Brynn Grey Financial Impact Study

AGENDA ITEM #1.
CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM
FROM: Kim Weber, Finance Director

Jon Snyder, Public Works Director
John Overstreet, Parks and Recreation Director
Mel Stuart, Fire Chief
Tyler Gibbs, Planning Director
THROUGH: Gary Suiter, City Manager
DATE: March 20, 2018
ITEM: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Work Session
___ DIRECTION
_X_ INFORMATION
___ ORDINANCE
___ MOTION
___ RESOLUTION
I. REQUEST/ISSUE & BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Background: City Council requested that Brynn Grey provide a Fiscal Impact
Analysis along with a complete package of all proposals and information regarding
the West Steamboat Neighborhoods that has been discussed with Council over the
past two years. Council has scheduled the March 20th work session to be fully
devoted to discussion of the West Steamboat Neighborhoods submittal.
Project Description: West Steamboat Neighborhoods proposes annexing

approximately 150 acres contiguous with the western City Limit for the construction
of approximately 400 homes and 50 LIHTC apartments in three distinct
neighborhoods. All three neighborhoods will be laid out to be to be consistent with
Steamboat Springs Traditional Neighborhood Development standards.
1.1
III. STAFF COMMENTS:
Fiscal Impact Analysis:
General Comments
A general question that warrants discussion is how the timing of the
property tax or the real estate transfer assessment match up to the City’s
incurring expenses?
Although it should make little difference to the end results of the figures,
the Fiscal Analysis refers to 100% of Gateway units as deed restricted in
multiple places.
Staff does not object to the mathematics presented within the report and
the calculated unit costs to provide service to the existing City limits. As a
general comment that touches on nearly every aspect of City services, we
are currently operating at the edge of what can be done with existing
equipment and personnel. Thus, incremental increases in service do not
necessarily translate into incremental increases in costs to provide those
services. Rather, in many cases, incremental increases in service will result
in exponential increases in costs to provide those same services due mostly
to increased staffing levels and up-front capital investment. This condition
is highlighted on page 16 of the Fiscal Impact Analysis where it states:
“Despite modest population growth, the City has not added

