The proposal grew from a speed study using equipment supplied by Rekor Systems. Data was collected from December 16 through December 22, 2025, on Highway 82 north of Original Road and south of Two Rivers Road. Dacra Tech used that seven-day sample to project monthly traffic and potential violations. Those projections are not a full month of direct observations, an important distinction when weighing how many citations or how much enforcement activity the system might produce.

The strongest speeding pattern appeared southbound near Two Rivers Road, where the limit changes to 45 miles per hour. The measured median was 53 miles per hour and the speed at or below which 85% of traffic traveled was 59. Only 8.3% of vehicles were recorded at or below 45. Dacra Tech projected 345,467 monthly vehicles at that location and classified 125,691 events, or 36.4%, as potentially citable. The packet does not say that every projected event would become a ticket.

Other locations showed much lower projected violation shares. Northbound near Two Rivers Road, in a 55-mile-per-hour zone, had a median of 51 and an 85th-percentile speed of 56. Dacra Tech projected 1,346 potentially citable events monthly, or 0.4% of traffic. North of Original Road, the study projected 8,734 potentially citable northbound events and 25,200 southbound events per month. These differences leave council with a policy question about whether enforcement should focus on a particular transition or be deployed more broadly.

The earlier presentation described equipment mounted approximately 10 to 14 feet high and powered by electricity or solar energy. It could capture nighttime images. The outlined process involved recording a suspected violation, reviewing the evidence, mailing notice to the vehicle owner and allowing payment, a challenge or a hearing. Council previously asked about warning signs, dirty or snow-covered plates, repeat offenses, collections, appeals, data retention, privacy and whether police could receive real-time notices of especially dangerous speeds.

The supplied March 24 materials do not identify the first camera location, installation date, equipment count or expected citation revenue. The police report gives only “summer?” as a tentative implementation estimate and notes that Colorado Department of Transportation approval remains necessary. The agenda also does not reproduce the vendor contract’s price, revenue arrangement, term, termination rights or responsibility for faulty readings. Those terms are important because the ordinance creates authority, while the contract determines how the program works operationally and financially.

Residents may weigh improved compliance and fewer severe crashes against privacy, accuracy and fairness concerns. A camera may provide consistent enforcement without requiring an officer to remain roadside, but the high projected rate near the speed-limit transition could produce many mailed citations. Reasonable questions include whether drivers receive a warning period, how quickly signs appear, what evidence is retained, who can access images, whether local police review every citation and how the town will measure whether speeds actually fall after installation.

The public may comment for three minutes during the general comment period near the meeting’s start and again during the ordinance’s formal public hearing. Residents can ask council to specify locations, warning practices, data protections, appeal procedures and program costs before adoption. Written comments may be emailed to council for the record. If Ordinance No. 05 passes, implementation would still depend on contract administration, equipment work, signs and required state transportation approvals.

Town Manager Gloria Kaasch-Buerger will brief council on Basalt Connect’s summer hours. This is listed as an informational presentation, not a scheduled resolution or budget amendment. Staff is warning that the grant that paid for 10 a.m.-to-3 p.m. service from June through August 2025 is unavailable in 2026. Without council direction and a new funding source, the town will retain the existing split schedule rather than offer continuous daytime service this summer.

Basalt Connect currently provides free, on-demand rides seven days a week from 7 to 10 a.m. and again from 3 to 10 p.m. Its service area includes downtown Basalt, Willits and nearby neighborhoods. Riders request trips rather than following a fixed bus route. The lost Ozone Season Transit Grant was administered by the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies. Staff estimates that it would have supplied $37,648 for the three midday hours program, or about $12,549 per month from June through August.

The 2026 budget includes $616,820 for Basalt Connect in the Green Team unrestricted account, although one sentence in the staff memo lists $611,820. The accompanying budget table shows $616,820, leaving a $5,000 inconsistency residents or council may want staff to clarify. The broader Green Team unrestricted budget totals $699,606 and also supports climate programs, composting, electric-vehicle charging, bikeshare, wildfire work and other environmental projects.

The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority is expected to subsidize 40% of Basalt Connect, listed as $243,144 annually or $20,626 monthly in the memo. That support is down from 50% in previous years. To address the reduced transit-authority contribution, the adopted budget already anticipates drawing $93,025 from the Lake Modern real estate transfer assessment. A real estate transfer assessment is money collected through property transactions under an agreement governing a development. Staff says Lake Modern is the only such Basalt fund that may be spent on public transportation.

Staff presents another $37,648 Lake Modern draw as the main option for restoring midday summer service. It could preserve the 2025 hours for one more season but is described as unsustainable because real estate transfer revenue is not dependable. Staff does not recommend filling the gap with the general fund, whose reserves are being preserved for a future Public Works and Police Department building. Council is not being presented with a formal appropriation March 24, so any direction to spend additional money may require a later budget action.

