Town of Breckenridge Sustainable Breck Background Information

Home , Dave (Lost)

TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE

Sustainable Breck Background Information

2010

Prepared by the Community Development Department P.O. Box 168 Breckenridge, Co. 80424

Town Council John Warner, Mayor Eric Mamula Rob Millisor Jeffrey Bergeron Peter Joyce Jennifer McAtamney David Rossi

Planning Commission Rodney Allen, Chair Michael Bertaux Dave Pringle Dan Schroder Leigh Girvin Jim Lamb J.B. Katz

Table of Contents

Overview 1

Local Economy 1

Energy 5

Forest Health 18

Child Care 23

Water Quality & Supply 26

Housing 29

Land Use 36

Transportation 46

Wildlife Habitat 56

Recreation 60

Cover Photo: Town from Ski Hill Road By Scott Reid

Overview

In 2009 the Town Council directed staff to commence work on a Sustainability Action Plan for the Town. As a first step in the process a Sustainability Task Force (STF) was formed to review specific sustainability topics prior to public process portion of the development of the plan. The STF consisted of two Council members and the Mayor. The Sustainability Task Force Background Information Packet is an edited collection of memos the STF received on topics that have been included in the Sustainable Breckenridge public process. This information has been compiled to ensure that the general public has access to detailed information on sustainability issues before giving feedback on the Sustainable Breck project.

Local Economy

Economic Development Ideas • Find new regional niche market, get corporate support/funding. o This could be provided by private funding (i.e. Nike training center on McCain, outdoor ski/snowboard camps on mountain in summer like Mt. Hood etc.) to fill shoulder season. Option is limited with land limitations. • Add neighborhood commercial retail node on McCain property, Wellington and/or Block 11. o Increase some areas for retail revenue, less trip generated from neighborhoods. • Business incubator project for unfilled sectors of the business community. o Used by other communities as a method for increasing entrepreneurship and “economic gardening”. • Job training for community youth and retraining for those already in the workforce. o Opportunity to partner with CMC, Summit High School and major employers in the community to train current students to work in fields offered in Breckenridge to maintain local base. o Also, enhancing and/or retraining the current workforce for jobs of the future (i.e. construction field to green related jobs and forestry-biomass harvesting and conversion, nanotechnology and next-generation forest products). • Promote redevelopment. • Develop ways to entice second home owners to spend more time in Breckenridge during our shoulder seasons. • Green business programs and practice incentives. • Upgrade Town broadband system to today’s standards to allow for increased web traffic and utilization. Investments in broadband infrastructure will enhance community competitiveness and also could create higher value-added jobs and make new business models possible. • Do not place new restrictions on second homes that are utilized as short-term rentals to maintain short-term bed base.

Town Revenue Enhancement Ideas

• Implementation of a Ski Lift Ticket Tax/Amusement Tax o The implementation of a tax on ski lift tickets has been researched by Staff and BEDAC which would add an estimated $1-3 million per year to the Town- price point and use to be determined. A similar tax is assessed in Vail. • Revenue Sharing o 1. Could be between municipalities/county (regional)-can discuss pros/cons; 2. Public/private partnerships for new niche market (thru TIF), if found. • Business Diversification o Recommend an “economic gardening” approach, based on attracting location neutral residents (i.e. lone eagles). This approach is being taken by other mountain communities to diversify income streams. Attraction to the existing “real town” atmosphere and amenities. (i.e. Steamboat Springs) o Other Options: Attract other business types (i.e. outdoor oriented niche businesses, biosciences, software, etc.)-needs to be sized for infill. • Business Improvement Districts or Assessment Districts o A public-private partnership typically with businesses in a particular area (i.e. Main Street) elect to pay an additional tax or fee in order to fund improvements and maintenance within the BID boundaries. o An Assessment District which would tax property owners separately for services such as Recreation and/or Transit. • Income/Payroll, Service Tax, or other Excise Tax o Income tax was researched and found to be PROHIBITED by the Colorado Constitution. o Tax implemented upon services conducted or on payroll based on how many employees per company. (researching this as a possibility) • Increase Existing Excise Tax (sales, accommodations, etc.) See attached chart on other mountain town tax rates. • Increase property tax rate for second homeowners (Utah rate of 0.55 for locals and 1.0 for second homeowners). o PROHIBITED by State Constitution. • Add mill levy (for childcare, sustainable incentives, housing). • Form a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) for Block 11, other town owned property? o Could explore if the Town is able to form a REIT and essentially sell “shares” of the development to interested businesses for housing to off-set up front infrastructure costs. • Add municipal waste management department, charge per bag-encourage recycling. o Municipal waste management has been a revenue generator for other communities. Currently, this profitable business is conducted by the private sector (some State limitations, additional information in Appendix). • Create a Town Asset Management Plan to review value of Town property to private sector. • Marijuana special tax

Second Homes

Second homes are a significant contributor to the Breckenridge economy. According to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCOG) second homes are the second largest basic economic driver in Summit County, accountable for 32% of the base economy. Second homes only trail winter visitation, 39%, in the basic sector and are significantly ahead of the third and fourth basic drivers, resident income, 12%, and summer visitation, 11%. In 2001 it was estimated $512,000,000 of outside money was brought into Summit County that was directly tied to second homes. “Compared to the average single property homeowner the second homeowner spends five times as much on lawn care, home security, pest control and housecleaning. They spends four times as much on contributions to churches, charities and educational groups, and three times as much on transportation for trips, hotels and other travel-related expenses” (Venturoni, 2004).

In addition to the revenue brought into the community directly attributed to second homes, revenue from two other basic economic sectors, winter and summer visitation, is facilitated through significant portions of second homes being available for short term rental. According to NWCOG 38% of Summit County second homes are utilized for short-term rental, in Breckenridge this amounts to 1,695 of our estimated 4,461 second homes. By comparison Breckenridge has an estimated 970 dedicated short-term lodging units. These lodging units are comprised of hotel rooms and fractional ownership units. Considering 63% percent of our short- term stock is second homes, and an even greater percentage of the estimated 25,000 pillow tops, it is apparent how important second homes are to the local economy.

Job Generation

Within the central mountain counties of Summit, Eagle, Grand and Pitkin, second homes account for 44% of basic jobs. This is well ahead of the next most prevalent basic job generators, winter visitation, 25%, resident income, 14%, and summer visitation at 11%. Beyond basic jobs, seconds homes lead the way in this four county area for total jobs at 39%. Within Summit County each basic job has a .67 multiplier effect. That means for every dollar going toward a basic job in Summit County, $0.67 of that dollar then goes toward supporting a non-basic job.

Taxable Revenue

Property Tax – In 2008 $ 3,416,289 in property tax revenue was collected by the Town. Going off the common assumption that 68% of properties located in the Town are second homes, we can surmise based on averages that $2,323,077 of the property tax collected can be attributed to second homes.

Lodging Tax – As noted above in the Local Economy section 63% of our short-term lodging stock is provided by second homes. Since the Town doesn’t distinguish between second homes and commercial lodging properties when tracking lodging tax it is difficult to estimate what percentage of the $2,139,687 in lodging tax that was collected in 2008 is attributed to second homes. It is assumed that commercial lodging properties designed as “hot beds” provide a

3 majority of the taxable lodging revenue but considering second homes make up 63% of all short term lodging rentals they also contribute significantly to lodging tax revenue.

Real Estate Transfer Tax - From Census data we estimate 4,461 of Breckenridge’s 6,551 housing units are second homes. Of the 2,090 housing units that are estimated as permanent residences, 543 are deed restricted and exempt to RETT. Subtracting out our deed restricted housing stock increases the percentage of RETT eligible housing units controlled by second home owners to 74%. Though not tracked through Town records, national data shows second homes change ownership more frequently than permanent residences with “45% of second are sold within six years of purchase,” this also increases the percentage of RETT attributed to second homes (Research Institute for Housing America). In addition to the greater overall percentage of second homes and more frequent change of ownership for second homes that account for the majority of RETT collected by the Town, there is evidence the community is losing market rate housing that has served as work-force housing to second buyers. From 2003-2007 Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland tracked Breckenridge properties that changed ownership from local ownership to out of county or vice versus and found that housing units were much more likely to become second homes then bought by locals as they changed identity. Out of 305 properties that changed identity over this time period, 185 became second homes. If this rate of loss is to continue overtime almost all RETT eventually will be generated through second homes.

Energy

Policy Direction

“Stewardship of the environment, today, leaving it “better than we found it”, is important for future generations to be able to enjoy their natural surroundings and the quality of life it provides”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Without stewardship, there is the chance of “killing the goose that laid the golden egg””. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“The Town feels it is the responsibility of the Town and its residents to treat the environment with respect and to take steps to reduce our carbon footprint”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

The statements listed above from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment chapter succinctly point out the overall importance of environmental protection within the community. In other sections of the document and in the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan, additional statements are made that have ties to climate change.

“Keep the ski resort and supporting community competitive in the national marketplace”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Even though the Town has acquired water rights adequate to provide the anticipated water needs of the community per this Comprehensive Plan, the Town will continue its search for additional rights to augment those that have already been acquired, because of the uncertainty of precipitation which ultimately provides the source for the water system”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“To residents and visitors, a high quality environment is critical to overall quality of life, both present and future”. (Joint Upper blue Master Plan)

Within the Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan’s Vision Statement three different categories make statements that we would be acting contrary to if we did not begin addressing climate change.

“…ensure that environmental quality is considered and examined as a basic component in local decision making and that Town activities and decisions have as little negative impact on the environment as possible”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Development also should minimize impacts on the natural environment, both locally and globally, through the use of sustainable planning and building principles. These include the use of renewable building materials and energy conserving construction techniques”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Breckenridge Ski Resort assures the Town a significant amount of tourism and retail trade”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

Analysis—Where are we Today?

Note on Global Warming: Despite skepticism expressed by some individuals the scientific community has overwhelmingly acknowledged the reality of global warming. “In recent years, global warming has been the subject of a great deal of political controversy. As scientific knowledge has grown, this debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions of how best to respond”

(National Geographic). As a starting point for the Task Force, predictions on global warming from the 2030 Forecast include:

• A warming of average temperatures throughout the year. • Warmer weather impacting water availability. • Reduced snow packs • Summit County resorts will have a relatively more reliable snowpack than most other areas, but will experience some shortening of the ski season and loss in overall snowpack. • Increased reliance in snow making at all resorts • Increased reliance on more summer time tourism / visitors • Skiing as a sport in many coastal areas will lose popularity (not as many opportunities to learn) • All jurisdictions will adopt plans to reduce carbon footprint • Change frequency, duration and intensity of: snowfall, precipitation, wildfire, heat waves, drought, flooding, etc. • Warming may create opportunities of agricultural expansion in County (lengthen growing season)

Despite the political controversy that is associated with global warming, the Town of Breckenridge has acknowledged the reality and threat of global warming and stated its commitment in combating climate change. Recently in the winter of 2009 the Town joined the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (ICLEI) and committed to developing an emissions reduction strategy. The Town completed an emissions inventory in April 2009 and presented a Carbon Action Plan draft shortly thereafter in May. The creation of the Carbon Action Plan is viewed as a component of the Town’s broader Sustainability Action Plan. The Carbon Action Plan draft has outlined steps for the entire Breckenridge community to significantly reduce emissions and become more energy independent. Staff is asking the Sustainable Task Force to reevaluate the draft and make sure the document accurately reflects the desires of the Task Force before it is unveiled to the public for comments as part of the forthcoming community outreach portion of the Sustainability Action Plan.

Climate Change, What it Means to Breckenridge

Future Climate Projections for the Rocky Mountains of Colorado

A recent joint study, Climate Change in Colorado: a Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation, made some future predictions of what global warming will have in store for the central Rocky Mountains of Colorado. A major finding in the study predicted the average winter daily temperatures for the central Rocky Mountains in 2050 to rise +2 - +5 F above the daily average that was calculated from 1950 – 1999. In the summer months, the average daily temperatures are expected to rise even more significantly to +3 - +7° F above the 1950 – 1999 averages. Projections on how climate change will affect precipitation levels appear to be fairly minimal. “In the central Rocky Mountains, where most precipitation falls in the cold season, the projections show an increase in winter precipitation and smaller changes in other times of the year” (Colorado, 2009). Despite this prediction of increased winter precipitation, it is anticipated the central Rocky Mountains will have an overall diminished snowpack with earlier and quicker runoffs in the spring. This will lead to greater fluctuation of stream flows and a lengthier dry season in summer and fall. “Warming and changes in the form, timing and amount of precipitation will be very likely to lead to earlier melting and significant reductions in snowpack in the western mountains by the middle of the 21st century” (Colorado, 2009).

Another recent study evaluated how the quantity and quality of snow at Aspen Mountain ski area in 2030 and 2100 may be affected by changes in regional climate resulting from increased greenhouse gas

emissions. This study estimated changes in regional climate using computerized downscaling models, and ran combinations of five general circulation models that best simulate current conditions. The climate change estimates were run using a relatively low, mid-range, and high GHG emissions scenarios. Output from a regional climate model statistical downscaling model was used to generate higher resolution estimates of changes in climate. Snow quantity was evaluated using the Snowmelt Runoff Model and a module developed to estimate snow quantity during the accumulation season, before snowmelt initiation. Snow quality was also evaluated.

By 2030, the estimated temperatures increase is 3.2 to 4.5°F at Aspen Mountain from the 1990 baseline, and the length of the ski season is estimated to decrease by approximately 1 to 1.5 weeks. By 2030, the snowline is estimated at 7,382 ft. above sea level; an increase of approximately 656 ft. from current (2006) conditions. By 2100, average annual temperatures are projected to increase 5.2 to 16.9°F. The snowline is estimated at 9,186 ft. to 9,514 ft. for the mid-range scenarios in 2100, and 10,171 to 10,500 ft. for the high scenario. The date when snow starts to accumulate at the base area is delayed by six to seven days by 2030, and anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 weeks by 2100 relative to circa 1990. For mid-winter snows, a 15% increase in snowfall compensates for a 2.7°C increase in air temperature such that there would be little change in snow depth. Snow depth is reduced to almost zero for the base area in 2100 under the medium greenhouse gas emissions scenario. In the high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, snow depth is reduced to near zero for the entire lower two-thirds of the mountain. The effect is substantially reduced under the low greenhouse gas emissions scenario. To summarize, climate change is predicted to shorten the overall length of the ski season in Aspen through delayed openings and earlier closings. In order for the resort to be operational, a greater reliance on snowmaking is predicted as lower portions of Ajax Mountain will receive very little natural snowfall. Increased reliance on snowmaking will be met with diminished supplies of water. (The Aspen Global Change Institute [AGCI], 2006).

Natural Habitat

A chief concern with the threat of climate change is the effect it will have on our natural environment and native eco systems. Breckenridge and its surroundings are more endangered by climate change due to their high elevations, which range from 9,500 ft. to over 14,000 ft. High elevation flora and fauna are perceived to be at the greatest threat because of the anticipated fragmentation and shrinking of high altitude eco-systems. “The greatest stresses to the ecosystem might occur at the higher elevations where the soil moisture is the greatest. Alpine meadows may be invaded by subalpine fir, and rare alpine plants may disappear locally as conditions change. Alpine tundra is one of the most biologically diverse communities in Colorado. More than 40% of the approximately 300 plant species that grow in the Southern Rocky Mountain alpine tundra do not occur below tree line (Hobbs et al., 2003). Tree line will likely migrate upward in the future under warming scenarios. It has been predicted that for every degree Fahrenheit of warming, tree line in the Southern Rocky Mountains could rise 350 feet (107 m) in elevation (EPA, 1997). This will shift habitat for alpine species upslope of this advance. Krummholz patches (groves of stunted trees) in the forest-tundra ecotone of Rocky Mountain National Park are growing vertically at an average rate of about 1 m per 27 years, and, if this continues, krummholz may become patchy forest on certain sites (Weisberg & Baker, 1995). Over time these patchy forests could become closed dense stands like those at lower elevations reducing understory plant diversity and overtaking the alpine tundra” (AGCI, 2006). High alpine fauna are also highly vulnerable because of habitat fragmentation that is expected to occur as a result of climate change. This fragmentation of habitat is the result of the upward migration of biomes that result in mountain peaks becoming isolated islands instead of being interconnected series of peaks. With predicted warmer temperatures and higher concentrations of CO2, it is anticipated non-native species will have an advantage over native vegetation. “Higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 give some non-native invasive plants an advantage, while increased temperatures place additional stress on competing native vegetation. More invasive plant

species are likely to out-compete native vegetation” (AGCI, 2006). The anticipated higher average temperatures may also increase insect populations that are regulated by cold winter weather. “Higher temperatures mean lower over winter mortalities that keep insect populations in check. Increased summer warming could allow insects to complete a lifecycle in a shorter period of time, resulting in an increased risk of massive outbreaks” (AGCI, 2006).