significant numbers of staff over the past 10 years. Some
departments experienced major staffing cuts during and after
the Great Recession including Parks, Public Safety, Public Works,
and Planning. This means that the City has had to “do more
with less” to maintain City services. This is an important point
related to fiscal impact analysis: a fiscal impact analysis
represents the current level of service (i.e. staff per capita; costs
and revenues per capita). Fiscal impact analysis is typically
based on the assumption that new residents will receive the
same level of service as existing residents.”
Although in the Fiscal Analysis there is a table included (Table 4) that shows
3 different growth scenarios to calculate the Fiscal Impacts, in the
conclusions and the options only the 100% new growth model was used.
Most of the report refers to the net fiscal impact being ($55,000) which
assumes 100% growth and 100% buildout. Staff believes that assumption
is too aggressive and would be more comfortable assuming 50% growth
which results in a net fiscal impact of ($97,263)/year and ($216.14)/unit.
1.2
Fire and Emergency Response
Based on current SSAFPD cost split, the City would essentially pay a higher
percentage of the overall Fire/EMS costs because the City’s call volume
would theoretically go up and the assessed valuation within the City limits
would go up proportionately. This is partially addressed in The Summary
of Finding #6.
Snow Plowing
Staff would like to emphasize that we cannot provide snow plowing service
to the annexation at the current unit cost rate. The City has five snow
plowing routes, all of which are currently maxed out. Routes are designed
to be completed within an 8-hour shift. However, with the town growing
and snow storage decreasing, routes now take ten hours to plow during a
typical snow event. Within the next two years, the City expects to see two
more large developments come online within the City limits. One of these
developments, Sunlight Subdivision, will add 3.5 lane miles to the City’s
snow plow routes, and the other development, Overlook Subdivision, will
add 4.1 lane miles to the City’s snow plow routes. Staff will do its best
to absorb Sunlight and Overlook within its five existing routes,
though it is expected that overtime will increase. However, to add these
two new developments, plus the proposed annexation, staff will have to
add a sixth snow plowing route. A sixth snow plowing route will necessitate,
at a minimum:
• One motor grader, purchase cost of $330,000, 20-year lifecycle
• One sand truck, purchase cost of $180,000, 10-year lifecycle
• One loader, purchase cost of $200,000, 12-year lifecycle
• Cold storage for new equipment, estimated cost of $100,000
• One full-time operator
• Two seasonal operators
Staff anticipates purchasing the loader and adding a full-time operator in
2020 in order to keep up with anticipated rising demand within existing City
limits. This loader and the full-time operator will also benefit the proposed
annexation in that they will serve the annexation. The motor grader, the
sand truck, the cold storage, and the two seasonal operators are
directly attributable to the proposed annexation.
Stormwater
It is still too early to tell what the stormwater maintenance costs will be.
The costs identified in the report are minimal, ranging from $392 annually
for the Gateway phase to $963 annually for the Emerald Overlook phase.
These costs may be accurate if the storm sewer system mimics traditional
Steamboat residential drainage design utilizing roadside ditches for
conveyance (for example Steamboat Barn Village or West End Village).
1.3
However, if the storm sewer system utilizes a conveyance system comprised
of pipelines and catch basins, then storm sewer maintenance costs will
increase dramatically from those identified in the report. Storm sewer
pipelines are cleaned as-needed, which is approximately every five years in
a residential neighborhood. Storm sewer catch basins are cleaned annually
in residential neighborhoods. These facilities are also put on a lifecycle
replacement schedule. Thus, the drainage design of the annexation will
play a great deal into informing the actual stormwater unit costs. Staff
therefore considers the stormwater unit costs identified in the
report as an optimistic, best-case scenario.
Transit
Staff can support the findings and statements related to providing
transit service to the annexation. However, it is imperative to note
that our transit service is maxed out, thus we cannot add future stops
without eliminating existing stops. Any net-gain in transit stops will drive a
significant investment in the transit system in terms of bus purchases, bus
stop construction, fleet maintenance, and additional drivers. Also, prior to
adding a stop within the annexation, a turnaround would have to be
constructed near the subdivision entrance, and a stoplight on Highway 40
providing a southbound left hand turn onto eastbound Highway 40 would
have to be installed.
Fleet
Fleet costs are captured in the report as operational unit costs consistent
with providing service to the existing City limits. But, like most other
aspects of Public Works, our four-person Fleet Division is maxed out.
Increasing the size of the Fleet, whether it be for police cars, fire trucks,
ambulances, snow plowing equipment, etc., will drive the need for an
additional fleet mechanic and an additional bay for that mechanic to work
within. Staff would like to mention this now so that further discussion can
occur, as the cost of adding a bay to our shop and adding a mechanic to
our staff could be significant.
GENERAL TERM SHEET COMMENTS
Staff recommends that the term sheet include a clause that the property
follow the municipal code in existence at the time of development unless
otherwise provided for within the annexation agreement. This would help
ensure mutual understanding that the development follows all codes,
standards, and policies applicable to all other developments within the City,
as may be modified from time to time.
1.4
Tying items to closing is problematic. The City is not involved in nor aware
of closings of private real estate transactions. Staff does not believe that
inserting City government into that process is desirable, and it is reasonable
to assume that it is not desirable to the future buyers. Also, the logistics
necessary to insert the City into that process are unknown and may prove
to be resource-intensive.
Between the proposed water firming fund contribution ($16,000 per home)
and the offsite transportation improvements contribution ($9,500 per
home), an additional $25,500 would be assessed to every market rate home
above and beyond normal tap fees, building permit fees, use taxes, and
excise taxes under the terms proposed within this term sheet. Combined
with a possible property tax, possible real estate transfer assessments, and
extensive HOA responsibilities which include park and trail maintenance,
homeowners in WSN would face a substantial and direct financial burden
that residents within the existing City limits do not face as a result of the
developer proposing to push direct costs onto the end users.
1. Water
Onsite infrastructure: Clarification necessary. Per the CDC and as discussed
at City Council work sessions conducted on 10/25/16, 2/14/17 and 3/14/17
the developer is responsible for all onsite infrastructure for all properties,
not just residential properties. Staff’s recommendation is to delete this
clause from the term sheet such that the development follows the municipal
code.
Standard Water Tap Fees: This is a departure from our previous preliminary
agreement. Per Section 25-204 of the Municipal Code and as discussed
during City Council work sessions conducted on 10/25/16, 2/14/17 and
3/14/17 plant investment fees (aka tap fees) must be paid upon application
for a building permit, not at closing. Staff’s recommendation is to delete
this clause from the term sheet such that the development follows the
municipal code.
Secondary 12” Water Line: This is a departure from our previous preliminary
agreement. As discussed at City Council work sessions conducted on
10/25/16, 2/14/17 and 3/14/17 staff strongly recommends that this line be
constructed during the initial phase of development such that it is in place
and functioning prior to issuance of the first building permit, as would be
required for any other development. As a clarification, staff believes this
line would be approximately 2,500 feet long, not one mile long as cited by
the applicant in the term sheet.
Pressure Relief Valve and Booster Station: This is a departure from our
1.5
previous preliminary agreement. As discussed at City Council work sessions
conducted on 10/25/16, 2/14/17 and 3/14/17 these items would be
physically necessary prior to issuance of the first building permit, not the
first certificate of occupancy.
Water Firming Fund: This is a departure from our previous preliminary

