ROUTT COUNTY BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Timothy V

ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Timothy V. Corrigan Douglas B. Monger Cari Hermacinski District I District II District III REGULAR MEETING February 28, 2017 LIVE AUDIO WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR TUESDAY MEETINGS BY CALLING (970) 870-5499 EXCLUDES WORK SESSIONS 1. 10:30 A.M. CALL TO ORDER

A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

B. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, MANUAL WARRANTS, AND PAYROLL

C. ITEMS OF NOTE FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY'S WORK SESSION

2. 10:35 A.M. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

A. APPROVAL OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017; Documents:

1.24.17.PDF

B. APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR 2016 PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILT) IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,370.12 AND TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE ALLOCATION OF $2,212.00 OF COST INCURRED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE PILT REPORT. Documents:

201702230944.PDF

3. 10:40 A.M. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

4. 10:45 A.M. PUBLIC COMMENT

5. 11:00 A.M. HUMAN RESOURCES Chris Hensen, Director

A. 2016 VACATION AND COMP TIME CARRYOVER Consideration to approve carryover of 2016 accrued vacation for the County Manager and County Attorney; and 2016 accrued vacation and comp time over 80 hours for various employees. Documents:

2016 VACATION AND COMP TIME CARRYOVER.PDF

6. 11:30 A.M. PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) ADVISORY BOARD Claire Sollars, Chair

A. FUNDING APPROVAL FOR PDR PROJECT 183 - DEVIL'S GRAVE Consideration to approve the funding of PDR project 183, Devil's Grave, in the total amount of $256,000, and authorization to sign the Agreement Concerning Conservation Easement between Routt County and Yampa Valley Land Trust (YVLT). Documents:

PDR 183 02.28.17.PDF PRESS RDG V.7 2017.02.22.PDF 9 ROCO AGREEMENT YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.PDF

B. PDR ANNUAL REPORT Presentation of the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) annual report for 2016. Documents:

PDR PROGRESS REPORT 17 SHORT VERSION.PDF CONSERVATION_MAP_PDR_JAN2017.PDF

7. 12:00 P.M. LUNCH BREAK

8. 1:00 P.M. ROAD AND BRIDGE Janet Hruby, Director

A. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Presentation from CDOT Officials regarding the CDOT conducted Bridge Inspection Report. The report will be distributed at the presentation.

9. 1:30 P.M. PLANNING Chad Phillips, Director

A. REVIEW OF TEMPLE GRAVEL PIT SUP; PP2004-004. Review and possible expiration of the Temple Gravel Pit SUP; PP2004- 004. Documents:

BCC COMM FORM TEMPLE GRAVEL PIT 2.28.17.PDF

10. 2:00 P.M. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ben Grush, Director

A. REQUEST FOR NEW POSITIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGETS Consideration for approval and authorization for the Chair to sign two Supplemental Budgets adding two FTE's to the Building Department Staff, one Assistant Building Official and one Combination Inspector. Documents:

BUILDING DEPARTMENT -1-BCC AGENDA FORM - 2017 (1).PDF BUILDING DEPARTMENT-2-ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL- FINAL.PDF BUILDING DEPARTMENT-3-ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL JOB DESCRIPTION 021017-FINAL.PDF BUILDING DEPARTMENT-4-ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL 2017 PAY SCALE.PDF BUILDING DEPARTMENT-5-REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT- PERSONNEL-COMBINATION INSPECTOR-FINAL.PDF BUILDING DEPARTMENT-6- 16 YEARS AT A GLANCE - PLUS.PDF

11. 2:30 P.M. HUMAN SERVICES Vickie Clark, Director

A. REDUCTION IN WORFORCE DUE TO FUNDING Consideration and approval to eliminate Human Services position, .5 FTE Administrative Assistant, as a reduction in workforce due to funding decreases from the Colorado Department of Human Services to the early childhood council, First Impressions of Routt County, effective April 1, 2017. Documents:

2017.2.28 AGENDAREDUCTIONINWORKFORCEFI-2017_1.PDF 02.15.17 BUDGET AFTER STATE CUTS 2017.PDF 2.15.17 ECCSYS BLDG ALLOC METHODOLOGY.PDF

12. 3:00 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Scott Cowman, Director

A. COMMUNITY OF PHIPPSBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY LAGOON LINER REPLACEMENT Consideration to approve review and processing of a grant application to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to fund construction and engineering of synthetic lagoon liners at the Phippsburg Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Review of entire process from concept engineering, plan review, engineering design, to final construction; including process for acquisition of funds from CDPHE Grants and Loans Division, Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, and DOLA. Documents:

AGENDACOMMFORM DOLA GRANT 2-21-17.PDF PHIPPSBURG EIAF APPLICATION V2.PDF PBURGLAGOONLINERREPLACEMENTTIMELINEUPDATED 20170131.PDF

13. 3:30 P.M. MEETING ADJOURNED

LIVE AUDIO WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR TUESDAY MEETINGS BY CALLING (970) 870-5499 EXCLUDES WORK SESSIONS All regular meetings are open to the public unless otherwise noted. All meetings will be held in the Routt County Historic Courthouse - 522 Lincoln Avenue, Hearing Room, Steamboat Springs - or otherwise noted.

All programs, services and activities of Routt County are operated in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you need a special accommodation as a result of a disability, please call the Commissioners Office at (970) 879-0108 to assure that we can meet your needs. Please notify us of your request as soon as possible prior to the scheduled event. Routt County uses the Relay Colorado service. Dial 711 or TDD (970) 870-5444. ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Timothy V. Corrigan Douglas B. Monger Cari Hermacinski District I District II District III REGULAR MEETING February 28, 2017 LIVE AUDIO WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR TUESDAY MEETINGS BY CALLING (970) 870-5499 EXCLUDES WORK SESSIONS 1. 10:30 A.M. CALL TO ORDER

A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

B. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, MANUAL WARRANTS, AND PAYROLL

C. ITEMS OF NOTE FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY'S WORK SESSION

2. 10:35 A.M. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

A. APPROVAL OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017; Documents:

1.24.17.PDF

201702230944.PDF

3. 10:40 A.M. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

4. 10:45 A.M. PUBLIC COMMENT

5. 11:00 A.M. HUMAN RESOURCES Chris Hensen, Director

2016 VACATION AND COMP TIME CARRYOVER.PDF

6. 11:30 A.M. PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) ADVISORY BOARD Claire Sollars, Chair

PDR 183 02.28.17.PDF PRESS RDG V.7 2017.02.22.PDF 9 ROCO AGREEMENT YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.PDF

B. PDR ANNUAL REPORT Presentation of the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) annual report for 2016. Documents:

PDR PROGRESS REPORT 17 SHORT VERSION.PDF CONSERVATION_MAP_PDR_JAN2017.PDF

7. 12:00 P.M. LUNCH BREAK

8. 1:00 P.M. ROAD AND BRIDGE Janet Hruby, Director

9. 1:30 P.M. PLANNING Chad Phillips, Director

A. REVIEW OF TEMPLE GRAVEL PIT SUP; PP2004-004. Review and possible expiration of the Temple Gravel Pit SUP; PP2004- 004. Documents:

BCC COMM FORM TEMPLE GRAVEL PIT 2.28.17.PDF

10. 2:00 P.M. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ben Grush, Director

11. 2:30 P.M. HUMAN SERVICES Vickie Clark, Director

2017.2.28 AGENDAREDUCTIONINWORKFORCEFI-2017_1.PDF 02.15.17 BUDGET AFTER STATE CUTS 2017.PDF 2.15.17 ECCSYS BLDG ALLOC METHODOLOGY.PDF

12. 3:00 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Scott Cowman, Director

AGENDACOMMFORM DOLA GRANT 2-21-17.PDF PHIPPSBURG EIAF APPLICATION V2.PDF PBURGLAGOONLINERREPLACEMENTTIMELINEUPDATED 20170131.PDF

13. 3:30 P.M. MEETING ADJOURNED

A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

B. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, MANUAL WARRANTS, AND PAYROLL

C. ITEMS OF NOTE FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY'S WORK SESSION

2. 10:35 A.M. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

A. APPROVAL OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2017; Documents:

1.24.17.PDF

201702230944.PDF

3. 10:40 A.M. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

4. 10:45 A.M. PUBLIC COMMENT

5. 11:00 A.M. HUMAN RESOURCES Chris Hensen, Director

2016 VACATION AND COMP TIME CARRYOVER.PDF

6. 11:30 A.M. PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) ADVISORY BOARD Claire Sollars, Chair

PDR 183 02.28.17.PDF PRESS RDG V.7 2017.02.22.PDF 9 ROCO AGREEMENT YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.PDF

B. PDR ANNUAL REPORT Presentation of the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) annual report for 2016. Documents:

PDR PROGRESS REPORT 17 SHORT VERSION.PDF CONSERVATION_MAP_PDR_JAN2017.PDF

7. 12:00 P.M. LUNCH BREAK

8. 1:00 P.M. ROAD AND BRIDGE Janet Hruby, Director

9. 1:30 P.M. PLANNING Chad Phillips, Director

A. REVIEW OF TEMPLE GRAVEL PIT SUP; PP2004-004. Review and possible expiration of the Temple Gravel Pit SUP; PP2004- 004. Documents:

BCC COMM FORM TEMPLE GRAVEL PIT 2.28.17.PDF

10. 2:00 P.M. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ben Grush, Director

11. 2:30 P.M. HUMAN SERVICES Vickie Clark, Director

2017.2.28 AGENDAREDUCTIONINWORKFORCEFI-2017_1.PDF 02.15.17 BUDGET AFTER STATE CUTS 2017.PDF 2.15.17 ECCSYS BLDG ALLOC METHODOLOGY.PDF

12. 3:00 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Scott Cowman, Director

AGENDACOMMFORM DOLA GRANT 2-21-17.PDF PHIPPSBURG EIAF APPLICATION V2.PDF PBURGLAGOONLINERREPLACEMENTTIMELINEUPDATED 20170131.PDF

13. 3:30 P.M. MEETING ADJOURNED

OFFICE OF THE CLERK January 24, 2017

County Commissioner Timothy V. Corrigan, Chair called the regular meeting of the Routt County Board of County Commissioners to order. Commissioner Douglas B. Monger, Commissioner Cari Hermacinski, County Manager Tom Sullivan, and Deputy County Manager Dan Weinheimer were also present. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Tegan Anderson recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes.

EN RE: WARRANTS

MOTION

Commissioner Monger moved to approve and authorize the Commissioners to sign the Warrants Sheets that included:

Accounts Payable 1/16-1/20 $390,894.31 Check- Cycle Date: Accounts Payable 1/16-1/20 $723,041.00 Check: Manuals Accounts Payable 1/16-1/20 $0.00 Wires: Total: $1,113,935.31 Payroll Checks- Cycle 1/16-1/20 $0.00 Date: Payroll Checks- 1/16-1/20 $2,459.22 Manuals Total: $2,459.22 Total Disbursements 1/16-1/20 $1,116,394.53 Approved:

Commissioner Hermacinski seconded.

Mr. Sullivan advised of the following Accounts Payable items:

Bratton Enterprises $6,643.12 Road and Bridge Scoria Colorado Energy System $24,675.00 Comm Center – Tower site backup batteries, 9 Qty. Purchase and install Harrington Industrial Plastics $8,561.00 Road and Bridge – Magnesium Chloride tank Jviation $50,510.00 YVRA - airside beacon, P a g e | 32 January 24, 2017 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes broom, blower. Design and bidding Northwest Consultants, Inc. $51,910.00 Road and Bridge – weed shed

The motion carried 3-0.

EN RE: ITEMS OF NOTE FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY’S WORK SESSIONS

Commissioner Corrigan stated that the Board met with the County Manager, County Attorney and the Communications Manager to hear updates.

EN RE: CONSENT AGENDA

The following items were presented for consideration, approval, and signing on the consent agenda:

A. Approval of County Commissioners Minutes: Regular Meeting of December 20, 2016; B. Approval of and authorization to ratify the Chair’s signature on a fiber optic easement agreement between Routt County and Fred Duckels and Duckels Construction with a payment from Routt County to the Grantor of $10 for easement acquisition. C. Approval of and authorization to sign a Resolution appointing Members to the Northwest Workforce Development Board representing Routt County.

MOTION

Commissioner Hermacinski moved to approve items A, B, and C on the consent agenda and authorize the Chair to sign the related documents. Consent agenda item C is Resolution 2017-003 and noted that it may need to be replaced because there are some outdated names on the document.

Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

EN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT

Tony Stich, Nancy Mucklow, Leslie Lovejoy, Nancy White, Julie Shook, and John DiNickolas, citizens; and Janet Hruby, Road and Bridge Director; were present.

P a g e | 33 January 24, 2017 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes Commissioner Corrigan stated that he is aware that there is a group of citizens present to comment on the County snow plowing operations. He wants to inform the group that the Board will gladly listen to these citizens but will not be making any decisions or responding during this public comment time. He requested each person to write down their contact information in case the Board would like to formulate a response to this group.

Mr. Stich read the following statement:

“I’d like to address the Board of County Commissioners in regards to the two head-on collisions on CR16 this month. My purpose here is to ask the Board to increase the level of service one level and to immediately consider increasing the amount of scoria spread on the 9 blind curves and Cole Hill between mile marker 2 and 8. Before I state my reasons for consideration, I’d like the Board to know that I have traveled this section of road more than 15,000 times since my arrival in Routt County in June 2001 and have spent many a vacation on this road before we moved here. So, I consider myself a quasi-expert on this section of road. Also, for four years I kept track of the location and date where vehicles left the roadway and presented Road and Bridge with these findings. These off road vehicle incidents exceeded 75 per year and doubled when Paul Draper was replaced. That said, Janet Hruby has been very responsive when I’ve communicated with here and I know that it takes to address close to a 1000 miles of Routt County Roads but scoria was stopped and other cost saving measures were put in place upon her arrival. Snow plowing was suspended on the weekends on CR16 between the end of the pavement and mile marker 8. In my humble opinion the stopping of scoria accounted for this increase of incidents. Road and Bridge has plowed twice on the weekends this year but no scoria truck accompanied the grader. I encourage any member of this Board to travel CR16 when it is snowing or at dusk when the light is flat for a true understanding of our concerns. The reason for my request for consideration are as follows:

 CR16 is the busiest non-paved road in the County.  Limited signage, no guard rains, narrow roadways and four areas where the road shift abruptly and if distracted for a second you place yourself in immediate peril.  It’s a gravel road so snow melt doesn’t occur as with paved roads so, snow and ice are present on the road from around December to April or until the temperature takes a turn. The road chatter and or potholes present under this surface intensifies the chance for skid on most any portion of the rad and especially the curves with virtually no scoria down. Unequivocally the primary reason for the head on collisions.  Fear of the sharp drop off the west side of the road and the deep ditches on the east side force residents to hug the middle of the road. Graders and plows fill the ditches on the eastern side of the road with snow making them virtually invisible as to where the down slope on the ditch starts.  The chatter on the curves and potholes are not graded deep enough and they immediate return after it rains or start to appear after as little as three days. The one time in 15 years that the Road and Bridge Director had his crew grade the road with a 4” spiked rake and compacted the curves the chatter and potholes didn’t return for 9 weeks.  I know that this Board and Road and Bridge considers CR16 to be unsafe and in need of upgrades. If you don’t, please take a thrill ride and visit her.

P a g e | 34 January 24, 2017 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes  If the Stagecoach Ski Corporation is sold this spring frequency of incidents will only increase and at a dramatic rate as they did in 2005 and 2006.

I’m very aware that speed and tire ware have an influence on many of these incidents as CR16 is unforgiving. That said, a little snow on top of the ice and or warm temperatures above 30 degrees amplifies that threat of having an accident with or without good tires. I can attest to this fact as I left the road just above the Stagecoach Fire House, three years ago, along with three other residents within 10 days of each other and a year later, a young female nurse lost her life during a summer months in this very same location when her car rolled and she was thrown from her vehicle. The usual hazard location in this area is a dog leg left turn at the intersection of CR18A and CR16 but my accident occurred on a Sunday morning while I was dissenting the hill just after this intersection, my ABS breaking system kicked in because there wasn’t much on any of these turns and the temperature was such that a film of water was on top of the ice even though my ABS system continued trying to break my decent, my speed was increasing so either I chanced rolling my vehicle or take the plunge down the 70 foot hill. We arrived at the bottom of the hill unharmed but had $6,000 of damage as a t-post raked the side of the vehicle. The driver that stopped told highway patrol that my speed was between 10 and 15 miles per hour. The scoria driver passed less than a minute after the accident and didn’t stop or bother to scoria the hill, unforgivable in my opinion. Three more incidents occurred at this location, one having rolled their vehicle before Road and Bridge began spreading scoria on this portion of the road. To say I was upset would be an understatement so I sent a letter to Janet Hruby and copied this Board. Change took place quickly after I sent my letter so please accept my sincere gratitude and I trust that you know that my concerns are not without merit. In summary, the residents of Stagecoach that utilize CR16 as egress in and out of their subdivision would be extremely grateful for your consideration of these safety measures on this 6 mile section of CR16 to help prevent accidents of this nature. We know that accidents cannot be fully eliminated but these measures would go a long way in helping to prevent many until such time CR16 can be upgraded.”

Ms. Mucklow read the following statement:

“Thank you for your consideration of the concerns of many North Routt residents ( one of which I have been since moving to County Road 56 in 1991) about the current winter safety of RCR 129, the main artery by which we all travel to our homes, business and schools in North Routt County. For my part, I see the concerns as being the once daily plowing of RCR 129 in adverse weather conditions. Keeping in mind that North Routt County is home to many full time residents who have only one way in and out of the area they call home AND keeping in mind that North Routt residents share the road with many service vehicles servicing many Businesses that call North Routt home, as well as School and Preschool, AND keeping in mind that North Routt County is a winter haven for skiers, snowmobilers, fishermen and sight-seeing visitors and dude ranch guests, I respectfully suggest that the Main Artery serving North Routt County, namely RCR 129, deserves some consideration for an extra plow on many occasions. While a morning plow is optimal and necessary, many conditions exist and happen outside of the morning hours which would increase road safety conditions for all. With the technology surrounding weather conditions in this day and age, weather events are seldom a surprise and staffing for a temporary plowing situation could be managed in connection with these weather events as necessary and desirable for the safety of all our drivers.

P a g e | 35 January 24, 2017 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes Afternoon thaws create slushy conditions which do not get plowed away in “only a morning” plow. By morning, the slush has become a RUT of ice that cannot be plowed and is many times NOT in alignment with the traffic ways on the road (IE no one can tell where the center of the two lane narrow road might be). Thus, when a car meets a large truck delivering grocery items to the many North Routt restaurants, business and service venues, neither can get out of each other’s way due to the ICE RUT that has not been dealt with when it was only slush. The rough road of icy sections also means a car that meets one of the multitude of large vehicles pulling snowmobile trailers or the now popular wide vehicles hauling snowmobiles on its flatbed cannot avoid each other, creating a harrowing experience and unsafe situation (ie the ditch!) for both drivers. Recent weather has also included unprecedented windy conditions, many times making RCR 129 a one lane road in the afternoon. In particular, the section below MM 11 is many times blown nearly shut across that hill. Please consider this a request for extra plowing provisions for RCR 129, the Main Artery to North Routt County and the only service road available to our North Routt residents, visitors, schools and businesses in winter conditions.”

Ms. Lovejoy stated that she has lived in Columbine for 10 years and she believes Ms. Mucklow summarized the feelings of many North Routt residents very well. Ms. Lovejoy has been very happy with the plowing in the morning this season. As a traveling nurse she drives all over North Routt regularly and big weather conditions can make it very difficult to reach her clients although it seemed like plowing was increased during the big storms a few weeks ago and she would like to see that continue.

Mr. DiNickolas stated that he is a resident of South Routt. He feels that there were times over the holidays when the plowing was suspect and it seemed as though no roads were plowed for two long holiday weekends in a row. He would like the roads to be plowed at least once a day and be believes CR16 needs a lot of work.

Ms. Shook stated that she is a Fedex courier and her route covers North Routt, the lower Elk and County Roads 33 and 33A. For the most part she is very pleased with the road plowing. Usually the morning plowing is sufficient but on January 4th there was 54 inches of snow in North Rout and people could not see the road. Had a plow came up later in the day it would have been better because the road conditions were scary and unsafe. Concern is about the school buses. On January 11th passed a plow at about 3:30pm but the Charter school bus leave at 3:15. A second plow does not need to always happen but during significant weather events seems necessary.

Commissioner Monger added that the Road and Bridge Director is present to listen to the comments and questioned if gravel roads have ever received scoria. Ms. Hruby responded that only very small portion of certain gravel roads have received scoria.

Commissioner Corrigan commented that he would like Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Hruby to schedule some time to further discuss this issue in a work session.

EN RE: PLANNING / CHAD PHILLIPS

P a g e | 36 January 24, 2017 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes Alan Goldich, Planning, was also present.

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO RELEASE SECURITIES; PL-17-100

Mr. Goldich stated that this item is the delegation of the authority of the Board to release bonds, cash collaterals, and securities required through land use approvals. Currently only the Board has the authority to release those securities but for the Boards consideration is a statement of policy that would delegate that authority to the Planning Director and a Resolution that would accompany that statement of policy. There are certain requirements that would need to be met in order for the Planning Director to release those securities such as an inspection of the site to make sure all the conditions of approval have been met related to the securities, a monthly report informing the Board when securities have been released. The Board would also be able to rescind the delegation of authority at any point although it would not be possible to reverse released securities.

Commissioner Corrigan asked what the motivation behind this policy is. Mr. Goldich stated this is to expedite the release of securities.

Commissioner Monger asked if the County Attorney has reviewed this. Mr. Goldich responded yes, both the policy statement and the resolution have been reviewed. Commissioner Monger added that he would like the Board notified a few days prior to the release of any securities via email or some other means. Mr. Goldich asked if the Board would like the policy statement amended to reflect that request. Commissioner Corrigan responded no, he is comfortable with the policy statement as it is written.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Hoffman stated that this is removing some transparency from the process and in the current process he appreciates notice and public consideration. He also finds it concerning that a notification will only happen after the securities are released. He suggests that maybe this information should be put on a consent agenda. Because all of this happens within the Planning Department it would be appreciated if there were some oversite or delegate the authority to the Deputy County Manager.

MOTION

Commissioner Monger moved to approve Resolution 2017-004, a Resolution adopting a policy statement delegating the authority for the release of cash collateral, securities, or bonds associated with land use approvals.

Commissioner Hermacinski seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

EN RE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / SCOTT COWMAN

Ken Leib and Steven Anders, USGS; Lyn Halliday, volunteer watershed coordinator; Mike Zopf, citizen; Kelly Romero-Heaney, City of Steamboat Springs; Kevin

P a g e | 37 January 24, 2017 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes McBride and Andy Rossi, Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District; Frank Alfone, Mt. Werner Water; and Tom Ross, Steamboat Pilot & Today; were present.

WATER QUALITY PRESENTATION

Mr. Cowman stated that Mr. Leib and Mr. Anders are here from the USGS and they have prepared a presentation regarding the Upper Yampa Water Quality Monitoring Program. The presentation focuses on why we monitor, the importance on monitoring, and what can be done with the data. There will not be a lot of emphasis on that data itself in this presentation. Representatives from the funding partner are present and following the Commissioners’ meeting they will meet to discuss the data more in depth.

Mr. Leib and Mr. Anders presented on the topic of the Upper Yampa Water Quality Monitoring Program. The role of the USGS in regards to water quality was addressed and the multi-phase approach of water quality monitoring was discussed. The phases are: 1. Gather and Analyze existing data. 2. Determine objectives. 3. Design the monitoring plan. 4. Collect and publish data. 5. Re-evaluate and adjust as necessary.

Further, they discussed trend analysis based upon multiple years of data collection as well as the practice of loading analysis. Examples of how the phases are followed and of changes that can affect the water quality in the Upper Yampa Basin were discussed. The data from the monitoring is stored on the USGS website and the USGS likes to meet with the stakeholders each year to discuss the data.

Multiple stakeholders present expressed interest in meeting with the USGS to discuss the water monitoring program more regularly.

No further business coming before the Board, same adjourned sine die.

______Kim Bonner, Clerk and Recorder Timothy V. Corrigan, Chair

______Date

P a g e | 38 January 24, 2017 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes

ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

ITEM DATE: 02/28/2017 ITEM TIME: 11:30 AM

FROM: PDR Board/Claire Sollars – Helena Taylor TODAY’S DATE: 02/09/2017 AGENDA TITLE: FUNDING APPROVAL FOR PDR PROJ. 183 – DEVIL’S GRAVE CHECK ONE THAT APPLIES TO YOUR ITEM: x ACTION ITEM q DIRECTION q INFORMATION I. DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: See V. (Background)

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consideration to approve the funding of PDR project 183, Devil’s Grave, in the total amount of $256,000, and authorization to sign the Agreement Concerning Conservation Easement between Routt County and Yampa Valley Land Trust (YVLT).

III. DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (VARIATION TO BUDGET): PROPOSED REVENUE: n/a PROPOSED EXPENDITURE: $256,000 FUNDING SOURCE: Open Space – PDR Fund $256,000 – Conservation Easement

IV. IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (IDENTIFY ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM):

V. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

The Routt County Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Citizen’s Advisory Board met on February 7, 2017 to review Tier II documents for Project #183. The PDR Board recommends approval of Tier II funding in the previously approved total amount of $256,000.00 going towards the purchase of the Conservation Easement.

The final Conservation Easement was valued at $600,000 which is $370,200 less than the initial estimated value of the Conservation Easement. Because of this reduction in value, the PDR Board reduced the funding from the original approved of $316,060 to $256,000 on January 26, 2016. The PDR program will be contributing $256,000 (42.7%), other partners will contribute 38.5% and the remainder $113,000 (18.8%) being landowner contribution. The PDR Board is pleased to see this project move towards completion and commends the landowners for their continued conservation effort.

The 840-acre conserved parcel is visible from the well-traveled Colorado State Hwy. 131 and also contributes to scenic values from many Routt County roads, including RCR 17 – the Flat Tops Trail Scenic Byway. The parcel is home to a unique geologic formation that towers above the surrounding landscape and serves as the dramatic backdrop to the property. The intact, open space viewsheds showcase the rugged and natural character of the Yampa Valley, particularly its distinctive and expansive rangelands.

Four generations have owned and operated the Routt County family ranch for nearly 100 years. The landowners’ conservation commitment stems from their deep appreciation to have the chance to continue the family’s Yampa Valley ranching operation, as well as their unwavering respect for and understanding of the natural world. Their goal is to ensure that younger members of their family can carry on Routt County’s and their family’s longstanding ranching heritage in the same fashion, unimpeded by development pressures, on the ground that they have walked and worked for decades, and thus continue an agricultural legacy.

Project 183 reflects the family’s commitment and the heritage of northwest Colorado and to preservation of avian and wildlife habitat.

VI. LEGAL ISSUES: All documentation has been reviewed by the County Attorney. There are no outstanding issues.

VII. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS: Project will close on the X.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 2017.02.28

PRESS CONTACT: Susan Dorsey, Executive Director Yampa Valley Land Trust (YVLT) Telephone: 970-879-7240 E-mail: [email protected]

Helena Taylor, Routt County PDR Staff Assistant Telephone: 970-879-0108 E-mail: [email protected]

“Dramatic Open Scenery and Key Winter Habitat for Sage Grouse, Elk and Mule Deer Conserved Along Flat Tops Trail Scenic Byway”

WHO: Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave (Jim Rossi and Dean Rossi, brothers/landowners) along with Yampa Valley Land Trust with funding support from Routt County Purchase of Development Rights Program, Great Outdoors Colorado and YVLT Supporters

WHAT: Funding and Closing of the Conservation Easement on 840 acres of Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave, a working ranch property with sweeping open scenery and important habitat for wildlife

WHERE: Routt County Road 17 / Flat Tops Trail Scenic Byway near Town of Yampa, South Routt County, Colorado

WHEN: March 2017 (Date yet to be set.)