Ski Resort

Currently the Town’s main economic driver is the resort and vacation industry. This industry was originally spawned as an outgrowth of the development of the Breckenridge Ski Resort. Today Breckenridge has become a year-round resort destination but the Town’s primary attraction is still our world class ski resort. Presently 67% percent of the Town’s sales taxes are collected during the six months of ski season (Breckenridge, 2008). In a recent survey of second home owners, 82% cited proximity to the ski area as the biggest reason why they chose to purchase their property in Breckenridge (Venturoni, 2006). A study of the mountain resort construction industry cited the original interest for most residents and second homeowners of residing in the mountains can be traced back to a ski trip (Preston, 1999). It is apparent how much the health of the ski resort plays into the Town’s economic health. Long winters and abundant snow are essential to an extended and successful ski season. With the prospect of increased temperatures, the Town could be looking at much shorter ski season, where the ski resort’s opening could be delayed, possibly past Thanksgiving and in spring may need to be closed earlier, sometimes before Easter. The economic effect of this prospect would be an extending of the Town’s two shoulder seasons that occur in spring and fall. This could create a situation where visitors and tax revenues would decline substantially compared to numbers during the ski season. A study investigating how global warming may affect Aspen, predicts their economic base that is directly tied to skiing will decrease from 16% in 2003 to 4% in 2030. The percent of basic jobs tied to skiing in Aspen will be lowered from 21% to 9.4% over the same time period (AGCI, 2006). These figures do not take into account the economic base indirectly linked with skiing. Despite these concerns Breckenridge compared to other ski destinations in the United States, and elsewhere in the world is in a relatively strong position due to its location. Even with this geographic advantage Breckenridge may still become marginalized because skiing as a sport may become less relevant without having skiing readily accessible to the population centers of the world and therefore less people will be exposed to skiing.

Beyond the concerns of an average temperature increase and a decreased average winter season, is the bigger issue of the increased likelihood of climate variability. Many climate change forecasts have focused on average conditions. “Climate change can also occur as changes in the frequency of extremes, or of certain threshold conditions” (AGCI, 2006). It could be fairly manageable for the ski resort if winters twenty years from now are few degrees warmer, but it may be devastating if that few degrees warmer average is the product of couple of winters that are similar to our typical winter today and several consecutive winters of extremely warm weather. “Climate change may occur gradually, in almost a linear fashion, or it might manifest as step-like changes and clumps of bad years” (AGCI, 2006).

Other climate change concerns for the Breckenridge Ski Resort • Increased reliance on snowmaking and greater dependence on water and energy, to operate the ski resort. • “Beginner runs tend to be at a lower elevation, where the effects of climate change will be more pronounced. Poor conditions are likely to discourage beginning skiers” (AGCI, 2006). • Warmer spring weather may produce wet-slab avalanche activity similar to what Arapahoe Basin experienced very late in the 2005 season.

• “Skier visitation and skier days are not only a function of total seasonal snowfall, but also the timing of the first snowfall, snow depth throughout the season, the incidence of warm spells and powder events, media coverage” (AGCI, 2006).

Global Impacts of Climate Change

In addition to noting the anticipated local impacts it is important point out the anticipated global impacts of climate change. Listed below are the key findings on climate changes from the United States Global Change Research Program. • Climate Change will stress water resources. • Crop and livestock production will increasingly be challenged. • Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea level rise and storm surge. • Threats to human health will increase. • Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses. • Large changes in ecosystems are expected to occur. • Choices made today will impact future climate change.

Existing Town Climate Change Strategies

Carbon Action Plan Draft

As mentioned above, a Carbon Action Plan draft was endorsed by the Town Council with the caveat of getting feedback from the public through a public outreach process. Within this document specific goals were proposed to reduce green house gas emissions (please refer to the attached Carbon Action Plan Draft for specific information). These goals were originally set to be in line with the State of Colorado’s targets from their Climate Action Plan. The overall green house gas reduction targets proposed in the draft are to reach 20% below our 2007 levels by 2020 and 80% below our 2007 levels by 2050. Initially we chose the State of Colorado standards as a starting point because we believed having a carbon action plan was an eligibility requirement for Federal Stimulus Energy funds that are to be distributed by the State. Based off of this belief staff quickly pulled together a carbon action plan draft that was in concert with the State’s recommendations. In the six months that have elapsed since the draft was reviewed staff has learned that a carbon action plan is no longer required for Stimulus eligibility and that funding under this program is still forthcoming. Now that there is opportunity to revisit this draft with less pressure of a deadline, staff is looking to the Task Force and community for guidance in determining whether these targets are appropriate or whether we should set more or less aggressive targets. To help guide us in this endeavor, staff has included examples of the goals other communities and agencies have set for themselves.

• The State of Colorado adopted a target for reducing GHG emissions by 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and an 80% GHG emission reduction by 2050. • Ann Arbor, MI has the goal of achieving 20% renewable energy by 2015. Aspen, Co recommends reducing City’s GHG emissions 20% below 2004 levels by 2009. • Santa Monica, CA has greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of 15% below 1990 levels community wide, and 30% below 1990 levels for government operations by 2015. As of 2005, community wide emissions have been reduced 1% and municipal emissions have been reduced 15%. • Park City, UT set a target of reducing GHG emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. • Jackson, WY set a goal of reducing the 2006 in-house energy use 10 percent by the year 2010. • Palo Alto, CA developed a strategy to cut GHG community emissions 5% below 2005 levels by 2012 and 15% by 2020.

• Fort Collins, CO adopted a target of reducing community GHG emissions by 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2005 levels by 20801. 30% below predicted worst-case 2010 levels by 2010. • Los Angeles, CA adopted a target of reducing community GHG emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2010. • Sebastopol, CA adopted a target of reducing its municipal operations GHG emissions by 30% between 2000 and 2008. • Chapel Hill, NC has been considering adopting a target of reducing emissions by 60%, basing their approach on the goals set for deep climate reduction in the United Kingdom Carbon Reduction project. http://www.cred-uk.org • Seattle City Light, the city's municipally owned utility, has established a goal of becoming climate neutral as a utility company2. • Newcastle, England is going carbon neutral Stockholm, Sweden is aiming to be fossil fuel free by 2050. • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has suggested the goal required to stabilize climate change is equal a 60-80% emissions reduction from present levels. One useful analysis on this topic has been developed by the UK Department of Trade & Industry's Energy Group: According to their white paper: "A reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 60% by 2050 is consistent with the level of reduction likely to be needed by developed countries in order to move towards stabilization of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at no more than 550 ppm, taking account of a realistic assessment of emissions growth in developing countries. This is set out in more detail in the Defra paper the scientific case for setting a long term emission reduction target, available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange." • Santa Fe New Mexico passed a resolution to eliminate fossil-fuel power from all city buildings by 2030. As well, targets include that the fossil fuel reduction standard for all new buildings be increased to: 60% in 2010; 70% in 2015; 80% in 2020; 90% in 2025; and carbon-neutral by 2030.

Carbon Action Plan Draft

Below is the text of the Town’s Carbon Action Plan Draft.

Overview

The Town of Breckenridge joined the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (ICLEI) in the winter of 2009 and committed to developing an emissions reduction strategy. The Town’s first order of business was developing an emissions inventory. The Community Development Department took on the issue of creating a Carbon Action Plan as a component of the Town’s broader Sustainability Action Plan. Over the last 9 months Community Development Staff have been working on the creation of a Carbon Action Plan, which outlines steps for the entire Breckenridge community to significantly reduce emissions and become more energy independent.

This plan provides long term goals, as well as short-term steps for attaining these goals. It is based on input from the Town’s elected officials and Town Staff. The plan will evolve and continue to be refined over time, but lays out a framework and steps, to significantly improve Breckenridge’s carbon footprint.

1 Fort Collins revised their goals in 2008 after coming to the realization in 2005 they would not meet their original goals and to much of their recommend action steps falling outside of their control. 2 It should be noted much of Seatle’s electricity comes from hydro-electric sources.

The Carbon Action Plan proposes three key goals:

1. Lead by example. The Town should make its buildings and operations a model of energy efficiency and renewable energy while reducing energy costs. The Town can be the early trend-setter, making it easier for more households and businesses to adopt practices once they see they work.

2. Adopt and Implement Community-wide Policies to increase Energy Efficiency, Use of Renewable Energy, Reduce Dependence on Fossil Fuels and Limit Waste Generation. Many aspects of energy use are the result of policies, ordinances, and regulations that were made over time. Change these rules and we significantly change how we use energy. This plan recommends that the Town upgrade various ordinances and regulations that influence energy use, where useful adopt new ones, and where appropriate, join with others to address issues beyond town boundaries.

3. Green Branding. Breckenridge can pursue implementation of this energy plan in ways that strengthen the community’s “green brand” and support green businesses.

Within each Goal Area are specific Actions which represent what Breckenridge must achieve in order to reduce our carbon output. For each goal specific Indicators have been developed to measure progress toward meeting the goals. Indicators are tools that help to determine the condition of a system, or the impact of a program, policy or action. When tracked over time indicators tell us if we are moving toward carbon reduction and provide us with useful information to assist with decision-making.

Why a Breckenridge Carbon Action Plan? Global warming is nearly universally recognized by scientists, and much of the public, as one of the most important threats facing human civilization, and political and military stability. This rise in temperatures has major implications for international migration, economic prosperity, and the future of human development. Locally, the forecasted changes in precipitation accompanying climate change could dramatically alter seasonal snowfall patterns, increase the incidence of forest fires, and lead to seasonal water shortages. In addition to these environmental reasons for a plan, there is also the added economic benefit of reducing energy costs to both the Town and its residents.

There are many reasons to pursue a low-carbon future:

1. Local Action to Combat Global warming A carbon action plan will help us take an active part in addressing global warming. Nine of the 10 warmest years in recorded history have occurred since 1995, and there is broad scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that our earth is quickly approaching a tipping point with respect to this issue. Breckenridge is unique in the sense that our local economy is largely driven by being a premiere destination for winter recreation. To ensure the Town continues to have the ability to remain a winter recreation destination we must take aggressive steps at the local level to combat the larger issue of global warming. By taking these steps, we can hopefully influence other communities to take similar actions.

2. Enhanced Quality of life and Livability Implementing clean energy improvements also has near-term benefits on the quality of our buildings, and our community. Continuing to make Breckenridge a place that offers a variety of options for mobility, making it easy to bike, walk, or take transit, and continuing with compact, energy efficient land use patterns, also leads to a high quality, healthy living environment. In addition to the more quantifiable

economic and energy security benefits, implementing more sustainable energy solutions enhances the overall livability and beauty of our community.

3. Energy Independence and Energy Security The vast amount of Breckenridge’s energy is imported either from other parts of our country, or other parts of the world. Breckenridge is currently completely dependent on these distant places for our energy needs. There is growing concern about the amount of oil imported from volatile foreign countries and energy independence is increasingly seen as one of the key components of a more peaceful world. In addition, requiring less energy from far away places will insulate Breckenridge from energy shocks and spikes in cost. It is important to note that in terms of oil dependence, transportation consumes 68% of all oil in the U.S. however in Breckenridge, commercial energy use accounts for the highest portion of community energy use.

4. Economic Benefits In 2007 Breckenridge citizens and businesses spent over $6.8 Million on electricity and natural gas. In addition, the combined total bill for motor fuel from all Breckenridge citizens and businesses was estimated at more than $6.4 Million. Town Government alone spent $765,881 on electricity and natural gas costs in 2007. The vast majority of money spent on energy related bills immediately leaves the local economy. Finding ways for each household, business, and government operation to spend less on energy means a significant amount of funds can be used on other priorities, generating economic benefits and improving quality of life for the Town’s residents.

5. Tapping unique local resources and success to date Breckenridge has an abundance of local and regional talent and experience to draw from. The Town has recently partnered with the Governor’s Energy Office in providing monetary incentives for solar hot water systems. The Town’s electricity provider Xcel Energy has existing programs for efficiency and renewable energy. Xcel will spend more than $1 billion on new wind farms and solar installations in the coming years. Many local architects and builders practice green building techniques. Summit County’s builders, architects, and elected officials initiated a progressive green building code that was adopted in 2009. Today, there are many efficient homes in the area, utilizing a variety of different sustainable practices. In short, our community is well positioned to make rapid progress on the clean energy initiative described below, and can address these issues in a hopeful and innovative way that will help Breckenridge further prosper.

Breckenridge’s ENERGY AND CLIMATE PROTECTION GOALS

Around the country communities are selecting emissions goals to spur and guide climate protection efforts. Emissions reductions goals are an evolving science. We have based our emissions goals on what other active climate protection cities and corporations are doing. Goals will be refined as implementation of the plan moves forward. In addition to emissions goals our plan includes more qualitative goals.

1. Town Government: Lead by Example

Existing /Short Term Actions • Create the organizational, human resource, and financing framework for ensuring this plan is turned into action. Town will identify opportunities for saving energy and money based off of energy audit information. • 2011 budget will include ways to increase percentage of renewable energy.

• The Town will continue to support efforts to create in-town workforce housing for employees to reduce the need to commute. • The Town will continue to encourage Town employees commute by carpool, bus, bicycling or walking. • The Town will continue to encourage Town employees to make in-town trips on bicycle or on foot when practical. • Town staff is studying the feasibility of wind power for future development on Block 11 through the CMC test project. • Implement town facility waste diversion program in 2011. • Look into sustainable purchasing practices for all Town procurements.

Long Term Actions • Establish a Program for Energy Efficiency Retrofits in Municipal Buildings. • The Town commits to using best practices in energy efficiency and renewable energy in constructing all new buildings and operations. • The Town will increase the percentage of renewable energy by 50% by 2020, either through on-site renewable generation, or through purchasing more power from renewable sources. • All new town vehicle purchases strive for more fuel efficient models. • Future roadways should designed from a complete streets perspective and utilize energy saving designs such as roundabouts and LED lighting.

Action Monitoring Town Government Indicators Targets Energy Use 20% below 2007 levels by • Town facilities use 2020 for Town facility use Renewable Energy Use By 2014 10% of all electricity use in Town • Percent of Town facilities energy use from facilities should come from renewable sources. renewable sources Solid Waste Generation Generation: Do not exceed year 2007 levels by • Total Town facility generation (also report per 2014 in all Town facilities (Possibly reduce by capita and by department) 20%). • Town facility amount landfilled Diversion: Increase amount diverted to 40%- • Town facility amount diverted (recycled, 75%3 of total by 2014 in all Town facilities. composted, etc) from landfill

3 Recent audit of Town Hall estimated 90% of trash could be either recycled or composted. Summit County’s goal is divert 75% of waste by 2020.

Transportation Reduce fleet fuel consumption 20%-40%by • Average fuel efficiency of entire Town fleet. 20204 5. • Town staff vehicle miles traveled Increase participation in green commutes • Participation in Green Commutes program program on a yearly basis. • Bike usage for Town business Increase Town related bike usage on a yearly basis

2. Adopt and Implement Community-Wide Policies to increase Energy Efficiency, Use of Renewable Energy, Reduce Dependence on Fossil Fuels and Limit Waste Generation.

Existing/Short-Term Actions • Town will promote a leadership position and advocate on renewable energy supply and efficiency issues. • Implement Sustainable Building Code • Review Town codes to ensure they are in line and not in conflict with the community’s ability to become more sustainable. • Partner with utilities, non-profits and others to promote alternative energy. The Town should work with Xcel Energy, Summit County Government, the High Country Conservation Center and others to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future, offering programs to households and businesses that combine financing, technical assistance, and education. • Promote solar and appliance incentives from the Town, GEO, HC3 and Xcel and federal tax credits on renewable energy and efficiency. • The Town will not collect building or planning fees for renewable energy infrastructure projects. • The Town will not collect Town sales tax on renewable energy producing infrastructure. • Review Town policies and development regulations to ensure that the Town is not encouraging vehicle dependence, and discouraging biking, walking and transit usage in unintended ways. • Review all Town codes to ensure that they back up the goal of moving away from automobile dependence and are not in direct conflict with these goals. • Actively support County waste reduction/diversion strategies such as pay as you throw, recycling centers and composting. • Support weatherization programs for existing building stock to evaluate costs and implementation strategy. Explore opportunities for low cost energy savings: water heater blankets, insulation and caulk, blower door and Energy Star Ratings.

Long Term Actions • Work with other communities and any statewide efforts to improve state policies to encourage a more climate friendly transportation, energy generation and waste disposal practices. • Increase transit mode share by working regionally to upgrade transit: Breckenridge Summit Stage & Rocky Mountain Rail Authority representatives will encourage SS and RMRA to develop a timeline, target dates, and implementation plan for implementing regional Transit upgrades. • Recommend implementation plan for Energy Star Purchasing Policy for town operations with supporting EPA reference and guidelines.

4 Summit County has set 35% as their for reduction target for fleet below their 2008 baseline to be achieved by 2020. 5 Can reduce fuel consumption 15% - 20% just by replacing older vehicles with newer vehicles that are the same model (2001 Tahoe replaced with 2010 Tahoe). We can gain 40% -50% by replacing existing vehicles with hybrids (2001 Tahoe replaced with 2010 Highlander or Escape Hybrid).

• Support the Summit County Energy Working Group to advise the community on energy independence goals. • Participate in regional transportation demand management programs and promotions.