agreement. The previous agreement was that the $16,000-per-home water
firming fee would include a to-be-determined escalation factor and it would
be paid in conjunction with plant investment fees, which are collected upon
application for a building permit rather than at closing.
Water adequacy: Staff believes it is premature to make this determination

at this stage of the process as plans are not to a point where the draft water
demand report can be finalized. While the number of residential units is
still the same, the draft water demand report does not include provision for
a school, a daycare facility, or any commercial operations. Furthermore,
the quantity of irrigated acreage is not finalized, and irrigated acreage is
one of the primary drivers of peak-month water demand. State law
provides substantial flexibility to municipalities as to when a “positive
adequacy” determination is made, so the option exists to delay future
determinations until development plans are finalized.
West Area Water Tank: Staff recommends inserting a clause covering this
topic. As discussed at City Council work sessions conducted on 10/25/16,
2/14/17 and 3/14/17 and as previously agreed to in Brynn Grey’s letter
dated 10/25/16, the West Area Water Tank must be in place before water
service can be provided to the first neighborhood. Staff recommends tying
this to the issuance of the first building permit.
2. Roads and Transit

Funds for Extension of Core Trail: Clarification necessary. A not-to-exceed
amount of $1M is identified in this section, but $250k is identified within the
Roadway Segments table.
Funds for Public Works Capital Costs: Tying these contributions to the first
certificate of occupancy in either the Slate Creek or Emerald Overlook
neighborhoods is problematic because the equipment will be needed prior
to plowing the Gateway neighborhood, which will occur well before any
homes are finished in Slate Creek or Emerald Overlook. It is important to
note that the lead time on these types of equipment purchases is typically
twelve months or more. Assuming that the City purchases this equipment
up front, the City would in essence be extending a loan to the developer for
a to-be-determined time period. Staff’s recommendation is to tie these
contributions to the approval of the first final plat.
1.6
Funds for Slate Creek Road and Highway 40 Intersection: Mutual
agreement.
Gloria Gossard Parkway: As discussed at City Council work sessions

conducted on 5/9/17 and 9/19/17 staff strongly recommends that a
secondary access be constructed with the initial phase of development as
would be required for any other development per Fire Department policy.
The requirement for a secondary access based on Fire standards is 35
unsprinklered units or 50 sprinklered units. Per Fire standards, at time of
issuance of the 36th or 51st building permit the secondary access would be
necessary. Assuming Overlook Subdivision is constructed, Brynn Grey’s
offsite costs for this road could be $0. WSN and Overlook have an
opportunity to partner to reduce mutual costs while meeting circulation
standards for both developments.
Offsite Transportation Improvements: After City Council work sessions