HOW: Yampa Valley Land Trust, YVLT Supporters along with Routt County PDR and Great Outdoors Colorado provided funding for the conservation easement transaction on Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave, which was complemented with a generous donation from landowners and brothers Dean Rossi and Jim Rossi.

INFO: Background info below

PHOTO: (Attached or included herein.)

Yampa Valley Land Trust Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave Conserved Press RDG v.7 2017.02.22.docx Page 1 of 3

Yampa Valley Land Trust, Routt County’s Purchase of Development Rights Program, and Great Outdoors Colorado are excited to announce the finalization of an 840-acre conservation easement on “Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave,” a working ranch property in South Routt County distinguished by its sweeping open vistas and wealth of sagebrush wildlife habitat.

Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave is situated in an agricultural corridor along the Flat Tops Trail Scenic Byway (Routt County Road 17) and is visible from the well-traveled Colorado Highway 131. The parcel and its dramatic backdrop with the Flat Top Mountains and the “Devil’s Gravestone” Mesa (a towering sandstone rock formation) contribute to the area’s magnificent open scenery. In addition to its scenic qualities, the property harbors important sagebrush habitat utilized by Greater Sage-grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, bald eagles, mule deer, elk, moose, mountain lions, and a range of other Northwest Colorado species.

Brothers Dean Rossi and Jim Rossi – owners of the Devil’s Grave ranch parcel – have been instrumental figures in pioneering and championing the use of conservation easements on agricultural properties throughout Routt County. The Rossis have deep roots in the Yampa Valley: four generations of the Rossi family have owned and operated the family ranch over the course of nearly a century. The Devil’s Grave is contiguous with and links two other YVLT- conserved properties, including the first conservation easement funded by GOCO in Colorado (1996): Rossi Ranch on the Yampa River, which includes the striking Laughlin Buttes.

Dean and Jim use the conserved land primarily for cattle grazing operations. They conserved the Devil’s Grave parcel to ensure it would never be developed, preserving its natural qualities and allowing it to remain open for agriculture. Younger members of the Rossi family will ultimately inherit the property, intending to continue the family’s ranching heritage on the same lands Dean and Jim have worked on for decades.

YVLT’s latest conservation easement transaction was made possible by Routt County’s voter-approved Purchase of Development Rights program, which provided funding for the new conservation project. Also recognizing the property’s unique attributes and its importance to wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado contributed funding through its Open Space grant program.

Yampa Valley Land Trust, Routt County, and Great Outdoors Colorado continue to safeguard Northwest Colorado’s agricultural legacy, sweeping open space landscapes, and diverse wildlife habitats through strategic land conservation efforts. To date, YVLT has permanently protected over 56,130 acres in Northwest Colorado with 76 conservation easements, and more land conservation is in the works.

• Established in 1992, Yampa Valley Land Trust works with willing landowners to conserve the agricultural, natural, scenic and historic landscapes located in Routt, Rio Blanco, Jackson and Moffat Counties. To date, much of YVLT’s work has focused on the Upper Yampa River Basin in Routt County and the Upper White River Basin in Rio Blanco County. For more than 25 years, Yampa Valley Land Trust has been the leader in Yampa Valley Land Trust Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave Conserved Press RDG v.7 2017.02.22.docx Page 2 of 3

land conservation for the area and has protected over 56,130 acres in 76 conservation easements. Furthermore, YVLT has worked to conserve an additional 5,000 acres proximate to the City of Steamboat Springs on Emerald Mountain and Howelsen Hill that now provides public access to open space and recreational trails. All of YVLT’s conservation projects ensure that the beautiful working landscapes and prime ecological features along with outstanding recreational projects will continue to be an inspiring part of our lives and the lives of generations to follow. Through cash donations and contributions, supporters of Yampa Valley Land Trust helped to make these projects and all Yampa Valley Land Trust conservation easement projects possible. For more information, please call Susan Dorsey at the Yampa Valley Land Trust, 970-879-7240.

• Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) invests a portion of Colorado Lottery proceeds to help preserve and enhance the state’s parks, trails, wildlife, rivers, and open spaces. GOCO’s independent board awards competitive grants to local governments and land trusts, and makes investments through Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Created when voters approved a Constitutional Amendment in 1992, GOCO has since funded more than 4,700 projects in urban and rural areas in all 64 counties without any tax dollar support. Visit GOCO.org for more information.

• The Routt County Purchase of Development Rights Program has, to date, completed 54 conservation projects totaling 40,598 acres. For more information, please contact Helena Taylor at Routt County, 970-879-0108.

Photo Credit: Kimberly Rossi

Yampa Valley Land Trust Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave Conserved Press RDG v.7 2017.02.22.docx Page 3 of 3 AGREEMENT CONCERNING CONSERVATION EASEMENT

This Agreement Concerning Conservation Easement (the "Agreement") dated as of ______, 2017, is between Yampa Valley Land Trust, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation (the "Land Trust") and Routt County, Colorado ("County") by and through its Board of County Commissioners (the "Board").

Recitals

A. The Land Trust is a nonprofit corporation qualified under Internal Revenue Code Sections 170(h) and 501(c)(3), one of the corporate purposes of which is to be the holder of qualified conservation easements.

B. The Land Trust is authorized to be the holder of conservation easements created pursuant to Colorado law.

C. The Land Trust is to be named as holder of a conservation easement (the “Easement”) on certain real property located in Routt County, Colorado, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The grantor of the Easement will be L. Dean Rossi and James L. Rossi a/k/a Jim Rossi. The real property, which is to be subject to the Easement, is also referred to as Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave.

D. The Land Trust and the County intend by this Agreement to define certain obligations of the Land Trust to the County as a result of the financial participation of the County in the purchase of the Easement. The County recognizes that the Trust may have other responsibilities and obligations related to the Easement. It is understood that the County acknowledges and agrees that the County will not undertake any action that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Easement.

Terms and Conditions

1. The Land Trust shall monitor compliance with the Easement by the owners and by any occupants of the Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave property. Representatives of the Land Trust shall visit and inspect the Rossi Ranch: Devil’s Grave at least once annually. The Land Trust shall annually file with the Board a written report of compliance with the Easement. This report shall be filed on or before January 31st of each year commencing in 2018 for the site visit of the previous year. Following the receipt of the annual report, the Board may schedule a meeting on its regular public agenda to review the report with representatives of the Land Trust. Nothing contained in the previous sentence shall prohibit the Board from conducting a portion of such meeting in executive session if otherwise permitted by Colorado law.

2. The Land Trust shall take all reasonable action(s) necessary to investigate any reported violations of the Easement. In the event that the Land Trust finds and determines that there is an unresolved violation of the Easement, the Land Trust shall promptly file a written report with the Board describing the Land Trust’s investigation into the possible violation.

ROCO Agreement YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.docx 1 Following the receipt of the report, the Board may schedule a meeting on its regular public agenda to review the report with representatives of the Land Trust. Nothing contained in the previous sentence shall prohibit the Board from conducting a portion of such meeting in executive session if otherwise permitted by Colorado law.

3. The Land Trust shall also conduct such other investigations concerning compliance with the Easement as the Board may reasonably request and, in connection with any such investigation, shall file with the Board a written report concerning such investigation. Promptly following the receipt of this report, the Board shall schedule a meeting on its regular public agenda to review the report with representatives of the Land Trust. The County agrees to reasonably cooperate with the Land Trust in investigation and/or legal defense of the Easement, and in the event suit is brought, to enforce or interpret the Easement’s terms or conditions at the direction of the Land Trust. Nothing contained in the previous sentences shall prohibit the Board from conducting a portion of such meeting with representatives of the Land Trust in an executive session if otherwise permitted by Colorado law.

4. Pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 26, “Amendment” of the Easement, the Land Trust shall first receive the prior written consent of the County for any amendment to the Easement.

5. In the event that the Land Trust is unable or unwilling to continue to act as a holder of the Easement, it may nominate a successor organization to act as holder pursuant to the terms of the Easement and applicable law but, as provided in Paragraph 21, “Assignment” of the Easement, no such nomination shall be effective until the Board has consented to the appointment of the nominee and the nominee has executed an agreement similar to this Agreement. The consent of the Board to such nomination shall not be unreasonably withheld.

6. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during such time as the Easement is also in effect.

7. Any notice required under this Agreement may be personally delivered or mailed in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the party to be served at the following addresses:

Land Trust: Yampa Valley Land Trust, Inc. Attn: Executive Director 1201 Lincoln Avenue P.O. Box 773014 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477

County: Routt County Board of Commissioners 522 Lincoln Avenue P.O. Box 773598 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477

ROCO Agreement YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.docx 2

Notices personally served shall be deemed served on the date of delivery. Notices mailed shall be deemed served the next business day following the date of mailing if mailed in the State of Colorado otherwise on the date which is two business days following the date of mailing.

8. In the event either party to this Agreement brings suit to enforce or interpret any portion of this Agreement, the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in such action, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees.

9. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the Easement and may not be amended except by a written document executed by both parties hereto.

10. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Colorado without reference to choice of laws rules. The parties agree that venue in any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be in the District Court in the Fourteenth Judicial District for the State of Colorado.

ROCO Agreement YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.docx 3

“Land Trust” Yampa Valley Land Trust, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation

By: Susan Dorsey Executive Director (Resolution 2016.09.20.1)

“County” Routt County, Colorado

By: Timothy V. Corrigan, Chairman Board of County Commissioners

ATTEST:

Kim Bonner Routt County Clerk

ROCO Agreement YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.docx 4 EXHIBIT A

Property Description

THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY LOCATED IN COUNTY OF ROUTT, STATE OF COLORADO, AND BEING WESTERLY OF STATE HIGHWAY 131:

TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN;

SECTION 4; LOT 4

TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN;

SECTION 31; THAT PART OF LOTS 9 AND 12 LYING EAST OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 17

SECTION 32; LOTS 8, 9 AND 12-16

SECTION 33; LOTS 2-5 AND 7-11, AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 15, 1996 IN BOOK 720 AT PAGE 676.

THE FOLLOIWNG PROPERTY LOCATED IN TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ROUTT, STATE OF COLORADO;

SECTION 5; LOTS 1 AND 2 AND THAT PART OF LOTS 3, 4 AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER LYING EAST OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 17

SECTION 6; THAT PART OF LOT 1 LYING EAST OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 17

ROCO Agreement YVLT-RDG 2016.12.23.docx 5 Progress Report January 2017

Photo by CCALT

Photo by YVLT

Prepared by: Routt County Purchase of Development Rights

Citizens’ Advisory Board ROUTT COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM

Yampa Valley citizens and visitors alike have long recognized the value of Routt County’s agricultural lands and natural areas. Agriculture represents a significant and relatively stable portion of the County’s economy, having an annual fiscal contribution of more than $46 million. The abundance of agricultural lands and natural areas in Routt County also plays a substantial role in attracting tourists and thus supporting the local recreational economy. Natural areas also sustain the vital ecological communities that support wildlife, waterfowl, and fisheries. Many of the County’s natural areas contain important riparian areas that have been nationally recognized as being ecologically significant.

Realizing the importance of preserving these vital open lands, Routt County voters initially approved the creation of a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program in November of 1996, and reaffirmed their commitment to the program in November 2005 by voting to renew the effort with increased funding through 2025. PDR is a land protection tool in which a property’s development rights are purchased from willing landowners. In exchange, the landowner grants a perpetual conservation easement, or deed restriction on the property, thereby permanently protecting the land from development. The land may be sold or transferred, but the deed restriction remains in place.

The PDR Program provides landowners an economically attractive alternative to selling land for development by compensating them for the development rights on their land. Ownership of the property remains vested with the landowner, who can use and manage the property consistent with the terms of the conservation easement.

$43,921,905. (50.5%) $21,494,382. (22.9%) In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Contribution Funding

$713,184. (<1%) $22,408,192. (25.8%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding PDR Progress Report Page 2 To receive PDR funds, landowners must be sponsored by a qualified land conservation organization. The landowner and land conservation organization applies for funding to the seven- member, PDR Citizens’ Advisory Board, which is appointed by the Routt County Commis- sioners. The PDR Board reviews all applications for compliance with submission requirements, rates their conservation values and functions, and then makes recommendations to the Routt County Board of Commissioners as whether to fund the purchase in full, in part, or not at all.

Funding for the Routt County PDR Program is derived from a 1.5 mill increase in County property tax approved by voters for a twenty-year period beginning in 2006. The PDR Pro- gram provides only a portion of the total funding needed to complete the transaction, with the landowner donating, on average for 60 completed projects, 50.51 percent of the easement’s value. Other federal, state, and local agencies have also contributed funds, with 22.9 percent of the total PDR project funding to date coming from these agencies. The PDR funds have thus been used as leverage to secure an average of nearly three dollars of additional value for every one dollar of County funds.

Since initiation of the PDR Program in 1997, the County has helped fund the purchase of conservation easements on 43,882.18 acres, at a cost of $23.1 million dollars, including transaction costs. Five PDR projects covering an additional 6,886 acres, at a PDR funds cost of $1,647,000 have also been approved for funding and are pending completion. Once these projects are completed, the program will have preserved a total of 50,768.18 acres at a PDR funds cost of about $24.7 million dollars. By using PDR funds to leverage funding from other agencies, the cost to the County for preserving these lands have to date averaged only $510 per acre.

The completed PDR projects range in size from the 3,507-acre Dry Fork Ranch, north of Hay- den, to the 13-acre Fournier property - this riverfront property includes a half mile bank along the Yampa River on the west side of Steamboat Springs. The completed projects are located as far west as Hayden, extending south to Toponas, and north near the Wyoming border. Com- pletion of the pending projects will significantly broaden the geographic extent of the projects. The following pages provide brief summaries of the projects completed in 2016.

Page 3 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #102 Stanko Ranch Project Completion: March 2000 Total Acres: 141.2

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: The Stanko ranch is located approximately four miles west of Steamboat Springs and is surrounded by rural Other Funding Agencies: Farmland residential land and large working ranches. The land is visi- Protection Program, Legacy (GOCO) ble from County Road 33 and US Highway 40. This parcel Total Funding per Acre: $2,863 consists of open hay meadows and riparian areas, of which PDR Funding per Acre: $1,446 about 90 percent is irrigated. Approximately one-half mile of the Yampa River winds through the property, surrounded by fertile hay meadows, upland areas, bluffs, and rich riparian areas. A variety of wildlife utilizes patches of undisturbed habitat along the Yampa. Part of a nearly 700-acre ranch, this land would have had prime development potential. The Stanko ranch was the first funded project of the Purchase of Development Rights Program.

Total Project Value: $655,193 The Applicant: The Stankos are the third generation to live on and operate the ranch, which was $251,000 (37%) $200,000 (31%) established in 1907. They are involved in numer- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local ous volunteer endeavors within the community Contribution Funding and Routt County and are passionately committed to agriculture and conservation. Their desire was to be able to continue their agricultural operation while ensuring an open space legacy contribution for the community. $4,193 (1%) $200,000 (31%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“People are always talking about preserving ag land and open space. We are not talking, we are committing.” -Jim & Jo Stanko

Photo by Yampa Valley Land

PDR Progress Report Page 4 PDR Project #103 Warren Ranch Project Completion: November 2000 Total Acres: 1,590

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: The entire 1,590-acre Warren ranch, located in the upper Elk River Valley north of Mad Creek Canyon, Other Funding Agencies: Farmland was preserved. The property is located on County road 129 Protection Program, GOCO and is highly visible to residents and visitors traveling to Total Funding per Acre: $1,266 Steamboat Lake. It contains about 620 acres of irrigated PDR Funding per Acre: $323 land and nearly two miles of the upper Elk River and had historically been used for hay production and grazing cattle. In addition to maintaining an existing, viable ranching operation, this project protected critical wildlife habitat by preserving a significant length of river and upland area. The ranch supports a unique narrow leaf cottonwood/thin leaf alder riparian forest that provides habitat for the threatened Sandhill cranes and Bald eagles.

Total Project Value: $5,088,000

The Applicant: This ranch had been in the Warren $3,075,000 (61%) $1,500,000 (29%) family for over 47 years. It was the desire of the In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local owner that the ranch remain an active, agriculturally Contribution Funding productive property. The preservation of such a large working ranch, as well as the dramatic vistas, wildlife and historical structures made this an extremely significant achievement in the upper Elk River area. $13,000 (<1%) $500,000 (10%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“It has always been the deep abiding desire of my husband Forrest and myself to see that this property always remains a ranch. I want to know that years from now someone will be gathering their cattle come fall and listen to the elk bugle...”

-Ruth Warren Photo by Yampa Valley Land

Page 5 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #104 Wilhelm Ranch Project Completion: September 2000 Total Acres: 325

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: The Wilhelm property is located on Copper Ridge, overlooking the lower Elk River Valley, north of Other Funding Agencies: Division of Steamboat Springs. The property is visible from County road Wildlife (DOW) 129. This parcel has immense open space value, providing Total Funding per Acre: $917 important winter range for big game. With the exception of PDR Funding per Acre: $764 the northern border, which is adjacent to National Forest, the property is surrounded by large and small lot developments that have put pressure on wildlife populations in the area.

Total Project Value: $683,156 The Applicant: This property has been in the Wil- helm family since 1942, and it was the owner’s $385,000 (57%) $50,000 (7%) strong desire to preserve open space and the critical In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local wildlife habitat that is rapidly disappearing in an Contribution Funding area of residential development. The family has operated a hunting and guiding business based on the property since 1943. The ranch also contains additional acreage that is used for hay production and raising horses. $8,156 (1%) $240,000 (35%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“I have made a big commitment to keeping this land as open space for my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren...”

-Patsy Wilhelm

Photo by Yampa Valley Land

PDR Progress Report Page 6 PDR Project #105 Robinson Ranch Project Completion: February 2000 Total Acres: 111.87

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: Located in the lower Elk River Valley, the Rob- inson ranch is in an area that is severely threatened by resi- Other Funding Agencies: Farmland dential development. The property is visible from County Protection Program (FPP) road 44 and includes about one-quarter mile of the Elk Riv- Total Funding per Acre: $3,504 er. Part of a 446-acre ranch, the land under conservation is PDR Funding per Acre: $1,967 a prime agricultural resource and provides valuable riparian wildlife habitat. The property is leased to an adjacent landowner who grows grass hay, alfalfa, and grain to supple- ment his operation. The easement acreage includes hay meadows and riparian forest.

Total Project Value: $695,000 The Applicant: This ranch has been in the Robinson family for four generations and was inherited by the $303,000 (43%) $172,000 (25%) current owners from their grandfather in 1994. The In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local owners desired to protect the property from develop- Contribution Funding ment and see that it remained in agricultural production as they had known it all of their lives. By their conservation action, they hope to encourage more preservation in the lower Elk River Valley.

$0 (0%) $220,000 (32%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“We would love to see the lower Elk River Valley remain in agriculture as we have known it all our lives. In view of the recent development in the area, we hope our easement will be the start of a larger protected area before the parcels are carved up too much.”

-Rob George

Photo by The Nature Conservancy

Page 7 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #106 Higby Ranch Project Completion: August 2001 Total Acres: 261.94

The Land: Located about 10 miles north of Steamboat Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust Springs, this entire 261.94-acre ranch was placed under con- Other Funding Agencies: None servation easement. The property is visible from County Total Funding per Acre: $1,046 road 129 and consists of productive hay meadows, flood- plain and an ecologically significant riparian corridor that PDR Funding per Acre: $1,046 supports a variety of wildlife species. About 200 acres of the property are irrigated hay meadow. The Higby ranch is leased to other area ranches and contains over one-half mile of the lower Elk River. The property provides ideal habitat for numerous wildlife species including elk, deer, and bear.

Total Project Value: $487,666 The Applicant: This property has been in the fam- $213,750 (44%) $0 (0%) ily since 1984 and represents a continuation of four In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local generations of the Higby family ranching in Colo- Contribution Funding rado. The owner’s mother was born in Steamboat Springs in 1914 and raised on a ranch near Craig. The owner grew up on a large ranch in central Colorado, which had to be sold to pay estate taxes. The family’s intent in preserving this ranch is to protect the property and their heirs from similar consequences. The owner also feels strongly that $12,666 (3%) $261,250 (53%) the property should remain an active, agricultural- PDR Funded PDR Conservation ly productive entity that can coexist with wildlife. Transaction Costs Funding

“I had always admired this special area because of its natural beauty, and its water and hay production. Now, with all of the recent development and population influx, I can see that all the things I liked so much are threatened.”

-William Higby Photo by Yampa Valley Land

PDR Progress Report Page 8 PDR Project #108 Sickles Property Project Completion: January 2002 Total Acres: 80

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: The Sickles property, located about 15 miles south of Steamboat Springs on Blacktail Mountain, consists Other Funding Agencies: Great of two parcels used primarily for grazing cattle. These par- Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) cels are highly visible from County road 18, Stagecoach Res- Total Funding per Acre: $4,909 ervoir State Park, the community of Stagecoach, and BLM PDR Funding per Acre: $659 and US Forest Service lands. The majority of the property contains sagebrush vegetation with rock outcroppings and open meadows. The property lies within the ecologically significant Yampa River corridor, which supports a variety of wildlife from elk and grouse to Golden and Bald eagles.

Total Project Value: $780,724 The Applicant: This property owner has a long history of ranching in Routt County, with the family $388,000 (49%) $340,000 (44%) originally arriving in 1898. The family owns and op- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local erates a large ranch in Pleasant Valley, of which this Contribution Funding conserved acreage is a part. The family has long been ardent supporters of conservation and has placed over 900 additional acres under conservation easement. On this property, the owner made a generous donation of nearly 50 percent of the value of the conservation easement. $4,724 (1%) $48,000 (6%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“This [conservation] plan grew out of our concern for an ever-diminishing habitat for wildlife, a loss of open space and a shrinking land base for productive agriculture in the Pleasant Valley area.”

-Bill Gay Photo by Yampa Valley Land

Page 9 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #109 T&T Land & Cattle Project Completion: December 2002 Total Acres: 240

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: Southeast of Hayden, the T&T Land and Cattle Company consists of 225 acres of farmland and 15 acres of Other Funding Agencies: Great Out- pasture wetland. Located within two miles of the Hayden doors Colorado (GOCO) airport, near County road 51, this part of Routt County is Total Funding per Acre: $353 experiencing considerable development pressure. The prop- PDR Funding per Acre: $249 erty is agriculturally valuable and ecologically significant for Sandhill cranes and other wild bird species, and is within a mile of active Columbian sharp-tail and Greater Sage-grouse leks. The parcel is adjacent to private lands currently enrolled in CRP and approximately 500 acres of State Land Board property. About 15 percent of this parcel is cultivated each year in oats and alfalfa, with some of the crop sold locally.

Total Project Value: $214,795 The Applicant: The landowners intend to use the PDR funds to improve the agricultural viability of $130,000 (60%) $25,000 (12%) the property along with the wildlife habitat. Their In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local hope is to create a model of farming in a manner Contribution Funding that is compatible with cranes and grouse, while keeping the property in the family. They plan to improve the property by protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat, experimenting with various crops, and improving and protecting the soils and water resources. The owner’s donation to this conserva- $4,795 (2%) $55,000 (26%) tion effort is among the highest percentage to date. PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“With the assistance of PDR funding we can keep the entire property in family ownership, establish agricultural uses which are economically viable and compatible with wildlife and improve the soils and water resources on the property.”

-Richard Tremaine

Photo by The Nature Conservancy

PDR Progress Report Page 10 PDR Project #110 Combs Property Project Completion: November 2001 Total Acres: 23.34

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust, The Land: This significant natural area is located within the City of Steamboat Springs City of Steamboat Springs, just south of downtown. The Other Funding Agencies: GOCO, project constitutes a key piece of the city’s ongoing effort to City of Steamboat Springs preserve Howelsen Hill and Emerald Mountain. The prop- Total Funding per Acre: $19,409 erty extends from the Yampa River (near Emerald Park) up towards Howelsen Hill meadow and includes a prominent PDR Funding per Acre: $6,855 bluff and natural open space area that is highly visible throughout the city. The sandstone outcroppings are geolog- ically significant, representing the interface of the Rocky Mountains and the Green River/Piceance Basin. Valuable riparian habitat along the Yampa River was also preserved.

Total Project Value: $747,500 The Applicant: It was the desire of the landowners to prevent intrusive development in this highly visi- $294,500 (39%) $293,000 (39%) ble terrain within the Howelsen Hill open space. The In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local protection of wildlife habitat was also important to Contribution Funding the landowners. Public access will be allowed on this parcel as part of the Howelsen Hill trail system. Alt- hough a relatively small parcel, the geologic, wildlife, and recreational value of this project, combined with the fact that the adjacent lands were already conserved, made this a key project for PDR funding. $5,000 (1%) $155,000 (21%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“Placing a conservation easement on the property would protect the natural areas on the property and the natural areas on adjacent lands on Howelsen Hill and Emerald Mountain and preserve an important scenic view from Highway 40 and County road 14. Further, it will buffer conserved open space and natural areas from residential development.”

-David & Marian Combs

Photo by Yampa Valley Land

Page 11 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #111 Fulton Ranch Project Completion: June 2003 Total Acres: 1,130

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: This project preserved the entire 1,130-acre Ful- ton ranch, located 15 miles north of Hayden. The ranch Other Funding Agencies: Yampa ranges in elevation from 7,000 to 8,000 feet, and is visible Valley Land Trust from four County roads, as well as California Park and US Total Funding per Acre: $384 Forest Service lands. The ranch consists primarily of open PDR Funding per Acre: $383 meadows, aspen groves, and sage-oak hillsides. The historic Elkhead Schoolhouse and Teacherage lie on an in-holding on the ranch. There are several ponds, springs, and small creeks on the property. The ranch supports several species of wildlife and serves as a critical migration route and calving ground for elk. Although used for sheep and cattle production, the ranch has been intentionally under-grazed in recent years to provide improved forage and wildlife habitat. The ranch is leased for hunting in the fall. Total Project Value: $778,000 The Applicant: This ranch has been in the Fulton family for 97 years. It was the owner’s desire to en- $344,250 (44%) $708 (<1%) sure that the ranch remains agriculturally produc- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local tive and managed in the way that supports critical Contribution Funding habitat for wildlife. Its preservation will enable continuation of the rich ranch history that the family has had in Routt County. The owner appreciates the value of a healthy balance between ranchland and natural areas gained through sound range management practices. $13,000 (2%) $420,041 (54%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“Because of its location, the Fulton Ranch serves as a migration corridor for elk and deer. Every native animal, except moose, use the Fulton property for nesting and rearing of young.”

-Charles Fulton

Photo by Yampa Valley Land PDR Progress Report Page 12 Turner/Trull PDR Project #113 Project Completion: December 2004 Ranch Total Acres: 747

The Land: This entire ranch in the Lower Elk River Valley Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust was placed in conservation easement. With hay meadow, Other Funding Agencies: GOCO cattle grazing and wildlife habitat, it lies in a future housing Total Funding per Acre: $719 growth corridor and will now forever be an important open space buffer. The property consists of open meadows and PDR Funding per Acre: $630 rolling hillsides, a portion of which is located within the De Cora Gulch. The irrigated and sub irrigated meadows have been used for agricultural purposes for over ninety years. Trull Ranch still contains some of the original ranch structures.

Total Project Value: $1,053,000 The Applicant: The Trull family homesteaded this property over a century ago. It was the own- $516,081 (49%) $66,000 (6%) er’s desire to see her family’s legacy in the Valley In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local continued by protecting the land for wildlife and Contribution Funding the continuation of agricultural uses. Maxine Turner is a fourth generation native of Routt County and great granddaughter to John Trull, whose brother was the original homesteader of the Town of Trull, located at the base of Elk Mountain (aka Sleeping Giant). $13,000 (1%) $457,919 (44%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“It is my deep desire to see that the Trull Ranch, which has been in my family for over a century, will be protected for future family. It is now my opportunity to pass on a legacy..”