Action Monitoring Community-Wide Indicators Targets Energy Use 20% below 2007 levels by • Town-wide use 2020 for Town-wide use Renewable Energy Use By 2014 10% of all electricity use Town-wide • Percent of Town-wide energy use from renewable should come from renewable sources. sources • Number of renewable energy system Cos Yearly growth of renewable energy system COs

Solid Waste Generation Generation: Do not exceed year 2007 levels by • Total Town-wide generation (also report per 2014 Town-wide. capita) (Possibly reduce by 20%). • Town-wide amount landfilled • Town-wide amount diverted (recycled, composted, Town-wide Diversion: Increase amount diverted etc) from landfill to 40% - 75% of total by 2014.

Transportation Reduce town fuel consumption 20% below 2007 • Estimated Town vehicle miles traveled levels by 20206. • Per capita ridership of Breckenridge Freeride Transit System Yearly increase of per capita Breckenridge • Comparison of Skier numbers to Ski Resort Freeride transit system Parking numbers • Work with BRC to expand Green Commutes Yearly increase in skiers to cars ratio. program to all BRC member businesses

3. Green Branding

Long Term Actions: • Partner with sustainable energy businesses, HC3 and the BRC to create a green brand for the Town. • Develop informational materials to promote Breckenridge as a center of sustainability. • Create a supportive environment for businesses associated with green technologies and support green businesses. • Publicize our Bicycle Friendly Community award. • Start a biking, walking campaign for in-town transportation. • Conduct ongoing publicity campaigns to promote sustainable transportation, including the promotion of biking, walking and transit as main transportation modes within Breckenridge, make Breckenridge known for respecting, encouraging biking, walking and transit. • Breckenridge will work to educate Town guests that once they arrive in Town the Town will provide the transportation for them. No cars necessary.

6 May not be possible to monitor this target.

Action Monitoring

Green Branding Indicators Targets Green Branding Positive yearly growth trend in • Percent of residents aware of the awareness from visitors and guests. Town’s green efforts. • Percent of visitors aware of the Town’s green efforts. Green Businesses Positive yearly growth trend of • Number of “Green Businesses” certified “Green Businesses. certified by HC3.

Implementation and Financing To ensure this document turns into action we need to answer “Who will do the work, who is responsible for moving items forward, and where does the funding come from?” Possible organizational/staffing arrangements: • In-house Sustainability Coordinator within Town Government. Community will fund adequate human resource units (HRU’s) to cover this effort. • Town continues to support the High Country Conservation Center and their efforts to reduce the County’s carbon footprint. • Power Purchase Agreement: Town contracts with a for-profit company to implement renewable energy production on Town owned properties. • Individual contractors on a project by project basis.

It will take a team of resources to implement the plan, and it may require using a combination of several above-listed approaches.

Possible financing sources Financing is required for staffing, management, and upfront costs of efficiency upgrades and installation of renewable energy systems. In addition to financing the plan from the Town’s general fund here are other potential sources of financing that have been utilized by other successful plans:

Bonds: In 2001 San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved a landmark $100 million bond initiative that paid for solar panels, energy efficiency and wind turbines for public facilities. The measure paid for itself entirely from energy savings at no cost to taxpayers.

Financial Districts: Berkeley California’s Financing Initiative for Renewable and Solar Technology (FIRST) allows property owners to borrow money from the city's Sustainable Energy Financing District to install photovoltaic (PV) systems and repay the cost over 20 years through an annual special tax on property tax bills. Berkeley expects the program to initially fund 40 installations. Applications that were not accepted during the pilot phase will be put on the waiting list for the next round of applications.

Grants: the Town and HC3 have raised significant grant funds to date for energy improvements in Breckenridge, and grants can be a valuable part of the funding mix.

Revenue-generating mechanisms: The energy plan suggests pursuing a revenue generating mechanism such as Pitkin County’s Renewable Energy Mitigation Program.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Breckenridge Town-wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2007 Equiv CO 2 (tons) Equiv CO 2 (%) Energy (MMBtu) Residential 109,279 39.3 721,920 Commercial 118,010 42.5 852,542 Industrial 23,154 8.3 72,594 Transportation 21,700 7.8 253,190 Waste 5,835 2.1 Total 277,978 100.0 1,900,246

Emission Reduction Targets In determining appropriate reduction targets, staff researched many leading energy plans to base our reduction targets off of. Staff consulted energy plans from the State of Colorado, Ann Arbor, MI, Aspen, CO, Carbondale, CO, Chapel Hill, NC, Fort Collins, CO, Jackson, WY, Los Angeles, CA, Palo Alto, CA, and Park City, UT. Through our research we found greenhouse gas reduction targets to range from 7% - 30% below the reported baseline year. With a projection of reduction attainment to be accomplished within 5-15 years of the plan’s start date. For example the State of Colorado adopted a target for reducing GHG emissions by 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.

Works Cited

Aspen Global Change Institute. (2006). Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential Responses. Aspen: Aspen Global Change Institute.

Town of Breckenridge. (2008). Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan. Breckenridge: Town of Breckenridge.

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Colorado, Boulder, and Western Water Assessment. (2009). Colorado Climate Change: A Synthesis to Support Water Resource Management and Adaptation. Denver: Colorado Water Conservation Board.

Preston, Gabe. (1999). Post-Construction Residential Workforce Dynamics. Durango: RPI Consulting.

United States Global Change Research Program. (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Venturoni, Linda. (2006). The Social and Economic Effect of Second Homes. Silverthorne: Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.

Forest Health

History During the mining boom of the late 1800’s, most of the lodgepole pine stands surrounding Breckenridge, were clear-cut. The generation of the replacement stand was not actively managed, and therefore came back as a dense, even aged regrowth lodgepole forest.

Twenty to thirty years ago, the US Forest Service (USFS) was actively managing timber harvests in the Upper Blue, in an effort to diversify the age and density of the lodgepole forest. When that practice ended here, it also ended in most of the rest of their jurisdiction in the state. The private sector responded by reducing capacity, and closing down most of the active sawmills and other forest products processing facilities that served the area.

The severe regional drought that occurred in 2002 left our monoculture lodgepole forests that were nearing the end of their normal life expectancy in a greatly compromised state to ward off a stand clearing infestations like the one which we are experiencing now. Among forestry experts, predictions for 90 to 95% mortality are common for the lodgepole stands in our area. Forest management agencies, local government, the private sector, and property owners have all mobilized in the years following the drought to develop plans to actively manage the forest in an effort to be prepared as best they can for a potential catastrophic forest fire. Staff has been working to coordinate these efforts in our community, in order to avoid duplication, fill gaps in addressing the threat, and apply for outside funding to support these efforts.

Policy Direction

“Encourage the preservation of recreation and intrinsic resources through commenting on Forest Service proposals.” (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Work cooperatively with the Forest Service to establish joint-planning efforts on the Intermix management areas.” (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Address forest insects and disease problems in order to help preserve forest resources. Take a comprehensive approach to addressing the pine bark beetle infestation, from short-term tree removal to longer-term programs that include replanting and watershed planning and protection efforts.” (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Carefully evaluate the effects of pesticide use in controlling pine bark beetle infestations and manage pesticide spraying programs to avoid environmental impacts.” (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Support hazardous and diseased tree removal and wildfire mitigation including the discouragement of wood shingles; but balance them with other goals such as landscaping, visual resources, buffers, etc.” (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

The statements listed above from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan environmental chapter succinctly points out the overall importance of Forest Health to the community.

Analysis - Where are we today?

Agencies with which we are working:

Over the last several years, we have been working with the USFS, Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS), Summit County Government, and our closest partner, Red White and Blue Fire Protection District (RWB). Together we have laid the cornerstone for all of our efforts, that being the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). That plan is based on a fuels hazard, and community asset analysis, and outlines our collective priorities for minimizing the risk from wild fire. Having a CWFPP in place is a common eligibility requirement for grants from state and federal sources. The Plan was jointly developed by the member agencies of the Summit County Wildfire Council. Those members include Breckenridge and the other municipalities in Summit County, RWB, Lake Dillon Fire District, Summit Co., CSFS, and the USFS.

Layered Efforts There are a number of efforts currently being pursued by varying combinations of all of the agencies mentioned above. Some are in the planning stages, others have already had significant on the ground work completed. Generally all of the efforts are consistent with the CWWP recommendations. Ranging from landscape scale, down to individual properties, those efforts include:

The USFS Breckenridge Project creates defensible space around the Breckenridge and the Town of Blue River. The initial plan was to meander a 400 foot clear cut in a 1500 foot band that encircles the two towns. This was presented to the Council in September, with the next step being the initiation of the NEPA permitting process. Currently, specific funding has not been identified for any of the cutting units, however there is a high level of confidence within the USFS that it will materialize. As currently proposed, we will see some of our watershed protection accomplished with this plan in the Indiana Gulch area, in the form of fuels reduction and access improvements. This will likely be the biggest fuels break plan in terms of total volume of fuel load reduction, and in terms of horizontal separation between urban development and the forest.

Watershed Protection – The watershed above Goose Pasture Tarn has been ranked as a Category 5, (area of highest concern as a threat to watersheds from wildfire) in a general study conducted by JW Associates. The lead agency on the study was the Denver Water Board, with a long list of funding participants (including the Town through our membership in the Clinton Ditch consortium). We are currently working with the USGS to develop specific drainage hazard assessments in an effort to design specific projects for NEPA permitting and outside funding. The majority of this watershed is on USFS land. We expect to see preliminary reporting from USGS in December of this year.

Fuel Breaks Behind Subdivisions – We have planned with the RWB, to establish fuel breaks on non- federal lands that the Town and/or home owners associations control, in an effort to further buffer subdivisions from wild fires moving through the forest. The first project was implemented this year in the Highlands Park / Discovery Hill Subdivision. More are planned. The Discovery Hill Fuel Break was funded through a grant from the Colorado State Forest Service. The total grant amount was $90,000 with a $45,000 match requirement. The match was provided by the Red, White and Blue Fire Protection District, Town of Breckenridge and the Highlands Park Home Owners Association. Additional funding for future fuel breaks will be sought through grants from the Wildfire Council, State Forest Service and ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds.

Town Open Space Project List – The Town is in the first year of a three year plan to conduct forest management in some form on all of our open space parcels, comprising a list of thirty nine projects. To date approximately 78 acres have been cleared on Town open space to help create fuel breaks and initiate

regeneration of unhealthy lodgepole-dominated mountain pine beetle infested stands. Funding for these projects came from the Town’s Open Space Fund, the CSFS through a Summit County Wild Fire Council Grant, and supportive local homeowners associations. The Town will address up to 243 additional acres on other open space properties targeted for varying levels of forest health or fire mitigation treatments during 2010 and 2011. This does not necessarily mean, however, that all of this acreage will be cleared. Treatments on this acreage will be everything from no action, to very selective thinning, to patch cuts, to clear cuts. Approximately $150,000 has been earmarked in the Open Space Fund to treat open space parcels within Town boundaries in 2010. Other forest management efforts include a variety of treatments on the West Moonstone parcel, and an analysis and prescription for what amounts to no further action in Cucumber Gulch.

Town Owned Properties General Fund – since the beginning of the MPB infestation, the Town has ramped up its efforts in combating the epidemic. Beginning in 2004, we spent $20,000 on removing beetle hit trees and limited spraying on Town owned property. In 2005 we spent $60,000, again on removing infested trees and limited spraying. In 2006 we spent $170,000 continuing to remove infested trees and limited spraying on Town owned property. In 2007 the Town began the chipping program. $516,656 in total was spent that year on removing infested trees and limited spraying on Town owned property. $332,088 was spent out of the $516,656 to pay to have cut trees chipped on private property. In 2008 the Town changed the chipping program to a $40 per tree reimbursement for private property owners that cut trees by the recommended date. $733,552 was spent in 2008 on the removal of infested trees and limited spraying along with the reimbursement program, of which $576,627 was paid to private property owners that cut infested trees by the required date. In 2009 the Town has budgeted $177,510 for open space parcels. After grant dollars are submitted for this, our share will be half or $88,755.00. We are estimating Forest Health/Special Projects expenditures on non Open Space parcels to come to $92,000 for 2009, when all is said and done. This includes approximately $16,000 for spraying.

In 2009 there are no reimbursements for private property owners, and the Town has budgeted only for the removal of infested trees and limited spraying again. The 2010 Budget number is significantly less than in past. This is due to anticipation of some Grant funding. The overall number is only $100K as proposed in the 2010 Budget. This is to include: Removal of dead and infested, spraying, etc.

Defensible Space – The Town adopted a mandatory Defensible Space Ordinance in June of 2009. A group of citizens submitted a petition for referendum, rather than put the ordinance to a vote by the people the Council decided to repeal the ordinance. A voluntary Defensible Space Ordinance was adopted shortly afterwards in August of 2009. There is currently a condition of approval placed on all new development applications that requires fuels reduction prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. That condition of approval reads: “Applicant shall remove leaf clutter, dead branches and dead standing trees from the property, dead branches on living trees shall be trimmed to a minimum height of six (6) feet and a maximum height of ten (10) feet above the ground.” The Town Council has also appointed a Fire Wise Task Force to look at Fire Wise issues and the future of defensible space for Breckenridge, (more on this below).

Wild Fire Event Planning – Earlier this year, Summit County convened a half day seminar for local units of government and emergency response agencies, for the purpose of educating all of us on how to deal with a big wild fire in our area. The typical length of such an event runs from several hours to seven days. The costs of fighting a sizeable event can easily get into the millions of dollars. Much of that cost is reimbursable if reporting protocols are followed. However, it was made clear to all of us, that we should anticipate having to shoulder a fair amount of financial responsibility for such an event, and be prepared to commit other manpower and equipment resources as we have at our disposal.

Evacuation Management – The Town Police staff presented a report on their plan for evacuating the Town areas affected by a potential wildfire. The specific strategies would be situational depending on the location and direction of the wild fire spread.

Fire Wise Task Force – In the aftermath of the repeal of the mandatory defensible space ordinance, the Town Council appointed the Fire Wise Task Force consisting of a number of property owners, a representative from the RWB, and a Town Council member. The Task Force will meet over the next four to six months and provide recommendations to the Town Council mainly on issues directly related to home owners. Those issues include revisions to the Mountain Pine Beetle Ordinance, defensible space regulations, fire wise building materials regulations, and forest management as it affects home owners. Grants – Town staff has been applying for grant funding opportunities as they are announced. We received $71,160 in 2009 from the Wildfire Council which helped fund our efforts on Town owned property. Recently, we have been notified that our application for ARRA grant funding has been denied. Staff will continue to research grant opportunities, and apply liberally for all of those we think we have a chance of receiving. Town Staff has applied for another $50,000 grant for Town owned property from the County Wildfire Council. The announcement for that grant award will be in May of 2010. The Town will be applying for another forest health grant from the State made possible by HB1199.

Public Education – To date we have updated the Town’s website regarding MPB, Defensible Space, open space forest health plans and Fuel Break Plans. Staff has also worked with the RWB to attend HOA meetings on a regular basis, along with newspaper and local television coverage. The Wild Fire Council also received a grant for some signage that educates the public on the effects from the MPB epidemic and how to reduce fuels. These signs will be located around the county with two signs in Breckenridge either at the Golf Course/Nordic Center or Recreation Center where they will have high public visibility.

As you can see, we have been very active in planning for forest management on all fronts. The RWB Fire District has been instrumental in helping us develop most of the elements in our planning, and has been a co-applicant on our grant applications. The layered effect of all of these plans, if brought to fruition, will hopefully give us a set of strategies that strikes a reasonable balance of allocating scarce resources, with providing reasonable protection for the community. The scope and scale of most of these plan elements is expandable if more resources materialize.

Town Policies Revisions

The Town is in the process of evaluating revisions to our fundamental policy direction with regard to managing forest resources. Most of that effort will be directed toward updating the Landscaping policy in the Development Code, and updating the Mountain Pine Beetle Ordinance. Other efforts consist of allocating resources, including staff work priorities, and prioritizing budget expenditures for forest management projects.

Up until recent times the general policy direction we have implemented is that of saving as many trees as possible, mostly for aesthetic reasons, with the limited exceptions being allowing the abatement of diseased or hazardous trees. With the onslaught of pine beetle infestation, and community acceptance of the severity of the epidemic, we are grappling with how to transition from keeping the forest cover in tact and fighting the epidemic, to now reducing the threat of wildfire, primarily through fuels reduction. This is a fairly radical change of policy direction and resource allocation on an issue that is a major part of our identity as a mountain resort community. The attendant public education effort and comprehensive rewrite of policies is proving at times to be tricky business.

Probably the most far reaching policy we could support is the long term one that encourages the USFS to get back into actively managing the forest in an effort to diversify the age of the stand, the species composition, and to reduce the stand density. As is the case with most agricultural crops, they need to be actively managed in order to achieve desired results.

Action Steps and Options for Consideration

• Watershed Protection – o Develop fuel mitigation projects, and design plans for water sedimentation facilities that would intercept debris flows, keeping them from reaching and inundating our water treatment plant at Goose Pasture Tarn. o Pursue USFS cooperation, NEPA permitting and grant funding for these projects. • Support the USFS in their Breckenridge Fuel Mitigation Project. • Support HOAs in their efforts to create fuel reduction projects and secure grant funding from the Wild Fire Council and other sources. • Implement Code and policy changes that make private property less vulnerable to the effects of wildfire. • Continue to plan and implement forest management actions on Town owned or managed property. • Continue to plan for a coordinated response to wildfire events with local and regional emergency response agencies. • Plan for the financial implications of fighting a major wild fire. • Continue to apply for grant funding to support all of our efforts at forest management. • Support the USFS in their efforts to manage the forest age, species and density.