conducted on 5/9/17 and 9/19/17 the developer and Council have not yet
reached agreement on this topic. There are three primary questions that
remain:
1. What, if any, contribution should the developer be required to
make for the section of Highway 40 between Slate Creek Road
and Downhill Drive.
2. When should the contributions be made, and
3. What should the inflationary factor be?
The developer’s proportionate share of costs for Highway 40 improvements
between Slate Creek Road and Downhill Drive is approximately $1.4M, but
the developer does not want to contribute anything towards this segment
arguing that the level of service will not decrease. Staff disagrees with this
logic as adding 1,665 trips per day to this segment (assuming Gossard
Parkway is built – otherwise the figure is 2,830) does negatively impact the
segment and accelerates the need for future improvements. Regarding
timing, staff recommends not tying contributions to closings and instead
recommends tying contributions to final plats.
3. Sewer
Plant Investment Fees: Clarification necessary. The $5,000 per home is
simply an estimate for a “typical” residential wastewater plant investment
fee and was not intended to represent the wastewater plant investment fee
for all homes in WSN. Rather, plant investment fee calculations should be
consistent with all other homes within the City. Also, plant investment fees
should pertain to all construction, not just residential construction. Staff’s
recommendation is to delete this clause from the term sheet such that the
development follows the municipal code.
1.7
Easements: Clarification necessary. The applicant will need to dedicate
public utility easements for the purpose of conveying gravity-fed sewer
flows from adjacent properties through WSN to the existing sewer collection
system in such a manner that the easements match up with Overlook’s
development plans. The City’s role will be to verify that WSN’s easement
dedications match Overlook’s sewer plans and that the easements provide
for gravity flow to the existing sewer main.
4. Miscellaneous
Vesting: Clarification necessary. The clause as currently written may imply
that any development approval within this land area is entitled to a 10-year
vesting period, which is substantially greater than the 3-year vesting period
that is afforded any development within existing City limits. Staff’s
recommendation is to delete this clause from the term sheet such that the
development follows the municipal code.
HOUSING
The project has been adjusted from 436 homes to 400 homes and 50 LIHTC
apartment units.
The Yampa Valley Housing Authority estimates entry level to include housing
with an assessor valuation up to $310,000. Move up may include housing with
assessors values between $310,000 and $660,000.
YVSC provided a breakdown of housing needs from the 2016 Community

Housing Steering Committee Report to Brynn Grey. They have considered that
terminology in the categorization their product.
Brynn Grey’s current proposal lists the following:

• 50 LIHTC units available in the Low Income range
• 52 2 and 3 BR units available in the Entry Level range
• 43 2 and 3 BR units in the Move Up range
Estimated prices are:

• Townhome: $272,000
• Duplex: $315,000 to $350,900
• Deed Restricted Single Family - $529,900 to $849,900
There is concern that imposing only a locals’ deed restriction will not sufficiently
ensure affordability in the long term. The west side neighborhoods of Heritage
Park, Steamboat II and Silver Spur are already primarily local residents. There
should be further discussion of whether additional income, asset or appreciation
based restrictions should be considered.
1.8
It is unclear who would administer the deed restrictions in the Gateway
Neighborhood. The City of Steamboat Springs does not currently have staff
resources to manage this program.
SUSTAINABILITY (with input from YVSC)
Neighborhood Design
Implementation of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) strategies for
compact neighborhoods with a focus on connected open space and trail systems
promotes walkability and alternative transportation modes. These features also
support outdoor recreation while contributing to environmental sensitivity and
sustainability.
Alternative Transportation
Transportation is an important component of affordable housing and should be
supported by robust options for public transportation and bike lanes to this new
neighborhood. The compact neighborhood design and promotion of alternative
transportation is commendable. Reduced transportation costs contribute to
social and economic, as well as environmental sustainability.
Site Design and Landscaping