- Maxine Turner

Photo by Yampa Valley Land PDR Progress Report Page 13 PDR Project #114 Acord Ranch Project Completion: December 2004 Total Acres: 1,400

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: This land is a major portion of the 2,418 acre Acord Land & Cattle Ranch that is located south of the Other Funding Agencies: GOCO, town of Yampa along Brinker Creek. Consisting of hay NRCS meadows, grazing land and important wildlife habitat, this Total Funding per Acre: $352 project is a key conservation effort in South Routt County. PDR Funding per Acre: $224 The ranch is highly visible from Hwy 131, and located near the Flat Tops Wilderness area. The property supports a variety of wildlife and habitat including elk, deer, Columbian sharp-tail grouse, greater sage grouse, mountain and western bluebird, red-tail hawk, golden and bald eagles.

Total Project Value: $938,000 The Applicant: The Acord family wanted to $445,000 (48%) $180,000 (19%) conserve the long history of the family ranch and In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local provide a lasting agricultural operation as well as Contribution Funding a place for wildlife into the future. The generous owner contribution to the project attests to the family's genuine attachment to the land. The family moved to Routt County in 1966 and over the years have created one of the most productive and efficient family cattle ranches is south Routt County. $13,000 (1%) $300,000 (32%) PDR Funded Transaction Costs PDR Conservation Funding

“Our ranch is the icon that represents our family’s story collectively … The one common thread that binds us all together is the love of the land.”

- Duane Acord

Photo by Yampa Valley Land PDR Progress Report Page 14 PDR Project #116 Lafarge Project Completion: November 2004 Total Acres: 103

Sponsor: The City of Steamboat The Land: This project is the result of a 10 year community Springs effort by multiple partners to secure this key river and ripari- Other Funding Agencies: GOCO, an area for wildlife, waterfowl and open space. The land is Colorado DOW highly visible from not only Hwy 40, but also from Hwy 131 Total Funding per Acre: $9,081 and RCR 14. It has potential for public recreation and fishing with river access and a 50 acre pond. PDR Funding per Acre: $340

The Applicant: The City of Steamboat Springs has teamed with the Colorado Division of Wild- life, Great Outdoors Colorado and the Yampa River System Legacy Project to ensure acquisition of the land and to place a conservation ease- Total Project Value: $1,239,340 ment on 100% of the property. What could have been an expanded gravel pit operation will now $304,000 (24.5%) $900,340 (72,7%) be a scenic attribute to the valley floor. In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Contribution Funding

$0 $35,000 (2.8%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“We are thrilled to have accomplished this. It is a model for the state and northwest Colorado.”

- Linda Kakela

Photo by City of Steamboat

PDR Progress Report Page 15 PDR Project #119 Semotan Ranch Project Completion: December 2005 Total Acres: 132.04

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust Other funding agencies: None The Land: The Semotan property is a 132 acre parcel of Total Funding per Acre: $ 1,124 land located in an area of Routt County historically known PDR Funding per Acre: $ 1,124 as Long Gulch. Long Gulch, on RCR 56, is surrounded by agricultural land and rural residential home sites and is in close proximity to fifteen other conserved properties, US Forest Service land, BLM land and State of Colorado land. It was once part of a much larger ranch where the family raised registered Hereford cattle along with registered quarter horses. It is primarily pastureland with some trees and wildlife use including black bear, mountain lion, mule deer, elk and grouse.

The Applicant: The Semotan family has been ranching in Routt County since 1886. In addition to a hay and cattle operation, the family established an internationally famous Quarter horse operation. Total Project Value: $493,000 The Long Gulch Schoolhouse, where the current owner, Josephine Semotan attended first grade, and $344,625 (70%) $ 0 ( 0%) its Teacherage are located on the Semotan property and have already received historic designation from In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Contribution Funding Historic Routt County. The owner's dedication to ranch lands preservation is evident by her significant contribution of a major portion of this easement value as a donation.

$ 13,000 ( 2.6%) $135,375 (27.5%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“We want so much to prevent this land we love so much from being broken up at some hard time in the future”

~Jo Semotan

Photo by Yampa Valley Land

Page 16 PDR Progress Report Wolf Mountain PDR Project #121A Project Completion: November 2005 Ranch Total Acres: 496

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: This land consists of 496 acres owned by Other Funding Agencies: GOCO, Pirtlaw Partners, Ltd and managed as part of their Preserving Colorado Landscape Lega- large 22,000 acre ranching operation. The acreage is cy, TNC made up of 365 acres of riparian lands along the Total Funding per Acre: $2577 Yampa River across from the Carpenter Ranch and a 131 acre extension of upland sagebrush shrub land PDR Funding per Acre: $504 conserved in project 121B, which is not only highly visible from U.S. Highway 40 just east of the Carpen- ter Ranch, but is adjacent to RCR 70. The riparian area supports elk, deer, bald eagles and sandhill cranes, and the uplands area is important habitat for Grouse.

Total Project Value: $1,481,000 The Applicant: The land owner has committed to additional conservation of ad- $202,750 (13.7%) $1,028,250 (69.4%) joining lands to preserve this important In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local acreage as part of an overall ranch man- Contribution Funding agement plan.

$ 0 $250,000 (16.9%) PDR Funded Transaction Costs PDR Conservation Funding

“This easement enhances all species that depend on that riparian habitat and upland area." ~Geoff Blakeslee

Photo by The Nature Conservancy

PDR Progress Report Page 17 Wolf Mountain PDR Project #121b Project Completion: September 2005 Ranch Total Acres: 1,281

The Land: This is a large and very visible parcel from not Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy only Hwy 40 near YVRA but RCR 70 and is adjacent to the Other Funding Agencies: GOCO Carpenter Ranch. It includes riparian areas and hay mead- Total Funding per Acre: $1,194 ows as well as upland grouse habitat. The land also represents critical habitat for many species including elk, deer, PDR Funding per Acre: $195 bald eagles and sandhill cranes. The easement will also preserve a corridor of globally rare narrow leaf cottonwood, box elder and red-osier dogwood as well as a considerable portion of the river channel itself.

Total Project Value: $1,793,950 The Applicant: The land owner has committed to additional conservation of adjoining $263,750 (15%) $1,280,200 (71%) lands to preserve this important acreage as part In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local of an overall ranch management plan Contribution Funding

$0 $250,000 (14%) PDR Funded PDR Conservation Transaction Costs Funding

“Without the far sighted dedication and commitment of Routt County citizens who support protection of important lands and waters, Routt County would not be as rural nor as naturally beautiful and rich as it is today.”

~Ann Oliver

Photo by The Nature Conservancy

PDR Progress Report Page 18 Crawford PDR Project #122 Project Completion: April 2006 Ranch Total Acres: 568

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: This project includes two separate parcels of the 2,100 acre C-Cross-C Ranch which is adjacent to other con- Other Funding Agencies: YVLT & served properties and is close to Stagecoach State Park and Wetlands Mitigation Fund just South of the Town of Oak Creek. One of the parcels is Total Funding per Acre: $872. 99 acres and is along one mile of the Yampa River. The re- PDR Funding per Acre: $815. maining acreage in the easement is forest land on Thorpe Mountain.

Total Project Value: $968,000.00

In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local The Applicant: The original ranch property Contribution Funding was purchased by George Crawford in 1914. He $472,500 (49.6%) $32,500.00 (3.4%) was one of the first town Marshals for Steamboat Springs. His descendant Cynthia Crawford is revitalizing the ranch, running a cow-calf operation and continuing a nearly century long tradition. The significant owner contribution has made this preservation project possible.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $23,000.00 (2%) $440,000.00 (45%)

“My goal is to keep this ranch like my Dad wanted it. He loved this place and so do I.” -Cynthia Crawford

Photo by Yampa Valley Land

Page 19 PDR Progress Report Steamboat Springs PDR Project #125 Fournier Project Completion: June 2006 Total Acres: 13

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: Formerly owned by Jim and Ann Fournier, this and City of Steamboat Springs riverfront acreage is on the west side of Steamboat Springs, Other Funding Agencies: GOCO, south of U.S. HWY 40. The parcel includes a half mile City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado bank along the Yampa River. It is an important natural area Conservation Trust within the city limits and will provide appropriate public ac- Total Funding per Acre: $44,198. cess for fishing, wildlife watching and environmental education. It will also protect an important public view corridor of the Yampa River and Emerald Mountain.

The Applicant: The City of Steamboat Springs Total Project Value: $579,000 has teamed with Great Outdoors Colorado, the In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Colorado Conservation Trust and the Routt Contribution Funding County Purchase of Development Rights Pro- $0. $434,000 (75%) gram to ensure acquisition of this important and highly visual natural area for the enjoyment of all. Acquisition of this parcel was identified in the original plan for the Yampa River Legacy Project.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $10,000 (1.7%) $135,000 (23.3%)

“The last thing we wanted was this piece of river being built to the edge with houses.”

-Jim Fournier

Photo by The City of Steamboat Springs

Page 20 PDR Progress Report Wolf Mtn. PDR Project #129 Project Completion: December 2007 2a.& 2b. Total Acres:2711

The Land: The Wolf Mtn. Ranch project is located approx. 20 miles west of Steamboat Springs, where the resort com- Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy munity, driven by commercial and residential development, Other Funding Agencies: CDOW gives way to cattle ranches, irrigated hay meadows and dis- Total Funding per Acre: $712. persed ranchette-style development. This project is part of a PDR Funding per Acre: $139. multi-phased conservation project. In 2005 1,767 acres of hay meadows, cottonwood forests and the ridge that domi- nates the northeastern view shed from Carpenter Ranch and Hwy 40 was conserved, which bothers this new 2,711-acre conservation easement. This property hosts one of the largest population of habitat for the Columbian sharp-tail, Greater sage grouse, and large game species which is important not only on a local and regional level, but on a federal level as well.

The Applicant: The Waltrip Family have Total Project Value: $3,896,000 owned this property for over 25 years. During that time, the property has been an important In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local view shed area along HWY40 and the communi- Contribution Funding ty of Hayden. The historic use of the property $1,965,000. (50.4%) $1,554,000 (39.9%) has been ranching, which the family continues to run. Mr. Waltrip is very committed to this conservation project, in which he generously donated over 50 percent of the value of the conservation easement.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $8,000 (.2%) $369,000 (9.5%)

“This is a tremendous conservation opportunity, and I am pleased that DOW and Routt County had the vision and dedication to make this happen.”

-Geoff Blakeskee, TNC

Photo by The Nature Conservancy

Page 21 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #130 Ross Ranch Project Completion: December 2007 Total Acres: 170

The Land: The Ross Ranch is adjacent to significant public Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust recreational properties, notably Pearl Lake State Park and Other Funding Agencies: None the Routt National Forest. The primary scenic feature of Total Funding per Acre: $488. the Ross Ranch is the unobstructed views of a working agricultural ranch in the upper Elk River Valley. The property PDR Funding per Acre: $488. is also highly visible to travelers on RCR 209 and RCR 209A approaching Pearl Lake State Park. The property con- sist of a mix of open meadows, forested hillsides and two stream corridors which are used for agriculture and recreation. This property was first homesteaded in 1928 by Charles Trullinger

The Applicant: The Rosses have owned this property for over 21 years. They are year-round Total Project Value: $869,000 residents and use the property for cattle grazing In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local and hay production. Since taking ownership, Contribution Funding they have made many improvements to the prop- $786,000. (90.5%) $ (0%) erty which enhanced its agricultural productivity. By their continued dedication to their ranch and constant improvements, they have enabled the continuation of agricultural uses on their ranch for future generations, as well as protecting a most important wildlife habitat.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (1.5%) $70,000 (8%)

“The owners of the ranch have contributed 92% of the easement’s value and have protected their land very quietly, but they are very proud of their stewardship of the land, as they should be.”

-C.J. Mucklow

Photo by Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust

Page 22 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #133 Bull Pasture Project Completion: October 2008 Total Acres: 236

The Land: The Bull Pasture parcel, owned by Pat & Sha- Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust ron O’Toole is the first conservation easement in the Little Other Funding Agencies: None Snake River Valley in North Routt County. The land bor- Total Funding per Acre: $1,678. ders the Little Snake River and is adjacent to and highly visible from County Road 129. This land is an integral part of PDR Funding per Acre: $1,614. a large and complex ranching operation and provides valuable habitat to a wide array of wildlife species.

The Applicant: The family has been ranching in the Little Snake River Valley since 1881. Three Total Project Value: $768,000 generations of the family are currently active in In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local the on-site management of their ranching opera- Contribution Funding tion, and this parcel has been part of the ranch $372,000. (48.4%) $15,000 (2%) since the early 1950’s. The owners have made a generous contribution of just over 50% of the value of the conservation easement.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (1.7%) $368,000 (47.9%)

“Our valley is under tremendous pressure from both subdivision and energy development. We see this as the first step in protecting the agricultural nature of the upper valley.”

-Pat & Sharon O’Toole

Photo by Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust

Page 23 PDR Progress Report Steamboat Springs PDR Project #134 Biedenharn Project Completion: December 2008 Total Acres: 35.1

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: This parcel is highly visible above the Yampa and City of Steamboat Springs River and River Road and adjacent to the City of Steamboat Other Funding Agencies: GOCO, Springs. It includes approximately 2,000 linear feet (both City of Steamboat Springs and Colo- sides) of the Yampa River, riparian areas and wetlands. rado Conservation Trust Preservation of this parcel links thousands of acres of con- Total Funding per Acre: $19,601. served lands and public land on Emerald Mountain and ex- pands the city owned Howelsen Park Open Space Area, providing critical wildlife habitat in the urban area.

The Applicant: The City of Steamboat Springs purchased this parcel and placed a conservation Total Project Value: $963,000. easement on 100% of the property, affording In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local public access for trails, fishing, wildlife watching Contribution Funding and environmental education, and committing to $ (0%) $ 675,000. (70.1%) minimal impact of improvements, which will be limited to soft trails, limited signage and no facilities.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (1.4%) $275,000 (28.5%)

“Since 1990, the City has undertaken a bold initiative to protect the Yampa River throughout our urbanizing area. The acquisition of this parcel is an important piece of this visionary project.”

-Loui Antonucci, President, Steamboat Springs City Council

Photo by: City of Steamboat Springs

Page 24 PDR Progress Report Wolf Mtn. PDR Project #136 Phase 3 Project Completion: May 2009 Total Acres: 1,613

Sponsor: The Nature Conversancy The Land: The Wolf Mtn. Ranch project is located approx. 20 miles west of Steamboat Springs, where the resort com- Other Funding Agencies: CDOW munity, driven by commercial and residential development, Total Funding per Acre: $749. gives way to cattle ranches, irrigated hay meadows and dis- PDR Funding per Acre: $191. persed ranchette-style development. This is the third phase of easements on the Wolf Mountain Ranch. This current conservation easement will conserve an additional 1,613 acres of this biologically significant landscape. Together with Phase 1, completed in 2005, and Phase 2, completed in 2007, over 6,100 acres of the ranch’s cottonwood forest, hay meadows, and sagebrush hills have been conserved.

The Applicant: The Waltrip Family have owned this property for over 25 years. During that time, Total Project Value: $2,427,218.27 the property has been an important view shed In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local area along HWY40 and the community of Hay- Contribution Funding den. The historic use of the property has been $ 1,218,274.25 (50.2%) $ 901,293.75 (37.1%) ranching, which the family continues to run. Mr. Waltrip is very committed to this conservation project, in which he generously donated over 50 percent of the value of the conservation easement.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $7,218.27 (.3%) $300,432. (12.4%)

“This is a tremendous conservation opportunity, and I am pleased that The Division of Wildlife and Routt County had the vision and dedication to make this happen. Without this partnership, we would not have been able to conserve these special natural areas for future generations of Coloradoans to enjoy.”

~ Geoff Blakeslee, Yampa River Project Director for The Nature Conservancy

Photo by: TNC Page 25 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #132 Elkhead Ranch Project Completion: August 2009 Total Acres: 645

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The Elkhead Ranch is one of the oldest Other Funding Agencies: None ranches in Routt County. Homesteaded in 1883, the Total Funding per Acre: $620. Ranch once served as the center of the Elkhead communi- PDR Funding per Acre: $620. ty. At one point, the Ranch headquarters contained the post office and community school. The Ranch was offi- cially granted historical designation by the Routt County Historical Society in 1996. The Elkhead Ranch is comprised of irrigated hay meadows, riparian areas along Elkhead Creek and sage-dominated rangelands.

The Applicant: Heather Stirling and her family have owned this ranch for nearly 34 years. They Total Project Value: $1,180,500. run and manage an active cattle operation on the In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local 3,950-acre ranch. Her intent is to pass the ranch Contribution Funding down to future generations who will run the op- $ 780,500. (66%) $ 0. (%) eration. A 1,000-acre easement has already been placed under conservation, which demonstrates Ms. Stirling’s commitment to conservation.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $0. (%) $400,000. (34%)

“Protecting ranches like the historic Elkhead Ranch will help to ensure that the ranching heritage of Routt County is preserved for future generations”

~ Chris West, Executive Director of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust

Photo by: Cattlemen’s Land Trust

Page 26 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #140 Howe Ranch Project Completion: October 2009 Total Acres: 617

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The Howe Ranch is located 15 miles north of Hayden along Routt County Road 56. It’s comprised of irri- Other Funding Agencies: None gated hay meadows, riparian areas along Calf Creek and Total Funding per Acre: $426. sage-dominated rangelands. Calf Creek traverses the prop- PDR Funding per Acre: $426. erty for approximately two miles and is lined with mature cottonwoods and willows. The Ranch provides important habitat for numerous wildlife species including elk, deer, pronghorn, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, fox, sandhill cranes, Columbian sharp-tail grouse and greater sage grouse.

The Applicant: Cal and Penny Howe have owned and operated the ranch since 1976. It is Total Project Value: $783,000. their primary objective to see that the ranch is In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local productive agriculture in perpetuity. Further- Contribution Funding more, it is their intention to pass the ranch down $ 520,000. (66.4%) $ (%) to their children and future generations who will embrace the agricultural heritage of Routt Coun- ty and the Elkhead region.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (1.7%) $250,000 (32%)

“We live in a special place and we very much want to see it continue to look as it has for the past century. The support of the funders and the work of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust will go a long way in ensuring that we can pass our ranch on to our children and future generations that see the value in agriculture and wildlife habitat.”

~ Cal & Penny Howe

Photo by: Cattlemen’s Land Trust

Page 27 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #131 A.W. Salisbury Project Completion: December 2009 Total Acres: 770

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: This property is part of the original A.W. Salis- bury homestead and has been in the family since 1881. Lo- Other Funding Agencies: GOCO cated in the far northern region of Routt County it is a com- Total Funding per Acre: $1,162. bination of meadows, hillsides and riparian corridor. The PDR Funding per Acre: $383. Little Snake River flows through the ranch for more than a mile and the ranch provides superb wildlife habitat and is highly visible from RCR 129.

The Applicant: The O’Toole family, direct descendents of A.W. Salisbury, actively operate Total Project Value: $1,701,425. their ranch, raising cattle, sheep and horses. In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local They are accomplished stewards of the land and Contribution Funding intend to ensure future family generations work- $806,425. (47.4%) $ 600,000. (35.3%) ing presence on the land.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (<1%) $282,000 (16.6%)

“ This easement allows us to meet our goals of keeping this part of our landscape intact. We are excited that this is part of a larger vision to protect the upper Little Snake River Valley.”

~ Sharon Salisbury O’Toole

Photo by: Cattlemen’s Land Trust

Page 28 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #137 G-Five Ranch Project Completion: December 2009 Total Acres: 234.70

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: Surrounded by private ranchland in agricultural production, this acreage, located near the town of Yampa Other Funding Agencies: None off of and highly visible from RCR 7 and 7A, is an integral Total Funding per Acre: $1,121. part of a long standing family operation. Irrigated hay PDR Funding per Acre: $1,121. meadow, it also is significant open space and valued wildlife habitat.

The Applicant: Marieta Nelson and her son Bobby George are members of a six generation Total Project Value: $951,000. family working the land of their larger ranch. In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Their incredibly generous contribution of over Contribution Funding 72% of the value of this easement clearly demon- $688,000 (72.3%) $ (%) strates their conservation commitment.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (1.4%) $250,000 (26.3%)

“ We are excited to place an easement on our ranch and protect our family’s ranching heritage in the Yampa area. Placing the property unto easement will allow for the land to remain a ranch forever.”

~ Bobby George

Photo by: Cattlemen’s Land Trust

Page 29 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #139 Focus Ranch Project Completion: December 2009 Total Acres: 590

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: Located on the Colorado and Wyoming border, this important agricultural land and wildlife habitat is part of Other Funding Agencies: None a larger ranching operation in the Upper Little Snake River Total Funding per Acre: $1,420. Valley. Almost two miles of the Little Snake River flows PDR Funding per Acre: $700. through the ranch and it is highly visible from RCR129.

The Applicant: Terry and Maureen Reidy actively operate their ranch including raising cattle Total Project Value: $1,347,000. and running a dude ranch in the summer In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local months. They produce more than 400,000 Contribution Funding pounds of beef each year. The owner’s willing- $509,000 (37.8%) $ 425,000. (31.6%) ness to preserve their entire ranch is testament to their commitment to conservation.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (<1%) $400,000 (29.7%)

“We live in a special place and very much want to see it continue to look as it has for the past century. The support of the funders will go a long way to protect the rich and unique lifestyle of the American West.”

~ Terry and Maureen Reidy

Photo by: Cattlemen’s Land Trust

Page 30 PDR Progress Report Del’s Triangle PDR Project #149 Three Ranch Project Completion: October 2010 Total Acres: 245

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: Located just north of Clark, Colorado, the 245 acre ranch consists of lush aspen hillsides and mixed mon- Other Funding Agencies: None tage shrublands, which provide important wildlife habitat Total Funding per Acre: $2,094. and are an integral part of preserving the integrity of the Elk PDR Funding per Acre: $2,094. River watershed. This property sits along both sides of RCR 62, a principal access to Steamboat Lake State Park and the Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area in Routt National Forest.

The Applicant: Raymond and Franziska Heid run a scenic tourism and outfitting business with Total Project Value: $873,000. their son and daughter-in-law. The family has In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local owned this property since 1962. The ranch at- Contribution Funding tracts a large number of tourists and exposes $360,000. (41.2%) $ 0. (0%) them to the western ranching heritage and the scenery and wildlife of Routt County. The family’s hope is that guests of their ranch leave as ad- vocates for the protection of working landscapes and wild areas.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000. (1.5%) $500,000. (57.3%)

“We are very excited to place a conservation easement on our family’s ranch. Not only does the protection of our ranch help sustain the agricultural base of Routt County but it helps assure this valley will remain unchanged, and that our tourism business will continue to have a place to operate. It gives me and my father confidence that my kids can grow up appreciating rural Routt County the way I did.”

~ Perk Heid

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 31 PDR Progress Report Saddle Pocket Ranch PDR Project #138 Phase II Project Completion: December 2010 Total Acres: 289.61

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The ranch is located in the Little Snake River Valley in northern Routt County. The almost 290-acre Other Funding Agencies: NRCS ranch is part of the historic Salisbury Ranch and includes Total Funding per Acre: $1,771. one mile of the Little Snake River along RCR 129. The pro- PDR Funding per Acre: $563. tected property is a mix of irrigated hay meadows and the cottonwood lined Little Snake River, which set the stage for the public’s view of the Little Snake River Valley and Squaw Mountain from RCR 129. The ranch provides important habitat for numerous wildlife species including elk, sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn, mountain lion, nesting sandhill cranes, bald eagles and Colorado River cutthroat trout.

The Applicant: The O’Toole family owns and operates the ranch. They are direct descendents Total Project Value: $1,483,000. of early homesteader, A.W. Salisbury, who ar- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local rived in the area in 1881. The property has Contribution Funding stayed in family ownership to this day with four $970,000. (65.4%) $ 350,000. (23.6%) generations residing on the ranch ranging in age from two months to 89 years. They steward the ranch today raising cattle, sheep, horses and dogs as well as running recreational and landscape reclamation businesses.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000. (<1%) $150,000. (10.1%)

“This gives four generations of our family members certainty that our home ground will continue to serve as productive agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and open space.”

~ Sharon O’Toole

Photo by: Cattlemen’s Land Trust

Page 32 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #142 The Harvey Ranch Project Completion: December 2010 Total Acres: 992.70

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: The parcel consists of almost 1000 acres of important agricultural land and wildlife habitat in the Elk Riv- Other Funding Agencies: FRPP er Valley near Buck Mountain. The parcel is visible from Total Funding per Acre: $1,015. RCR 129 and RCR 56A and from several other areas as PDR Funding per Acre: $512. well. It’s surrounded by other operating cattle ranches. This property also has high ecological values including habitat for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Greater sage grouse, sandhill cranes, deer, antelope, and elk.

The Applicant: The Harvey family has been actively ranching in the Steamboat Springs area Total Project Value: $1,868,000. since the 1960’s. They first purchased the Barber In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Ranch, on Hwy 131, in the 1960’s. The family Contribution Funding later traded that ranch for a property owned by $860,000. (46%) $ 500,000. (26.8%) the Studer family. The Harvey family added to that property over the years, now the Harvey Ranch, and has aggregated 3,800 acres of varied terrain, including aspen conifer forests, native mountain pasture, and open grasslands.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $8,000. (<1%) $500,000. (26.8%)

“My goal in proposing a conservation easement is to protect both the agricultural values and the natural features, especially the extraordinary wildlife habitat, for future generations.”

~ Connie Harvey

Photo by: The Nature Conservancy

Page 33 PDR Progress Report The Redmond PDR Project #143 Home Ranch Project Completion: December 2010 Total Acres: 387.50

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: This property is located 4 miles due west of Yampa, adjacent to Routt National Forest and close to the Other Funding Agencies: YVLT Flat Tops Wilderness Area. The Redmond Home Ranch Total Funding per Acre: $1,468. provides habitat for a number of species of wildlife. Deer PDR Funding per Acre: $1,453. and elk are prevalent and use the property as summer and winter range. The property is used as a migration corridor between vast USFS land to the west and production areas to the east and south. The Redmond Home Ranch has historically been in agriculture and continues to operate as such today.

The Applicant: The Redmond family has been ranching on this property for over 90 years. The Total Project Value: $1,043,000. property was first purchased, developed as a In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local ranch and managed by James and Elizabeth Contribution Funding Redmond. Now owned by his son, James (Jack) $474,150. (45.5%) $ 5,850. (.6%) and daughter-in-law Wanda Redmond. Jack as- sumed management of the ranch following the death of his father in 1951. During his fifty-plus years managing the Redmond Ranch, Jack has cleared additional ground, developed more and better irrigation ditches and hay meadows, and adjudicated numerous springs. Their three children were born and raised on the ranch. PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000. (<1%) $550,000. (53%)

“We wish to see the Redmond Home Ranch remain in traditional agricultural production while retaining its unique open space topography and wildlife habitat.”

~ Jack and Wanda Redmond

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 34 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #145 The Smith Rancho Project Completion: December 2010 Total Acres: 2495

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: The ranch is located north of the Town of Hay- den. The parcel borders RCR 80 for two miles and is highly Other Funding Agencies: TNC visible from that roadway and portions are visible from Hwy Total Funding per Acre: $526. 40. This parcel is part of a much larger ranch that supports PDR Funding per Acre: $486. a significant agricultural operation. With few irrigated acres, the land provides grazing and important wildlife habitat and is surrounded by four other major and active ranching operations, contributing to a large working landscape. The Smith Rancho is comprised of montane sagebrush, gambel oak shrublands, and provides critical wintering habitat for deer and elk.

The Applicant: The Smith family has been living and working on the Smith Rancho since the Total Project Value: $3,067,000. early 1900’s. Over five generations of the Smith In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local family have called this ranch home. In Septem- Contribution Funding ber 1996 the family marked a century of market- $1,755,000. (57.2%) $ 100,000. (3.3%) ing crossbred mountain fat lambs on the ranch.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $12,000. (<1%) $1,200,000. (39.1%)

“We would like to continue to be an example of viable ranching in Routt County and believe that conservation easements are a good tool to help us do that.”