Other revenue is limited. Valley Orthopedics pays $30,000 annually to advertise on the vans under a contract expiring in 2027, but the payment was recognized as revenue when received rather than spread across each year. Staff is researching whether to raise advertising prices after the contract ends and whether Basalt Connect should eventually charge fares. The packet does not propose a fare amount, collection method, discount policy or start date. Charging would alter a service that is currently free.

Ridership data show substantial use but do not isolate the effect of midday hours. February 2026 recorded 2,460 rides and 3,173 passenger trips, with 461 unique rider accounts. Vehicles provided 550 revenue hours and traveled 8,281 revenue miles. The average wait was 14 minutes, the average ride eight minutes and the rider rating 4.97 out of five. About 41% of rides were shared. Trips to or from Roaring Fork Transportation Authority stops carried 830 passengers, or 26% of total ridership.

Staff says July and August 2025 ridership increased over prior years, but it cannot determine whether the gain came from midday availability, the summer concert series or general growth in demand. Scheduling drivers and placing advertisements in summer publications, including Discover Basalt magazine, must be finalized by April 1. That creates practical pressure for quick direction even though the agenda calls the presentation informational. The packet does not estimate added passengers per midday service hour or calculate a public subsidy per ride.

Residents may consider whether convenient all-day transportation justifies another one-time draw from a restricted property fund, or whether Basalt should preserve that money and operate only budgeted hours. Other questions include whether a smaller midday schedule could reduce the gap, whether summer events should contribute, and how fares might affect workers, young riders, older adults and people connecting to regional buses. The agenda does not present those alternatives in costed form.

Residents may speak for up to three minutes during the general public-comment period and again when the Basalt Connect presentation is called. Riders can describe whether the five-hour midday gap affects work, medical visits, shopping or regional-bus connections. Written comments may be emailed to council for the public record, particularly because the April 1 scheduling deadline may lead staff to seek direction soon after this meeting.

Finance Director Doug Pattison will present Basalt’s fourth-quarter financial statements covering the year through December 31, 2025. No vote is requested. Staff says the year-end figures have been reconciled and provide a good representation of the town’s finances, although the annual audit process is still underway. The presentation gives council a chance to ask why particular accounts exceeded their budgets, why some capital projects remained unfinished and how available cash should be reserved or invested.

The general fund receives most of the town’s everyday operating revenue. Sales tax remained its largest source, accounting for 56.2% of year-to-date general revenue. The report lists $7,256,367 in 2025 sales-tax collections against a $7,125,000 budget, or 101.8% of the estimate. Property-related tax collections were $1,930,504 against a $1.95 million budget. Altogether, the principal tax category shown in the report produced $9,659,374, slightly above its $9,523,500 budget.

General-fund spending was concentrated in police, public works and parks, administration, planning and building, and council operations. The report’s chart assigns 25.5% to police, 22.4% to public works and parks, 18.1% to administration, 11.1% to planning and building, 16.9% to legislative functions, 5.6% to recreation and the pool, and 0.3% to court and election functions. The detailed table shows police spending of $3,106,192 and general-fund street spending of $1,468,838, although the packet’s compressed table makes some subtotals difficult to follow.

The restricted fund had $7,037,373 in revenue and $4,669,348 in expenses, producing a reported $2,368,025 surplus for 2025. Restricted money may only be used for its designated purpose. The largest source was the 1% parks, open space and trails sales tax, which generated $3,034,233 against a $2,946,000 budget. Real estate transfer assessments, affordable-housing rent, building fees, tobacco tax, lodging tax and grants supplied other restricted revenue.

Restricted parks, open space and trails spending totaled $2,458,294 against a $3,224,573 budget, or 76.2%. That does not necessarily mean the remaining amount is freely available; some projects may continue into 2026 or have dedicated commitments. The capital list shows projects at different stages. Confluence Park intersection work recorded $92,321 against a $500,000 project budget, while Willits Lane and wayfinding recorded $104,844 against $350,000. Water and irrigation capital improvements spent $252,679 against $200,000, and miscellaneous projects spent $115,293 against $50,000.

Other fund results show why residents should look beyond a single town-wide cash number. The bond fund brought in $949,560 and spent $952,052, a small reported use of balance. The capital construction fund reported $1,470,102 in revenue and approximately $4.2 million in expenses, reflecting major project spending and use of previously accumulated resources. The water fund collected $1,605,498 and spent $1,017,130. Conservation Trust Fund activity was much smaller, with $24,358 in revenue and $133,214 in spending, indicating use of prior funds for eligible recreation or park purposes.