Childcare

Policy Direction

“Expand support for non-profits that provide services to the Breckenridge community” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“The Town of Breckenridge is a cohesive and diverse community where residents and visitors experience an historic mountain town with characteristic charm that offers a safe, friendly, peaceful atmosphere where individuals can live, work, and raise a family.” (Vision Plan)

“Provide Town support for new and existing daycare facilities in the community” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

Analysis and Background

For many years the Town and the County have experienced a shortage of affordable quality care. In 2000, the Summit County Board of Commissioners commissioned a Summit Childcare Strategic Planning Team to evaluate the issues. Their report was issued in February of 2001 and described the importance of high quality care to the community, to local families, and for the healthy development of children into successful adults. The report identified the most significant issues in local childcare as: 1) a shortage of slots (licensed providers were only meeting 30-50% of the demand for childcare which was driven by high labor force participation) 2) insufficient revenue for centers to cover expenses (rates that were perceived to be affordable to local families were not sufficient to cover costs so all Centers were operating on non- sustainable budgets and relying on fundraising events to cover up to 20% of operating expenses) and 3) inability of centers to compensate teachers and staff competitively (attrition rates of 40% for childcare professionals were negatively impacting the quality of care and efficiency of operation).

The report found several issues that contributed to a ‘market failure’ in local childcare, including the community’s high cost of living, high workforce participation rates, and projected job growth. The report concluded that new sources of revenue coupled with cost reductions would be necessary to sustain affordable quality care in the community.

For many years the Town of Breckenridge had been supporting local childcare with grants and land leases including the 1995 land lease to Carriage House and the 2005 land lease to Little Red School House. Even with support from the Town, the Centers struggled financially and access to affordable quality care continued to be an issue for local families. By 2006 the wait list at Breckenridge Centers exceeded 200 children and Kinderhut announced it would be closing its Breckenridge center thereby eliminating 73 daycare spots. The Town Council created a sub-committee in 2006 to address both childcare issues and affordable housing issues, commissioned an updated Needs Assessment, and organized a Childcare Task Force with representatives from local Centers, from early Childhood Options, and other professionals in the field of childcare. The Task Force was asked to identify strategies to address both the short term immediate ‘crisis’ and the long term needs of the community.

Summary of 2007 Needs Assessment and Childcare Plan endorsed by the Town Council

The Needs Assessment projected demand for 56 to 69 slots to accommodate families that live or work in Breckenridge. The report indicated that the need would increase to 100-115 slots by buildout (2014) if affordable care was available and families increased use of care from 1 or 2 days a week to 4 or 5 days a week. The task force recommended several initiatives which the sub-committee and the Council endorsed. The initiatives that were approved and initiated by the Town included: • Construction of a new center to increase local capacity by 64 slots to eliminate wait lists and satisfy local demand • Support to Timberline Learning Center, a start up non-profit childcare operator selected to lease/operate the new center • Designation of specific account for childcare program. The account is funded by direct transfer from the Excise Fund. The amount approved to be transferred from the Excise Fund for childcare programs is approximately $1m annually from 2007 thru 2013. That is equal to the amount of debt service that was freed up beginning in 2007 when the Council began levying a property tax to pay a General Obligation Debt (GO) for the Ice Rink and Golf Course. Prior to 2007 the GO debt was paid out of the General Fund and the Town was not collecting the property tax to cover the GO debt. Voters had approved a property tax for that purpose, so beginning in 2007 the property tax was levied to cover the GO debt, basically allowing the Town to use Excise Funds to pay for childcare rather than the GO debt. In 2014 the debt related to the Ice Rink and Golf Course and the income related to the property tax will both extinguished. Approximately one third of the annual Excise transfer is used annually on childcare programs with the balance carrying over each year to create a Reserve Fund for Childcare. • Debt Relief to the three existing Centers (Carriage House, Little Red, and Breckenridge Montessori) to significantly reduce their operating expenses and allow the creation of Capital Improvement and Maintenance Funds • Annual salary supplement to the four non-profit Centers in Town to increase teacher/staff compensation, reduce attrition, and incentivize professional growth. As a condition of the salary supplements Centers are required maintain competitive wages and balanced budgets through rate increases and cost reductions. The annual salary supplement decreases annually and expires in 2012. • Scholarship program for families paying in excess of 15% of income for childcare. As Centers increase rates to cover the true cost of care and pass this cost on to the users, the scholarship program is available to assist local families in covering this expense. The Scholarship budget increases annually as rates increase, number of children in care increases, and use of care increases. A reserve fund has been established to sustain this program after the revenue stream expires after 2013. Based on current budget the scholarship program can be sustained through 2018-2020 after which a new revenue stream will need to be identified if the program is to be maintained.

Childcare Support by Town of Breckenridge ($)

New Debt Start Up Salary Scholarship Revenue for Reserve Center Relief (TLC) Supplement Childcare Fund (CH,LR, Programs BM) 2007 618,442.11 154,795.00 15,000.00 788,237.11 (act.) 2008 3,680,848 95,500.00 260,361.84 139,917.50 1,080,000.00 714,500.00 (act.) 2009 209,950.55 297,799.39 1,093,750.00 1,291,206.00 (est.)

2010 160,570.00 316,556.00 1,076,431.00 1,877,486.00 (bud) 2011 115,241.00 345,724.00 1,081,066.00 2,519991.00 2012 0 474,795.00 1,073,792.00 3,118,988.00 2013 0 489,039.00 926,163.00 3,556,112.00 2014 0 500,000.00 0 3,056,112.00 2015 0 515,000.00 0 2,541,112.00 2016 0 530,450.00 0 2,010,622.00 2017 0 546,363.00 0 1,464,298.00 2018 0 562,753.00 0 901,545.00

Impacts of Breckenridge Programs:

Reports from the Centers and from early Childhood Options are collected annually. The 2010 reports summarizing 2009 activities are due to the Town this month. Previous reports indicate the impacts of the programs have been significant including: • Salary Increases: All Centers granted immediate salary increases (approximately 15-23%) and established pay scales equivalent to other teaching positions. Raises are available to reward training and professional development. All Centers have reported that attrition rates related to wage and salary have declined significantly. • Rates: Average charge to customer increased from $42 in 2007 to $57 in 2009 (average of 33%) • Maintenance Funds: All Centers have established Capital Funds and contribute annually to their reserve account. • Wait Lists: The 2007 wait list, which exceeded 200 children, was eliminated and only a short wait for infant spots was noted late in 2009. This may be attributable to both the addition of the new center and the economic recession of 2008-2009 which has resulted in less demand for childcare because of higher unemployment. • Scholarships: Scholarships were awarded to 69 children in 2008, 105 children in 2009, and have been approved for 148 children in 2010. In 2009 approximately 1/3 of the children in the Breckenridge centers utilized the scholarship program (105 of 308 enrolled). Approximately 1/3 of the children receiving scholarships are from very low income families (CCCAP) and account for approximately 56% of the financial awards.

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

• Continue to track the impacts of salary supplements (wages, retention, quality ranking, etc.) and the fiscal condition of local centers. • Continue to evaluate impact and demand for Scholarship Program and adjust criteria and budget as necessary. • Identify long term funding for childcare programs. While the Childcare Programs are funded from the Excise Fund, the money available to fund the program was made available because of a property tax that was levied in 2007 to cover approximately $1million of General Obligation Debt. Because of that property tax, less money is transfer from the Excise Fund to the General Fund and is therefore available for childcare. Since both the debt service and the property tax related to that debt service expire in 2014, the Council will need to evaluate whether a new designated property tax should be considered for childcare or whether the program will be funded from existing revenue. • Work with operators on cost reductions (i.e.: collective management). • Continue to evaluate demand and need for construction of new Center at build out. The project is identified in long term Capital Improvement Plan.

Water Quality & Supply

Policy Direction

“Water is one of our most valuable resources. Water provides for commercial businesses, residential use, vegetation and wildlife. To put it simply, without an abundant high quality water supply, the Breckenridge area would have little attractiveness”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

The statement listed above from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan environmental chapter succinctly points out the overall importance of water to the community. In the chapter’s policies section two specific statements are made regarding water.

“Assure an adequate supply of water by implementing water conservation methods”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Assure water is of high quality by addressing pollution source’s. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

Within the Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan’s Vision Statement two policies are linked with the issue of water.

“Where a strong and sustainable year-round economy … supports the diverse economic and employment needs of local residents”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Where the actions of the community ensure that wildlife and its habitat are protected, that views from Town to the surrounding mountains are maintained, that both air and water quality are clean and improved, and that accessible open space, trails, and backcountry are preserved”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

Analysis—Where are we Today? Water Availability Water buildout (as of summer 2010) was as follows (as excerpted Total Future from the Capacity Analysis): Residential 1936 Total Future As previously noted in the Capacity Analysis and updated for Commercial 436 Total Future 2010, the water system at buildout is projected to exceed buildout Residential & demand by 951 water SFEs under the system capacity that was Commercial 2,372 established by Water Division Manager Gary Roberts on April 11, Out of Town 490 2007. The system capacity of 13,055 water SFEs is based off of Total Future wet water treatment capacity solely from the Goose Pasture Tarn Within District 2,862 Plant, with precipitation numbers from our worst recorded drought Existing Within year in history, 1950. District 9,242 Projected Buildout 12,104 Historically water SFEs for Affordable housing units average out System Capacity 13,055 to be exactly 1.0 water SFE. Recently Town Council instituted a Excess SFEs at policy of transferring one SFE of Town owned remaining Buildout 951 commercial density for every two units of newly constructed deed Excess SFEs at restricted affordable housing. With this policy decision the Buildout + 914 Council has mitigated some of the water impacts from the WF Units 324

anticipated construction of workforce housing and increased the projected water rights surplus from 211 SFEs to 324 SFEs.

Water Storage

Looking to the future, there is some uncertainty if current precipitation levels will persist and the current levels of water will be available. Staff believes it is in our own best interest to plan infrastructure to store the maximum amount of wet water rights possible, to have the flexibility to allocate greatest ammount of our water rights as we see fit and safeguard the Town from an unforeseen drought situation. The Town has rights to store 1,400 Acre Feet (AF) of water. Presently the Town has capacity to store 800 AF at the Tarn reservoir. Council in the past has expressed desire to store more of the Town’s water rights on the McCain parcel. According to feasibility studies looking at utilizing the McCain site as a reservoir indicated storing a maximum of 400 AF and more realistically storing 200 AF onsite. When they were presented with conceptual plans, Council members indicated a preference for the 200 AF plan because the dam necessary for the project would be substantially lower and less obtrusive than what was proposed for the 400 AF version. It was estimated a 50-75 foot dam would be necessary for a 400 AF reservoir. Additionally Council preferred the 200 AF proposal because it wouldn’t occupy the entire site which the 400 AF option was shown doing. The estimated cost of constructing the proposed 200 AF reservoir was in the range of $10 – $20 million dollars.

Another idea that has been floated around to achieve better utilization of the Town’s water rights is the construction of a pump back system. A pump back system would return water that the Town has rights to, but does not have storage space for, back into Town from a point downstream. The pump back system in most cases would keep water levels on the Blue River higher on segments that are within the Town and thereby in theory the Town would have greater availability to utilize these water rights. The criticism of implementing a pump back system is that it may not provide any additional water to the Town when we would need it most in the case of a severe drought. It is theorized in the case of a severe drought there would be little no water to pump back because the river may have a very low flow or be dry. In this case having the additional storage of a reservoir would be a much better safeguard for protecting the Town’s water resources in the case of a major drought.

Water Quality

In addition to assuring there is an adequate water supply to the Town it is equally important to ensure that our water sources are kept clean and free of pollutants. Although the Town as a whole enjoys high quality water, there are nevertheless a number of human-related activities that have degraded waters within the Town and nearby. Historically, mining activities negatively impacted water quality, introducing high concentrations of trace elements (e.g., manganese, cadmium, zinc) into area streams. Other impacts come from stormwater runoff from highways (e.g., sediments, salts) and septic tank effluents. With that in mind, the State of Colorado classifies streams for certain uses (e.g., recreation) and establishes standards to protect those classified uses. With the exception of French Creek and the Blue River, from French Gulch to the Swan River, the streams in and around Town are generally meeting state standards. In cases where standards have been exceeded the Town has been actively trying to improve water quality through projects like the Wellington Oro Treatment Plant, the stormwater quality enhancement project and continued water quality testing.

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

1. Increase Town’s capacity to store a greater percentage of what our water rights allow. (Develop reservoir on McCain Parcel). 2. Implement “Pumpback Project”.

3. Encourage water conservation measures such as low flow fixture technologies, drought resistant landscaping and public education. 4. Continue water quality remediation efforts on French Creek & the Blue River. 5. Town work with QQ to monitor and protect water resources.

Housing

Policy Direction

The Town’s Vision Plan, JUMBP, the Affordable Housing Strategy, and the Housing Action Plan have cited affordable housing as a pressing issue that impacts the community’s character and economic sustainability.

“The Town of Breckenridge is commited to addressing this need by implementing programs identified the strategic plan…. It is intended that these programs will increase the inventory of affordable housing and move the community towards the goals set by the Town.” (Affordable Housing Strategy-2000)

“Ensure that Affordable Housing programs are accessible to all members of the community.” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Vision Plan participants repeatedly expressed concern about the cost of housing for local residents and the impact that the lack of affordable housing would have on the desire to maintain a diverse population.” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“The Town of Breckenridge shall continue to implement the recently completed Affordable Housing Strategy(RRC Associates, 2000)that identifies a number of programs aimed at creating affordable housing opportunities for local residents.” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Lack of affordable housing is consistently identifies as one of the most pressing problems in the Upper Blue Basin. Adequate supply and availability of affordable housing is critical to retaining a healthy community and healthy economy.” (Joint Uppper blue Master Plan)

Specific Policies endorsed by the Town Council in the 2008 Housing Action Plan includes: • “Have a diversity of permanently affordable housing integrated throughout the community which provides a variety of housing options to sustain the local economy and preserve the character of the community • “The proportion of employees who work in Breckenridge and also live there will not drop below the current level of 47%” • “Housing will be provided for all income levels up to 180% AMI with intent to preserve the middle class (80%-180%)”

Analysis—Where are we Today?

Historically the market has not provided sufficient affordable workforce housing to meet the needs of local employees/households. With high land cost and demand for housing from outside sources (second homes and retireers) real estate prices outpace wages and local employees have fewer and fewer affordable options in the community. Based on estimates from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the Economic Census it was estimated that there were 7,530 jobs (full time equivilant) in Breckenridge in 2006 and that by buildout there will be approximately 10,028 jobs. Because many Breckenridge employees hold multiple jobs (1.31 average jobs per employee) it is estimated that the community will need approximately 7,600 employees to fill the jobs at buildout. The 2006 needs assessment established a target of 914 additional units beyond the 743 deed restricted units already existing or approved. The need for additional units was based on the gap created by job growth (keep up), by in-commuters moving closer to jobs (catch up), and by current residents with housing problems (overcrowded/cost burdened). If the Town were to achieve 900 additional units, the total number of units designated for employees at buildout would be 1,643, which should house

approximately 3,089 employees (40% of total needed). As of June 2009 staff has identified possible sites/opportunities for approximately 589 of the 900 units. (2,800 employees/36% of total needed).

The Town has established a Housing Fund that is supported by the County-wide impact fee, a 1/8th percent sales tax, and a transfer from excise tax. This fund is used for the acquisition and development of affordable housing and to cover the housing subsidy. It has been estimated that on average the subsidy per unit is $50,000-$60,000 per unit based on 100% AMI units. The subsidy is higher for lower AMI units and lower for higher AMI units..

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

In October of 2007 the Town Council endorsed a master plan for affordable housing on the Town-owned Block 11 property. The plan allows for approximately 210 to 400 units depending on the density which ranges from 7 to 15 UPA. In February 2008 the Town Council also endorsed the attached Housing Action Plan which established specific goals, objectives, and tasks. We’d like to review both documents with the Task Force to determine if any modifications should be considered.

Town of Breckenridge

Workforce Housing Action Plan – 2008 FINAL (Endorsed by Council March 11, 2008)

This document is intended to guide efforts to achieve a sufficient amount of workforce housing to preserve the town’s character and support its economy. It incorporates and builds upon key elements of the Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan adopted August 28, 2002 and the Affordable Housing Strategy adopted May 23, 2000. It is a work in progress that will continue to evolve over time as specific work elements are completed and additional opportunities arise.

Vision

To have a diversity of permanently-affordable housing integrated throughout the community, which provides a variety of housing options to sustain the local economy and preserve the character of the community.

Policies

• Assure that workforce housing is comprised of a variety of densities and styles, and is accessible to all members of the community, both dispersed throughout the town and concentrated in neighborhoods of primary residences.