~ Brad Smith

Photo by: The Nature Conservancy

Page 35 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #150 The Chew Ranch Project Completion: December 2010 Total Acres: 767.13

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The parcel is part of a 4,000 acre ranching operation near Clark, Colorado and south of Steamboat Lake Other Funding Agencies: GOCO State Park in the Upper Elk River Valley. Primarily sur- Total Funding per Acre: $1,842. rounded by agricultural operations and near many previous- PDR Funding per Acre: $1,060. ly conserved ranches, this property not only provides significant grazing opportunity but has excellent wildlife habitat. The ranch is used as a spring and fall staging area for cattle and sheep and is the gateway to the family’s extensive grazing permits on public lands. The property sets the background for the views the public has across the protected hay meadows which line the Elk River along RCR 129 for about five miles.

The Applicant: Dean Chew, who passed away several years ago, was the patriarch of the family Total Project Value: $2,263,000. and purchased the Chew ranch holdings in 1955. In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Dean was committed to the ranching lifestyle Contribution Funding and was part of the early conservation movement $850,000 (37.6%) $ 600,000. (26.5%) in the Upper Elk River Valley. The Chew’s are a close knit and extensive family consisting of Dean’s widow, Laura, their three daughters, Renee, Queeda, and Ladean, four sons, Scott, Doak, Neil and Alan, and many grandchildren.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (<1%) $800,000 (35.4%)

“This ranch has been in our family for over fifty years and the conservation easement will assure that rich heritage is protected for future generations to appreciate.”

~Scott Chew

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 36 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #151 Y/Y Nelson Ranch Project Completion: December 2010 Total Acres: 374

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The Nelson Ranch is highly visible to the public from several different areas around the property, including RCR Other Funding Agencies: None 13, 15, and 17 that all run directly by the property and RCR 13A Total Funding per Acre: $971. that is located just to the south of the property. The property is PDR Funding per Acre: $971. also visible from nearby public lands including the Routt National Forest and the Flat Tops Scenic Byway. The property provides spectacular views of Green Ridge Mountain, Eagle Rock, Finger Rock, the Flat Tops, and King Mountain. The ranch also provides valuable habitat to a wide array of wildlife species including elk, deer, mule deer, coyote, fox, and Canadi- an geese. Alkali Creek runs through the property, providing a year-round water source for wildlife.

The Applicant: The ranch is owned and operated by the Nelson/George family. Rita Nelson is Total Project Value: $528,000. the fourth generation of her family to be ranch- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local ing around the Yampa area, and her grand- Contribution Funding daughters represent the sixth generation of the $165,000 (31.3%) $ 0. (%) Nelson/George family to work the land. The family’s vested history in agriculture represents their desire to continue to pass the land down through generations of their family.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (2.4%) $350,000 (66.3%)

“A lot of good agricultural land in this area has been lost because non-ranchers are coming in and buying small parcels for a huge house and maybe some trivial animals. It is extremely important for our family to be able to continue on in agriculture, as that’s all we know.”

~Marieta Nelson

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 37 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #141 Frye Ranch Project Completion: January 2011 Total Acres: 480

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The Frye Ranch is .75 miles SW of Steamboat Lake, in the Upper Elk River Watershed. The ranch is adja- Other Funding Agencies: None cent to and provides a 2.6 mile-long buffer to Routt National Total Funding per Acre: $444. Forest and provides the foreground of the public view up PDR Funding per Acre: $444. towards Sand and Saddle Mountain and Meaden Peak. The majority of the ranch consists of irrigated hay meadows with a 1.75 mile long riparian corridor along Red Creek. The habitats present on the ranch support a diverse array of wildlife species. In addition, the property’s wetlands and riparian areas provide valuable habitat for many other species of wildlife including a native population of cutthroat trout. The ranch is highly visible from RCR 62. The Applicant: The ranch is owned by Scott Carpenter, and his wife, Patty. Best known as a Total Project Value: $2,173,000. spaceflight pioneer, Carpenter was one of the In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local original seven astronauts selected for NASA’s Contribution Funding Project Mercury in 1959. Known to most locals $1,960,000 (90.7%) $ 0. (%) as the Frye place, the 480-acre ranch was homesteaded in 1904 by Scott’s great uncle, John Frye.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (<1%) $200,000 (9.26%)

“ This ranch has been in our family for more than a hundred years, and the conservation easement will assure that this rich heritage is protected for the benefit of future generations.”

~ Scott Carpenter

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 38 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #153 Wolf Mtn. Phase IV Project Completion: May 2011 Total Acres: 1,330

Sponsor: Rocky Mountain Elk Foun- The Land: The 1,330 acres of mountain shrub and oak dation brush wildlife habitat NE of the Town of Hayden is adjacent Other Funding Agencies: CDNR to nearly 6,100 other conserved acres and part of a much and CDOW larger ranching operation and constitutes a valuable element Total Funding per Acre: $739.10 of the natural habitat of the Yampa River watershed and ecosystem and its ecological, scenic, and open space values. PDR Funding per Acre: $163.78 The elevation gradient on the property allows it to have multiple ecological types ranging from riparian areas along Wolf Creek to mixed montane shrubland, to aspen forests, and mixed montane forests. It maintains a working agricultural landscape inclusive of public hunting opportunities through CDOW’s Ranching for Wildlife Program. The Applicant: The Waltrip Family has owned this property for over 25 years. During that time, Total Project Value: $2,003,000. the property has been an important view shed In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local area along HWY40 and the community of Hay- Contribution Funding den. The historic use of the property has been $1,020,000 (50.9%) $ 765,175 (38.2%) ranching, which the family continues to run. Mr. Waltrip is very committed to this conservation project, in which he generously donated over 50 percent of the value of the conservation easement.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $8,000 (<1%) $209,825 (10.5%)

“Wolf Mountain Ranch also is a working cattle operation. We’re pleased to help ensure the future of its agricultural heritage as well as its wildlife values.”

~ Brandon Hoffner, RMEF

Photo by: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Page 39 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #152 Van Tassel Ranch Project Completion: July 2011 Total Acres: 203

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: More than 85% of the property is irrigated and contains more than a mile of both sides of Elkhead Creek. Other Funding Agencies: None Wildlife also thrives on the ranch, with significant habitat Total Funding per Acre: $1,604. for bald eagles, sandhill cranes, sage grouse, mule deer and PDR Funding per Acre: $1,604. elk along the cottonwood lined creek and sage hillsides. The property is highly visible from the Elkhead Creek Road (RCR 29) as well as U.S Highway 40 where it enters Routt County.

The Applicant: The property is being called the Van Tassel Ranch to honor the original home- Total Project Value: $405,645. stead family who owned the ranch for decades in In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local the Elkhead Creek Valley. For decades, the Van Contribution Funding Tassel Family ranched on most of the lower Elk- $80,000 (19.7%) $ 0. (%) head Creek Valley, with this 203 acre parcel at the center of their holdings. The Pankey’s, the current owners, incorporated this property into their existing neighboring ranching operation. They are the fourth generation to ranch in this area.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $25,645 (6.3%) $300,000 (74%)

“It feels really good to truly ‘save’ a property and know that the family who now owns it will be great stewards of the land. It is a rare thing indeed to put a historic ranch back together.”

~Chris West, CCALT

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 40 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #148 Knott Ranch Project Completion: October 2011 Total Acres: 1,310

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The Knott Ranch is located in a unique valley along Trout Creek in southern Routt County, approximately Other Funding Agencies: GOCO 35 miles south and west of Steamboat Springs. The con- Total Funding per Acre: $925.95 served property represents the core of the 2,400 acre Knott PDR Funding per Acre: $582.44 Ranch and consists of irrigated hay meadow, sub-irrigated pasture, mixed aspen forest, montane shrublands, and more than two miles of willow-lined riparian corridor along Trout Creek.

The Applicant: The Knott family first settled on the land in 1936 when Courtney Ives purchased the Total Project Value: $1,752,000. property and moved to the Upper Trout Creek Val- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local ley from Steamboat Springs. Courtney’s daughter, Contribution Funding Doris Ives married Dan Knott and together they $539,000 (30.7%) $ 450,000. (25.7%) purchased the property in 1957 and later expanded the agricultural operations. Doris Knott was active in the business decisions of Knott Land & Live- stock Company until her passing this past year. Her grandson, Tyler is the fifth generation of the Knott family to live and work on the ranch.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (<1%) $750,000 (42.8%)

"Conservation easements can be a valuable tool for landowners and working operations. At this time, the conservation easement provides us with a unique opportunity to advance our operation and to maintain its sustainability into the future." ~Tyler Knott

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 41 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #144 Camilletti Ranch Project Completion: December 2011 Total Acres: 430.59

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: The 430-acre property is south of Milner, about ten miles west of Steamboat Springs along the Yampa River. Other Funding Agencies: NRCS It encompasses a large expanse of riparian woodland and Total Funding per Acre: $2,814.74 wetlands that maintain the river’s natural function and pro- PDR Funding per Acre: $1,769.66 cess and provides healthy habitat and corridors for wildlife. The land is used for irrigated hay production as well as pasture for the ranch’s cattle operation. This land also provides a home to an assortment of wildlife, including Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, white-faced ibis, sandhill cranes, northern leopard frog and bald eagles.

The Applicant: The Camilletti’s have owned and operated this property for the last 68 years. Total Project Value: $2,197,000. Three generations currently work the property In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local and it is only a small portion of a much larger Contribution Funding ranching operation. $985,000 (44.8%) $ 450,000. (20.5%)

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $12,000 (<1%) $750,000 (34.1%)

“We value multi-generational ranchers in Colorado because we understand how important it is to continue family tradition as well as provide food for our tables.”

~Geoff Blakeslee, TNC

Photo by: The Nature Conservancy

Page 42 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #155 Pankey Ranch Project Completion: December 2011 Total Acres: 634

Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust The Land: The Pankey Ranch is located along Elkhead Creek on the Routt/Moffat County line, just north of High- Other Funding Agencies: None way 40 between Hayden and Craig. Much of the property is Total Funding per Acre: $946.37 irrigated hay meadows and contains more than a mile of PDR Funding per Acre: $946.37 both sides of Elkhead Creek. Wildlife also thrives on the ranch, with significant habitat for bald eagles, sandhill cranes, sage grouse, mule deer and elk along the cottonwood lined creek and sage hillsides. The property is highly visible from the Elkhead Creek Road (RCR 29) as well as U.S Highway 40 where it enters Routt County.

The Applicant: The property is owned by Keith and Shelley Pankey. Keith is the fourth genera- Total Project Value: $1,043,400. tion of the Pankey family that has ranched on In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local various properties in the immediate area. The Contribution Funding landowners run a cow/calf operation. $443,400 (42.5%) $ 0. (%)

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $25,000 (2.4%) $575,000 (55.1%)

“All we want to do is stay here, keep ranching, continue taking good care of this land, and give our kids the chance to do the same.”

~Keith Pankey

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 43 PDR Progress Report Redmond Trapper PDR Project #156 Ranch Project Completion: December 2011 Total Acres: 624

The Land: The ranch sits on important agricultural land and Sponsor: Cattlemen’s Land Trust wildlife habitat that is part of the Redmond Ranches larger opera- Other Funding Agencies: None tion, centered around the Town of Yampa. The operation includes another approximately 350 acre property 7 miles west of Total Funding per Acre: $565.71 Yampa and an associated 4,500 acre USFS grazing permit. The PDR Funding per Acre: $565.71 property is highly agriculturally productive and has significant amount of water rights. The property is highly visible to the general public as it straddles HWY 131, the main road from Inter- state 70 and the Vail Valley to HWY 40 and Steamboat Springs. In addition, Routt County Roads 6, 6A and 3 cross the property. Chimney, Todd, and Beaver Creeks run through the property and provide a year-round water source for wildlife species and key habitat for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. In addition to providing important habitat for a wide range of wildlife species, the Prop- erty provides summer range for deer and antelope and occasional moose, and winter range for elk.

The Applicant: The Redmond family has been Total Project Value: $682,000. ranching in the Yampa area for over 100 years and it is critically important to the Redmond In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local family that the ranch remains in production and Contribution Funding that they have the opportunity to pass the Ranch $329,000 (48.2%) $ 0. (%) on to the next generation. The Redmond Trap- per Ranch is the second and final conservation easement that the Redmond family has completed on their holdings around Yampa in the last two years.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $25,000 (3.7%) $328,000 (48.1%)

“We are proud that through the Conservation Easement with CCALT this agricultural property will be preserved for future generations.”

~John & Sara Redmond

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 44 PDR Progress Report Finger Rock PDR Project #159 Preserve Project Completion: December 2011 Total Acres: 365

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: The property is located where the Yampa River’s Brinker and Chimney Creeks meet, south of the Other Funding Agencies: None town of Yampa along HWY 131. The property includes Total Funding per Acre: $1,265.75 sage uplands that support both the Columbian sharp-tailed PDR Funding per Acre: $1,265.75 and Greater sage grouse, both declining species in Colorado. A portion of the property is also part of a U.S. Corps of En- gineers Wetlands Mitigation Bank, which offsets adverse impacts to wetlands from development that occurs else- where. The landowners are actively creating and enhancing the property’s wet meadows and creeks, supporting essential habitat for the grouse as well as many other wetland-dependent species.

The Applicant: Ren Martyn purchased the property in 2002. However, he has considered Total Project Value: $937,000. the Yampa Valley his home long before that In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local time. Ren and his family vacationed in the Yam- Contribution Funding pa Valley since he was a child. Now, along with $475,000 (50.7%) $ 0. (%) his wife, Heather, their two teenage boys and year old son they are active in the community in various boards and business organizations.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $12,000 (1.3%) $450,000 (48%)

“Prior landowners subdivided Finger Rock Preserve into 17 thirty-five acre parcels and without the conservation funds available through Routt County’s PDR program, significant residential development likely would have occurred. Conserving this land through TNC and Routt County will have positive impacts for future generations to come.”

~Ren Martyn

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 45 PDR Progress Report Elkhead Ranch PDR Project #147 Phase II Project Completion: May 2012 Total Acres: 1,560.12

Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag The Land: The property is located 16 miles north of the Land Trust town of Hayden and in the southern foothills of the Elkhead Mountain. Of this acreage, 370 acres are bottom land and Other Funding Agencies: NRCS irrigated meadow, 1,052 acres are sage dominated grazing Total Funding per Acre: $777.50 land and approximately 178 acres are sub-irrigated pas- PDR Funding per Acre: $392.92 tureland. The entire ranch is highly visible from CR 56 as well as from BLM and National Forest land. The variety of habitat that is present on the ranch support a diverse array of wildlife species. The Routt County Historical Society designated the Elkhead Ranch as a historic ranch in 1996.

The Applicant: Ms. Stirling started the acquisition of what is now known as Elkhead Ranch in Total Project Value: $2,493,000. 1974. Together with her sons, Ms. Stirling runs In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local and manages the Elkhead Ranch and associated Contribution Funding agricultural operations. She intends to pass the $1,280,000 (51.3%) $ 600,000. (24.1%) ranch down to future generations who she fully expects will continue to manage the operation. Because of her foresight, future generations will be able to expand those operations to increase overall viability of the ranch.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (< 1%) $600,000 (24.1%)

“The protection of this place is something that we will all treasure, and it’s my hope that our grandkids and future generations of Routt County residents will thank us for doing this.”

~Heather Stirling

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 46 PDR Progress Report Agner Mountain PDR Project #157 Ranch Project Completion: May 2012 Total Acres: 1,337

Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag The Land: The Agner Mountain Ranch is located in the Land Trust southern foothills of the Elkhead Mountains approximately Other Funding Agencies: None 16 miles north of the town of Hayden and 40 miles north- Total Funding per Acre: $373.97 west of Steamboat Springs. The southern two-thirds of the Property consists of rolling hills vegetated by a combination PDR Funding per Acre: $373.97 of Gambel Oak shrubland and sagebrush. Calf Creek, a cot-

tonwood-lined seasonal drainage, crosses the Property from the northeast to the southwest. The northern third of the Property is dominated by Agner Mountain which rises abruptly above the oak and sagebrush hills. Several other named and unnamed seasonal drainage cross the Property.

The Applicant: Mr. Spitzley has owned the ranch for approximately 36 years which is man- Total Project Value: $1,549,000. aged by his sons and Ms. Stirling, Elkhead In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Ranch owner. With the closing of this project, Contribution Funding Mr. Spitzley has conserved the entire Agner $1,049,000 (67.7%) $ 0. (%) Mountain Ranch, showing his commitment to the ranch and to preserving the agricultural heritage of Routt County.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $25,000 (1.6%) $475,000 (30.7%)

“The history and sheer beauty of the Ellhead Valley is truly amazing. The unique nature of the landscape makes it stand out as a place unlike any other.”

~James Spitzley

Photo by: H. Silva

Page 47 PDR Progress Report Emerald Ridge PDR Project #158 Ranch Project Completion: August 2012 Total Acres: 210

Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag The Land: The ranch is situated on the south side of Em- Land Trust erald Mountain and provides views of the Park Range to the Other Funding Agencies: None east and views of the Flat Tops Wilderness to the southwest. Total Funding per Acre: $1,014.29 The property is visible from CR 14, 22, 35 and 41. This property has important wildlife values, as its diverse ecosys- PDR Funding per Acre: $1,014.29 tems range from mountain shrub to subalpine spruce and fir.

The property provides valuable habitat to a wide array of wildlife species. According to Colorado Division of Wild- life, the Property is an elk production area and provides summer concentration areas and severe winter range for elk. With the closing of this project, 490 acres of the 780-acre ranch will be protected.

The Applicant: The ranch is owned by Emerald Ridge Ranch LLC, whose members are Doug Total Project Value: $1,063,000. Scott and his three sons. Doug Scott’s grandfa- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local ther, H.C. Lufkin began assembling the Emerald Contribution Funding Ridge Ranch in approximately 1919, which $850,000 (80%) $ 0. (%) much of the property being acquired by him in the 1940’s. H.C. Lufkin’s son, Don Lufkin purchased the property in 1954, and Doug Scott then bought the ranch from his uncle, Don Lufkin, in 1994. Doug is committed to protecting a large portion of the family ranch so future generations can enjoy a piece of rural Routt County and have the same childhood experienc- PDR Funded PDR Conservation es Doug had as a boy growing up. Trans. Cost Funding $13,000 (1.2%) $200,000 (18.8%)

“With the protection of a large portion of the Emerald Ridge Ranch, the conservation work that has been done over the years in this area is really starting to come together and will shape the future of this landscape and the agricultural economy.”

Megan Manner, Director of Stewardship for CCALT~

Photo by: CCALT

Page 48 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #164 G5Home Ranch Project Completion: December 2012 Total Acres: 1,600

The Land: This property is the centerpiece of the family’s Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag cattle and sheep operation. The irrigated meadows along Land Trust Phillips Creek produce native grass hay to sustain livestock Other Funding Agencies: GOCO & through the winter and the pastures to the east provide im- NRCS portant summer and fall pastures. Phillips Creek runs through the east side of the property parallel to Hwy 131 for Total Funding per Acre: $1,140.63 almost 1 mile. The property is located within the Colorado PDR Funding per Acre: $295. Division of Parks and Wildlife’s Sage Grouse Conservation Area which represents an area critical for protection of the species. The property is also located in overall range, production area, and winter range for the Co- lumbian sharp-tail grouse. The ranch is high visible from Hwy 131. The property provides spectacular views of Green Ridge Mountain, Eagle Rock, the Flat Tops, and King Mountain.

The Applicant: The ranch is owned and operat- Total Project Value: $2,560,000. ed by the Nelson/George family. Rita Nelson is the fourth generation of her family to be ranch- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local ing around the Yampa area, and her grand- Contribution Funding daughters represent the sixth generation of the $760,000 (29.7%) $ 1,353,000. (52.8%) Nelson/George family to work the land. The family’s vested history in agriculture represents their desire to continue to pass the land down through generations of their family.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $25,000 (<1%) $447,000 (17.4%)

“We are not developers who buy a chunk of land, divide a large chunk up into small developed pieces, and then put a small chunk into conservation easement. We are family ranchers who want to secure all of what we have…” Bobby George, Landowner~

Photo by: CCALT

Page 49 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #160 Hahn’s Peak Ranch Project Completion: March 2013 Total Acres: 120

The Land: The property is located near CR62 adjacent to Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag Steamboat Lake State Park and Routt National Forest and Land Trust was acquired by the Fetcher Ranch as part of the Emerald Other Funding Agencies: None Mountain Land Exchange. It is highly visible to the public, hosts abundant wildlife and consists of aspen, pine and pas- Total Funding per Acre: $2,291.67 ture. It is used by the Fetcher Ranch as summer pasture and PDR Funding per Acre: $2,291.67 is an important contribution to the viewshed in a popular public use area.

The Applicant: The Fetcher family has been Total Project Value: $725,000. leading the way in Ranch land conservation in Routt County and, in particular, the Upper Elk In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local River Valley from the early 1990’s. With this Contribution Funding effort, they have now placed 92% of their ranch $450,000 (62%) $ 0. into easement. The ranch has been in agricultural production for more than 100 years. Including their property near Clark, the Fetcher family has donated conservation easements on over 1,790 acres.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $25,000 (3.5%) $250,000 (34.5%)

“My three daughters have begun to build families of their own. I want the lifestyle I lived to be available for them and my grandchildren.” Jay Fetcher, Landowner~

Photo by: CCALT

Page 50 PDR Progress Report Flying Diamond PDR Project #166 Ranch Project Completion: October 2013 Total Acres: 237.5

The Land: This property is located along Hwy 131 as a Sponsor: Rocky Mountain Elk Foun- gateway to the immediate valley south of Steamboat dation Springs. It provides significant wildlife habitat, contains a significant skylined ridge and is highly visible to the public Other Funding Agencies: GOCO from the highway, county roads and public lands. The con- Total Funding per Acre: $4,126.32 servation of this parcel adds to previous efforts by the owner PDR Funding per Acre: $1,389.47 and will result in 63% of the entire ranch being placed in conservation easement.

The Applicant: The ranch owner, John R. Ad- Total Project Value: $2,797,750. ams, has worked with conservation organizations over recent years to place a significant por- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local tion of the ranch in conservation easement and Contribution Funding has plans to continue that effort. The owner’s $1,817,750 (65%) $ 650,000 (23.2%) goal is to continue the legacy of a working ranch and visual landmark for generations to come.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $0. $330,000 (11.8%)

“Our family has had a long-term commitment to conservation and land donation in Routt County.” John R. Adams, Landowner~

Photo by: RMEF

Page 51 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #169 Six Plus Farms Project Completion: April 2014 Total Acres: 971.41

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: Located on the northerly foot of Elk Mountain, the rolling terrain is vegetated by fields of meadow grass, Other Funding Agencies: None sagebrush and aspen forests. The property is important Total Funding per Acre: $231.62 habitat for Sharp Tail Grouse and elk calving as well as PDR Funding per Acre: $231.62 other abundant wildlife.

Total Project Value: $1,940,000. The Applicant: With an impressive history of land conservation dedication, the owner’s In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local generous contribution of easement value to make Contribution Funding this effort possible is incredibly commendable. $1,715,000 (88.47%) $ 0 (0%)

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $0. $225,000 (11.6%)

“Our experience at the ranch and in the Yampa Valley fostered notions of conservatism, the value of rural agriculture and the importance of wildlife and their habitat.” Robert Hutchins~

Photo by: YVLT

Page 52 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #168 Dry Fork Ranch Project Completion: September 2014 Total Acres: 3,507.11

Sponsor: The Nature Conservancy The Land: An important piece of the overall Smith Rancho operation, it provides valuable open space and scenic views, Other Funding Agencies: GOCO and has valuable habitat for both Greater and Sharp Tailed Total Funding per Acre: $339.91 Grouse as well as deer and elk. This easement encompasses PDR Funding per Acre: $168.83 the entire Dry Fork Ranch.

Total Project Value: $2,976,799.50 The Applicant: The Smith family has demonstrated dedicated conservation efforts with multi- In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local ple easements. They have been living and ranch- Contribution Funding ing in Routt County since 1918. The owner’s $1,784,700 (60%) $ 600,000 (20.1%) grandfather was a pioneer in the marketing of cross-bread mountain fat lambs.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $11,799.50 (.4%) $580,300 (19.5%)

“This easement will eliminate the threat of development while allowing our ranching to continue.”

Bradford M. Smith ~

Photo by: TNC

Page 53 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #170 Deep Creek Ranch Project Completion: September 2014 Total Acres: 458.84

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: The entire ranch is visible from rural county roads and the open fields compliment the area’s pastoral Other Funding Agencies: NRCS landscape in an area that is under development pressure. Total Funding per Acre: $1,046.12 The acreage is important habitat for varied species, includ- PDR Funding per Acre: $719.21 ing elk, deer, sandhill cranes and Sharp Tailed Grouse.

Total Project Value: $1,035,000. The Applicant: The land owners were willing to place the entire property, including the existing In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local residential area into the conservation easement. Contribution Funding They have been active with the ranch for 30 $555,000 (53.6%) $ 150,000 (14.5%) years and have worked with adjacent properties to cooperatively promote the area’s productivity.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $0. $330,000 (31.9%)

“We believe this project conforms uniquely to the mission of conservation of naturally scenic agricultural and open land resources.”

Fred & Flora Wolf ~

Photo by: YVLT

Page 54 PDR Progress Report Coberly Creek PDR Project #167 Ranch Project Completion: October 2014 Total Acres: 2,470

Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag The Land: The property serves as a gateway to travelers Land Trust coming to Routt County from the east and south along fre- Other Funding Agencies: NRCS quently traveled State highways. It consists of varying ter- Total Funding per Acre: $993.93 rain including hay meadows, dry-land hay fields, mountain shrubs and aspen/conifer forests. It hosts significant wild- PDR Funding per Acre: $346.15 life, including elk, deer, bears and raptors.

Total Project Value: $3,633,000.

The Applicant: Merrilee Ellis and Michael In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Neelis have made a commitment to preserve Contribution Funding $1,178,000 (32.4%) $ 1,600,000 (44%) their entire ranch and this project is Phase II of that endeavor. This is a family operated ranching operation with plans for sustained agricultural production for generations to come.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $25,000 (.7%) $830,000 (22.9%)

“Our goals include conserving agricultural status, maintaining the open spaces and incredible views and providing a profitable ranching heritage for family members.”

Merrilee Ellis & Michael Neelis~

Photo by: CCALT

Page 55 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #176 Iron Springs Ranch Project Completion: May 2015 Total Acres: 640

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: The property is located in the Upper Yampa River Valley Watershed, just upstream from Stagecoach Other Funding Agencies: none Reservoir State Park. The property is bisected by over 2 me- Total Funding per Acre: $1,132.81 andering miles of the Yampa River. The conservation ease- PDR Funding per Acre: $,1,132.81 ment covers the portion of the property located south of RCR14. The conservation of this property adds to the scenic and pastoral vistas for which the Yampa River Valley, Routt County and Northwest Colorado are famous. Along with supporting the agricultural operation, this property is an important natural area providing wildlife habitat for species including sharp-tailed grouse, sandhill crane, bald eagle, river otter, deer, elk and a variety of other species.

The Applicant: Three generations (going on Total Project Value: $1,680,000. four) of the Stetson Family have been involved with the land since its establishment in 1944 by In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Frank’s father, James “Frank” Stetson. At this Contribution Funding time, nearly all of the ranching is undertaken by $955,000 (56.8%) $ Frank O. Stetson. The property is run as an irrigated hay operation and as pasture for livestock. Additionally, Frank leases lands around the valley for hay production and the grazing of livestock.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $725.000 (43.2%)

“By protecting working farms and ranches from future development, Yampa Valley Land Trust and Routt County PDR are safeguarding open space values and scenic vistas that are of a high priority to the local community. “

Susan Dorsey, YVLT~

Photo by: YVLT

Page 56 PDR Progress Report Flying Diamond PDR Project #174 Ranch Project Completion: June 2015 Total Acres: 293

Sponsor: Rocky Mountain The Land: The ranch is a year-round cattle operation that Elk Foundation lies just a few minutes outside of Steamboat Springs on the Other Funding Agencies: GOCO high northern ridges of Thorpe Mountain in the Yampa Riv- er valley. The newly protected lands represent the final pro- Total Funding per Acre: $4,095.56 tection of lands visible from Highway 131 and include flood- PDR Funding per Acre: $2,133.11 plain pastures, Gambel oak, aspen and sagebrush. For nearly two miles between Steamboat and the Town of Oak Creek, agricultural lands will forever remain on both sides of the highway for residents and visitors to enjoy.