Across town funds and investment accounts, the report lists approximately $29,965,745 in cash and investments at year-end. Holdings included Colorado government investment pools, accounts managed through Ehlers and Alpine Bank accounts. That total should not be read as an unrestricted savings account. It includes restricted money, project reserves, water-system funds, bond proceeds and balances assigned to future obligations. Staff is separately evaluating excess cash and a timeline for next steps.

The report also identifies several unbudgeted or specially tracked expenditures. These include $45,000 for Arcos Mobility, $35,824 for accessibility improvements, $212,641 for the Two Rivers Road waterline repair, $37,009 for Basalt River Park Parcel E miniature golf, $269,898 for Stott’s Mill Lots 20 and 21, $30,152 for 99 Midland improvements, $49,451 for Frying Pan drainage and $13,539 for a Windows 11 technology update. The packet does not give a narrative explaining each variance or whether reimbursements are expected.

Council’s main task is oversight rather than approval. Members can ask which unspent project balances should carry into 2026, whether over-budget items were authorized through earlier contracts, and how the town plans to finance major pending work such as the Public Works and Police Department building. Residents may also want clarification of the $5,000 discrepancy in Basalt Connect’s budget and explanations for departments or revenue lines that exceeded estimates.

Residents may make a three-minute comment during the general public-comment period and again when the financial presentation is called. Questions can focus on a specific tax, fund, capital project or budget variance. Written comments may be emailed to council for the record. Because no action is scheduled, any budget amendments or decisions about surplus balances would have to return as separate council business.

Council will hold a public hearing and consider final adoption of Ordinance No. 06, Series of 2026, approving a lease with The Arts Campus at Willits for Unit R700 in the Block 7 Condominiums. Second reading is the ordinarily final vote on an ordinance. The recommended motion is to adopt the ordinance, although the agenda contains a typographical reference to “Series of 20267.” The title and the rest of the packet identify it as a 2026 ordinance.

This item follows council’s March 10 preliminary review. At that meeting, the lease ordinance was presented for first reading alongside Resolution No. 13, which concerned drawing from The Arts Campus at Willits endowment for improvements to the space. The March 24 agenda brings back only the lease ordinance for its required public hearing and final decision. The supplied pages do not report the March 10 vote tally or describe any amendments made after first reading.

Unit R700 is identified as part of the Block 7 Condominiums in Willits. Town engineering staff visited the property with The Arts Campus at Willits on February 23, and the engineering report said council would consider the lease at an upcoming meeting. The packet excerpt does not provide a street address, floor area, floor plan, current condition or intended daily function. It also does not say whether the unit will hold performances, classes, offices, storage, rehearsals or another arts-related use.

The lease itself is not reproduced in the supplied March 24 pages. As a result, residents cannot see the rent, lease term, renewal options, security deposit, utility obligations, insurance requirements or responsibility for condominium assessments. The packet also does not identify who pays for routine maintenance, structural repairs, property taxes, code compliance or damage. It does not say whether the rent reflects market value, a discount recognizing public arts benefits or another arrangement.

The related improvements are similarly unclear in the pages supplied for this issue. The March 10 agenda paired the lease with a proposed endowment draw for tenant improvements, meaning work needed to prepare the unit for its occupant. No amount, contractor, scope, procurement process or remaining endowment balance appears here. The March 24 agenda does not ask council to reconsider that draw, so residents may want staff to explain what was authorized March 10 and whether construction depends on final lease approval.

The Willits location means the most immediate day-to-day effects could involve nearby residents, businesses, parking areas and shared condominium facilities. Depending on the use, questions could include operating hours, deliveries, event crowds, sound, accessibility and fire-code occupancy limits. Those effects cannot be evaluated from the agenda excerpt because it does not describe the proposed programming or building work. No objections from condominium owners, neighbors or other tenants are summarized.

Council’s trade-off is between supporting a prominent local arts organization and protecting the town’s property and financial interests. A stable lease could help The Arts Campus at Willits plan programs and make useful improvements. A long lease or subsidized rent, however, could limit other uses or shift costs to the town. Specialized tenant improvements could benefit the property, but their value depends partly on how long the arts organization remains and what happens to the improvements when the lease ends.

Before voting, council could clarify the lease’s length, rent, renewal and termination clauses; the approved improvement budget; responsibility for utilities and condominium charges; and whether Unit R700 can be subleased. Council may adopt the ordinance as presented, amend it if legally and practically possible, postpone the decision for more information or decline the lease. The agenda does not identify a competing tenant, alternative public use or staff disagreement with the proposed arrangement.

Residents may speak for up to three minutes during the general public-comment period and again during the ordinance’s public hearing. Comments can ask about rent, endowment spending, operating impacts, public access to programs and long-term responsibility for the unit. Written comments may be emailed to council for the public record before the final vote.