• Seek a balance between population growth and housing for employees who work in the community, with an emphasis on reducing the impacts of in commuting and providing the labor force needed for local businesses to succeed.

• Strive to ensure that ownership and rental housing for the workforce is provided for a wide diversity of income levels that support the local economy and preserves a vibrant middle class.

• Place priority on housing for employees who work in the Upper Blue providing products and services within the local economy. It is not the intent to utilize limited resources to provide housing for telecommuters, location-neutral remote workers, or residents who are unemployed.

• Utilize strategies that place top priority on development of units by the private sector, followed by acquisition of land for housing; payment of fees to the Town is third in terms of the options through which the responsibility for workforce housing will be shared.

Goals and Objectives

The primary goal of the Breckenridge Town Council is to insure that 900 additional workforce housing units are approved and/or constructed in the Upper Blue by the time the community reaches full build out. This goal is to be achieved through a combination of Town resources, impact fee and sales tax revenue, incentives, policies placed on new development, and partnerships. Approximately 60% of these units will address existing needs while 40% or 360 units will partially keep up with the demand for workforce housing as the community grows. Approximately 66% (600 units) should be ownership units and 33% (300) should be rental units.

The Breckenridge Town Council also seeks to insure that key characteristics of the community are preserved or enhanced through the adoption of these specific objectives:

• The proportion of employees who work in Breckenridge and also live there will not drop below the current level of 47%.

• The relationship between primary homes and second homes/vacation accommodations will not significantly change; at least 25% of all units will be occupied as primary residences at build out.

• Renters will be provided increased opportunities for ownership with the homeownership rate moving upward from its current level of 41%.

• Housing will be provided for all income levels up to 180% AMI with intent to preserve the middle class (80%-180%) based roughly on the income distribution as follows:

Income Distribution to be Targeted by Workforce Housing Initiatives

AMI % of % of Targeted Number of Total Households Distribution Units Need 2000 <50% AMI 30.1% 21.1% 25.60% 231 50.1 to 60% AMI 4.3% 2.6% 3.40% 31 60.1 - 80% AMI 6.0% 17.3% 11.70% 109 80.1 - 100% AMI 29.0% 19.3% 24.20% 216 100.1 - 120% AMI 6.9% 8.2% 7.60% 69 120.1% -140% AMI 14.9% 7.5% 11.30% 99 140%-180% 8.8% 24.0% 16.40% 145 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 900

2008 Work Plan

1. Annex the Stan Miller parcel to provide approximately 100 workforce housing units.

2. Amend relative requirements for new commercial development to partially address the keep-up demand it generates; remove the exemption for projects of less than 5,000 square feet and consider incentives to provide workforce housing on site though negotiated parking requirements, fee waivers, residential density and public subsidies/partnerships.

3. Amend the relative requirement for multi-family development removing the exemption for projects of less than 5,000 square feet to partially address the keep up demand it generates and consider incentives to provide workforce housing on site though negotiated parking requirements, fee waivers, residential density and public subsidies/partnerships.

4. Create a new relative requirement for single-family homes that encourages the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) in units of 3,500 square feet or larger, possibility through -10 points if not provided and +10 points if provided. Minimum and maximum sizes for the ADU’s should be established (400 to 800 sq ft) with covenants restricting occupancy to employees and an administrative system with enforcement procedures. Target – 50% of all units ≥ 3,500 sq ft, or 150 units by build out.

5. Amend the relative requirements for lodging (condo hotels, timeshare, hotels, etc,) so that development of accommodations is required to produce workforce housing more proportional to the number of jobs it generates.

6. Preserve market units that are now occupied by employees for occupancy as workforce housing in the future through buy downs, acquisition and resale/rental, buying the right to impose deed restrictions or other methods that might be identified. Evaluate the cost of this strategy and implement a program to evaluate the rate of loss by monitoring rental vacancies/availability, use of second homes, retirement trends, etc. Develop an annual target considering the projected loss and cost of the preservation program.

7. Create a partnership with a private developer for development of at least 40 workforce housing units on the Valley Brook parcel to partially address existing (catch-up) demand for workforce housing; amend LUGS to be consistent with the recently completed Valley Brook Master Plan.

8. Develop a concept, phasing plan, schedule and approximate budget for future development of the Block 11 parcel with at least 325 workforce housing units.

9. Pursue the acquisition of the Claimjumper parcel.

10. Negotiate with developers for construction of Phase 2 of Pinewood Village to add approximately 30 apartments.

11. Formalize incentives such as fee waivers, funding assistance, density transfers, supplying land and utility taps, tax rebates, and other methods for new construction and conversion of existing free market to affordable units.

12. Continue to work with the School District on partnerships for production of employee housing.

13. Continue to respond to opportunities for annexation with application of guidelines calling for 80% of the units to be workforce housing.

14. Consider expanded down payment assistance programs to increase home ownership opportunities such as the Funding Partners program proposed by the Summit County Housing Authority.

15. Utilize the Summit County Housing Authority for administration of deed restrictions, sale and rental of workforce housing units, homebuyer education and other specific tasks associated with managing the growing inventory of units. Work with the SCHA to develop a manual/procedural guide for use by the SCHA.

16. Revisit and update the standard deed restriction template and the Administrative Guidelines/Procedures to insure that deed restrictions and the guidelines are current, are standardized, and that they insure permanent affordability for local employees.

17. Track progress annually – number of units produced and preserved, age groups served, incomes served and number of units lost annually; modify strategies as appropriate.

Future Actions

1. Identify and land bank sites appropriate for workforce housing.

2. Evaluate opportunities for other Town-owned parcels that have been identified as potential sites for housing including the Ice Rink, Stillson and McCain sites.

3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the housing assistance offered to Town employees.

4. Work with the business community to create programs through which employers can help provide housing for their employers, known as employer-assisted housing (EAU).

5. Explore options for housing members of the workforce as they age and retire.

6. Expand efforts to acquire existing free-market units and convert them to permanently affordable workforce housing.

7. Explore other mechanisms for no net loss of units that function as workforce housing.

8. Work with the Housing Authority to make sure that renters who want to buy have adequate homebuyer education and resources to qualify for mortgages.

Accomplishments

The following table is an inventory of the employee housing units that have been produced through 2007 as a result of the implementation of strategies used alone or in combination including:

• The relative development code; • Fee waivers; • Density for employee units; • Land banking;

• Annexation policy; • Out of town water service.

This information should serve as a baseline for measuring the effectiveness of future programs.

Property Price Cap Avg AMI pre-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Subtotal Future Total Dispersed in Town No none 99 2 6 1 1 6 1 116 116 Wellington 1 Yes 99% 14 20 17 15 17 8 7 98 98 Wellington 2 Yes 110% 7 16 23 105 128 GibsonHeights Yes 71% 1 34 5 40 40 Vista Point Yes 113% 9 5 5 19 19 Kennington No none 36 36 36 Farmers Grove* No none 2 4 7 2 15 15 Monarch Townhomes Yes 90% 3 4 1 4 1 13 13 Breck Terrace Both 90% 20 11 5 15 51 129 180 Pinewood Village Yes 83% 74 74 74 Vic Landing Yes 86% 0 24 24 Maggie Placer Yes 106% 0 18 18 Stan Miller Yes 117% 0 100 100 Pinewood #2 Yes TBD 0 30 30 Valley Brook Yes TBD 0 40 40 Block 11 Yes TBD 0 325 325 Annual Increase 135 39 105 73 36 34 11 35 17 485 771 1,256 * Farmers Grove includes 35 additional units that are restricted for no short-term rental.

Other Options - The following options have been considered and are not recommended at this time:

1. Inclusionary Zoning, which would require a percentage of the units in new subdivisions to be deed restricted as workforce housing. This was not included in the work plan because all developable land within the Town is already subdivided. Therefore, inclusionary zoning is not viewed as a viable effective strategy at this time.

2. Commercial and Residential Linkage, which would have required new development to provide housing for a portion of the demand generated by new employees, was eliminated since the amount of new development is limited and the number of units that could be produced given legal constraints would be low relative to the amount of effort required to create and administer the requirements.

Revenue Expenses Interest $10,000 Acquisition of Block 11 parcel $960,000 Rental Income $28,000 Town Down Payment Assistance $60,000 Mortgage Payments $20,000 Town Rental Assistance $12,500 Impact Fee $800,000 Claimjumper parcel acquisition TBD Sales tax $285,600 Valley Brook development subsidy TBD Capital Funds $1,500,000 Buy Down Program TBD Transfers $462,441 County-wide Down Payment TBD Total $3,106,041

2008 Housing Budget

The Town has budgeted $1.5m from Capital funds through 2012 for a total of $7.5m for capital housing development; the Impact Fee is effective for 10 years and will generate an estimated $10m for housing projects.

Land Use

Residential & Commercial Buildout

Policy Direction

“Strategies should be adopted which encourage and support reductions in approved development levels in order to move toward a desirable activity level at build out which is roughly equivalent to 75% of the projected full build out. This section includes projections about build out and strategies which, if realized, will move the basin toward the targeted build out of approximately 10,500 residential units”. (Joint Upper Blue Master Plan).

Analysis—Where are we Today?

As a first step of conducting the capacity analysis, staff completed a thorough buildout analysis of every commercial, governmental, residential and vacant site located within the Town. The buildout analysis provides an inventory of units built today as well the ultimate buildout potential in the community based on existing zoning and entitlements.

All property was individually scrutinized for this project using a combination of individual property files, plats, land use guidelines, master plans, historical design standards and review of assessor data. All properties that received a certificate of occupancy prior to December 31, 2009 are counted as built for the purpose of this study.

In the future, annual updates to the buildout numbers will be done after year-end building permit information is available.

Residential Buildout

Town of Breckenridge Residential Buildout, 2009 Remaining Remaining Residential Existing Units Residential SFEs 7 SFEs (Realistic ): (Absolute): Total Residential Units: 6,711 (81% Built Out) 1,772 1,567 (19% Remaining)

Single Family: 1,252 557 557 Multi- Family: 3,091 1,215 1,010 Duplex: 308 1 1 Townhome: 390 1 1 Condo Hotel: 620 1 1 Fractional Ownership: 510 1 1

Lodge Room: 503 1 1

1For Remaining Residential SFEs, it is uncertain which type of multi-family use (e.g., condo hotel, lodge, etc.) will be developed on individual properties. Thus, Remaining SFEs for different multi-family uses are not indicated and instead are grouped together under the “multi-family” heading.

The terms “Absolute” and “Realistic” are used to describe buildout in the above table. “Absolute” refers to all density that is recognized on a property through Land Use Guidelines, master plans, or other entitlements. Absolute density can include phantom density—density that is assigned to a property but cannot actually be built because of physical limitations on the site. In contrast, “Realistic” density refers to the density that can reasonably fit on a property based on zoning and other entitlements.

Future Residential Development

The bulk of remaining residential SFEs are located in the Peak 7 & 8 Master Plan area (288 SFEs), the Highlands at Breckenridge (237 SFEs) and Wellington Neighborhood (107 SFEs). The remainder of available SFEs is spread out throughout town.

Commercial Buildout

Through the process of conducting the commercial buildout analysis, staff quickly realized that sticking to one density category could produce misleading results. As a solution, staff created three different density categories to show how the commercial density buildout could be developed. The three categories, Total Remaining Density, Possible Remaining Density, and Realistic Remaining Density are explained below. Additionally we have expanded these three categories to evaluate remaining above ground density.

“Total Remaining Density” (Includes Phantom) Total Remaining Density includes all density allocated to a property through the Town’s Land Use Guidelines, master plans, and other entitlements. This includes phantom density—density that is assigned but there is physically no realistic way to place the density on the site.

“Possible Remaining Density” (Includes Town owned property) Possible Remaining Density provides a more realistic analysis of buildout, as it excludes phantom density. Possible Remaining Density does include density located on properties currently used as parking lots.

“Realistic Density” (Excludes Town owned and phantom) Realistic Density excludes phantom density and density located in areas that may never be developed (e.g., parking lots).

Town of Breckenridge Commercial Buildout, 2009 Density Used Remaining Commercial Density (Square Feet) (Square Feet) Total Total (includes phantom) Possible (Includes Realistic (excludes town Town Parking Lots) parking lots & Phantom) 1,652,687 857,004 760,971 303,042 (68% Built Out) (32% Remaining)

Note: Density includes 407,000 sq. ft. of governmental facilities.

Likely Locations for Future Commercial Development The vast majority of the remaining “realistic” aboveground commercial density is located in the Parkway Center (158,555 square feet) and Breckenridge Airport Subdivision (92,163 square feet). The remainder

37 of available “realistic” aboveground density is fragmented throughout town. Only 38,738 square feet remains within the historic district.

Governmental

Total Governmental Density Built (Square Feet): 419,479

Governmental uses include Schools, Museums, Police, Fire, Information and Town Facilities. Remaining density for Governmental facilities is not separated from remaining commercial density in the table above.

Comparison With Past Buildout Information

Joint Upper Blue Master Plan, 1997

A buildout analysis was included as part of the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan that was completed in 1997. The buildout numbers from the Joint Upper Blue Master Plan are included below, in comparison to the 2007 buildout numbers discussed above. As the data indicates, both residential and commercial buildout in the Town have increased from about 50 percent to 68 and 81 percent.

Commercial

Density Used (SF) Anticipated Total % of Buildout Buildout (SF)

1997 JUBMP 1,236,989 2,655,104 47% 2007 Analysis 1,615,171 2,350,442 69% 2009 Update 1,652,687 2,350,442 70%

Residential

Units Built Total Realistic % of Buildout Buildout 1997 JUBMP 3,685 7,056 52% 2007 Analysis 6,394 8,278 77% 2009 Update 6,711 8,278 81%

1997’s Numbers included all density (phantom), 2007’s numbers used possible above ground density.

The table below shows existing built residential units for the Towns of Breckenridge, Blue River, and Summit County. The Blue River numbers have not been updated since 2002.

Existing Residential Units in the Upper Blue Basin, 20091 Jurisdiction Units Built to Date Town of Breckenridge 6,711 Town of Blue River 660 Summit County 3,451 Total 10,822

1 Town of Breckenridge and Summit County numbers are draft, undergoing final review. Town of Blue River number is from 2002.

The Joint Upper Blue Master Plan set a target residential buildout number in the basin of 10,500 units. This number was premised on a 25 percent density reduction goal, based on a total 1997 buildout number of 13,762 units. As can be seen, the 2009 number of 10,822 built units is just over the 10,500 unit target. Based on remaining unbuilt density in both the Towns and unincorporated Summit County, the 10,500 unit target will be greatly surpassed in the next several years. The Towns and County may wish in the near future to jointly discuss this issue and determine options for addressing this Joint Upper Blue Master Plan policy (e.g., changing the target buildout number, reassessing strategies to reduce or extinguish density, etc.).

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

1. Adjusting the target buildout number. 2. Reassessing strategies to reduce or extinguish density.

Monitoring Recommendation

1. Continue to update buildout information on a yearly basis.

Historic Preservation/Heritage Tourism

Policy Direction

“The Town of Breckenridge is a cohesive and diverse community… Where residents and visitors experience a historic mountain town with characteristic charm that offers a safe, friendly and peaceful atmosphere where individuals can live, work, play and raise a family”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Survey results indicated that Community Character was the “number one” issue and should be considered a priority in future decision making. The history and heritage of the Breckenridge community exemplify the essential spirit of the Rocky Mountain West. Here, a large number of historic structures combine with a rich history of mining and a world-renown ski area to create an inviting and distinctive landscape. New development is juxtaposed with historic development patterns that are highly valued by residents and visitors. Participants repeatedly expressed concern about the preservation of the small-town atmosphere and the ability of new development to respect and respond to the existing historic character.” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“The Town of Breckenridge is a cohesive and diverse community… Where the built environment is of high quality design and construction, which respects the historic context and natural setting while also conveying innovation and creativity and that supports community character

and enhances the quality of life through sustainable building and development principles”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

As the above policies from the Town’s Vision Plan clearly indicate, the community highly values our historic setting and is concerned about protecting our historic structures. The community also wants to ensure that new development does not overwhelm this character, but instead is blended with it, thus preserving our historic and small town character.

“Preserve and enhance the character of Breckenridge as an authentic, historic mountain mining town”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Protect and enhance the setting and context of the historic district”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“The Breckenridge Values Statement: Breckenridge is a strong, small community that cares about preserving and enhancing its heritage as a small town …” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Promote historic preservation projects and encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures through education, regulations, and incentives”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Promote heritage tourism in the Town and support the efforts of the Breckenridge Heritage Alliance”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

This policy emphasizes the Town’s desire to promote its heritage, which is seen as having numerous benefits to the community. The benefits include providing additional amenities and attractions for tourists, instilling locals and visitors with a respect for our heritage and an appreciation for the need to protect our historic places.

“The Town of Breckenridge is a cohesive and diverse community… Where art, architecture, and cultural events and facilities improve the community experience for residents and visitors, offer diverse and affordable programming, and promote Breckenridge as a year-round cultural center for the region.” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

Analysis—Where are we Today?