The Applicant: The continuation of the ranching Total Project Value: $3,516,600. heritage is very important to the Adams family especially because they understand and realize the In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local significance of this historic agricultural operation in Contribution Funding Routt County. Prior to the family's purchase in the $2,316,600 (65.9%) $ 575,000 (16.3%) late 1970's the ranch has been in production since the late 1800's. When the Adam’s family purchased the ranch they also continued the employment of the previous ranch manager who worked for the Harvey family. From that time on there has been a ranch manager who handles the physical operations of the Ranch while working together with the Adams family on a daily basis on business matters. The goal is to continue this legacy for generations to come and al- PDR Funded PDR Conservation low this visual landmark to remain an active working Trans. Cost Funding ranch. $625,000 (17.8%)

“ In the 37 years we have owned the ranch, our family has developed a deep appreciation and love of the land and are grateful for its natural beauty.”

Tammie Adams, landowner~

Photo by: RMEF

Page 57 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #181 Acord Ranch II Project Completion: May 2016 Total Acres: 724

Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust The Land: Acord Ranch II is located south of the Town of Yampa with natural area significance and with its agricultural importance, Other Funding Agencies: GOCO Acord Ranch II supports ecological values and provides a wide range of Total Funding per Acre: $626 quality wildlife habitat. With the presence of irrigated and subirrigated hay meadows on the property along with areas of sagebrush (and prox- PDR Funding per Acre: $330 imity to large tracts of sagebrush), Acord Ranch II offers exceptional sage grouse habitat, which alone makes the parcel worthy of preservation. Sage grouse hens utilize the hay meadows when chicks are young to provide feed of tender forbs and juicy bugs at this initial stage of their development. The property is surrounded by a number of other large ranch/agricultural properties which all contribute to a magnificent open space viewshed. Historically, the parcel has been used for grazing/pasturing of livestock and hay production. The Stites will continue utilizing the property in this manner, keeping the land in agricultural production.

The Applicant: The landowners are a young and growing family in the process of establishing a cattle/hay production busi- Total Project Value: $600,000. ness. Ted is the fifth-generation of a ranching family with In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local expertise in range management and animal husbandry (as well as analytics), while Kristi’s professional and educa- Contribution Funding tional background is as a Certified Veterinary Technician $146,900 (24.5%) $214,050 (35.7%) (and now mother of two). The Stites are working with the NRCS and the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife to create an agricultural operation in concert with conservation plans for the property (e.g. protecting grouse priority habitat, riparian areas, sage brush areas, etc.).

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $239,050 (39.8%)

“ We are proud to be a part of Routt County’s conservation efforts. Protecting our state’s natural resources, wildlife and randlands has been a priority in our family for generations.”

Ted & Kristi Stites, landowners~

Photo by: YVLT

Page 58 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #180 Stanko Ranch Project Completion: July 2016 Total Acres: 363

Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag The Land: The Stanko Ranch has been in the family for four genera- Land Trust tions and in 2007 the Ranch received its Century Designation from the Other Funding Agencies: Upper Colorado Department of Agriculture, the Colorado Historical Society, and the Colorado State Fair. The Property is located along County Road Yampa HPP 33 and the County Road traverses the Property for 2.5 miles. The Prop- Total Funding per Acre: $1,955 erty is highly visible to residents and tourists traveling along the County Road and is also visible for roughly half a mile to travelers commuting PDR Funding per Acre: $1,942 along Highway 40.

The Applicant: The Stanko family joined the Yampa Total Project Value: $1,600,000. Valley ranching community in 1907 when Peter Stanko Senior purchased a 160 acre parcel. The family continued In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local to purchase land and at its height their ownership included approximately 750 acres. The ranch started as a subsist- Contribution Funding ence grain farm but grew and evolved over time. When $925,000(57.8%) $4,700 (<1%) Jim and Jo Stanko purchased the Ranch in 1974 from Pe- ter Jr. and Natalie Stanko, the property was a diverse agricultural operation consisting of chickens, cattle, oats, bar- ley, hay, and winter wheat. As the third generation to operate the ranch, Jim and Jo transitioned to a cow/calf operation and converted the grain land into alfalfa and dry- land hay. The family’s irrigated hay meadow, irrigate upland hay ground, open pasture, and mixed montane shrubland and 240-acre BLM lease provides enough forage to PDR Funded PDR Conservation support on average 70 mother cows. The Stanko Ranch Trans. Cost Funding produces enough hay to support their cattle operation and $30,000 (<1%) $675,000 (42.19%) generate farm income through the sale of their high quality hay yields. The Stankos have won Routt County’s Grand Champion Grass Hay every year they have entered. “Conserving the Stanko Ranch has many benefits for Routt County as well as our family. Long term benefits to the family include the ability for the older generation to retire, permitting the next generation to step into the management position and hopefully allow the ranch to continue in the family for another century.” The Stankos, landowners~

Photo by: CCALT

Page 59 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #182 Glas Deffryn Ranch Project Completion: September 2016 Total Acres: 86.25

The Land: Glas Deffryn Ranch is at the gateway to an incredible public recreation area in Northwest Colorado. Visitors from across the Sponsor: Yampa Valley Land Trust nation (and from around the world!) visit this part of Colorado to hunt, Other Funding Agencies: GOCO fish, camp, hike, paint, photograph, relax, ride (bikes and horses), boat, enjoy water sports and indulge in other outdoor recreational activities Total Funding per Acre: $5,136 and the great outdoors that the area has to offer. Strategically located at PDR Funding per Acre: $2,006 the boundary of Stagecoach Reservoir State Park and at the entrance to the developing Stagecoach residential community, Glas Deffryn Ranch is critical to the area from a visual standpoint. The Ranch, with its location along the heavily-traveled Routt Country Road 14 (Yellow Jacket Pass – with its connections to Colorado Highway 131 and to US High- way 40) and RCR 16 (aka Lynx Pass Road), adds immeasurably to the scenic landscapes of the Stagecoach area and com- plements a multitude of public lands as noted herein. The property’s physical characteristics – pristine riparian habitat and productive hay meadows coupled with a sweeping open space landscape – help define the Yampa Valley and its rich, sto- ried agricultural identity.

Total Project Value: $615,000. The Applicant: Williams have owned the property since 1998, the property has been in agricultural operation In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local since the 1930s and was known as a part of the Herold Contribution Funding Ranch. The Willianms are lifelong Colorado residents $172,000(28%) $270,000 (43.9%) having pursued careers in secondary education and petro- leum geology before becoming permanent residents of Routt County, for Pam in 2000 and Steve in 2005. They have been coming to Steamboat since the early 70’s. They have owned property in the county since the 80’s but began the small ranch concept in the late 90’s after acquiring their first Highlander in 1995. The Williams feel they have put together something special with Glas Deffryn Ranch and have a very strong desire to keep it intact for the future and to preserve its ranching and wildlife character. PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $0(%) $173,000 (28.1%)

“It’s a pleasure to work on behalf of landowners so dedicated to their land. The conservation outcome adds immeasurably to our community and we appreciate the funding support from Routt County, Great Outdoors Colorado and the Gates Family Foundation. Vernon’s remarkable Legacy Gift was also instrumental in completing this transaction.” Susan Dorsey, YVLT Executive Director

Photo by: YVLT

Page 60 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #184 The Gates Ranch Project Completion: September 2016 Total Acres: 1,600

The Land: The Gates Ranch is 1,600 acres just outside of Toponas, Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag Colorado in Egeria Park. With abundant early season water rights, al- Land Trust most half of the ranch is irrigated or subirrigated and the property serves as a base for a 4,100 acre Bureau of Land Management grazing permit. Other Funding Agencies: Upper In the year they have owned the property, the Gates family has managed Yampa HPP to piece together close to 15,000 acres of leased land on which they run 1,000 head of cattle, contributing significantly to Routt County’s agricul- Total Funding per Acre: $375 tural economy. The property is big game habitat and occupied sage- PDR Funding per Acre: $372 grouse habitat. It lies in the Colorado River Basin, with portions of Sut- ton Creek and King Creek flowing through it. The ranch’s location, just under King Mountain, provides the foreground for scenic views up to- ward the Flat Top Range from State Highways 131 and 134, both heavily travelled routes. The ranch is also a key piece in an already heavily conserved landscape. Within eight miles of the property, almost 19,000 acres of land is protected with conservation easements. The Gates Ranch will build upon this conserved base, helping add to a landscape scale conservation initiative.

Total Project Value: $1,140,000. The Applicant: Doug and Kelly Gates, and their son, Whittier, and his wife, Tiffany, purchased the Gates In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Ranch, formerly the Kayser Place, in 2014. The family was Contribution Funding able to buy the Gates Ranch due to a conservation ease- $570,000 (50%) $5,000 (<1%) ment on their holdings in Burns, Colorado in 2007. That original conservation easement, done with Doug’s father and brother, George and Frank Gates, allowed Doug’s interest to be bought out, consolidating ownership in Frank Gates’s family. Doug and Kelly then took their proceeds and purchased farmland in Riverton, Wyoming. However, Doug and Kelly were ranchers at heart and felt the pull of southern Routt County and the desire to be closer to their grandchildren, who all live in Yampa. In 2014, they sold the Riverton farm and bought the Gates PDR Funded PDR Conservation Ranch. They formed the Gates Cattle Company with their Trans. Cost Funding youngest son, Whit, and his family and are now working $25,000(<1%) $570,000 (50%) to establish a sustainable cow/calf operation to support their families into the future.

“Our family is connected to Routt County. We have never wanted to be anywhere else. We are so thrilled to have this chance to start building a legacy for the grandkids.” Kelly Gates, landowner

Photo by: CCALT

Page 61 PDR Progress Report Coberly Creek PDR Project #178 Ranch Project Completion: November 2016 Total Acres: 400

The Land: The Coberly Creek Ranch is a 3,410-acre property located Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag at the bottom of Gore Pass near the intersection of Highway 131 and Land Trust Highway 134. Thousands of travelers, from locals to international guests pass by the property on a yearly basis and enjoy the scenic character of Other Funding Agencies: n/a this beautiful, historic, working landscape as they come down Gore Pass Total Funding per Acre: $812.50 or into Routt County along Highway 131. The Coberly Creek Ranch entrance gate is an iconic feature within this landscape and notable to PDR Funding per Acre: $812.50 the commuters on these highways. The agricultural history of the Cober- ly Creek Ranch dates back to the 1880’s. The Coberly brothers were the first ranchers in the area before the establishment of the Homestead Act. Together, the Coberly brothers ran cattle in the Kremmling/ Egeria Park area. In 1879/1880, the Coberly brothers win- tered approximately 2,000 head of cattle in an area that included the Coberly Creek Ranch. The winter was so severe they almost lost their entire herd. The harsh climate force the family to relocate their cattle operation to Grand County but the family is remembered in South Routt County by the creek and ranch that bears heir name.

Total Project Value: $648,000. The Applicant: The property is currently operated by Mike Neelis & Merilee Ellis, Dustin Neelis and his wife In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Whitney, and Merrilee’s daughter Lindsay Hartzel and her Contribution Funding husband. The Coberly Creek Ranch is the headquarters for $344,000 (53.1%) the family’s agricultural operation which also includes leases on Emerald Mountain and land along the Yampa River, near Steamboat Springs. The landowners want to conserve the Coberly Creek Ranch to ensure the land’s long-term agricultural viability and to help with the intergenerational transfer of the ranch to Mike and Mer- ilee’s children.

PDR Funded PDR Conservation Trans. Cost Funding $21,000(<1%) $304,000 (46.9%)

“Agriculture relies on large tracts of land and open space to succeed. For the past two decades, northwestern Colorado and Routt County have been focus areas for CCALT. Conserving the Coberly Creek Ranch will ensure that another property in this landscape remains intact, building on the previous conservation work, and benefiting both the agricultural and ecological values of the valley.” Megan Knott, Stewardship Director of CCALT

Photo by: CCALT

Page 62 PDR Progress Report PDR Project #179 Meader Ranch Project Completion: December 2016 Total Acres: 111

The Land: The Yampa River serves as the Property’s northern Sponsor: Colorado Cattlemen’s Ag boundary and the Property’s proximity to the Yampa River Land Trust contributes substantially to the Property’s high quality hay yields. Ap- proximately twenty acres of the Property is sub-irrigated via the Yampa Other Funding Agencies: n/a River and on average produces one ton or 2,000 pounds of hay per Total Funding per Acre: $1,577 acre. The Property also has three adjudicated springs and two natural ponds that support the agricultural operation and abundant and diverse PDR Funding per Acre: $1,577 wildlife habitat. The northern portion of Property along the Yampa River provides habitat for several wildlife species including winter range, winter concentration areas, and summer forage areas for bald eagle; and overall habitat for moose and river otter. The entire property is considered nesting habitat for great blue heron and the northern most portion of the Property is designated as great blue heron foraging area. The property is also considered overall range for black bear, mountain lion, mule deer, pronghorn, and sandhill crane.

Total Project Value: $359,000. The Applicant: Since 1975, the Meader family has been involved in ranching in northeastern Colorado. In-Kind Applicant Federal, State, Local Charlie Meader and his son Justin work together to run Contribution Funding and maintain more than 7,400 acres in Weld County. In $209,000 (58.2%) 2008 and 2009, the Meader family chose to partner with CCALT to conserve the majority of their Weld County ranch, successfully conserving thousands of acres of short- grass prairie.

Recently, the Meaders chose to expand their operation to northwestern Colorado, specifically Routt County. Charlie’s son Justin and his wife Tinisha spearheaded the effort. The young couple hopes to use the new property to PDR Funded PDR Conservation enhance the Meaders’ existing agricultural operations in Trans. Cost Funding Weld County. $25,000(<1%) $150,000 (41.8%)

“Not only will conserving this property help protect agricultural land in an area experiencing significant development pressure, it will also assist a young ranching family in establishing and sustaining a viable agricultural operation into the future. CCALT is committed to helping build the next generation of farmers and ranchers and we are proud to partner with the Meaders and Routt County PDR to make this happen.”

Courtney Bennet, CCALT Project Manager

Photo by: CCALT

Page 63 PDR Progress Report Current PDR Citizens’ Advisory Board Members: Claire Sollars - Chair Tarn Dickerson—Vice Chair Carl Vail - Treasurer Mary Alice Page-Allen Mary Kay Monger John Ayer Dean Rossi

Helena Taylor - Executive Secretary

For more information about the PDR Program, or for an Application for funding, please call (970) 879-0108 or feel free to contact one of the PDR Board members or Routt County Commissioners.

Routt County Purchase of Development Rights Program PO Box 773598 / 522 Lincoln Avenue, Historic Courthouse Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Phone: (970) 879-0108 Fax: (970) 879~3992 R88W R87W R86W R85W

133 T12N 138 139 131 T12N 4

R84W T11N T11N

R83W

T10N T10N 160 130

141

T9N T9N 149

140 150 147 157 111 T8N T8N 119 147 132 170 103 R89W 142 168 103 145 106 168 136 169 T7N T7N 152 104 105 129 153 155 121b ¤£40 113 Hayden 179 ¤£40 125 121a T6N T6N 180 110 Steamboat Springs 102 144 109 134

116 158

T5N T5N

166 131 ¬« ¤£4 174 0

T4N 122 T4N 108 Oak Creek 182 148 T3N 176

T3N R89W R88W R87W R86W

T3N

151 Routt County 143 Purchase of Yampa 164 Development Rights (PDR) T2N 137 T2N Program 159 Conservation Easements Funded in part by PDR 181 156 «¬131 «¬134 BLM 167 114 CDOW/STATE T1N 184 178 T1N USFS 184 Conservation Easements as of 2014

Parcels outlined as PDR may or may not have a conservation easement over the entire parcel. T1S T1S

This map is for planning purposes only. It was prepared from publicly available information. Any other use or recompilation of the information R86W R85W R84W R83W is the sole responsibility of the user. This map should not be used to establish legal title, boundary lines, locations of improvements or utilities, or relied upon in any flight activity. Routt County expressly disclaims all liability regarding accuracy or completeness of this map. q:\projects\depts\gis\conservation_easements\conservation_pdr_Jan2017 ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

ITEM DATE: February 28, 2017 ITEM TIME: 1:30 pm

FROM: Alan Goldich, Planning TODAY’S DATE: February 21, 2017 AGENDA TITLE: Temple Gravel Pit; PP2004-004 CHECK ONE THAT APPLIES TO YOUR ITEM:  ACTION ITEM  DIRECTION  INFORMATION I. DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: Review and possible expiration of the SUP.

II. OPTIONS: 1. Direct staff to expire the permit. 2. Direct staff to work with applicant to resolve the issues. 3. Table for more information. III. IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (IDENTIFY ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM): N/A IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The original SUP for the Temple Gravel Pit was issued in 1988. It was amended and extended in 1994 for a 10 year period. It was then renewed in 2004 for another 10 year period, expiring on September 30, 2014. During the review in 2004, a reclamation plan was submitted, reviewed and approved by the County. In June of 2014, the permittee requested an amendment to the State approved reclamation plan. This amendment was approved in August of 2014. Prior to this, the State’s approved reclamation plan and the County’s approved reclamation plan were the same. The State did not notify the County of this requested amendment and neither did the permittee. In August of 2016, the State notified the County that the permittee was requesting full release of their reclamation responsibility. Staff visited the site and the reclaimed areas looked established and satisfactory. There were areas that had not been reclaimed (due to the amendment to the State’s permit) to a condition that matched what the County had approved. Staff informed the State that the County had objections to the release based on the fact that the site did not meet what was approved by the County. Since the site matched what had been approved by the State, the reclamation responsibility was released. A copy of the County approved reclamation plan and an aerial photo of how the site exists is attached to this form. The areas that differ between the 2 reclamation plans are shown on the attached aerial photo of the site. Staff brought this item to the Board because the Board is the body that approved the reclamation plan and staff does not have the authority to expire the permit since the reclamation does match what was approved. Staff would like direction on how to proceed so that this permit can be expired and closed ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM out. There is one other item of note related to the permitting of gravel pits that staff would like to bring to the Board’s attention. Section 9.2.H states, “Unless all disturbance created by the mining operation is covered by a reclamation bond under jurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology…a bond or other acceptable financial performance guarantee shall be submitted in favor of Routt County in an amount of at least 150 percent of the cost of restoration of the site and access roads.” Section 9.2.G states, “The Board of County Commissioners may require a financial performance guarantee in addition to that required by the State of Colorado to insure that certain condition of a permit will be complied with….The County will not require financial guarantees that are duplicative of that required by the State. Although uncommon, the current situation is one of the results that could possibly occur by not requiring a bond to cover reclamation costs.

V. LEGAL ISSUES: N/A VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: N/A VII. SUMMARY: N/A VIII. ATTACHMENTS: 1. County approved reclamation plan 2. Aerial photo showing the areas that differ between the State’s and the County’s approved reclamation plans. 3. Pictures of the site

Parking and Stockpile area - Approved by State

Area on County approved reclamation plan labeled as 'Pond Area'

Gravel parking area - Approved by State

Area on County approved reclamation plan labeled as 'Backfilled - Revegetated Area'

County Road 65 E

View of a reclaimed shore area.

View across reclaimed lake towards stockpile area.

Stockpile area

View of gravel parking area. ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

ITEM DATE: February 28th, 2017 ITEM TIME: 3:45 PM

FROM: Ben Grush, Building Official TODAY’S DATE: February 15, 2017 AGENDA TITLE: Supplemental Budget Request` CHECK ONE THAT APPLIES TO YOUR ITEM: X ACTION ITEM q DIRECTION q INFORMATION I. DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: Consideration for approval and authorization for the chair to sign two Supplemental Budgets adding two FTE’s to the Building Department staff, one Assistant Building Official and one Combination Inspector.

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Supplemental Budget request.

III. DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (VARIATION TO BUDGET): PROPOSED REVENUE: There will be no new revenue source PROPOSED EXPENDITURE: Salaries- $106,640.00 FUNDING SOURCE: Permit fee revenue is more than sufficient

IV. IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (IDENTIFY ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM): The addition of two staff will restore the level of service.

V. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Historically, Building Department staffing levels have been adjusted to conform to service demands.

VI. LEGAL ISSUES: None

P a g e | 1 ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

VII. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: None

VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS: Accept a reduction in service.

P a g e | 2 Regional Building Department Supplemental Budget

Project Title Provide a Title for the Project New FTE- Assistant Building Official

Brief Description of the Request Provide a short description of the project, event etc. The Valuation of construction in Routt County has been on the rise over the past several years reaching $125,545,743 in 2016. Our staff of seven struggled to keep up with this workload and in anticipation of a continued increase in construction for 2017 the Building Department is in need of additional staff. This request to add an Assistant Building Official is accompanied by a separate supplemental budget request to add a Combination Inspector.

Source of Unanticipated Revenue and Funding Describe how the department will generate additional revenue or cut costs to fund the expenditure request. The Building Department operates as an enterprise fund and with the increase in construction we have witnessed an increase in revenue. The Building Department has been operating with a revenue surplus since 2012. Surplus revenues are more than sufficient to cover the cost of 2 additional FTE’s.

Core, Necessary or Discretionary Request (Using the criteria defining Core, Necessary or Discretionary categorize in writing the reasons why the request is Core, Necessary, or Discretionary.) The addition of staff is critical to providing the anticipated and customary level of customer service provided by the Building Department and to provide relief to staff who in 2016 performed above and beyond reasonable expectations.

Grant Funding Describe the grant, provide supporting documentation and if federally funded provide Grant Funding is not necessary. Justification Provide information as to what, where and why the additional expenditure request is needed. Provide statistical information. Case load, turn around time, etc. Referencing the most comparable year since 2000; in 2003 the valuation of projects processed by the Building Department staff of 13.5 FTE’s was $128,316,167. In 2016 the valuation of projects processed by the Building Department staff of 7 FTE’s was $125,545,743. To avoid exhausting our staff we simply need more people if we are to provide exceptional service.

Cost Benefit Analysis Prepare a cost/benefit analysis justifying the request. The cost of adding an Assistant Building Official would be compensation: first year $60,820 (8.5 months) and second year $92,700. The benefit would be measured in maintaining and improving the services provided by the Building Department such as:  Improved customer service  Improved website  In house plan reviews  Guaranteed next day inspections  Relief to an overworked staff

Who Will Benefit? Identify who will benefit and how many. The residents of and visitors to Routt County will benefit from safer buildings and the construction industry will benefit through more timely inspections and better customer service at the office,

Alternatives Provide alternatives and discuss the pros and cons to each alternative. The addition of an Assistant Building Official will relieve our Plans Examiner of his Assistant Building Official duties and provide help with plan reviews and project management. Without additional staff in 2017, there is a high probability that plan reviews will be sent to third party reviewers who possess no local or historical knowledge of Unincorporated Routt County, our City or Towns. This may result in errors or disconnects with our local builders. Not adding the Assistant Building Official would eliminate the impact of adding the cost of an FTE to the budget. Emergency Need Provide information as to why the request is an emergency and cannot be part of the normal annual budget process. At the conclusion of 2016 when we had time to review the final numbers it became apparent that waiting until 2018 to add staff would significantly reduce our level of service. Consequences of Postponement or Denial If the expenditure is postponed or denied what are the consequences (financial, projects not completed, turnaround time)? The consequences of postponing or denying this request are dealing with an overworked staff, potential loss of guaranteed next day inspections, the use of third party plan reviewers, reduced complaint investigations and less than optimal customer service.

Accounting Information This section actually places the request into accounts and dollars of the department’s budget. Budget amounts should be rounded to the nearest $10. Please contact the Accounting Contact for assistance for this section. Account Original Supplemental Amended Accounting Information Number Budget Budget Budget

Regional Building Department

Funding Sources

Reserves $ (2,533,567) $ 60,820 $ (2,472,747)

Total $ (2,533,567) $ 60,820 $ (2,472,747)

Expenditures

Administrative Salaries 45-20-08-100-6110 $ 98,590 $ 50,100 $ 148,690 FICA 45-20-08-100-6220 $ 36,530 $ 3,850 $ 40,380 Life & Disability 45-20-08-100-6250 $ 2,060 $ 180 $ 2,240 Medical Insurance 45-20-08-100-6210 $ 98,580 $ 6,690 $ 105,270

Total $ 235,760 $ 60,820 $ 296,580

Before submitting the supplemental budget to the BCC, the internal service department managers and the County Manager are required to review and sign off in writing on the supplemental budget request.

Internal Service Department Managers Review Comments Reviews and Authorizations

Department Manager Signature/Date Capital/Controllable Asset Managers Signature/Date

Human Resources Signature/Date Budget Manager Signature/Date

Purchasing Manager Signature/Date Executive Management Team/Date

County Attorney Signature/Date County Manager Signature/Date

County Commissioner/Date County Commissioner/Date ROUTT COUNTY

POSITION TITLE: Assistant Building Official Created: January 2017 FAMILY: Professional/Technical SCALE: Assistant Building Official DEPARTMENT: Building FLSA STATUS: Non-Exempt APPROVED: County Manager DATE:

______

SUMMARY OF POSITION:

Under general supervision of the Building Official and using independent judgement, the Assistant Building Official provides leadership to assigned staff, provides technical guidance to the developers, architects, contractors and the general public, manages the electronic plan submission process and maintains a professional relationship with the staff from other agencies – including city, towns, county and state agencies.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:

 Supervise the office staff and assists the Building Official with the completion of employee performance evaluations.  Comprehensive knowledge of codes, ordinances and other regulations adopted by jurisdictions having the authority and an ability to interpret the implementation of these codes.  Awareness of the community development codes adopted by the jurisdictions having authority and an ability to provide notice of possible non-compliance.  Provide technical assistance to developers, architects, contractors and the general public on proposed, submitted and permitted projects.  Manage the electronic plan submission process: performing a comprehensive counter check, transferring submittal documents from the permitting software, creating sessions for concurrent review, monitoring those sessions and once complete, transfer approved plans back to the permitting software.  Work with staff from other city, county and state public agencies, including planning, health, engineering and fire to discuss ongoing projects.

EXAMPLES OF OTHER RESPONSIBILTIES:  Expected to act as the Building Official in their absence  Coordinate and monitor various projects as assigned  Assist in preparation of the departmental budget  Perform other building department related tasks as assigned  Maintain and apply a current level of knowledge of building practices and new developments of the construction industry  Conflict management and communication skills

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE LEVEL: Bachelor’s degree in architecture or engineering or related field or must have a combination of training and experience, that provides the expected knowledge, skills and ability to perform the required job functions. A minimum of four (4) years’ experience in the building inspection or

1 building design profession or related field is required. Relevant training and work experience may be accepted in lieu of a degree. Prefer two (2) years’ experience in direct supervision.

LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS: Possess appropriate certifications from the International Code Council (2 or more Commercial Inspector or Plans Examiner certifications, or Certified Building Code Official certification) or be able to secure within one year of appointment to the position. Additional International Code Council certifications are strongly encouraged. Must possess (or have the ability to obtain) and maintain a valid Colorado driver’s license in order to operate a county vehicle.

TECHNICAL SKILLS:  Excellent demonstrated verbal and written communication skills.  Ability to interpret, understand and apply technical aspects of construction codes and regulations to the construction documents being reviewed to assure proposed projects are in substantial compliance.  Maintain time management skills to juggle multiple deadlines and complete assigned work in a timely manner.  Superior computer skills including but not limited to, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Office products including Word, Excel and Outlook, navigating a Windows based computer system and conducting internet research.  Sufficient computer knowledge to administer building department permitting software, plan review software, database and webpage.  Ability to exercise independent judgment, discretion and initiative in completing assignments while dealing with other employees, builders, licensed design professionals and the general public.

WORKING ENVIRONMENT AND PHYSICAL EFFORT: This position is intended to be predominately an office position; however, it also may require occasional visits to construction sites with exposure to potential hazards like, dust, noise and adverse environmental conditions. It also requires employees to operate a County owned motor vehicle in adverse road and weather conditions. Physical capability requires climbing ladders, crawling into and through small spaces such as attics and under floor spaces, walking along narrow “catwalks” and entering areas of rough terrain and excavations. There may be exposure to dangers on construction sites.

ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS: Report to the Building Official. Supervise office staff and processes- including Plan Submission and Distribution. Act as the Building Official in their absence. Work closely with Plans Examiner, Combination Inspectors, Electrical Inspectors, Permit Coordination Supervisor and Permit Technicians. Also work with staff from the City of Steamboat Springs Addressing, Finance, Public Works, Planning and Fire Departments, the County Planning, Health and Road and Bridge Departments as well as the Town Managers and Public Works Departments for the towns of Oak Creek and Yampa, three Fire Districts, five Water Districts and public utilities.

COMMUNICATION: Communicate with internal and external stakeholders on a regular basis. Communicate daily with contractors, licensed design professionals, property owners, management companies and the general public.

2 Asst. Chief Building Official 2017 Market Midpoint 39.96 (Salary set between CBO & Electrical Inspector) (2001 - 7% across the board increase) (2002 - 2001 Survey + 2%) (2003 - 3% Across the Board Increase) (2004 - 30% of 2003 Salary Survey Market Increase) (2005 - Received remaining 70% of 2003 Salary Survey Market Increase) (2006 - 2005 Market Survey Increase) (2007 - 4% Across the Board) (2008 - 2007 Market Survey +2%) (2009 - 2% across the board, no step increases) (2009 - Effective 4/2/09 10% pay reduction) (2010 - 10% pay reduction was reduced to a 5% pay reduction, no step increases) (2011 - 2012 - Compensation remains at 2010 level, no step increases) (2013 - Remaining 5% pay reduction returned. Compensation at 1/1/2009 level, no step increases) (2014 - 2% across-the-board increase + 2014 step increase on DOM + up to 2 "catch-up steps if eligible) (2015 - 2.8% across-the-board increase + 2015 step increase on DOM + up to 2 "catch-up steps if eligible) (2016 - Salary Survey Results, limited to 15%, if applicable plus 1.5% across the board increase) (2016 - 2016 step increase on DOM + final "catch-up" step on 1/1/16, if eligible) (2017 - 2% across-the-board increase + 2017 step increase on DOM if eligible) Proposed - Same as Current (2017 - Set 10% below Chief Bldg. Official) Scale Regional Building Department Supplemental Budget

Project Title Provide a Title for the Project New FTE- Combination Inspector

Brief Description of the Request Provide a short description of the project, event etc. The Valuation of construction in Routt County has been on the rise over the past several years reaching $125,545,743 in 2016. Our staff of seven struggled to keep up and in anticipation of a continued increase in construction the Building Department is in need of additional staff. This request to add a Combination Inspector is accompanied by a separate supplemental budget request to add an Assistant Building Official.

Grant Funding Describe the grant, provide supporting documentation and if federally funded provide Grant Funding is not being requested. Justification Provide information as to what, where and why the additional expenditure request is needed. Provide statistical information. Case load, turn around time, etc. Referencing the most comparable year since 2000; in 2003 the valuation of projects processed by the Building Department staff of 13.5 FTE’s was $128,316,167. In 2016 the valuation of projects processed by the Building Department staff of 7 FTE’s was $125,545,743. To avoid exhausting our staff we simply need more people if we are to provide exceptional service.

Cost Benefit Analysis Prepare a cost/benefit analysis justifying the request. The cost of adding a Combination Inspector would be compensation: first year $45,820 (8.5 months) and second year $70,100. The benefit would be measured in timely inspections and guaranteed next day inspection.  Improved customer service  Relief to an overworked staff

Who Will Benefit? Identify who will benefit and how many. The residents of and visitor to Routt County will benefit from safer buildings and the construction industry will benefit through more timely inspections and an inspection staff that is not overworked.

Alternatives Provide alternatives and discuss the pros and cons to each alternative. The addition of a Combination Inspector will insure that inspectors are not hurried while conducting inspections at the height of the building season and/or when another inspector is off. This will reduce the time the Building Official spends conducting inspections. Not adding the Combination Inspector would eliminate the impact of adding the cost of an FTE to the budget.

Emergency Need Provide information as to why the request is an emergency and cannot be part of the normal annual budget process. At the conclusion of 2016 when we had time to review the final numbers it became apparent that waiting until 2018 to add staff would be damaging to the Building Department. Consequences of Postponement or Denial If the expenditure is postponed or denied what are the consequences (financial, projects not completed, turnaround time)? The consequences of postponing or denying this request are dealing with an overworked staff, loss of guaranteed next day inspections, the use of third party plan reviewers, reduced complaint investigations and less than optimal customer service.

Account Original Supplemental Amended Accounting Information Number Budget Budget Budget

Regional Building Department

Funding Sources

Reserves $ (2,472,747) $ 45,820 $ (2,426,927)

Total $ (2,472,747) $ 45,820 $ (2,426,927)

Expenditures

Staff Salaries 45-20-08-100-6112 $ 376,480 $ 36,200 $ 412,680 FICA 45-20-08-100-6220 $ 40,380 $ 2,780 $ 43,160 Life & Disability 45-20-08-100-6250 $ 2,240 $ 150 $ 2,390 Medical Insurance 45-20-08-100-6210 $ 105,270 $ 6,690 $ 111,960

Total $ 524,370 $ 45,820 $ 570,190 Before submitting the supplemental budget to the BCC, the internal service department managers and the County Manager are required to review and sign off in writing on the supplemental budget request.

Internal Service Department Managers Review Comments

Reviews and Authorizations

Department Manager Signature/Date Capital/Controllable Asset Managers Signature/Date

Human Resources Signature/Date Budget Manager Signature/Date

Purchasing Manager Signature/Date Executive Management Team/Date

County Attorney Signature/Date County Manager Signature/Date

County Commissioner/Date County Commissioner/Date

ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

ITEM DATE: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 ITEM TIME:

FROM: Vickie Clark TODAY’S DATE: Wednesday, February 15, 2017

AGENDA TITLE: Reduction in Workforce due to Funding.

CHECK ONE THAT APPLIES TO YOUR ITEM: X ACTION ITEM q DIRECTION q INFORMATION I. DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE:

Consideration and approval to eliminate Human Services position, .5 FTE Administrative Assistant, as a reduction in workforce due to funding decreases from the Colorado Department of Human Services to the early childhood council, First Impressions of Routt County, effective April 1, 2017.

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Recommend a motion to approve this reduction in workforce.

III. DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (VARIATION TO BUDGET): None PROPOSED REVENUE: PROPOSED EXPENDITURE: FUNDING SOURCE: This reduction in workforce will reduce First Impressions personnel expenses by $7412 in the 2017 Budget and $9882 going forward. Please see attached 2017 Budget adjustments necessary to make up the first round of cuts that will impact this current budget year. IV. IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (IDENTIFY ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM): None

V. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

Please see attached document titled Early Childhood Council Systems Building Allocation Methodology. This will explain the why, how and when we were notified of funding reductions to First Impressions over the next 4 years. Up until this notification there were no funding projections shared with the councils, making it impossible to plan for. VI. LEGAL ISSUES:

None

VII. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

None

VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS: At this point in time I do not see any other options. We will be diligent about seeking community support and increased funding sources in order to continue operating First Impressions at the current level. The First Impressions Executive committee has been informed of the cuts and budget adjustment recommendations. The group unanimously supports the efforts and will be sending letters to Diane Mitsch Bush, Randy Baumgardner and CDHS to express their concerns around what appears like a systematic elimination of Early Childhood Councils in Colorado. Provider Routt CDHS Race to the RTT CCCAP Colorado Collaborative Craig-Scheck Steamboat Temple Hoyne EC Council Name: First Impressions of RTT Quality Parent Promoting Scholarships County CHANGE Systems Top (RTT) Mentoring & Quality Department of Management/ man Family Springs TANF-SFAG Buell Total Routt County Improvement Ed/Events Child Care (YVCF, HRC, Council RECAP Building salary Coaching Initiative Education Managed Care Foundation School District Foundation United Way) Support 2017 BUDGET REVENUE $ 90,000 $ 13,625 $ 5,625 $ 6,200 $ 20,480 $ 2,300 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 65,000 $ 252,300 Revenue adjustments $ (90,000) $ (13,625) $ (5,625) $ (20,480) $ (2,300) $ (10,000) $ (8,000) $ (150,030) Jan-Jun (Unspent portion of SFY 16/17. See computation on next pg.) $ 39,263 $ 3,625 $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ 9,500 $ 77,876 Jul-Sept $ 16,558 Oct- Dec $ 16,557 $ 16,557 Additional funding $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Additional funding $ 2,000 $ 2,000 ADJUSTED REVENUE $ 72,378 $ 3,625 $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ 6,200 $ 21,500 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 57,000 $ 225,261 $ (27,039) Personnel

Program Administrator & Program Support $ 66,000 $ 2,900 $ 7,225 $ 13,000 $ 89,125 Layoff Linda at end of March 2017 $ (7,412) $ (7,412) $ (7,412) No Admin charges to FI starting 3/17 $ (3,698) $ (3,698) $ (3,698) Reclass Stephanie $ (6,424) $ 2,000 $ 4,424 $ - Subtotal Personnel $ 55,878 $ 2,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,225 $ - $ 10,012 $ 78,015 Fringe benefits Program Administrator Program Support (avg 25% of hourly pay) $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ 40 $ 1,845 $ 3,250 $ 22,360 Subtotal Fringe $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40 $ 1,845 $ - $ 3,250 $ 22,360 Travel Mileage, parking, meals and hotel for professional development $ 2,500 $ 1,750 $ 4,250 Zero out travel $ (2,500) $ (1,750) $ (4,250) $ (4,250) Subtotal Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies CAPP Insurance $ 3,030 $ 3,030 Cell phone ($40/mo) and data plan ($40.01/mo) $ 980 $ 980 Move cell phone to Buell $ (980) $ 960 $ (20) $ (20) Postage, telephone, and office supplies $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Move office supplies to Buell $ (1,000) $ 1,000 $ - Subtotal Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,030 $ - $ - $ 1,960 $ 4,990 Equipment Rent $ 7,080 $ 7,080 Subtotal Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,080 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,080 Other Professional Development $ 8,000 $ 18,000 $ 26,000 Lower Professional Development $ (8,000) $ - $ (8,000) $ (8,000) Child Outcome Tools (GOLD&DECA) $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Lower Child Outcome Tools $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ (3,000) Parent Education Opportunities (includes ASQ) $ 4,000 $ 2,300 $ 5,000 $ 11,300 Reduce Parent Education $ (2,300) $ (2,222) $ (4,522) $ (4,522) Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Tuition Assistance Program $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 13,000 $ 23,000 Modify ECCE $ 19,500 $ (5,000) $ 14,500 $ 14,500 Public Engagement (marketing materials, parent education and website) $ 2,200 $ 2,000 $ 4,200 Subtotal Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,200 $ 19,500 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 41,778 $ 72,478 Contracted Services Mentoring and Coaching ($50/hr for every licensed provider/program as needed per best practices program - child outcomes, environmental ratings, professional development plans, CO Shines, etc.) $ 7,500 $ 5,000 $ 8,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,500 Reduce Mentoring & Coaching $ (7,500) $ 1,350 $ 3,200 $ 500 $ (8,000) $ (5,000) $ (15,450) $ (15,450) Best Practices Program mini grant incentives $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 Adjust mini grants $ (5,000) $ 3,700 $ (1,300) $ (1,300)

Colo. Shines Incentives direct to programs $ 9,600 $ 9,600 $ 9,600 Expanding Quality (EQ) Initiative $ 5,625 $ 5,625 Reduce EQ $ (3,487) $ (3,487) $ (3,487) Subtotal Contracted Services $ - $ - $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ 50,488

Total Expenses $ 72,378 $ 3,625 $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ 6,200 $ 21,500 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 10,150 $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 57,000 $ 235,411 $ (27,039) NET $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (10,150) $ - $ - $ - $ (10,150)

CDHS RTT RTT Quality Systems RTT salary Mentoring & Improvement Building Coaching LEGEND: SFY16/17 funding 79,038.00 7,000.00 11,200.00 16,400.00 State provided Council Funding Reclass to cover budgeted sal/fringe 250.00 (250.00) Outside Funding Jul-Dec 2016 actual expend (39,775.17) (3,625.02) (4,600.00) (3,600.00) State specific funding Avail for Jan- June 2017 39,262.83 3,624.98 6,350.00 12,800.00 Original 2017 budget Change to 2017 budget Provider Routt CDHS RTT CCCAP Colorado Collaborative Craig-Scheck Steamboat Temple Hoyne EC Council Name: First Impressions of RTT Quality Parent Promoting Scholarships County Total Project Systems RTT salary Mentoring & Quality Department of Management/ man Family Springs TANF-SFAG Buell Routt County Improvement Ed/Events Child Care (YVCF, HRC, Council Funds Building Coaching Initiative Education Managed Care Foundation School District Foundation United Way) Support 2017 Budget REVENUE $ 90,000 $ 13,625 $ 5,625 $ 6,200 $ 20,480 $ 2,300 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 65,000 $ 252,300 Revenue adjustments $ (90,000) $ (13,625) $ (5,625) $ (20,480) $ (2,300) $ (10,000) $ (8,000) $ (150,030) Jan-Jun $ 39,263 $ 3,625 $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ 9,500 $ 77,876 Jul-Sept $ 19,760 Oct- Dec $ 15,490 $ 15,490 Additional funding $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Additional funding $ 2,000 $ 2,000 ADJUSTED REVENUE $ 74,513 $ 3,625 $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ 6,200 $ 21,500 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 57,000 $ 227,396 Personnel

Program Administrator & Program Support $ 66,000 $ 2,900 $ 7,225 $ 13,000 $ 89,125 Layoff Linda at end of March $ (7,412) $ (7,412) No Admin charges to FI starting 3/17 $ (3,698) $ (3,698) Reclass Stephanie $ (4,289) $ 2,000 $ 2,289 $ - Subtotal Personnel $ 58,013 $ 2,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,225 $ - $ 7,877 $ 78,015 Fringe benefits Program Administrator Program Support (avg 25% of hourly pay) $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ 40 $ 1,845 $ 3,250 $ 22,360 Subtotal Fringe $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40 $ 1,845 $ - $ 3,250 $ 22,360 Travel Mileage, parking, meals and hotel for professional development $ 2,500 $ 1,750 $ 4,250 Travel to nothing $ (2,500) $ (1,750) $ (4,250) Subtotal Travel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Supplies CAPP Insurance $ 3,030 $ 3,030 Cell phone ($40/mo) and data plan ($40.01/mo) $ 980 $ 980 Move cell phone to Buell $ (980) $ 960 $ (20) Postage, telephone, and office supplies $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Move office supplies to Buell $ (1,000) $ 1,000 $ - Subtotal Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,030 $ - $ - $ 1,960 $ 4,990 Equipment Rent $ 7,080 $ 7,080 Office equipment $ -

Subtotal Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,080 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,080

Other Professional Development $ 8,000 $ 18,000 $ 26,000 Lower Professional Development $ (8,000) $ - $ (8,000) Child Outcome Tools (GOLD&DECA) $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Lower Child Outcome Tools $ (3,000) $ (3,000) Parent Education Opportunities (includes ASQ) $ 4,000 $ 2,300 $ 5,000 $ 11,300 Reduce Parent Education $ (2,300) $ (87) $ (2,387) Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Tuition Assistance Program $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 13,000 $ 23,000 Modify ECCE $ 19,500 $ (5,000) $ 14,500 Public Engagement (marketing materials, parent education and website) $ 2,200 $ 2,000 $ 4,200

Subtotal Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,200 $ 19,500 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 43,913 $ 74,613

Contracted Services

Mentoring and Coaching ($50/hr for every licensed provider/program as needed per best practices program - child outcomes, environmental ratings, professional development plans, CO Shines, etc.) $ 7,500 $ 5,000 $ 8,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,500 Mentoring & Coaching $ (7,500) $ 1,350 $ 3,200 $ 500 $ (8,000) $ (5,000) $ (15,450) Best Practices Program mini grant incentives $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 Adjust mini grants $ (5,000) $ 3,700 $ (1,300) Colo. Shines Incentives direct to programs $ 9,600 $ 9,600

EQ coaching mileage (400 @ $.44/mile) $ - Expanding Quality Initiative $ 5,625 $ 5,625 Reduce EQ $ (3,487) $ (3,487) Subtotal Contracted Services $ - $ - $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ 50,488

Total Expenses $ 74,513 $ 3,625 $ 6,350 $ 12,800 $ 4,200 $ 2,138 $ 6,200 $ 21,500 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 10,150 $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 57,000 $ 237,546

NET $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (10,150) $ - $ - $ - $ (10,150) EC Council Name: First Impressions of Routt Colorado Collaborative Craig-Scheck Fatherhood Parent Promoting Provider Routt Steamboat TANF-SFAG Temple County Department of Management/Ma man Family Ed/Events Child Care Scholarships County Springs Hoyne Buell CDHS Total Project Education naged Care Foundation Council School Foundation Systems Race to the Funds Support District Building Top 2017 Budget REVENUE $ 90,000 $ 13,625 $ 5,625 $ 6,200 $ 20,480 $ - $ 2,300 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 65,000 $ 252,300

ADJUSTED REVENUE $ 90,000 $ 13,625 $ 5,625 $ 6,200 $ 20,480 $ - $ 2,300 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 65,000 $ 252,300

Program Administrator & Program Support $ 66,000 $ 2,900 $ - $ 7,225 $ 13,000 $ 89,125 Subtotal Personnel $ 66,000 $ 2,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,225 $ - $ 13,000 $ 89,125 Fringe benefits

Program Administrator Program Support (avg 25% of hourly pay) $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ - $ 40 $ 1,845 $ 3,250 $ 22,360 Subtotal Fringe $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ - $ 40 $ 1,845 $ 3,250 $ 22,360 Travel Mileage, parking, meals and hotel for professional development $ 2,500 $ 1,750 $ 4,250 Subtotal Travel $ - $ - $ 2,500 $ 1,750 $ 4,250 Supplies CAPP Insurance $ 3,030 $ 3,030

cell phone ($40/mo) and data plan ($40.01/mo) $ 980 $ 980

Postage, telephone, and office supplies $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Subtotal Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,980 $ 3,030 $ - $ 5,010 Equipment Rent $ 7,080 $ 7,080

Office equipment $ -

Subtotal Equipment $ - $ - $ 7,080 $ - $ 7,080

Other

Professional Development $ 8,000 $ 18,000 $ 26,000

Child Outcome Tools (GOLD&DECA) $ 9,000 $ 9,000

Parent Education Opportunities (includes ASQ) $ 4,000 $ 2,300 $ 5,000 $ 11,300 Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Tuition Assistance Program $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 13,000 $ 23,000

Public Engagement (marketing materials, parent education and website) $ 2,200 $ 2,000 $ 4,200

Subtotal Other $ - $ - $ - $ 6,200 $ 8,000 $ - $ 2,300 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 47,000 $ 73,500

Contracted Services

Best Practices Program mini grant incentives $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 Expanding Quality Initiative $ 5,625 $ 5,625 Subtotal Contracted Services $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 5,625 $ - $ 8,000 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ 61,125 Total Expenses $ 90,000 $ 13,625 $ 5,625 $ 6,200 $ 20,480 $ - $ 2,300 $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 10,150 $ 9,070 $ 25,000 $ 65,000 $ 262,450

NET $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (10,150) $ - $ - $ - $ (10,150) EC Council Name: First Impressions of Routt Colorado Collaborative Craig-Scheckman Fatherhood Parent Ed/Events Promoting Child Provider Routt Steamboat TANF-SFAG Temple Hoyne Buell County Department of Management/Man Family Care Scholarships County Springs School Foundation Total Project Education aged Care Foundation Council District Funds CDHS Systems Support Building Race to the Top 2016 Budget

Program Administrator & Program Support $ 66,000 $ 2,900 $ 884 $ 5,950 $ 13,000 $ 88,734 Subtotal Personnel $ 66,000 $ 2,900 $ - $ 884 $ 5,950 $ 13,000 $ 88,734 Fringe benefits

Program Administrator Program Support (avg 25% of hourly pay) $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ 221 $ 1,995 $ 1,488 $ 3,250 $ 24,179 Subtotal Fringe $ 16,500 $ 725 $ - $ 221 $ 1,995 $ 1,488 $ 3,250 $ 24,179 Travel Mileage, parking, meals and hotel for professional development $ 2,500 $ 1,750 $ 4,250 Subtotal Travel $ - $ - $ 2,500 $ 1,750 $ 4,250 Supplies CAPP Insurance $ 2,800 $ 2,800 cell phone ($40/mo) and data plan ($40.01/mo) $ 980 $ 980

Postage, telephone, and office supplies $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Subtotal Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,980 $ 2,800 $ - $ 4,780 Equipment Rent $ 7,090 $ 7,090 office equipment $ -

Subtotal Equipment $ - $ - $ 7,090 $ - $ 7,090

Other

Professional Development $ 8,000 $ 18,000 $ 26,000

Child Outcome Tools (GOLD&DECA) $ 9,000 $ 9,000

Parent Education Opportunities (includes ASQ) $ 4,000 $ 2,300 $ 5,000 $ 11,300 Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Tuition Assistance Program $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 13,000 $ 23,000

Public Engagement (marketing materials, parent education and website) $ 2,200 $ 2,000 $ 4,200

Subtotal Other $ - $ - $ 6,200 $ 8,000 $ 2,300 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 47,000 $ 73,500

Contracted Services

Best Practices Program mini grant incentives $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 Expanding Quality Initiative $ 5,626 $ 5,626 Subtotal Contracted Services $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 5,626 $ 8,000 $ 25,000 $ - $ 56,126

Total Expenses $ 90,000 $ 13,625 $ 5,626 $ 6,200 $ 20,480 $ 1,105 $ 2,300 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 11,885 $ 7,438 $ 25,000 $ 65,000 $ 258,659

*Budget does not include Tuition Assistance Funding that is administered by First Impressions from United Way, City of Steamboat Springs, Routt County and the Yampa Valley Community Foundation and allocated directly to early learning programs who partner with First Impressions Early Childhood Council Systems Building Allocation Methodology

Background The Early Childhood Council statutes create a statewide system of local councils intended to coordinate community-level, public and private stakeholders in the delivery of accessible, quality child care services. See §§ 26-6.5-101 et seq., C.R.S. The system grew from 12 “pilot site agencies” in 1997 to 31 councils today, raising questions about how best the Colorado Department of Human Services (the Department) can efficiently and fairly allocate limited funds within such a system.

To address the fair and equitable distribution of funds that support systems building, the Department has developed an allocation methodology that is formulaic and tied each of the 64 counties in Colorado. This supports a targeted investment strategy that is flexible and nimble regardless of how the Early Childhood Council service areas are configured. The systems building funds are tied directly to the Early Childhood Councils purpose outlined in statute.

I. Allocation principles The following principles guide the selection of factors that inform the allocation methodology for Early Childhood Councils:

1. The allocation methodology reinforces a focus on reducing disparities and improving the school readiness for children, particularly children with high needs1. 2. The allocation methodology considers the stressors often faced in rural communities. 3. The allocation methodology is clearly connected to the overall statutorily defined purpose for Early Childhood Councils: a. Support the effective delivery of early childhood services in the areas of early care and education, family support, mental health, and health. b. To increase and sustain the quality, accessibility, capacity, and affordability of early childhood services for children and their parents. 4. The allocation methodology only includes data with full geographic coverage. 5. The allocation methodology is transparent and based upon objective, publicly available data obtained from authoritative, valid, and reliable sources.

Additional considerations:

1. The Department must be able to defend to policy makers the factors included in the allocation. 2. The Department acknowledges some Early Childhood Councils have identified other populations as “high need” in their communities, but the allocation methodology source must be defensible and consistent across Councils.

1 Children with high needs are children who: live in low-income families; have disabilities or developmental delays; are English language learners; reside on “Indian lands”; live in migrant families; or live in foster care. 1 1/25/2016 II. Process to Date 1. Over the past several months, in partnership with Early Childhood Councils, a number of factors have been identified that are key considerations and drivers of the Council systems building effort. 2. The Department convened a small workgroup to review the factors identified and make recommendations for which factors should be weighted. This work group also had the opportunity to recommend additional factors for consideration. 3. Early Childhood Leadership Commission Executive Committee endorsed the allocation methodology on December 15, 2016. 4. The Department Executive Management Team approved the allocation methodology and policy decision on December 28, 2017. 5. Two webinars were held the week of February 9, 2017 to review the allocation methodology with Councils. 6. Individual meetings were held with Early Childhood Councils the week of February 16, 2017 to share budget details and respond to questions.

III. Budget Components and Factors

A. Component 1: Urban-rural classification The Census Bureau’s urban-rural classification is fundamentally a delineation of geographical areas, identifying both individual urban areas and the rural areas of the nation. The Census Bureau’s urban areas represent densely developed territory, and encompass residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. The Census Bureau delineates urban areas after each decennial census by applying specified criteria to decennial census and other data. The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:

• Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people; • Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people. • “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area.

Evidence found in literature suggests that social-economic (child population, COLI, affordability and availability of services, physical barriers or travel), geographic, and even health differentials are highly correlated to spatial and urban-rural characteristics overall.

Source: Census Bureau Urbanicity/Rurality Index: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html http://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/County_Rural_Lookup.xlsx

B. Component II: High Need

1. Child Welfare/ Foster Care (weighted factor @ 1.5)* Children five (5) years of age and younger in foster care, this count is inclusive of out of home care, in-group, and residential treatment settings.

2 1/25/2016 Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System/National Child

2. Disabilities/Developmental Delays (weighted factor @ 1.5)* A child with a disability or developmental delay is defined as a child under age five (5) who has an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) or an Individualized Education Program (IEP). IFSP data only includes children birth to three (3) years of age, while IEP data includes children ages three (3) to five (5). Both the IFSP and IEP counts are point in time and reflect child counts for December 2015. These counts are unduplicated.

Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Early Intervention Colorado Unit (Part C); Colorado Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services Unit (Part B) December

3. English Language Learners** Children who are English language learners are children five (5) years of age or younger that have home languages other than English.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table B16007

4. Low Income (weighted factor @ 1.5)** Children under age six (6) from low-income families are represented by households having an income of less than 185% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which is consistent with the poverty definition used for the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B17024: Age by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months

5. Migrant** Children who are migrant are children birth through five (5) years of age, and kindergarten enrollment who meet the definition of “migratory child” in Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) section 1309(2).

Source: Colorado Department of Education, Coordinator of ESEA Reporting

6. Reside on Indian Lands* Children who reside on Indian lands are five (5) years of age or younger and reside in Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado and Ute Mountain Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year, Table DP05 Indian Lands

* Access the U.S. Census Bureau's data via the FactFinder tool at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t ** Requires formal data requests to respective program units

3 1/25/2016 IV. Allocation Formula and Future State Funding Under the proposed methodology, Councils would experience up to 81% decrease and 132% increase in budget compared to the SFY 2016-17 budgets. As such, a three year hold harmless provision will be implemented. Detailed results for the allocation formula are included as appendices.

A. General Methodology Unit of Analysis = County

1. Compile a High Needs Profile for each county 1. Includes low-income, English language learners, reside on Indian lands, in foster care, disabilities/developmental delays (EI and Special Ed), and migrant. 2. Data collected as counts of children in each category; may be characterized as duplicative between categories. 2. Summation of High Needs Profile by county 1. Weighting applied to low-income, in foster care, and disabilities/developmental delays categories 3. Apply U.S. Census Bureau defined Urban-Rural classification and weighting to counties 1. Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people 2. Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people 3. “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area 4. Apply urbanicity (degree of urbanized population) weighting to counties [1, 2, 3] 4. Calculate allocation by county 1. Determine base total amount and multiple factor for normalizing distribution 2. Product of High Needs Profile, urbanicity, and multiple factor 5. Apply allocation formula utilizing the following allocation rules:

Rule #1 – Limit the decrease or increase based on the hold harmless provision which defines the maximum reduction or increase that can occur over the next three years.