National Register Historic District-Local Historic District

Downtown Breckenridge, including Main Street, has always been the social and economic center of town. In the 1800s Main Street met the needs of miners, and today Main Street is still the commercial heart of Breckenridge with a wealth of restaurants, retail, and office space. In 1980 the National Park Service designated downtown Breckenridge, including Main Street, as a National Register Historic District because of the mining era history that is preserved from 1859 forward. This designation was based on a survey of the structures in the district. The designation of the Breckenridge district provides incentives for historic preservation through Federal tax credits. It also distinguishes Breckenridge from other communities, and the high standards established by the National Park Service serve the community well in marketing and presenting itself. A goal of the National Register program is to maintain the setting for surviving historic resources (street grid pattern, streetscape, scale of buildings, secondary buildings, lot pattern, etc).

Within the National Register Historic District, the Town recognized and designated a Local Historic District that contains the greatest concentrations of historic structures and most clearly conveys the sense of the town during its earliest phases of development. The local Historic District is the focus of the Town’s Handbook of Design Standards. A primary goal of the Handbook and the local district is to reinforce the goals of the National Register District program, however, unlike the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior, the Town does not regulate the restoration of the interiors of historic buildings. One of the most important goals of the local historic district is to regulate the scale and massing of new buildings and building additions, so as not to overwhelm the nearby surviving historic structures.

The Town has updated the information from early surveys of the Historic District. In recent years the Town has commissioned a series of assessments (Cultural Resource Surveys) that document the historic significance of structures throughout the Historic District. These surveys are of great assistance when evaluating development proposals within the District, as there is a fairly clear documentation provided regarding buildings that can be altered or demolished versus those that must be preserved.

The Handbook of Design Standards

In 1992 the Town of Breckenridge completed the Handbook of Design Standards for the Historic and Conservation Districts. This Handbook provides for the preservation of the town’s historic character through a design review process and design criteria for historic structures and new development. All new development proposals and any alterations proposed to historic structures in the Historic and Conservation Districts are required to be evaluated against these criteria. The review process includes planning staff analysis and hearings with the Town’s Planning Commission. A primary goal of the review process is to maintain the original exterior materials on historic buildings to the maximum extent possible and to maintain buildings in their historic location on the site. New development is required to be complementary and in general character with historic buildings.

Period of Significance

The Town’s Development Code currently defines buildings and structures built prior to 1943 as “historic structures”. This date coincides with the end of gold dredge mining in Breckenridge. Thus, our current period of historic significance in the Town covers the historic mining era (1859 to 1942), which was the primary economic engine of the community. The subsequent 20 years (until the early 1960s) was a quiet time, with a dwindling population and very little new construction. However, starting in the early 1960s, the development of the ski area spawned a new era of economic growth in the community that has continued to the present day. Interpretation of the Town’s history could now also start to include this skiing boom era.

Many communities, along with organizations such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Department of the Interior’s guidelines, have a 50-year rule: properties 50 years and older are eligible for historic designation. We will soon be reaching a time when some of the earlier buildings related to the ski boom will be 50 years old. Some examples of these early ski buildings could be chalet style buildings, A- frames, or early ski lodges.

From a historic sustainability perspective, the question becomes whether the Town should extend its period of significance to 50 years old to eventually capture and protect some of these buildings. Alternatively, the Town could consider some alternative designation (a second period of significance perhaps with different applicable rules or another “ski” historic district), or choose to do nothing to recognize these buildings. Staff has previously had some discussions with the Planning Commission regarding this issue and there was frankly little support to do anything. A photo collection of buildings built from 1943 to 1967 was reviewed and for the most part it was felt that there was no common

architectural theme and that many of the buildings had been modified significantly since their original construction. Nevertheless, the issue seems to be one that is worth keeping an eye upon, as within a few years buildings built in the late 1960s and early 1970s will also be within the 50 year “qualifying” time frame. It is also possible that the Town could designate (or at minimum survey) structures that are less than 50 years old for their historic value. For example, the City of Los Angeles is currently undertaking a historic resource survey for all buildings built prior to 1981. The primary key to local designation has more to do with the structure’s contribution to an historic era than it has to do with its actual age.

Certified Local Government

In 2000 the Town of Breckenridge received certification from the Department of Interior, National Park Service, as Certified Local Government (CLG). Under the CLG program, the Town of Breckenridge assumed responsibilities (i.e., reviewing projects in the Historic District) related to the implementation of the National Preservation Act that would otherwise be performed by the State Historic Preservation Officer. This certification insures local participation, good local expertise, and provides some funding and economic incentives for local historic preservation projects. The CLG designation makes private properties eligible for tax credits (which are reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office). CLG designation also qualifies the Town for grant funding for projects such as cultural resource surveys. CLG designation typically requires the establishment of a historic preservation board by the local government. In the Town of Breckenridge’s case, the Planning Commission has been designated to serve as the Town’s historic preservation board. As such, planning commissioners are required to regularly attend trainings related to historic preservation guidelines and standards.

Local Landmark Designation

In 2001 Breckenridge implemented a local landmark program. This program provides additional protection for buildings or structures of particular historic significance. Density bonuses (for basements) provide an incentive for property owners to landmark structures. Once landmarked, demolition, either intentionally or by neglect, becomes more difficult. As of 2009, 25 historical structures have been certified and protected as local landmarks.

Incentives for Historic Preservation

Federal and state tax laws provide tax incentives for historic preservation projects which follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The federal government offers a 20% investment tax credit for the approved rehabilitation of certified historic buildings used for income-producing purposes (e.g., commercial use or residential rental) as well as a 10% credit for certain other older non- residential buildings. The state offers a similar 20% state income tax credit based on $5,000 or more of approved preservation work on designated properties (all structures in the Historic District and landmarked properties qualify, based on the Town’s CLG designation).

Fortunately the relatively high real estate values in the Town’s Historic District have served as an economic incentive for property owners to restore and rehabilitate historic structures in the District. If it is felt that further incentives (beside tax credits, density increases for landmarking) are warranted, other incentives could possibly be implemented. For example, the Town could consider placing seed money in a revolving loan fund to assist with historic restoration projects, similar to the concept currently being implemented for energy-efficiency/renewable improvements.

The Town’s Development Code incorporates a points analysis system under which development projects in the Historic District are evaluated against. Positive points, potentially leading to a passing points analysis, can be achieved by undertaking historic restoration efforts (e.g., placing a permanent foundation

under a historic structure) as part of a development proposal. In prior years, when the Development Code allowed for off-site positive points, some off-site restorations were completed as a result of this policy (e.g., re-roofing of the Briggle House in exchange for positive points at River Mountain Lodge). This “off-site” mitigation could potentially be reinstated, thus offering an additional vehicle to accomplish historic restoration. Any such discussion would have to be evaluated on a broader scale with the general Development Code philosophy of mitigating all impacts (except affordable housing) on site.

Town Preservation Efforts

In addition to the numerous efforts by property owners in Town to rehabilitate and restore historic buildings, the Town has also been aggressive in restoring buildings, often for adaptive reuse. Examples include the restoration of the Fuqua Livery Stable, the old cabin in the Breckenridge Welcome Center, and the Edwin Carter Museum.

The Town has also worked to save evidence of our rich mining heritage in the backcountry. The Oro (Extenuate) ore chute and the Jessie mill site, two prominent historic structures in the western reaches of the Golden Horseshoe, have been stabilized so that the structures do not collapse. A roof was recently built over the Lucky jig, a historic mining mechanism up French Gulch. The Town is currently working with the National Park Service on an extensive mapping exercise and restoration evaluation of the Reiling Dredgeboat, one of the most intact remaining historic dredgeboats from its era in the country, which will be interpreted to honor the period of dredge mining in the Breckenridge area. These historic preservation efforts were done in conjunction with Summit County. Some of the projects above have been completed with the assistance of grant monies from the State Historic Fund. Other historic preservation projects the Town has been involved in have included:

• Valley Brook Cemetery Master Plan and restoration • Barney Ford House Museum • Alice G. Milne House and Park • Rotary Snowplow Park • Engine #111 cosmetic restoration (currently undergoing functional restoration to be potentially traded to the State for Engine #9) • Iowa Hill Hydraulic Mine Site • OK Gaymon Bungalow • William Harrison Briggle House • Robert Whyte House • Tin Shop • Klack Placer Cabin

Heritage Tourism

Breckenridge is actively involved in a variety of educational programs, projects, and interpretive sites that ultimately promote historic preservation. These programs, projects, and sites create opportunities for visitors and residents to visit historic sites and learn more about the community’s history. These educational and interpretive programs have several benefits to the community. They provide both visitors and residents with a greater appreciation of our heritage and thus a greater respect for the need to preserve our history. The programs also contribute to the Town’s economy, as they attract heritage tourists to the Town. Heritage tourists tend to be more affluent, willing to spend more on a vacation, and are not as reliant on seasons as the recreation-oriented tourists the Town attracts. Heritage tourism broadens the amenities the Town is able to provide and places Breckenridge in a more competitive position for attracting visitors.

In an effort to better understand the Town’s needs and actions it could take in further implementing heritage tourism, in 2006 the Town contracted with heritage tourism specialists to develop a plan. The resulting document, titled “Breckenridge 150: A Springboard for Heritage Tourism” outlined a series of actions the Town should take. One of the highest priorities identified was to develop a celebration in 2009 for the Town’s 150th anniversary. The “Breck 150” was a successful celebration that occurred throughout 2009. Another high priority recommendation of the document was the establishment of a non-profit entity to spearhead all heritage tourism activities in the Town. The Town followed up on this recommendation by providing the funding to start the entity, called the Breckenridge Heritage Alliance, which was established in late 2006. The Alliance now handles most aspects of heritage tourism in the Town, including the staffing of historic sites, promotion and marketing of historic attractions, restoration and interpretation of historic sites, and planning for special historic events such as Kingdom Days. The Town and the Breckenridge Heritage Alliance subscribe to the five principals for successful Heritage Tourism as promulgated by the National Trust:

• Collaboration • Balance needs of residents and visitors • Make sites and programs come alive • Focus on quality and authenticity • Preserve and Protect

The Breckenridge Heritage Alliance has proved to be a very valuable resource in promoting heritage tourism. Prior to establishment of the Alliance, heritage tourism was disjointly managed by a number of entities in the Town. The Alliance has brought all these efforts under one umbrella and is able to more efficiently and cost effectively coordinate and market all heritage tourism efforts in the Town. Additionally, the Alliance is focused on the Town of Breckenridge and its setting, whereas previous entities were responsible for a geographic area well beyond the Town limits. Museums and historic sites are now open more consistently and are better staffed than in the days when volunteer “docents” were completely relied on. The Alliance has several professional staff members with expertise in historic preservation, marketing, events coordination, etc. The Town of Breckenridge is the primary funding source for the Alliance. It should be noted that the money spent by the Town in 2006 on disjointed heritage tourism programming was almost as much as the funding the Town is providing the Alliance in 2010.

The Alliance is now also being relied upon to identify and prioritize future historic preservation projects, both in the Town and outside Town (e.g., Golden Horseshoe area). This includes identification of: restoration efforts (e.g., Reiling Dredge), stabilization efforts for structures in threat of collapse, and interpretation of historic resources (e.g., Iowa Hill signage). Once projects have been prioritized, State Historic Fund grants will be applied for to leverage Town monies used towards these heritage projects.

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

• Protect and enhance the setting and context of the Historic District through preservation of existing historic structures and sites and through design of new structures that is compatible with the historic setting.

• Prioritize and facilitate public historic preservation projects based on historic significance and integrity.

• Promote private historic preservation projects and encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures through appropriate regulations and education/incentives (e.g., federal tax credits).

• Evaluate the pros and cons of reinstating positive points for off-site historic restoration work.

• Pursue available grants related to historic preservation projects to leverage local investment.

• Encourage partnerships and collaborations that promote historic preservation.

• Consider and evaluate strategies for protection of historic resources, both in the Town and in backcountry areas such as the Golden Horseshoe.

• Promote heritage tourism in the Town, support the efforts of the Breckenridge Heritage Alliance, and work to brand Breckenridge’s history as part of the Town’s overall marketing efforts.

• Continue to evaluate the Town’s historic period of significance to determine if 50-year old structures that portray early days of ski area development should be designated historic.

• Consider undertaking a survey of early ski era structures.

Transportation

In reviewing transportation elements for the Town, the STF looked at two main categories Traffic Congestion and Parking and thoroughly analyzed those categories by looking at many subcategories that are direct influences to them. These sub-categories include auto dependency, land use/ urban form, transit programming, socioeconomics, parking availability, walking and cycling. Below is information that was provided to the STF on Transportation.

Traffic Congestion

Policy Direction

Both the Town’s Vision Plan and Joint Upper blue Master Plan have cited traffic congestion as a threat to our resident’s quality of life and our visitor’s impression of the Town.

“Traffic congestion and parking problems were cited as having the greatest impact on 1) the existing quality of life and 2) the increasing number of negative impressions of first-time visitors”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Easy availability of close in parking will encourage cars to come into town and search for parking spaces, resulting in increased levels of congestion” (Joint Upper Blue Master Plan)

Analysis—Where are we Today?

Development in Town and in the Upper Blue River Basin has continued generally as planned, but growth in traffic has been less than previously predicted in both the Upper Blue River Basin Transportation Plan and State Highway 9 Final Environmental Impact Statement. Even though our traffic has been flat for a number of years and we have experienced less traffic overall than what was predicted, the Town ends up currently having 15-20 days of congestion. On congested days the Police Department has had to manually conduct traffic to loosen gridlock. Conditions on congested days are viewed by many residents as unacceptable. Due to concerns over congestion, Town recently employed a traffic consultant to conduct a traffic study that would forecast buildout conditions. When this study was completed, the study predicted a nominal increase in traffic volumes would grow congestion from 15-20 days to 40-45 days at buildout. The study also pointed out that with planning and capital investment we could hold congestion to the current level of 15-20 days. Recommendations to prevent increases in congestion included increasing transit frequency, expanding transit to serve new development areas, improving pedestrian connections, improving remote skier lot signage and completing Highway 9 improvements.

From the information above and input received at the 6/18/2009 STF meeting staff is suggesting a variety of action steps that we requesting input on.

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

Options for addressing the above situation that were recommended during the 6/18/09 meeting include:

1. Work with the BRC to create a marketing campaign to reduce the number of in-town trip ends (i.e. Once a car is parked it should stay parked and the Town will take care of the transportation).

2. Incentivize residents and visitors to increase use of alternative forms of transportation and encourage locals not to contribute to peak traffic by seeking out alternative means of commuting( Bus Rapid Transit, exploring countywide public transit system). 3. Continue to direct day-visitor parking in lots easily served by other modes. 4. Incentivize destination visitors to arrive by other means than a rented car (Buy down seats on CME, encourage private lodging shuttles). 5. Continue to implement improvements specified in the Town of Breckenridge Transportation, Circulation and Main Street Reconstruction Plan 6. Community Development, Ski Resort & Police Department should continue to coordinate in planning efforts. 7. Revisit parking code & cap limits on parking within the Town Core. 8. Re-striping of traffic lanes to facilitate more efficient traffic movement. 9. Manually overriding traffic signals to facilitate more efficient traffic movement. a. An evaluation of performance in Los Angeles’ monitored system “concluded that stops were reduced by 35%, intersection delay by 20%, travel time by 13%, fuel consumption by 12.5%, and air emissions by 10%. The benefit/cost was 9.8:1, and the system paid for itself in less than one year” (Rowe). “To date 3,100 of 4,300 of the City of Los Angeles’ signalized intersections” utilize this type of system (Los Angeles). 10. Ski resort should create incentives for carpooling day skiers. 11. Analyze the effects of effects of implementing 1- 10 above, as opposed to the effect of adding more lanes of traffic (eg., Park Avenue).

Further Things to Consider

During the STF’s initial discussion on traffic congestion several concerns were brought up for further examination. In order to develop better action steps these key questions must be answered first. 1. Is a substantial mode shift away from the auto realistic in Breckenridge? 2. Is setting the bar at the current 15 – 20 days not ambitious enough? 3. How much money will we have to spend to gain more efficiency? 4. Will the steps necessary to potentially reduce congestion be palatable to the Town’s residents and business owners? 5. What bothers us about congestion is it immobility or environmental, or both? 6. How much do outside influences which are beyond our control, influence congestion?

Is a substantial mode shift away from the auto realistic?

Achieving a significant enough of a mode shift away from the automobile to transit can present many obstacles and will require a new way of thinking for our permanent population and visitors alike. According to the 2009 Transit Plan “the greatest issue facing the local transit service is the ability to provide an adequate level of service that will meet the needs of the extreme changes in seasonal population” (LSC). Detailed below are realities associated with the current state of the Town and how there will need to be behavioral and philosophical changes if we desire to reduce congestion through mode shift changes.

Density/ Location Considerations Critical Mass/Density and appropriate sighting are required to have successful transit ridership. According to the Planner’s Estimating Guide a minimum density of 6-8 Dwelling Units per Acre net (DUA), located within a 1,000 ft. radius (5 minute walk) of a transit station is required for bus service (APA). Transit planning firm Fehr and Peers notes density is the most important planning factor in reducing automobile trips, with the second being location. “Studies have shown transit use begins to drop off when potential users have to walk more than 1,000 feet” (APA). A successful transit catch area may

47 need to be denser and geographically tighter in cases where inclement weather is often present, in areas of steep grades, and instances where children are involved. If bus usage is expected to be a significant means of travel within a corridor, 9-14 DUA is required over a large area to justify 15 minute headways (APA). Transit expert Peter Calthorpe points out that it is just as important as the proximity of housing to transit stations is, the proximity of work centers and schools to transit stations serviced by the same route is just as important. Transit stations don’t do much good if the nearby residents can’t get within reasonable distance of where they need to go without a mode switch. It is important to note “density works best when combined with synergistic elements such as location, transit service, connected streets, and mixed land uses” (EFN). Some examples of development densities near existing transit stops are listed below.

Sundowner Bus Stop/ Four Seasons: • Development Net DUA: 40 • 1,000 Foot Catch Basin Net DUA: 17.3

French & Lincoln Bus Stop • Development Net DUA: NA • 1,000 Foot Catch Basin Net DUA: 7.7

Wellington Neighborhood Bus Stop: • Development Net DUA: 5.39 • 1,000 Foot Catch Basin Net DUA: 2.72

Vista Point/ Gibson Heights Bus Stop • Development Net DUA: 4.18 • 1,000 Foot Catch Basin Net DUA: 1.84

Breckenridge Terrace Bus Stop • Development Net DUA: 15.2 • 1,000 Foot Catch Basin Net DUA: 3.1

After reviewing these bus stop locations it’s interesting that none of them functions extremely well from a design standpoint outside of ski season, with the exception of Breckenridge Terrace. There are many reasons why this is the case. To begin with both the Sundowner/ Four Seasons and French & Lincoln stops are located in areas where there is consistently high density within their catch basins but their stops are already within an acceptable walking distance of most Town attractions outside of the ski season. Additionally these areas may have high built density but have relatively low occupied densities outside of peak season. As for the Wellington Neighborhood and Vista Point, these sites are situated an ideal distance from the core of Town and have a consistent population base to make transit an attractive choice. Their development densities are close to acceptable level for transit service but their overall catch basin density is significantly lower than what is necessary for a critical mass of ridership. Additionally as Wellington has continued to be developed, the current location of the station is not well positioned to maximize its catch basin. Breckenridge Terrace like Wellington and Vista Point is an ideal distance from the core of Town to make transit attractive. The development has a very high development density and has a consistent lower income population, which we will discuss the importance of later on, that makes it well suited for more regular transit service. Breckenridge Terrace does currently have an overall low catch basin density but looking into the future as Block 11 is developed, this area potentially will be an ideal transit formula if done correctly.

Socio-Economic Considerations From research on the usage of our own transit system we have noticed a higher percentage of use among workforce housing renters compared to owners. According to 2008 estimates 16.1% of renter trips utilize transit compared to 5.2% of owner trips. While our workforce housing renters already utilize transit fairly effectively, our population of workforce owners needs to improve their usage to realistically affect congestion. Our workforce housing owner trip rate of 5.2% is only slightly better than the national total average of 5.1% (USDOT). One explanation for this situation is public transportation usage drops as Household Town household income increases. “Studies have found that Income Ridership8 Population9 income level has a negative effect on ridership, suggesting <$15,000 24% 8% that transit is an inferior good” (Taylor and Fink). As $15,000- people have greater discretionary spending, they have $24,999 16% 7% greater access to vehicles and therefore drive more. If we $25,000- look at the income levels associated with the Town’s $34,999 10% 14% ridership it is apparent that we follow this national trend. $35,000- To illustrate this point we have prepared a matrix that $44,999 8% 11% compares the income levels of system riders compared $45,000- with the income levels of Breckenridge’s general $55,000 8% 12% population. It should be noted that ridership from higher > $55,000 34% 49% income brackets is artificially enhanced by visitor 100% 100% ridership and that in reality income levels of resident riders are most likely even less than what is represented in the chart. If we expect to solve congestion through transit we will have to significantly change the behavior of individuals in all but the lowest income levels. According to California study “Residents from zero-car households were 14 times more likely to use transit to commute than those from three-vehicle households (Cervero).

Frequency of Service Information on how frequent service has to be in an area the size of Breckenridge to maximize the ridership potential and minimize the number of buses that are needed to run is difficult to get. In most major cities it is agreed that the frequency of service should be around every 10 minutes to attract

8 Information from Breckenridge 2009 Transit Operating Plan. 9 Town Comprehensive Plan.

ridership. In smaller less populous communities it is generally is 15 to 20 minutes. Recently the city of Los Angeles did a comprehensive study and found 12 minutes was the optimal maximum threshold throughout the city to get riders to show up at stops without concern for a schedule (Perkins). For a Town the size of Breckenridge it would be difficult to justify frequencies less than 15 to 20 minutes on most days. It is apparent from information collected this summer that frequency of service does have an impact on ridership. From recently released information it shows ridership system wide for June 2009 was down 62% compared to June 2008. During the summer of 2008 service was every ½ hour and this year’s service has been cut in half to once an hour. Obviously there are other factors besides frequency of service that led to this dramatic plunge but it can be safely inferred that frequency of service is a major influence on this year’s decline in ridership. Below is some additional information on how frequency affects ridership.

“Ridership is typically most sensitive to frequency changes when the prior service was infrequent, such as hourly or half-hourly, and when the transit line involved serves middle and upper income areas. Where transit headways are already short, and particularly when lower income service areas are involved, ridership tends to be less affected by frequency changes and may be more sensitive to fare changes. Otherwise, ridership is typically more responsive to frequency changes than fares. There is normally a higher sensitivity to frequency changes on the part of off-peak riders than there is by peak period ridership” (Transportation Research Board).

Is setting the bar at the current 15 – 20 days not ambitious enough?

During our initial conversation on congestion it was pondered whether our current 15-20 days of congestion we experience is an acceptable level and if we should be trying to further reduce our number of days of congestion. Within ski season several holidays and big event days occur that produce substantially higher volumes of traffic compared to the remainder of the season. Below is a summary of these big event days. • Christmas/ New Years (5-7 days) • MLK Weekend (3 days) • Snow Sculptures (2 days) • President’s Day Weekend (3 days) • Spring Break (5 days) • Total (18-20 days) In acknowledging the 18-20 big days, we could outline three options for the public and discuss the pros and cons of each. • Lessen congestion • Maintain current levels of congestion • Allow congestion to increase

How much money will we have to spend to gain more efficiency?

According to the Town’s recently completed traffic study we would need to reduce estimated travel at buildout by 20% to maintain our current levels of traffic. The study said this could be achievable by increasing our alternative transportation share from the current 10% to 20%. Unfortunately to be able to achieve this goal much more energy and resources will need to be devoted because we have the easy 10% who don’t have cars and money, live within walking distance of most destinations and those that make a conscious choice to use alternative modes. Gaining the next 10% will be much more challenging. Staff has investigated what potential gains in transit ridership could be achieved through increased frequency of service and has concluded there isn’t a very reliable formula for making that prediction in a setting such

as Breckenridge. To make a better estimation a more in-depth comparison of ridership patterns, at multiple times, with different levels of service of routes over time is needed to make a better prediction of what the effects will be. In terms of rough cost of service our most recent information collected in 2007 stated $6.09 was spent for each transit vehicle mile traveled. The biggest expense is salaries, wages and benefits which accounts for 69% of that figure.

Will the steps necessary to potentially reduce congestion be palatable to the Town’s residents and business owners?

Several of the items already discussed are contrary to other things many have taken for granted. In the big picture is the trade off of a reduced number of days of congestion more important to residents and business owners than plentiful free parking, less dense development and fewer Town resources being allocated to transit.

What bothers us about congestion is it immobility or environmental, or both?

What bothers us about congestion is an individual judgment call but most people agree that they are bothered by congestion. In researching the environmental impact of congestion there are two sides to the debate. Some researchers claim some level of congestion is actually good for the environment because it deters people from driving. On the other side of the debate many side with the conventional wisdom that views cars idling in traffic as an obvious source of waste. Despite most individuals’ displeasure with congestion it is interesting to note that in information we reviewed last week, Dan Burden advocates for an acceptance of congestion believing it leads to many other community benefits listed below. • Improve Home o Keep business o Keep Jobs • Use of Alternative Modes o More Main Street Patronage o Less Strip Development • Discourages Driving o Reduction in VMT • Owning Fewer Cars o Spending money previously tied up in autos within the community

To be fair we will also point out some of negative impacts of congestion that Dan Burden’s list does not take into account. • Emissions from idling vehicles • Loss in mobility • Perception to residents and visitors of “city type” problems in our mountain town.

How much do outside influences which are beyond our control, influence congestion?

Beyond the realm of what the Town can control there are additional factors that influence congestion and transit usage such as gas pricing and workplace practices. In recent years as gas prices have increased it has been inferred that demand on transit has increased substantially in many media reports. To certain extent this is true but in smaller towns and cities there hasn’t been as strong of a correlation. It is estimated in small towns and cities “that a 10% increase in gas

price would result in a 2.2%, increase in Ridership” (Mattson). Studies have shown “people in small urban or rural areas are less likely to switch to transit” as a result of higher gas prices than individuals residing in larger cities (Mattson). It is interesting to note that as drivers switch to transit because of higher fuel prices, “higher gasoline prices do lead to increased ridership, but the increases in fare revenues are not enough to cover higher fuel expenses for transit systems”, and therefore it is more difficult and costly to run an effective transit system (Mattson). In addition to fuel prices another external factor that is beyond the control of the Town that is noted as an influence on whether individuals utilize transit is workplace practices. Many transit studies cite the importance of the culture of the workplace as a major influence on transit utilization. Noted transit planner Robert Cervero states “It is useful to note that although workplace practices strongly influence commute mode choices of among station-area residents, such practices are usually outside the sphere of influence of municipalities” (Cervero). Workplaces that allow workers flexible hours, do not provide close in parking and offer incentives to employees that use alternative means transportation all lead to increased transit usage.

Parking

Policy Direction

The subject of Parking is cited in the Vision Plan, JUBMP and Town Comprehensive Plan indicating a great importance to the community. More interesting than the importance of this subject is conflicting nature of policy direction within these documents.

“Easy availability of close in parking will encourage cars to come into town and search for parking spaces, resulting in increased levels of congestion” (Joint Upper Blue Master Plan)

“Increase the parking capacity in the Town core to assure there is an adequate amount of parking facilities, especially close to the core of Town”. (Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter)

Analysis—Where are we Today?

Currently we have a parking identity crisis. In reality we have adequate Town controlled parking within the core and a public perception by residents, business owners and even some visitors that there is an inadequate parking supply. Due to this public perception, parking has been a hot button issue for years and opinions are formed by emotion rather than fact. There is a potential shortage of skier parking during peak ski days, this parking is controlled by the ski resort. Therefore, ski resort parking should be addressed differently from Town controlled parking due to different use patterns. A more thorough analysis of the current ski resort parking agreement and current trends must be made before drawing conclusions. Below is some general information on parking utilization from the 2008/2009 winter season.

• The Town has 1160 parking lot spaces (not counting Ski area lots). The parking counts reflected a 53% average occupancy of those spaces, 83% peak day occupancy. On-street Town parking averaged 64% occupied and 98% at peak.

• The Ski Resort controls 1,820 parking lot spaces. The ski area averaged 72% occupancy for their parking lots and 117% on the peak day (does not include Beaver Run lot).

Dan Burden Analysis

Recently the Town received some advice related to parking from one of the World’s most well respected pedestrian advocates, Dan Burden. From his survey he estimated the Town could have up to 30% more parking within the Core without additions to infrastructure, just by changing our practices. He suggested we take advantage of our existing street widths, and institute back-in angle parking to increase parking capacity and safety. Dan’s overall observations are that we could decrease lane width to accommodate bike lanes and this would also help lower speeds. . Dan suggested we implement on-street parking in currently un-served locations such as the 100 Block of Ski Hill Road and North Main Street to reduce the need for off-street, Town controlled, surface lots within the core. Dan pointed out during his analysis that for town of bicycle riders we have a very low number of bicycle parking options. He suggested we increase our bicycle parking offerings.

Based on the above information staff is suggesting a variety of action steps. These action steps include suggestions on management and utilization of our parking resources and a public outreach component to better inform individuals of parking best management practices.

Noting that some of the existing policy is at odds with other existing policy we are looking for ways to reduce conflict and produce more desirable outcomes through the creation of new action steps/ options.

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

Options for addressing the above situation include:

1. Parking education campaign for Town residents and then transition to visitors. 2. Re-visit Ski Resort parking agreement. 3. Consider behavior modification through a different approach to parking requirements. 4. Limit additional core parking to help alleviate congestion, reduce capital costs and preserve community character. 5. Consider some of Dan Burden’s suggestions: o Increased bicycling parking o Parking on 100 block of Ski Hill Road o Striving to have all Town controlled parking on-street o Increased bicycle parking. 6. More emphasis on policing of Town controlled spaces at peak times. 7. Remote Parking for in-commuters. 8. More thoroughly investigate the links between congestion, parking & transit.

Works Cited

Center for Transit Oriented Development. “Reconecting America” Interview with Peter Calthorpe. July 26, 2007. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/thinktank (8 July 2009).

Cervero, Robert. Transit Oriented Development’s Ridership Bonus: A Product of Self Selection and Public Policies. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2006.

City of Los Angeles, California. Automatic Traffic Surveillance and Control. http://trafficinfo.lacity.org/html/atsac_1.html (15 April 2008).

Fehr and Peers. “Smart Growth Planning.Org, The Transportation Perspective.” Forecasting and Measuring the Effects of Smart Growth. 2006. http://www.smartgrowthplanning.org/ForecastMeasure.html (21 July 2009).

Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council. Optimizing Transportation Infrastructure Through Effective Land Use, Opportunities for Transit Supportive Development in the Greater Rochester Area. Rochester, NY.: Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council 2009.

LSC Transportation Consultants. Breckenridge 2009 Transit Operating Plan. Colorado Springs, CO: LSC Transportation Consultants 2009.

Perkins, Michael. “Greater Greater Washington.” Could a “12 minute” bus map increase ridership? April 22, 2009. http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=2112 (20 July 2009).

Taylor, Brian D., and Camille N.Y. Fink. The Factors Influencing Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Literature. UCLA Department of Urban Planning Working Paper, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. 2003.

Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 95, Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board 2004.,

United States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration 2004.

Wildlife Habitat

Policy Direction A number of Town policy documents address the importance of and issues related to wildlife conservation. References from some of these documents are noted below.

“The Town of Breckenridge is a cohesive and diverse community where the actions of the community ensure that wildlife and its habitat are protected” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“There is much work yet to be done in order to both maintain and improve the natural environment. Community members and visitors need to understand that there is an interaction between the vision for the natural environment and development policies. Residents identified a need for ongoing improvements to existing natural systems, including … long-term improvement projects that would leave the natural environment ‘better than we found it.’ A repetitive element in many discussions was the importance of stewardship; there is a desire for future generations to see tangible evidence that the current Breckenridge community was ‘forward-thinking’ and protective of its natural environment.” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

Action Step C: Utilize local, state and federal digital databases and local and state conservation groups to anticipate and address conflicts between development and natural systems to improve the effectiveness of habitat mitigation and reduce costs and delays for project owners.” (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“1. Protect and improve the health of the natural environment

4. Protect wildlife, habitat, and movement corridors.” (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

The following policies related to wildlife conservation were recommended in the Comprehensive Plan: “25. Protect wildlife habitat from development, transportation routes and other impacts. 26. Protect wildlife habitat and movement corridors in large, contiguous blocks, where possible, although small isolated blocks are also beneficial. 27. Continue to encourage home and business owners to manage food and garbage in a manner that is not easily accessible by wildlife.” (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

A land use recommendation of note in the Comprehensive Plan related to wildlife was that “the Cucumber wedge national forest parcel should be changed from land use district 10 (two units/acre) to land use district 1 (one unit/10 acres), to promote low density and open space activities in this important wildlife movement area. “ (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

Analysis – Where Are We Today? The unique wildlife that is found in the alpine habitats in and around Breckenridge and the Upper Blue Basin area is a strong draw for tourists, hunters, fishermen, other outdoor recreationists and nature enthusiasts. Wildlife also provides an educational and aesthetic/spiritual resource, and adds to the quality of life of the Breckenridge residents. Due to the growth and development that has already occurred and that will likely continue to some extent in the area, it is paramount to preserve adequate wildlife habitat to maintain the ecological health and balance in the area. This habitat comes in the form of foraging and breeding habitat, as well as cover and movement corridors, which provide important links between regions within and to regions outside of the Breckenridge area. Although 75% of the Upper Blue Basin is managed by the U.S. Forest Service, and therefore protected from development, the dynamic natural

systems so important to the ecology of this area do not conform to jurisdictional boundaries. This makes wildlife throughout the ecosystem susceptible to the impacts of development. Therefore, effective stewardship of these species requires protection of critical resources and minimizing development impacts to surrounding public lands.