Max reduction & increase from difference between SFY 2016-17 Budget & Future State Year 1 – SFY 2017-18 20% Year 2 – SFY 2018-19 35% Year 3 – SFY 2019-20 50% Year 4 – SFY 2020-21 100% Future State

Rule #2 - The allocation is kept flat when the future state budget is greater than both the current allocation and the max ceiling AND when the max ceiling is less than the current allocation.

4 1/25/2016

Rule #3 - The county budget ceiling is applied when the future state allocated estimate is larger than both the current allocation and the ceiling.

Rule #4 – The minimum floor of $15,000 is only applied immediately in year one in cases where a county is not currently covered by an existing Early Childhood Council. This includes Archuleta, Baca, Custer, Jackson, Prowers, and San Juan counties. Counties currently covered by an existing Early Childhood Council adjust to the minimum floor incrementally by year four (future state).

B. Formula Allocation = [High Needs Profile]*[(Urban-Rural Class)*(Urbanicity Weight)]*Multiple Factor

Where

High Needs Profile = Σ [low-income (hnw), English language learners, reside on Indian lands, in foster care (hnw), disabilities/developmental delays (EI and Special Ed) (hnw), and migrant]

Hnw=high needs weighting

5 1/25/2016 APPENDIX A

ECC Allocation Model Results by Council and County of 3‐Year Phased Hold Harmless Provision (Final) Modified: 1/13/17 Year 1Year 2Year 3 Future State

High SFY16 Y1 Final Y2 Final Y3 Final FS Final Early Childhood Council Description County Urban/Rural Needs (Current) Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Alliance for Kids El Paso Urbanized Area 42851 $85,917 $90,000 $108,346 $117,959 $150,000 Alliance for Kids Total 42851 $85,917 $90,000 $108,346 $117,959 $150,000 Arapahoe County Early Childhood Council Arapahoe Urbanized Area 45307 $124,139 $124,139 $124,139 $130,000 $150,000 Arapahoe County Early Childhood Council Total 45307 $124,139 $124,139 $124,139 $130,000 $150,000 Bright Futures Delta Urban Cluster 1538 $17,410 $17,692 $17,903 $18,115 $18,819 Montrose Urban Cluster 3713 $42,019 $42,699 $43,210 $43,720 $45,421 Ouray Rural 137 $1,546 $4,237 $6,255 $8,273 $15,000 San Miguel Rural 224 $2,535 $5,028 $6,898 $8,768 $15,000 Bright Futures Total 5612 $63,510 $69,656 $74,266 $78,875 $94,240 Broomfield Early Childhood Council Broomfield Urbanized Area 2113 $57,200 $48,760 $42,430 $36,100 $15,000 Broomfield Early Childhood Council Total 2113 $57,200 $48,760 $42,430 $36,100 $15,000 Chaffee County Early Childhood Council Chaffee Urban Cluster 737 $73,808 $62,046 $53,225 $44,404 $15,000 Chaffee County Early Childhood Council Total 737 $73,808 $62,046 $53,225 $44,404 $15,000 Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Lincoln Counties Early Childhood Council Cheyenne Rural 157 $7,266 $8,812 $9,973 $11,133 $15,000 Kiowa Rural 82 $3,797 $6,038 $7,718 $9,399 $15,000 Lincoln Rural 302 $13,937 $14,150 $14,309 $14,469 $15,000 Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Lincoln Counties Early Childhood Council Total 542 $25,000 $29,000 $32,000 $35,000 $45,000 Connections 4 Kids Moffat Urban Cluster 974 $57,379 $48,904 $42,547 $36,190 $15,000 Rio Blanco Rural 363 $21,402 $20,121 $19,161 $18,201 $15,000 Connections 4 Kids Total 1337 $78,781 $69,025 $61,708 $54,391 $30,000 Denver's Early Childhood Council Denver Urbanized Area 62999 $92,374 $92,374 $112,543 $121,187 $150,000 Denver's Early Childhood Council Total 62999 $92,374 $92,374 $112,543 $121,187 $150,000 Douglas County Early Childhood Council Douglas Urbanized Area 8545 $78,376 $73,153 $69,236 $65,318 $52,261 Douglas County Early Childhood Council Total 8545 $78,376 $73,153 $69,236 $65,318 $52,261 Early Childhood Council of Bent, Otero and Crowley Bent Urban Cluster 303 $2,896 $5,317 $7,132 $8,948 $15,000 Crowley Rural 220 $2,103 $4,682 $6,617 $8,551 $15,000 Otero Urban Cluster 2093 $20,001 $21,121 $21,961 $22,801 $25,601 Early Childhood Council of Bent, Otero and Crowley Total 2616 $25,000 $31,120 $35,711 $40,301 $55,601 Early Childhood Council of Boulder County Boulder Urbanized Area 15259 $99,361 $98,155 $97,250 $96,345 $93,329 Early Childhood Council of Boulder County Total 15259 $99,361 $98,155 $97,250 $96,345 $93,329 Early Childhood Council of La Plata County La Plata Urban Cluster 2874 $111,116 $95,924 $84,530 $73,137 $35,157 Early Childhood Council of La Plata County Total 2874 $111,116 $95,924 $84,530 $73,137 $35,157 Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Larimer Urbanized Area 13441 $187,108 $166,127 $150,392 $134,657 $82,205 Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Total 13441 $187,108 $166,127 $150,392 $134,657 $82,205 Early Childhood Council of Logan, Phillips, and Sedgwick Counties Logan Urban Cluster 1355 $59,597 $50,993 $44,540 $38,087 $16,577 Phillips Rural 460 $20,226 $19,180 $18,397 $17,613 $15,000 Sedgwick Rural 133 $5,863 $7,690 $9,061 $10,431 $15,000 Early Childhood Council of Logan, Phillips, and Sedgwick Counties Total 1948 $85,685 $77,863 $71,997 $66,131 $46,577 APPENDIX A

ECC Allocation Model Results by Council and County of 3‐Year Phased Hold Harmless Provision (Final) Modified: 1/13/17 Year 1Year 2Year 3 Future State

High SFY16 Y1 Final Y2 Final Y3 Final FS Final Early Childhood Council Description County Urban/Rural Needs (Current) Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Early Childhood Council of the San Luis Valley Alamosa Urban Cluster 1631 $25,240 $24,181 $23,387 $22,594 $19,948 Conejos Rural 779 $12,059 $12,647 $13,088 $13,529 $15,000 Costilla Rural 264 $4,093 $6,275 $7,911 $9,547 $15,000 Mineral Rural 2 $23 $3,019 $5,265 $7,512 $15,000 Rio Grande Urban Cluster 1190 $18,410 $17,728 $17,217 $16,705 $15,000 Saguache Rural 779 $12,050 $12,640 $13,082 $13,525 $15,000 Early Childhood Council of the San Luis Valley Total 4644 $71,875 $76,490 $79,950 $83,411 $94,948 Early Childhood Council of Yuma, Washington, and Kit Carson Kit Carson Urban Cluster 675 $17,803 $17,243 $16,822 $16,402 $15,000 Washington Rural 252 $6,655 $8,324 $9,576 $10,828 $15,000 Yuma Urban Cluster 1074 $28,342 $25,673 $23,672 $21,671 $15,000 Early Childhood Council of Yuma, Washington, and Kit Carson Total 2000 $52,800 $51,240 $50,070 $48,900 $45,000 Early Childhood Partnership of Adams County Adams Urbanized Area 48281 $92,809 $92,809 $115,000 $121,405 $150,000 Early Childhood Partnership of Adams County Total 48281 $92,809 $92,809 $115,000 $121,405 $150,000 ECHO and Family Center Early Childhood Council Fremont Urban Cluster 2197 $110,922 $94,112 $81,505 $68,898 $26,874 ECHO and Family Center Early Childhood Council Total 2197 $110,922 $94,112 $81,505 $68,898 $26,874 Elbert County Early Childhood Council Elbert Rural 704 $61,000 $51,800 $44,900 $38,000 $15,000 Elbert County Early Childhood Council Total 704 $61,000 $51,800 $44,900 $38,000 $15,000 First Impressions of Routt County Routt Urban Cluster 508 $79,037 $66,230 $56,624 $47,019 $15,000 First Impressions of Routt County Total 508 $79,037 $66,230 $56,624 $47,019 $15,000 Gunnison Hinsdale Early Childhood Council Gunnison Urban Cluster 730 $53,589 $45,871 $40,083 $34,295 $15,000 Hinsdale Rural 76 $5,613 $7,490 $8,898 $10,306 $15,000 Gunnison Hinsdale Early Childhood Council Total 806 $59,202 $53,362 $48,981 $44,601 $30,000 HuLA Early Childhood Council Huerfano Urban Cluster 304 $14,573 $14,659 $14,723 $14,787 $15,000 Las Animas Urban Cluster 980 $47,027 $40,621 $35,817 $31,013 $15,000 HuLA Early Childhood Council Total 1284 $61,600 $55,280 $50,540 $45,800 $30,000 Mesa County Partnership for Children & Families Mesa Urbanized Area 9692 $92,803 $86,098 $81,070 $76,041 $59,279 Mesa County Partnership for Children & Families Total 9692 $92,803 $86,098 $81,070 $76,041 $59,279 Montelores Early Childhood Council Dolores Rural 84 $3,890 $6,112 $7,779 $9,445 $15,000 Montezuma Urban Cluster 2153 $99,710 $85,035 $74,029 $63,023 $26,336 Montelores Early Childhood Council Total 2237 $103,600 $91,147 $81,808 $72,468 $41,336 Morgan County Early Childhood Council Morgan Urban Cluster 3090 $66,433 $60,707 $56,412 $52,117 $37,801 Morgan County Early Childhood Council Total 3090 $66,433 $60,707 $56,412 $52,117 $37,801 N/A Archuleta Urban Cluster 864 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Baca Rural 292 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Custer Rural 316 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Jackson Rural 45 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Prowers Urban Cluster 1310 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,027 San Juan Rural 38 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 APPENDIX A

ECC Allocation Model Results by Council and County of 3‐Year Phased Hold Harmless Provision (Final) Modified: 1/13/17 Year 1Year 2Year 3 Future State

High SFY16 Y1 Final Y2 Final Y3 Final FS Final Early Childhood Council Description County Urban/Rural Needs (Current) Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation N/A Total 2865 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $91,027 Promises for Children Weld Urbanized Area 22819 $89,861 $90,000 $107,258 $114,714 $139,566 Promises for Children Total 22819 $89,861 $90,000 $107,258 $114,714 $139,566 Pueblo Early Childhood Council Pueblo Urbanized Area 12189 $123,985 $114,097 $106,682 $99,266 $74,547 Pueblo Early Childhood Council Total 12189 $123,985 $114,097 $106,682 $99,266 $74,547 Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council Eagle Urban Cluster 3554 $28,899 $31,814 $33,999 $36,185 $43,471 Garfield Urban Cluster 5157 $41,933 $46,162 $49,333 $52,505 $63,076 Lake Urban Cluster 887 $7,215 $8,772 $9,940 $11,108 $15,000 Pitkin Urban Cluster 381 $3,095 $5,476 $7,262 $9,048 $15,000 Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council Total 9978 $81,143 $92,224 $100,534 $108,845 $136,547 Rural Resort Region Northeastern Division Grand Urban Cluster 809 $24,663 $22,730 $21,281 $19,831 $15,000 Summit Urban Cluster 1446 $44,065 $38,789 $34,832 $30,875 $17,685 Rural Resort Region Northeastern Division Total 2255 $68,728 $61,519 $56,113 $50,706 $32,685 Teller/Park Early Childhood Council Park Rural 427 $24,337 $22,469 $21,069 $19,668 $15,000 Teller Urban Cluster 591 $33,704 $29,963 $27,158 $24,352 $15,000 Teller/Park Early Childhood Council Total 1017 $58,041 $52,433 $48,227 $44,021 $30,000 Triad Early Childhood Council Clear Creek Rural 210 $1,753 $4,402 $6,389 $8,376 $15,000 Gilpin Rural 243 $2,021 $4,617 $6,564 $8,510 $15,000 Jefferson Urbanized Area 19256 $160,388 $151,865 $145,473 $139,081 $117,773 Triad Early Childhood Council Total 19709 $164,162 $160,884 $158,426 $155,967 $147,773 APPENDIX B

ECC Allocation Model Results by County of 3‐Year Phased Hold Harmless Provision (Final) Modified: 1/13/17

Future High SFY16 Year 1 Final Year 2 Final Year 3 Final State Final County Urban/Rural Needs (Current) Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Adams Urbanized Area 48281 $92,809 $92,809 $115,000 $121,405 $150,000 Alamosa Urban Cluster 1631 $25,240 $24,181 $23,387 $22,594 $19,948 Arapahoe Urbanized Area 45307 $124,139 $124,139 $124,139 $130,000 $150,000 Archuleta Urban Cluster 864 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Baca Rural 292 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Bent Urban Cluster 303 $2,896 $5,317 $7,132 $8,948 $15,000 Boulder Urbanized Area 15259 $99,361 $98,155 $97,250 $96,345 $93,329 Broomfield Urbanized Area 2113 $57,200 $48,760 $42,430 $36,100 $15,000 Chaffee Urban Cluster 737 $73,808 $62,046 $53,225 $44,404 $15,000 Cheyenne Rural 157 $7,266 $8,812 $9,973 $11,133 $15,000 Clear Creek Rural 210 $1,753 $4,402 $6,389 $8,376 $15,000 Conejos Rural 779 $12,059 $12,647 $13,088 $13,529 $15,000 Costilla Rural 264 $4,093 $6,275 $7,911 $9,547 $15,000 Crowley Rural 220 $2,103 $4,682 $6,617 $8,551 $15,000 Custer Rural 316 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Delta Urban Cluster 1538 $17,410 $17,692 $17,903 $18,115 $18,819 Denver Urbanized Area 62999 $92,374 $92,374 $112,543 $121,187 $150,000 Dolores Rural 84 $3,890 $6,112 $7,779 $9,445 $15,000 Douglas Urbanized Area 8545 $78,376 $73,153 $69,236 $65,318 $52,261 Eagle Urban Cluster 3554 $28,899 $31,814 $33,999 $36,185 $43,471 El Paso Urbanized Area 42851 $85,917 $90,000 $108,346 $117,959 $150,000 Elbert Rural 704 $61,000 $51,800 $44,900 $38,000 $15,000 Fremont Urban Cluster 2197 $110,922 $94,112 $81,505 $68,898 $26,874 Garfield Urban Cluster 5157 $41,933 $46,162 $49,333 $52,505 $63,076 Gilpin Rural 243 $2,021 $4,617 $6,564 $8,510 $15,000 Grand Urban Cluster 809 $24,663 $22,730 $21,281 $19,831 $15,000 Gunnison Urban Cluster 730 $53,589 $45,871 $40,083 $34,295 $15,000 Hinsdale Rural 76 $5,613 $7,490 $8,898 $10,306 $15,000 Huerfano Urban Cluster 304 $14,573 $14,659 $14,723 $14,787 $15,000 Jackson Rural 45 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Jefferson Urbanized Area 19256 $160,388 $151,865 $145,473 $139,081 $117,773 Kiowa Rural 82 $3,797 $6,038 $7,718 $9,399 $15,000 Kit Carson Urban Cluster 675 $17,803 $17,243 $16,822 $16,402 $15,000 La Plata Urban Cluster 2874 $111,116 $95,924 $84,530 $73,137 $35,157 Lake Urban Cluster 887 $7,215 $8,772 $9,940 $11,108 $15,000 Larimer Urbanized Area 13441 $187,108 $166,127 $150,392 $134,657 $82,205 Las Animas Urban Cluster 980 $47,027 $40,621 $35,817 $31,013 $15,000 Lincoln Rural 302 $13,937 $14,150 $14,309 $14,469 $15,000 Logan Urban Cluster 1355 $59,597 $50,993 $44,540 $38,087 $16,577 Mesa Urbanized Area 9692 $92,803 $86,098 $81,070 $76,041 $59,279 Mineral Rural 2 $23 $3,019 $5,265 $7,512 $15,000 Moffat Urban Cluster 974 $57,379 $48,904 $42,547 $36,190 $15,000 Montezuma Urban Cluster 2153 $99,710 $85,035 $74,029 $63,023 $26,336 APPENDIX B

ECC Allocation Model Results by County of 3‐Year Phased Hold Harmless Provision (Final) Modified: 1/13/17

Future High SFY16 Year 1 Final Year 2 Final Year 3 Final State Final County Urban/Rural Needs (Current) Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Montrose Urban Cluster 3713 $42,019 $42,699 $43,210 $43,720 $45,421 Morgan Urban Cluster 3090 $66,433 $60,707 $56,412 $52,117 $37,801 Otero Urban Cluster 2093 $20,001 $21,121 $21,961 $22,801 $25,601 Ouray Rural 137 $1,546 $4,237 $6,255 $8,273 $15,000 Park Rural 427 $24,337 $22,469 $21,069 $19,668 $15,000 Phillips Rural 460 $20,226 $19,180 $18,397 $17,613 $15,000 Pitkin Urban Cluster 381 $3,095 $5,476 $7,262 $9,048 $15,000 Prowers Urban Cluster 1310 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,027 Pueblo Urbanized Area 12189 $123,985 $114,097 $106,682 $99,266 $74,547 Rio Blanco Rural 363 $21,402 $20,121 $19,161 $18,201 $15,000 Rio Grande Urban Cluster 1190 $18,410 $17,728 $17,217 $16,705 $15,000 Routt Urban Cluster 508 $79,037 $66,230 $56,624 $47,019 $15,000 Saguache Rural 779 $12,050 $12,640 $13,082 $13,525 $15,000 San Juan Rural 38 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 San Miguel Rural 224 $2,535 $5,028 $6,898 $8,768 $15,000 Sedgwick Rural 133 $5,863 $7,690 $9,061 $10,431 $15,000 Summit Urban Cluster 1446 $44,065 $38,789 $34,832 $30,875 $17,685 Teller Urban Cluster 591 $33,704 $29,963 $27,158 $24,352 $15,000 Washington Rural 252 $6,655 $8,324 $9,576 $10,828 $15,000 Weld Urbanized Area 22819 $89,861 $90,000 $107,258 $114,714 $139,566 Yuma Urban Cluster 1074 $28,342 $25,673 $23,672 $21,671 $15,000 APPENDIX C

Unweighted High Needs by County (ECC Allocation Model Input) Modified 1/13/17

Total Low Indian Foster Special High County Income ELL Lands Care EI Ed Migrant Needs Adams 20059 15067 0 182 492 1346 95 37241 Alamosa 880 231 0 0 13 21 29 1174 Arapahoe 18915 12502 0 400 733 1768 81 34399 Archuleta 448 80 70 17 0 11 0 626 Baca 174 19 0 0 0 7 1 201 Bent 147 37 0 18 1 8 5 216 Boulder 5983 4370 0 88 253 925 16 11635 Broomfield 790 662 0 48 61 68 0 1629 Chaffee 409 31 0 31 9 22 0 502 Cheyenne 85 22 0 0 0 3 3 113 Clear Creek 109 35 0 0 0 8 0 152 Conejos 431 106 0 4 4 8 3 556 Costilla 127 57 0 0 3 5 5 197 Crowley 124 3 0 12 3 6 0 148 Custer 188 26 0 0 1 4 0 219 Delta 668 218 0 71 11 122 12 1102 Denver 25524 21583 0 322 588 1146 46 49209 Dolores4500803 056 Douglas 3086 1786 0 108 334 974 6 6294 Eagle 1093 1569 0 41 42 144 5 2894 El Paso 22205 5603 0 544 502 1564 25 30443 Elbert 360 69 0 27 12 24 0 492 Fremont 1168 135 0 9 33 164 1 1510 Garfield 2168 1713 0 0 31 95 3 4010 Gilpin 146 12 0 0 1 7 0 166 Grand 441 110 0 0 8 17 0 576 Gunnison 368 108 0 24 9 12 2 523 Hinsdale 42 12 0 0 0 1 0 55 Huerfano 177 21 0 0 1 10 1 210 Jackson13150034 035 Jefferson 9168 3998 0 52 406 540 9 14173 Kiowa4860003 057 Kit Carson 338 120 0 0 4 17 16 495 La Plata 1127 280 737 29 16 64 3 2256 Lake 400 254 0 0 10 11 2 677 Larimer 6715 1956 0 20 243 672 10 9616 Las Animas 557 112 0 0 0 22 0 691 Lincoln 154 27 0 11 8 10 0 210 APPENDIX C

Total Low Indian Foster Special High County Income ELL Lands Care EI Ed Migrant Needs Logan 711 134 0 0 11 88 6 950 Mesa 5500 848 0 107 47 230 18 6750 Mineral000001 0 1 Moffat 485 144 0 0 10 58 1 698 Montezuma 1057 253 108 89 6 41 3 1557 Montrose 1704 669 0 219 12 85 14 2703 Morgan 1342 875 0 35 16 41 64 2373 Otero 1149 268 0 17 10 36 7 1487 Ouray8170014 194 Park 243 26 0 0 5 19 0 293 Phillips 207 105 0 17 0 10 4 343 Pitkin 110 189 0 0 6 12 0 317 Prowers 660 265 0 0 0 22 22 969 Pueblo 6570 1191 0 328 89 330 22 8530 Rio Blanco 174 74 0 0 5 13 1 267 Rio Grande 587 172 0 60 8 15 13 855 Routt 273 34 0 0 4 39 0 350 Saguache 374 171 0 0 3 7 32 587 San Juan2070001 028 San Miguel 105 48 0 0 2 10 1 166 Sedgwick 73 1 0 0 1 13 2 90 Summit 581 445 0 29 25 32 0 1112 Teller 343 25 0 0 11 23 0 402 Washington 95 18 0 46 0 10 8 177 Weld 10212 5508 0 400 257 545 190 17112 Yuma 577 155 0 0 0 19 25 776 Grand Total 158113 84584 915 3413 4364 11540 813 263742 APPENDIX D

Unweighted High Needs by Early Childhood Council and County (ECC Allocation Model Input) Modified 1/13/17

Low Indian Foster Total High Early Childhood Council Description County Income ELL Lands Care EI Special Ed Migrant Needs Alliance for Kids El Paso 22205 5603 0 544 502 1564 25 30443 Arapahoe County Early Childhood Council Arapahoe 18915 12502 0 400 733 1768 81 34399 Bright Futures Delta 668 218 0 71 11 122 12 1102 Montrose 1704 669 0 219 12 85 14 2703 Ouray 81 7 0 0 1 4 1 94 San Miguel 105 48 0 0 2 10 1 166 Broomfield Early Childhood Council Broomfield 790 662 0 48 61 68 0 1629 Chaffee County Early Childhood Council Chaffee 409 31 0 31 9 22 0 502 Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Lincoln Counties Early Childhood Council Cheyenne 85 22 0 0 0 3 3 113 Kiowa 48 6 0 0 0 3 0 57 Lincoln 154 27 0 11 8 10 0 210 Connections 4 Kids Moffat 485 144 0 0 10 58 1 698 Rio Blanco 174 74 0 0 5 13 1 267 Denver's Early Childhood Council Denver 25524 21583 0 322 588 1146 46 49209 Douglas County Early Childhood Council Douglas 3086 1786 0 108 334 974 6 6294 Early Childhood Council of Bent, Otero and Crowley Bent 147 37 0 18 1 8 5 216 Crowley 124 3 0 12 3 6 0 148 Otero 1149 268 0 17 10 36 7 1487 Early Childhood Council of Boulder County Boulder 5983 4370 0 88 253 925 16 11635 Early Childhood Council of La Plata County La Plata 1127 280 737 29 16 64 3 2256 Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Larimer 6715 1956 0 20 243 672 10 9616 Early Childhood Council of Logan, Phillips, and Sedgwick Counties Logan 711 134 0 0 11 88 6 950 Phillips 207 105 0 17 0 10 4 343 Sedgwick 73 1 0 0 1 13 2 90 Early Childhood Council of the San Luis Valley Alamosa 880 231 0 0 13 21 29 1174 Conejos 431 106 0 4 4 8 3 556 Costilla 127 57 0 0 3 5 5 197 Mineral 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Rio Grande 587 172 0 60 8 15 13 855 Saguache 374 171 0 0 3 7 32 587 Early Childhood Council of Yuma, Washington, and Kit Carson Kit Carson 338 120 0 0 4 17 16 495 Washington 95 18 0 46 0 10 8 177 Yuma 577 155 0 0 0 19 25 776 Early Childhood Partnership of Adams County Adams 20059 15067 0 182 492 1346 95 37241 ECHO and Family Center Early Childhood Council Fremont 1168 135 0 9 33 164 1 1510 Elbert County Early Childhood Council Elbert 360 69 0 27 12 24 0 492 First Impressions of Routt County Routt 273 34 0 0 4 39 0 350 Gunnison Hinsdale Early Childhood Council Gunnison 368 108 0 24 9 12 2 523 Hinsdale 42 12 0 0 0 1 0 55 HuLA Early Childhood Council Huerfano 177 21 0 0 1 10 1 210 Las Animas 557 112 0 0 0 22 0 691 Mesa County Partnership for Children & Families Mesa 5500 848 0 107 47 230 18 6750 Montelores Early Childhood Council Dolores 45 0 0 8 0 3 0 56 Montezuma 1057 253 108 89 6 41 3 1557 Morgan County Early Childhood Council Morgan 1342 875 0 35 16 41 64 2373 N/A Archuleta 448 80 70 17 0 11 0 626 Baca 174 19 0 0 0 7 1 201 Custer 188 26 0 0 1 4 0 219 Jackson 13150 03 4 0 35 Prowers 660 265 0 0 0 22 22 969 San Juan 20 7 0 0 0 1 0 28 Promises for Children Weld 10212 5508 0 400 257 545 190 17112 Pueblo Early Childhood Council Pueblo 6570 1191 0 328 89 330 22 8530 Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council Eagle 1093 1569 0 41 42 144 5 2894 Garfield 2168 1713 0 0 31 95 3 4010 Lake 400 254 0 0 10 11 2 677 Pitkin 110 189 0 0 6 12 0 317 Rural Resort Region Northeastern Division Grand 441 110 0 0 8 17 0 576 Summit 581 445 0 29 25 32 0 1112 Teller/Park Early Childhood Council Park 243 26 0 0 5 19 0 293 Teller 343 25 0 0 11 23 0 402 Triad Early Childhood Council Clear Creek 109 35 0 0 0 8 0 152 Gilpin 146 12 0 0 1 7 0 166 Jefferson 9168 3998 0 52 406 540 9 14173 Grand Total 158113 84584 915 3413 4364 11540 813 263742 ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

ITEM DATE: February 28, 2017 ITEM TIME: 3:00pm

FROM: Scott Cowman TODAY’S DATE: February 21, 2017 Phippsburg Wastewater Treatment Facility (PWTF) Lagoon Liner AGENDA TITLE: Replacement Project CHECK ONE THAT APPLIES TO YOUR ITEM: X ACTION ITEM  DIRECTION  INFORMATION I. DESCRIBE THE REQUEST OR ISSUE: Consideration to approve review and processing of a grant application to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to fund construction and engineering of synthetic lagoon liners at the Phippsburg Wastewater Treatment Facility.

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: A motion of the Board of County Commissioners to approve review and processing of the DOLA grant by and between the Department of Local Affairs and Routt County for Phippsburg.

III. DESCRIBE FISCAL IMPACTS (VARIATION TO BUDGET): PROPOSED REVENUE: $150,100 PROPOSED EXPENDITURE: $150,100 FUNDING SOURCE: 50% Grant, 50% Low Interest Loan Expenditure approved as part of the 2017 budget.