Native species found in the Upper Blue Basin include larger mammals such as the moose, elk and mule deer. Elk and deer migrate from the higher elevations in summer to the lower elevations in winter. Mountain goats, black bear, coyote, red fox, mountain lion, and bobcat are also found in the Breckenridge area. Smaller mammals include pine martens, marmots, porcupines, beavers, muskrats, snowshoe hares, picas, skunks, squirrels, and chipmunks. Common birds include osprey, red-tailed hawks, goshawks, coopers hawk, boreal owls, Canadian goose, ducks, ptarmigan and grouse. The Colorado River cutthroat trout, brook trout, rainbow trout and brown trout inhabit the rivers and streams around Breckenridge.10 Non-native brown trout have been stocked in the basin, and out-compete native cutthroat trout, preventing them from occupying numerous water bodies. The cutthroat trout are found only in French Creek above the Wellington-Oro mine, where contamination prevents the Brown trout from invading their habitat and displacing them.

The Upper Blue Basin also contains important habitat for species that are state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, and thus protection of habitat may also be required. Regardless of regulatory requirements, the Town supports protection of wildlife from extinction or extirpation. The Canada lynx (felix lynx) is state and federally listed as threatened, and has therefore become the species of most focus in this area. The lynx favors multi-age tree stands above 8000', feeds primarily on snowshoe hare , and occupies expansive territories that stretch over mountain ranges. The area surrounding Breckenridge, including portions of the Breckenridge Ski Resort, has been classified as lynx habitat by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and is managed as such by the U.S. Forest Service. Lynx have been spotted on the outskirts of the Town of Breckenridge municipal boundaries.

The Cucumber Gulch wetlands area west of Town is of particular significance in terms of wildlife habitat. The boreal toad (bufo boreas boreas), which has been listed by the State as endangered, has been sighted there. This is the only toad species in Colorado that lives above 8000'. The toad requires shallow water bodies, such as those found in beaver ponds, but migrates to upland areas after breeding season. Thus, the Gulch is an ideal habitat for the species. The river otter, which is also a State endangered species, has also been sighted in the Gulch. Large ungulates, such as moose, elk and deer are known to frequent the Gulch via wildlife corridors. The Town acquired ownership of much of the Gulch, which makes regulation of that portion of the Gulch much easier. The Town has also adopted a vitally important overlay district to protect the valuable wildlife habitat that the Gulch provides and has conducted a conservation monitoring program since 2000.

The Town protects wildlife habitat through several methods. Because large contiguous blocks of undeveloped land of greater benefit to wildlife than smaller, isolated parcels, acquisition of property that provides for unfragmented habitat for open space is an important tool that is used. Outdoor recreational facilities and trails are designed and located to protect important habitat areas. The Town also encourages the use of native landscaping, as well as control of noxious weeds, to benefit indigenous wildlife species. The Town encourages the development of adequate wildlife movement through appropriate fencing standards and adequate crossings as part of our transportation systems. This may be as simple as traffic signs and as complex as the utilization of overpasses or underpasses.

Aside from the policies and programs mentioned above, there are some other actions that could be evaluated as additional mechanisms for the further protection of wildlife. Crucial habitat on private land

57 could be protected through careful consideration of building setbacks, clustered development, and overlay districts. Greenways could be more carefully planned to provide contiguous movement corridors and habitat unfragmented by development and transportation systems. In order to have clear direction on where such actions should be implemented, however, the Town needs to have better data on the wildlife populations in and around the Town and their habitats of greatest importance, including the areas that are crucial for cover, forage, breeding, and movement. The Town should work together with its consultants, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program to obtain the necessary data to be used in an effective conservation planning program. Currently we have access to only very generalized mapping of wildlife use areas (with the exception of Cucumber Gulch) from the CDOW website. It could be very helpful to have more specific mapping of important habitat areas for species of management interest based on biological inventories and surveys.

One further step to consider would be to develop a wildlife management plan. A wildlife management plan would incorporate a Town philosophy for encouraging the coexistence of wildlife and human activities, and direct the preservation of wildlife habitats and the improvement of degraded habitat. Such a plan could incorporate the following:

• A compilation of existing information on the wildlife resources of the area (including maps and research findings) • Surveys and inventories to fill in any gaps in existing information • Specific mapping to guide conservation efforts for species of management interest • Development of a methodology to prioritize future land acquisitions and land management actions to optimize public lands for wildlife • Recommendations for new or modified land development standards that would apply to private land primarily in conjunction with proposed subdivisions or annexations.

Action Steps/Options for Consideration The following policies should be considered to ensure the maintenance of viable populations of all native species in the Upper Blue Basin: 1. Identify focal species and crucial habitat through a more expansive data collection effort

2. Develop specific habitat use maps for species of management interest

3. Utilizing the above information, conserve large, contiguous, and connected open spaces whenever possible that will provide for quality wildlife habitat

4. Incorporate a wildlife/habitat analysis component into the development review process to limit development in crucial habitat

5. Utilize the development approval process to require mitigation of impacts to crucial habitat

6. Encourage restoration of degraded areas through the development approval process and projects undertaken by the open space and trails program

7. Facilitate development design accommodating native wildlife

8. Develop a wildlife management plan to define the strategies for addressing the above-listed actions

Works Cited Town of Breckenridge. (2008). Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan. Breckenridge: Town of Breckenridge. Town of Breckenridge (2002). Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan. Breckenridge: Town of Breckenridge. Jackson/Teton County (Draft 2010). Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan. City of Longmont (2005). Wildlife Management Plan, City of Longmont, Colorado. Longmont: City of Longmont.

Recreation

Policy Direction

“To provide world class recreational opportunities for a diversity of activities throughout the year, while ensuring they remain affordable, accessible and enriching for visitors and residents alike”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

The statement listed above from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Recreation & Tourism chapter succinctly points out the overall importance of providing high quality recreational opportunities to the community. In the chapter’s policies section several specific statements are made regarding Recreation.

“Provide a diversity of recreation for all different ages and ability levels for residents, second homeowners, and tourists”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Provide a variety of winter and summer recreational amenities”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Identify and provide for future recreation amenities where there is the greatest need”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

“Implement the recommendations of the Facilities Master Plan, McCain Master Plan, Upper Blue Nordic Master Plan, Golden Horseshoe Travel Management Plan, the Cucumber Gulch Recreation Plan, the Open Space Master Plan, and the Trails Master Plan”. (Town of Breckenridge Comprehensive Plan)

Within the Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan’s Vision Statement two action plan recommendations are linked with the issue of recreation

“…local residents and visitors consistently cited the many existing programs and public facilities as the number one asset of the Town of Breckenridge and were hopeful that the Town would continue to support and embellish existing indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

“Where the natural beauty of the Rocky Mountains is augmented by world class recreational opportunities that provide diverse activities throughout the year. Those activities are served by community facilities that enrich the visitor experience while ensuring affordable and accessible recreation opportunities for residents and visitors”. (Town of Breckenridge Vision Plan)

Analysis—Where are we Today?

Presently the Town’s residents and visitors enjoy an extremely high level of recreational amenities. The Town has a world class alpine ski resort, championship golf course, modern recreation center, two Nordic centers, two ice rinks, a skate park, a recreation path, a kayak park, a mountainbike freeride park, and plentiful amounts of active open space. Despite having a plethora of amazing amenities, some Town facilities are currently being pushed to their limits because of our population’s hunger for recreation. Below is a summary of the current state of our recreational facilities along with some forecasts for buildout. Due to its overwhelming importance and influence, the Breckenridge Ski Resort’s operation will be reviewed separately from this report on recreation, at a later date.

Town Recreation Facilities According to the Recreation Department, youth programs and fitness classes are currently at full capacity. Any additional growth beyond the present will place additional burden on these programs. In addition to youth programs and fitness classes, time allotted to hockey programs at the ice arena is also maxed out. No additional ice time for hockey programs is available currently without substantially cutting into the public skating and lesson programming elements at the ice arena. The Recreation Department further pointed out many other elements will be affected by continued growth of the community, but without knowledge of specific programming desires it is difficult to quantify the actual elements that will be affected at the present time.

Active Park Spacei The Breckenridge Facilities Master Plan includes a section on recreational needs based on population. These projections were calculated on assuming a need of 5 acres per 1,000 persons - which is similar to what the National Parks and Recreation Association, recommends (5 - 8 acres per 1,000 people) – with an assumed 100% resident population and an assumed 50% summer peak population. Presently the Town has a deficiency of 30.1 active park acres. This is expected to increase to 50.6 acres at buildout unless new park space is created. In preliminary plans for Block 11, 4.55 acres of active park space is planned.

Open Space Breckenridge with a year round population of 3,406 residents and a total of 3,934 acres of Town managed open space, presently has 1.16 acres of open space per permanent resident. With the Town’s current maximum peak population of 36,157 is taken into account, the ratio of open space acreage per person is lowered to 0.109 acres of open space per person. The Town is forecasted to have a year round population of 5,629 residents at buildout. With our current total of 3,934 acres of Town managed open space, this will equal 0.7 acres of open space per permanent resident. When the Town’s projected maximum peak population of 61,305 is taken into account, the ratio of open space acreage per person will be lowered to 0.064 acres of open space per person11. Despite 0.064 acres of open space per person being a much lower number, it is over six times greater than the 0.0105 acres of open space per person that the National Parks and Recreation Association recommends.

Park Space verses Open Space Needs Park space and open space serve different needs of the community. Park space is a contrived, built environment, constructed for a specific function compared with open space which is a fairly unmodified landscape that sometimes has limited improvements such as trails, which enable visitation and travel. Despite their differences it is often perceived that parks and open space serve the same purpose. According to the National Parks and Recreation Association “small cities surrounded by open space” sometimes “feel complacent about the need for additional park area” (NPRA). “While these open space resources may meet the community’s need for regional level open spaces, they do not meet all of a community’s recreational needs” (NPRA). There is still a need “for playgrounds, sports fields, community centers and other types of recreational facilities” which open space does not meet (NPRA). Due to the high quality and abundance of the Town’s open space and trails inventory, it can be easy to assume that there are ample opportunities provided in Town. However, as the above analysis indicates, there is a potential shortage of more developed in-Town parks.

Existing Town Recreation Strategies

Facilities Master Plan

11 This assumes no additional open space will be purchased beyond our current 3,934 acres.

Early in February 2003 the Town released its Facilities Master Plan (FMP) which was intended to provide guidance on Town operations for the next twenty years. Within this document a chapter was devoted to assessing the future needs of recreational facilities within the Town. The forecasted recreation needs of the FMP were based on a review of the 1995 Parks & Recreation Master Plan, surveys of community facility needs and priorities, auditing existing town owned facilities and properties, and public input on perceived park and recreation needs.

The FMP acknowledged the Town’s recreational needs are shaped by a mix of unique influences compared to non-resort communities. These unique influences are a product of the blending of the needs of the permanent resident population, the second home population and a general visitor population. As a result of these different needs, the FMP listed unique park and recreation planning challenges the Town faces. This list is shown below. 1. Prioritize and meet the overlapping, unique needs of its diverse population. 2. Recreational facilities are essential to town’s role as a tourist destination and its economic base. 3. Ski resort communities need to balance the dominant winter commercial facilities with a healthy mix of year round recreational attractions to sustain the business community throughout the spring, summer, and fall seasons. 4. The “shoulder seasons,” fall and spring, present the greatest challenge. 5. Deciding on the extent and nature of the role the town should take in shaping its inter-season recreational base. 6. Planning facilities that can serve resident needs and contribute to its mix of tourist attractions. The FMP referenced the challenge the Town has in sorting through the distinction between recreation activities supplied by the private versus public sectors. In Breckenridge, the activities provided by both sectors should go hand in hand and be mutually supportive, especially in terms of its “trademark” activities.

Given these specific challenges the FMP created a list of planning objectives: 1. Meeting Permanent Population Needs 2. Meeting Seasonal Population Needs 3. Meeting Future Needs of Growing Retirement Community as Second Homes Convert to Year Round Residents 4. Enhancing Breckenridge Attractions for Tourism and Visitor Destination Economy 5. Reinforcing Town Center economy with recreation, entertainment, and community gathering attractions and facilities

Through the creation of these planning objectives, and results of facility evaluations and community surveying, recommendations for recreational facilities were made. Do to the age of the FMP and the corresponding plans and research, many of the recommendations may be outdated or have already been implemented. Additionally in light of future Town revenue projections, recommendations from the FMP that still remain relevant and desirable to the community may need to be reassessed to make sure they would be financially feasible.

Recreation Recommendations from the Facilities Master Plan:

Community Wide Facilities 1. Recreation Center Reconfigure 2. Recreation Center Expansion 3. Ice Arena & Winter Sports Center at Little Mountain 4. Equestrian Center Expansion 5. Community Multi-Activity Center a. Family/ Teen/ Fun Center b. Bowling Alley/ Game Room c. Movie Theatre d. Discovery Center e. Community Meeting Space f. Arts & Crafts Facility 6. Town Outdoor Ice Skating Facility

Community Active Use Parks 1. Stillson Property Neighborhood Park 2. Kingdom Park Expansion (Where Police Station, TLC, Valley Brooke Housing and ski resort overflow parking are now located) 3. Additional Golf Course (Block 11 & McCain were identified as potential sites)

Recreation Provisions from Town Code

Breckenridge Development Code 9-1-19: Policy 20R. Recreation Facilities

“3 x (-2/+2) The community is based, to a great extent, on tourism and recreation; therefore, the provision of recreational facilities, both public and private, is strongly encouraged. Each residential project should provide for the basic needs of its own occupants, while at the same time strive to provide additional facilities that will not only be used for their own project, but the community as a whole. Commercial projects are also encouraged to provide recreational facilities whenever possible. The provision of recreational facilities can be on site or off site, public or private. (Ord. 9, Series 2006)”

Breckenridge Subdivision Code 9-2-4-13: Dedication of Park Lands, Open Space and Recreational Sites or the Payment in Lieu Thereof

“All subdividers shall provide land for open space purposes, or cash contributions in lieu of land, or a combination of both, at the option of the Town which are roughly proportional in both nature and extent to the impacts created by the proposed subdivision. Unless a different dedication or payment is required by the Planning Commission on the basis of competent evidence presented, it shall be presumed that the requirements of this Section satisfy the rough proportionality requirement; provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply to a person who undertakes to resubdivide a parcel for which an open space dedication has previously been made, or a person who undertakes to subdivide a structure. This land dedication or cash or combination thereof shall be provided in accordance with the following criteria and formula: (Ord. 27, Series 1995)”

Town of Breckenridge Open Space Plan

The Open Space Plan provides a strategic framework for the Town’s Open Space Program, and reflects the needs and desires of the community. The Breckenridge Open Space Advisory Commission and the Town Council have set out a Mission Statement to guide planning efforts. In order to reach the goal of

defining, maintaining and protecting Breckenridge’s open spaces, as well as those in the Upper Blue River valley, the Open Space Plan:

1. Defines priority conservation values for land to be protected, 2. Outlines stewardship principles and the process through which stewardship actions are selected, and 3. Summarizes the Open Space Program and accomplishments to date.

Town of Breckenridge Trails Plan

The Town Council and the Breckenridge Open Space Advisory Commission (BOSAC) recognize that preserving and expanding trail access throughout the Town and the Upper Blue Basin is critical to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in and around Breckenridge. The Trails Plan, along with the Trails Plan Maps, has been created to provide guidance to Town staff and BOSAC for future trail related priorities and decisions. It is recognized that a balance must be achieved between growth/development and the maintenance of a healthy quality of life, and that development should provide a means for preserving and improving an interconnected recreational trail network.

Sustainability is the main guiding philosophy of the Town with respect to its Trails Plan. It is important first and foremost to maintain the existing trails already within the Town’s system. There also needs to be a monitoring and evaluation aspect to the Trails program to ensure that trails are not being created where they could have negative environmental or social impacts and that poorly aligned existing trails are correctly rerouted or decommissioned. Overall, the trails system needs to be maintained and developed in a cost effective manner, through the pursuit of grant opportunities, joint trails projects with other agencies or entities, and the institution of impact fees to event promoters that utilize Town trails.

This Trails Plan, along with the Trails Plan Maps, is a targeted document that outlines specific existing and proposed trails that the Town would like to secure or create. Broader open space goals and directives can be found in the Open Space Plan (revised 2007) or in the Town’s Vision Plan (revised 2002). Specific trail construction guidelines are found in the Trail Standards and Guidelines document (created in 2007).

Action Steps/Options for Consideration

Staff has identified the following as possible actions for addressing recreational targets:

3. Complete an updated master plan for recreational facilities. 4. Continue to implement strategies of the Open Space and Trails Master Plans as they are financially feasible. 5. Rework Town’s Development Code to require developers to develop more active park space and recreational amenities through development approval. 6. Shift Town resources from under performing programs to programs that are at or near capacity.

i Revised Calculation for Recommended Park Space:

Breckenridge Residents: (4,020 permanent population at buildout estimate) + (1,609 population from 914 units of WFH) = 5,629i

Breckenridge Summer Peak population: 35,767 – 5,629 = 30,138 x 0.5 = 15,069 + 5,629 = 20,698

15,069 + 5,629 = 20,698/1,000 = 20.7 x 5 acres = 103.5 acres needed*

Total of All Park Space Located in Town = 52.9 Acres (Includes School District owned land)

Town’s Future Number of Acres in deficiency of Park Space = 50.6 Acres