IV. IMPACTS OF A REGIONAL NATURE OR ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS (IDENTIFY ANY COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS ITEM): None ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA COMMUNICATION FORM

V. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Routt County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) manages the Community of Phippsburg Wastewater Treatment Facility. Routt County sent out Request for Proposal (RFP) in early 2016 for consultants to provide a conceptual design memorandum that reviews current operations, design criteria and performance; evaluates alternatives for proposed improvements to allow for compliance with current lagoon seepage standards; and concludes with a description of selected improvements and preliminary project costs. Following a vetting process the selection committee chose RG and Associates as the most low-cost responsive and responsible supplier. DOLA provided a 50% match for the funds and RG has since completed and submitted the memorandum to the CDPHE to satisfy contract and compliance requirements.

The Design Memorandum included a Pre-Qualification Form which was completed and submitted in order to acquire a Planning Grant from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. The Grant was awarded with expenses not to exceed $10,000. RG provided a cost estimate for the planning work of $2,500. The grant covered 80% of the expected planning costs and ended up coming in less than the estimated $500 (maximum expense to Routt County).

The next steps in the process include submittal of the DOLA Grant Application and acquiring funds to complete Design & Engineering from the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. This request is only to approve submittal of the DOLA Grant Application. A meeting took place with the Grant Committee to discuss process, project status, to provide additional information to the grant application, and to provide a recommendation to the Board for both the DOLA and Design & Engineering Grant. A process flow sheet and an updated timeline has been included with this package for reference.

VI. LEGAL ISSUES:

VII. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Seepage regulations are meant to reduce possibility of downstream contamination of drinking water sources.

VIII. SUMMARY AND OTHER OPTIONS: Motion to approve processing and review of a grant application to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to fund construction and engineering support of synthetic lagoon liner installation at the Phippsburg Wastewater Treatment Facility.

ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION Tier I or Tier II Applications Must Be Submitted Electronically - Directions on Last Page -You are Highly Encouraged to Work with your Regional Field Manager when Completing your Application-

A. GENERAL AND SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Name/Title of Proposed Project: Wastewater Treatment Liner Replacement

2. Applicant: Routt County on behalf of Phippsburg Water and Sewer System (In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, name of the "lead" municipality, county, special district or other political subdivision). In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, provide the names of other directly participating political subdivisions:

3. Chief Elected Official (In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, chief elected official of the "lead" political subdivision): Name: Timothy V. Corrigan Title: County Commissioner Chair Mailing Address: 522 Lincoln Avenue, P.O. Box 773598 Phone: 970-879-0108 City/Zip: Steamboat Springs Alt Phone E-Mail Address: [email protected]

4A. Designated Contact Person (will receive all mailings) for the Application: Routt County Director of Name: Scott Cowman Title: Environmental Health Mailing Address: PO Box 770087 Phone: 970-870-5588 City/Zip: Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 Alt Phone E-Mail Address: [email protected]

4B. Designated Contact Person (will receive all mailings) for the Application: Name: Nicholaus P. Marcotte, P.E. Title: Engineer Mailing Address: 4885 Ward Rd, Suite 100 Phone: 303-468-8489 City/Zip: Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Alt Phone E-Mail Address: [email protected]

5. Amount of Energy/Mineral Impact Funds requested: (Tier I; Up to $200,000 or Tier II; Greater than $200,000 to $1,000,000) $150,100

6. Description of the Project Scope of Work: (Project Description of the various tasks involved in the project including specific data such as quantities, mileage, square feet, lineal ft. etc. as well as specific project location within city and or county etc.) The Community of Phippsburg is located in Northwestern Colorado in unincorporated Routt County, approximately 25 miles south of Steamboat Springs on Colorado Highway 131. Wastewater generated by the Community of Phippsburg is treated at the Phippsburg Wastewater Treatment Plant (PWWTP), which was originally constructed in 1976. The Phippsburg WWTP service area encompasses an estimated 63 acres and serves approximately 204 residents. The facility was modified in 2007 but retains much of the original infrastructure as was originally installed in 1976.

The existing pond liners were installed in the 1970s when liner design requirements were less stringent, allowing approximately 1/8 of an inch per day of seepage. Modern requirements allow only 1/32 inch per day of seepage. The facility’s discharge permit includes a compliance schedule item requiring the replacement of the existing liners to meet existing seepage regulations. Therefore, this project proposes the replacement of the existing liners with new synthetic liners, which will meet the allowable seepage rate of 1/32 inch per day. The project includes the installation of approximately 48,000 square feet of synthetic liner, sludge removal, and the installation of a fence surrounding the treatment ponds.

Page 1 of 11 7. Description: (Describe the problem, opportunity or challenge that resulted in the request.) The existing pond liners were installed in the 1970s when liner design requirements were less stringent, allowing approximately 1/8 of an inch per day of seepage. Modern requirements allow only 1/32 inch per day of seepage. The facility’s discharge permit includes a compliance schedule item requiring the replacement of the existing liners to meet existing seepage regulations.

Additionally, during the 2007 modifications, a site approval for the WWTP was obtained with a rated hydraulic capacity of 0.03 MGD and an organic capacity of 100 lbs BOD/day, with discharge to the Yampa River. However, the current discharge permit (CDPS #COG-589026) lists a hydraulic capacity of 0.04 MGD and an organic capacity of 127 lbs BOD/day, with discharge to Little White Snake Creek. The County has opted to retain the plant capacities and discharge location (Yampa River) specified in the 2007 site approval. Infrastructure is already in place to divert the discharge to the Yampa River location. This project will therefore be an in-kind replacement and not require a modification of wastewater treatment plant capacities, nor a site location approval for a relocated discharge.

8. Local priority if more than one application from the same local government (1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc.) 1 of 1 . 9. Is the project on a State registered historic site or in a State registered Historic District? Yes( ) No( X ). If yes, please provide the registry number. . The department may need to seek a determination of effect from the State Historic Society. For more on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, please click here.

Page 2 of 11 B. DEMOGRAPHIC AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION. 1. Population a. What was the 2010 population of the applicant jurisdiction? 204 b. What is the current population? 204 (Current/most recent conservation trust fund/lottery distribution estimate is acceptable.) What is the source of the estimate? US Census c. What is the population projection for the applicant in 5 years? 270 What is the source of the projection? Full-Buildout

2. Financial Information (Current Year): In the column below labeled “Applicant” provide the financial information for the municipality, county, school district or special district directly benefiting from the application. In the columns below labeled “Entity”, provide the financial information for any public entities on whose behalf the application is being submitted (if applicable). Complete items “a through k” for ALL project types: Lead Co-applicant Co-applicant Applicant . . a. Assessed Valuation (AV) Year: Most Recent 1,036,472,142 b. Total Mill Levy 17,567 c. Property Tax Revenue Generated 18,207,706 (mill levy x AV / 1,000) d. Sales Tax (Rate/Estimated Annual Revenue) 1% / $5,743,700 % / $ % / $ e. General Fund Budgeted Revenue 28,910,315 f. General Fund Budgeted Expenditures 28,849,075 g. General Fund Balance as of December 31st of the previous year General Fund Balance: 5,790,874

Portion of General Fund which is Unassigned ^^ (meets the definition identified in the GASB 0 h. statement below) i. Total Budgeted Revenue (All Funds)* 53,184,000 j. Total Budgeted Expenditures (All Funds)* 54,314,000 k. Total Fund Balance (All Funds)* 37,556,000 l. Total Outstanding Debt (All Funds)** 9,766,853

* Sum of General Fund and all Special or Enterprise Funds ** Include the total outstanding liability from all multi-year debt obligations (lease purchase agreements, certificate of participation and any other debt instruments). ^^Unassigned fund balance - Amounts that are available for any purpose; these amounts are reported only in the general fund and have not been committed by resolution, ordinance or contract and have not been budgeted for an intended purpose. (Click this link to locate GASB Fund Balance definitions)

Page 3 of 11 For projects to be managed through a Special Fund other than the General Fund (e.g. County Road and Bridge Fund) or managed through an Enterprise Fund (e.g. water, sewer, county airport), complete items “k through o”: Complete items “l through p” for ALL project types: Phippsburg Water and Sanitation Fund Identify the relevant Special Fund or Enterprise Fund: Fund Fund Fund m. Special or Enterprise Fund Budgeted Revenue $424,560 $ $ n. Special or Enterprise Fund Budgeted Expenditures $405,440 $ $ o. Special or Enterprise Fund Outstanding Debt** $156,853 $ $ p. Special Fund Mill Levy (if applicable) $N/A $ $ q. Special or Enterprise Fund Balance as of December $94,167 $ $ 31st of the previous year

For Water and Sewer Project Only complete items “q through s”: Complete items “q through s” for ALL project types: Water Sewer r. Tap Fee $ $6,000.00 s. Average Monthly User Charge (Divide sum of annual (commercial and residential) revenues by 12 and $ $31.67 then divide by the number of total taps served.) NOTE: Commercial and Residential Combined t. Number of total Taps Served by Applicant 135

** Include the total outstanding liability from all multi-year debt obligations (lease purchase agreements, certificate of participation and any other debt instruments).

Page 4 of 11 C. PROJECT BUDGET. List expenditures and sources of revenue for the project. The totals on each side of the ledger must equal.

Expenditures Sources of Revenue Funding (Dollar for Dollar Cash Match is Required, unless financial Committed circumstance warrants a reduction) List Budget Line Items (Examples: architect, engineering, construction, List the sources of matching funds and indicate either cash or List Yes or No equipment items, etc.) documentable in-kind contribution. next to each Total revenue must equal total expenditures line item

Line Item Expenditures Line Item Costs Cash In-Kind $216,000 Energy/Mineral Impact Fund Grant $ 150,100 No Construction Request $43,200 *Energy/Mineral Impact Fund Loan $ No Contingency Request (If applicable) $26,000 SRF Design and Engineering $26,000 Yes Engineering Grant Construction Management $9,000 SRF Loan $124,100 Environmental $2,500 Legal and Bonding $3,500

TOTAL $300,200 TOTAL $300,200 $ Please attach a more detailed budget if available

(If the request is for planning, engineering or design, the following two questions may not be applicable) 1. Please identify the contingency associated with the project budget. a. Contingency Dollar value $ 43,200 _ b. Contingency % of Budget. 20 % c. If a contingency has not been identified as part of the budget, please explain why not? . 2. How recently was the budget and contingency determined for this project (month/year)? May 2016 .

Page 5 of 11 D. PROJECT INFORMATION. The statutory purpose of the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance program is to provide financial assistance to “political subdivisions socially or economically impacted by the development, processing or energy conversion of minerals and mineral fuels.”

1. Demonstration of Need: a. Why is the project needed at this time? The existing pond liners were installed in the 1970s when liner design requirements were less stringent, allowing approximately 1/8 of an inch per day of seepage. Current regulations allow only 1/32 inch per day of seepage. The facility’s discharge permit includes a compliance schedule item requiring the replacement of the existing liners to meet existing seepage regulations. Therefore, this project proposes the replacement of the existing liners with new synthetic liners, which will meet the allowable seepage rate of 1/32 inch per day. b. How does the implementation of this project address the need? This project involves the lining of all ponds with synthetic liners that meet current CDPHE seepage regulations. c. Does this project, as identified in this application, completely address the stated need? If not, please describe additional work or phases and the estimated time frame. Do you anticipate requesting Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance funds for future phases? Yes, this project completely addresses the stated need. d. What other implementation options have been considered? No action and consolidation have been considered. No action will not address the stated need, meaning the community will be out of compliance with CDPHE regulations. Consolidation is not financially feasible due to the proximity of the closest facility. e. What are the consequences if the project is not awarded funds? If the project is not awarded grant funding, the project cannot be completed due to financial limitations. The community’s median household income (MHI) is $42,500, just 71% of the State of Colorado MHI. The user base cannot support rate increases necessary to fund 100% of the project through loan, therefore grant funding is necessary to complete the project.

2. Measurable Outcomes: a. Describe measurable outcomes you expect to see when implementation of this project is complete. How will the project enhance the livability* of your region, county, city, town or community (e.g. constructing a new water plant will eliminate an unsafe drinking water system and provide safe and reliable drinking water; the construction of a new community center will provide expanded community services, or projects achieving goals regarding energy conservation, community heritage, economic development/diversification, traffic congestion, etc.)? *(Livability means increasing the value and/or benefit in the areas that are commonly linked in community development such as jobs, housing, transportation, education, emergency mitigation, health and environment) Measurable outcomes of this project will include reduced seepage of raw wastewater to surrounding soils and groundwater. This will increase water quality in the community and surrounding areas. The wastewater treatment plant is located just over one-tenth of a mile from the Yampa River, therefore this project could increase water quality to many towns and cities downstream of the project site. b. How will the outcome of the project be measured to determine whether the anticipated benefits to this population actually occur? The outcome of the project can be measured by reduced seepage rates from the lagoons to surrounding soils. Synthetic liners have been tested and are proven to meet CDPHE seepage regulations. c. Does this project preserve and protect a registered state historic building, facility or structure? If yes, please describe. Year of construction: _____ No d. Will this project implement an energy efficiency/strategy that could result in less carbon footprint or conserve energy use or capitalize on renewable energy technology? If yes, please describe. No. e. Will the project be constructed with “Resiliency Framework”, which is to build and construct with a plan to reduce risks by utilizing materials and constructing in areas to better withstand natural or man-made disasters, etc.? If yes, please describe. No.

3. Relationship to Community Goals a. Is the project identified in the applicant’s budget or a jurisdictionally approved plan (e.g. capital improvement plan, equipment replacement plan, comprehensive plan, utility plan, road maintenance and improvement plan or other local or regional strategic management or planning document)? What is its ranking? A wastewater treatment plant evaluation report was completed in 2016. This project is ranked as the most important project for the treatment plant. Also, the project is included in the 2017 Routt County budget.

Page 6 of 11 4. Local Commitment and Ability to Pay/Local Effort a. Why can’t this project be funded locally? . The community’s median household income (MHI) is $42,500, just 71% of the State of Colorado MHI. The user base cannot support rate increases necessary to fund 100% of the project through loan, therefore grant funding is necessary to complete the project. The reserves of the Phippsburg Water and Sanitation System are not adequate to fund the cost of this project. b. Has this project been deferred because of lack of local funding? If so, how long? No, the project has not been deferred due to lack of local funding, but if the community is not able to obtain grant funding, the project will be forced to be delayed. c. Explain the origin of your local cash match. (Note: Whenever possible, local government cash match on a dollar for dollar match basis is encouraged.) Are the local funds committed or pending? If there are pending funds, when will the status of those funds be determined? A local cash match will be in the form of a state revolving fund (SRF) loan. A project needs assessment was submitted to CDPHE for review in November 2016 in support of this loan. d. What other community entities, organizations, or stakeholders recognize the value of this project and are collaborating with you to achieve increased livability of the community? Please describe how your partners are contributing to achieve the improvement to the livability of the community through this project. If in-kind contributions are included in the project budget, detailed tracking will be required on project monitoring report. Routt County manages the wastewater treatment plant and collection system. i. Please describe the level of commitment by each collaborator. (e.g. fee waivers, in-kind services, fundraising, direct monetary contribution, policy changes.) Routt County will provide technical and managerial capacity to ensure the project proceeds. ii. Please list the value of the resources that each collaborator is bringing to the program. Value is intangible as resources provided are time and expertise. e. Has the applicant dedicated the financial resources in their current budget, reserve funds and/or unused debt capacity that are being used for the local matching funds? Explain if No Local matching funds are through an SRF loan. The process to obtain the loan has been started and the project needs assessment which has been approved by CDPHE. The project was included in the 2017 Routt County budget. f. Have the applicant’s tax rates, user charges or fees been reviewed recently to address funding for the proposed project? Yes, a recent study suggested rate increases. g. If the tax rate, user charges or fees were modified, what was the modification and when did this change occur? Rates were increased in 2017 and 2018 to provide funding for the additional debt service. h. Has the applicant contacted representatives from local energy or mineral companies to discuss the project? If yes, when was the contact and what was discussed. 20-Mile Coal was contacted to request funding for the project. It is unlikely that they will be capable of providing funding as they are currently in bankruptcy. The contact will be made after the submittal of this grant request. i. Has the applicant requested financial support from the industry? If yes, when was the contact, what amount did you request? What were the results? If no, why not? 20-Mile Coal was contacted to request funding for the project. It is unlikely that they will be capable of providing funding as they are currently in bankruptcy.

5. Readiness to Go a. Assuming this project is funded as requested, how soon will the project begin? Select One (_)Within 3 months, (X)3-6 months, (_)6-9 months or (_)9-12 months? What is the time frame for completion? Select One (_)Within 3 months, (_)3-6 months, (_)6-9 months, (X)9-12 months or (_) >12 months. b. Describe how you determined that the project can be completed within the proposed budget as outlined in this application? A cost estimate was compiled utilizing engineering cost estimates and manufacturer cost estimates. c. Has the necessary planning and design been completed? How? What additional design work remains? How did the applicant develop project cost estimates? Are any or permitting must still be completed, if any? When? How did the applicant develop project cost estimates? Is the project supported by bids, professional estimates or other credible information? Please attach a copy of any supporting documents. Planning has been completed through a 2016 Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation. A cost estimate was compiled as part of this report utilizing engineering and manufacturer estimates. This cost estimate is attached to this grant application within the planning documents. This cost estimate was based off of unit prices and bids for similar projects. Estimates are from 2016 during the planning phases of this project. Cost estimates will be updated during the design phase of the project. i. What additional design work remains? The project needs assessment has been approved. The community is currently working to obtain a Design & Engineering Page 7 of 11 grant to complete the design of the project. This project will include a survey of the plant, construction plans, and in-kind replacement documents for submittal to CDPHE. ii. How did the applicant develop project cost estimates? Planning has been completed through a 2016 Wastewater Treatment Plant Evaluation. A cost estimate was compiled as part of this report utilizing engineering and manufacturer estimates. This cost estimate is attached to this grant application iii. Is the project supported by bids, professional estimates or other credible information? Please attach a copy of any supporting documents. The cost estimates are supported by preliminary cost estimates provided by manufacturers and engineering estimates. iv. Are any Local, State or Federal permits required before the project can proceed? If yes, please describe. A local building permit will be required. This will be obtained by the contractor.

6. Energy & Mineral Relationship a. Describe how the applicant is, has been, or will be impacted by the development, production, or conversion of energy and mineral resources. Energy exploration, development, and production continue to have a significant impact on Routt County. Energy companies are major employers in Routt County. Phippsburg is a modest community of single family homes and manufactured housing that provides residential housing for workers in the energy development and service industry. These homes are served by the Phippsburg wastewater collection and treatment system. b. To further document the impact in the area, name the company or companies involved, the number of employees (click to get # of employees) associated with the activities impacting the jurisdiction and other relevant, quantitative indicators of energy/mineral impact. Routt County has one active energy plant (Public Service Company), one active coal mine (Foidel Creek Mine) and one coal mine that has completed reclamation (Seneca Strip mine). According to Scott Harrell of the Twenty Mile Coal Company, the Foidel Creek mine is projected to produce 4,000,000 tons of coal in 2016, which was 25% of Colorado’s total coal production. Mr. Harrell also reported that the Foidel Creek mine employed 300 workers with an additional 82 contractors. The Public Service Company’s Hayden power generating station employs approximately 91 people. Routt County’s coal production is the second highest in the state. c. Cite actual use data that documents direct impact as it relates to the need for the project. For example, “heavy truck traffic directly related to energy development activities is impacting County Road X. a traffic count done in May 2015 showed energy related truck traffic increased from 100 trips per day to 300.” Many of the residents that live in the Phippsburg service area and utilize the wastewater treatment facility are employed by the energy and mineral production industry that supports much of Routt County’s economy.

7. Management Capacity a. How will you separate and track expenditures, maintain funds and reserves for the capital expenditures and improvements as described in this project? The County will track expenditures through invoices and contractor pay applications. These expenditures will be approved by the County prior to disbursement of funds. The County’s finance department and the County’s Department of Environmental Health is responsible for all finance administration, accounting, utility billing, revenue collection, cash receipting, and Phippsburg Water and Sanitation System budget. The County’s financial department will be responsible for tracking and maintaining all funds in partnership with DOLA. b. Describe the funding plan in place to address the new operating and maintenance expenses generated from the project? This project will not result in increases to O&M expenses. c. Describe the technical and professional experience/expertise of the person(s) and/or professional firms responsible to manage this project. The County’s consulting engineer, RG and Associates, LLC team has been in operation since 1986 providing water and wastewater engineering, planning and construction management services throughout Colorado. A statement of qualifications is attached to this application. d. Does the project duplicate service capacity already established? Is the service inadequate? Has consolidation of services with another provider been considered? No, this project does not duplicate service capacity already established. Consolidation of service with another provider has been considered and has been determined financially infeasible due to the proximity of the closest facility.

Page 8 of 11 E. HIGH PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATION (HPCP) PROGRAM COMPLIANCE.

Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 24-30-1305.5) require all new facilities, additions, and renovation projects that meet the following applicability criteria to conform with the High Performance Certification Program (HPCP) policy adopted by the Office of the State Architect (OSA) if:

 The project receives 25% or more of state funds; and  The new facility, addition, or renovation project contains 5,000 or more building gross square feet; and  The building includes an HVAC system; and  In the case of a renovation project, the cost of the renovation exceeds 25% of the current value of the property.

The HPCP requires projects that meet the applicability criteria above to achieve third party verification with the target goal of LEED Gold or Green Globes-Three Globes. Projects are strongly encouraged to meet the Office of the State Architect’s (OSA) Sustainable Priorities in addition to the LEED prerequisites. Projects funded through DOLA that meet the above applicability criteria are required to complete the DOLA registration and tracking process. See DOLA’s HPCP web page for more information or contact your DOLA regional manager.

In instances where achievement of LEED Gold or Green Globe-Three Globes certification is not achievable, an applicant may request a modification of the HPCP policy or a waiver if certain conditions exist. DOLA staff will work with applicants to identify workable solutions to meet the program’s intent to maximize building energy efficiencies.

Please answer the following questions: (Complete this section only if your project application is for a building project, both new construction as well as renovation.)

1. Is the applicant seeking state funding for 25% or more of the total project cost (including all phases, if applicable)? Yes( ) No( ) (If no, the project does not meet the HPCP requirement and the rest of this section does not need to be completed)

Does the building include an HVAC system? Yes( ) No( ) If yes, please check whether the proposed project includes a ____ HVAC upgrade or ____ new HVAC system.

2. Is this project (check all that apply): ___new construction ___renovation ____new and renovation New building square footage: ______SF Renovation square footage: ______SF Is the building square footage (new construction and/or renovation) 5,000 SF or more? Yes( ) No( )

3. For building renovation projects: What is the current property value? (Determine based on assessed or appraised value) $______What is the total project cost for the renovations? $______

Does the cost of renovation exceed 25% of the current value of the property? Yes( ) No( )

4. If you answered “yes” to questions 1, 2, 3, and if applicable, 4, then your project meets the HPCP applicability criteria. Complete the HPCP registration form and preliminary checklist and submit with this grant application. (See DOLA’s HPCP web page for registration and checklist form.)

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: 5. Have you included any additional costs in this grant application for third party verification to comply with the High Performance Certification Program? Yes( ) No( ) If yes, please specify the estimated cost for third participation verification/certification:$______

6. Will you need assistance locating resources, third party consultants, or technical assistance for HPCP third party verification requirements, preparing cost estimates, or otherwise complying with the HPCP? Yes( ) No( ) Explain ______

Note: If this application is for design services for a planned building project that meets the HPCP applicability criteria and the applicant intends to seek state funding for 25% or more of the total project cost, then the design should maximize high performance building certification standards (by completing the HPCP checklist) and build in anticipated project costs, as appropriate.

Page 9 of 11 F. TABOR COMPLIANCE.

1. Does the applicant jurisdiction have voter authorization to receive and expend state grants without regard to TABOR spending limitations? Yes( ) No( x ). If yes, explain: The Phippsburg Water and Sanitation System is an “Enterprise under TABOR and voter authorization is not required. The grant needs to be from Federal Mineral Lease Funds.

2. If the applicant jurisdiction receives a grant with State Severance funds, will the local government exceed the TABOR limit and force a citizen property tax rebate? Yes( ) No( X ). Explain. However, receipt of State funds would void the TABOR Enterprise status of the Phippsburg Water and Sanitation System. The grant should be funded from Federal Mineral Lease funds in order to maintain the Enterprise status.

3. Has the applicant jurisdiction been subject to any refund under TABOR or statutory tax limitations? Yes( ) No( X ). Explain. Phippsburg Water and Sanitation System has not been subject to any refund under TABOR.

4. Has the applicant sought voter approval to keep revenues above fiscal spending limits? Yes( ) No( x ). Explain. Phippsburg Water and Sanitation System is an Enterprise under TABOR and not subject to fiscal spending limits.

5. Are there any limitations to the voter approved revenues? (e.g., Can revenues only be spent on law enforcement or roads?) Yes( ) No( X ). Explain. There are no voter approved revenues.

6. If the applicant jurisdiction is classified as an enterprise under TABOR, will acceptance of a state grant affect this status? Yes( ) No( X ). Explain. Receipt of State funds would void the TABOR enterprise status of the Phippsburg Water and Sanitation System. The grant should be funded from Federal Mineral Lease funds in order to maintain the Enterprise status.

G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

Indicate below whether any of the proposed project activities:

1. Will be undertaken in flood hazard areas. Yes( ) No( X ). List flood plain maps/studies reviewed in reaching this conclusion. Describe alternatives considered and mitigation proposed. FEMA FIRM 08107C1225D. Listed as non-floodprone community.

2. Will the project affect historical, archeological or cultural resources, or be undertaken in a geological hazard area. Yes( ) No( X ). If yes, describe alternatives considered and mitigation proposed.

3. Address any other public health or safety related concerns? Describe. Yes( ) No( X ).

Page 10 of 11 APPLICATION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS AND OFFICIAL BOARD ACTION DATE (REQUIRED)

Application and attachments must be submitted electronically in

WORD .DOC (Preferred) or .PDF Format (Unsecured) to:

[email protected] Please Cc your DOLA Regional Manager all documents as well to ensure receipt.

In email subject line include: Applicant Local Government name and Tier for which you are applying -example- Subject: Springfield County EIAF Grant Request, Tier 1

NOTE: Please do not submit a scanned application (scanned attachments ok). (If you are unable to submit electronically please contact your DOLA Regional Manager)

For any questions related to the electronic submittal please call Denise Lindom @ 303.864.7732

Attachments List (Check and submit the following documents, if applicable):  Statement of Qualifications ___X___  Preliminary Engineering Reports X  Architectural Drawings N/A  Cost Estimates X  Detailed Budget X  Map showing location of the project X  Attorney’s TABOR decision N/A  HPCP Registration, modification Or Waiver Form N/A

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

Official Board Action taken on

February 28, 2017 Date

Submission of this form indicates official action by the applicant’s governing board authorizing application for these funds.

Page 11 of 11 ATTACHEMENT A DRAFT STATUS AND TIMELINE: PHIIPPSBURG LAGOON LINER REPLACEMENT PROJECT

TASK STATUS

• Submit pre-qualification form to CDPHE Complete

• Obtain CDPHE planning grant: Complete o Planning grant funds PNA (80% grant)

• Begin PNA and DOLA grant application Complete o Task 1 awarded to engineer (finalize project planning)

• Submit PNA and DOLA grant application Complete o Funded by planning grant o PNA serves as grant application for design and engineering grant

• DOLA Grant Application Hearing April, 2017 (Date TBD by DOLA)

• Receive PNA Approval Complete

• Receive design and engineering grant approval March 1, 2017 o Engineering grant funds design, permitting, bidding

• Design and engineering grant funds available April 1, 2017 o Task 2 and 3 awarded to engineer (design/bidding)

• Design, engineering and permitting April 1 – June 30, 2017 o Funded by design and engineering grant

• Bidding for construction: July, 2017

• Construction begins: August, 2017 o Task 4 awarded to engineer (construction services) o Construction funded by DOLA grant and CDPHE loan

• Construction ends: October, 2017