Green Infrastructure/Landscaping: The use of green infrastructure for storm
water management appears positive. The choice of tree/shrub/grass species to
minimize irrigation needs should be a priority.
Access to recycling
The compact neighborhood structure is efficient in land use and infrastructure.
Secure collection structures that are animal proof and large enough to
accommodate both trash and recycling dumpsters should be considered to allow
access to recycling for everyone in the neighborhood.
Energy efficiency
It is unclear from the description of home performance if the proposed homes
will be Energy Star certified homes (ESCH). If they are, they will meet and, for
several efficiency measures, exceed the 2015 IECC, with approval from the local
building department.
The inclusion of measures addressing energy efficiency, indoor air quality and
water conservation will contribute to meeting the 2015 IECC.
Renewable energy
Reduced energy use and lower utility costs are components of social and
1.9
economic sustainability as well as environmental consideration. Brynn Grey
proposed that they would “work with homebuyers, who are interested, to identify
and implement solar technology.” Prewiring homes to allow for future rooftop
solar installation may be considered.
Construction and Demolition Waste

A construction management plan should include measures for separation of C&D
waste for recycling or appropriate disposal during the construction.
The Yampa Valley Sustainability Council, in partnership with the local building
department, is developing C&D waste best practices and would be happy to
provide guidance and a list of local outlets for reuse and recycling of construction
materials.
FIRE/EMS
Clarification is required of the study’s findings that if the Fire District mil levy was
imposed on the WSN, it would generate approximately $105,000 in property tax
revenue (page 16 of the 223 pages), but that revenue was not included in the
fiscal impact calculation. (The Fiscal Impact calculation indicated that the WSN
would generate an annual cost of $28,500 for Fire and EMS).
It is important to reiterate that, per the access standards, the development will
be limited to 30 (or less) un-sprinkled homes or 50 sprinkled homes, unless a
secondary access road is established.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Clarification is needed for the statement that the parks and open space amenities
would be “private” but could be converted to “public” at any time. It is
anticipated that the neighborhood parks and open space would be privately held
and maintained but open to the public. However, as designed, they would not
likely be destinations for use by people outside the neighborhood.
There would be no intention for the City to take these parcels into its City-
maintained parks and open space system in the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Brynn Grey Annexation Issues Matrix 7.11.17.
1.10
Attachment #1
TOPIC ITEM DESCRIPTION STATUS CONSISTANT NOTES Estimated Annexation Estimated Estimated City Estimated City
WITH CITY Cost (Not typically Developer Cost Capital Cost Annual
STANDARDS developer paid) (typical of City Maintenance
developments) Cost
Water Tap Fees Full payment of tap fees Preliminary Yes This item is consistent $2,650 - $10,500
at building permit agreement with developments (average home =
application within the City limits. $7,500)
Water Firming Payment of $16k in Preliminary Partially Fee is intended to fulfill $16k/market value home
Fee addition to tap fees at agreement the obligations of the
building permit Water Dedication Neighborhood 1 = $576,000
application for all Policy and is unique to Neighborhood 2 = $2,432,000
market-rate units this annexation Neighborhood 3 = $1,664,000
proposal.
Onsite Applicant to fund and Preliminary Yes This item is consistent Cost unknown to
infrastructure construct all onsite agreement with developments staff
infrastructure within the City limits.
Onsite Booster station/PRV Preliminary Yes This item is consistent $200,000 $8,500
infrastructure agreement with developments
within the City limits.
Offsite Applicant to construct Preliminary Yes This item is consistent $800,000 -
infrastructure – redundant water main agreement with developments $1,000,000
redundant water within the City limits.
main Likely alignment will
follow the Highway 40
corridor from Snow
Bowl Plaza to the
Applicant’s property.
Offsite West Area water tank Preliminary N/A This tank is necessary ~$4,200,000
infrastructure – must be constructed and agreement to serve this property,
West Area operational prior to and is currently funded
Water Tank development. City will through the Water
fund and construct the Enterprise Fund CIP.
tank.
Wastewater Tap Fees Full payment of tap fees Preliminary Yes This item is consistent $1,700 - $6,200
at building permit agreement with developments (average home =
application within the City limits. $4,600)
Onsite Applicant to fund and Preliminary Yes This item is consistent Cost unknown to
infrastructure construct all onsite agreement with developments staff
infrastructure within the City limits.
Offsite Offsite infrastructure Preliminary Yes This item is consistent $2.5M - $3.7M
infrastructure already in place agreement with developments (already in place)
within the City limits.
Easements for Provide easements for Preliminary Yes City has already
adjacent adjacent properties to agreement constructed offsite
properties convey gravity-fed improvements to serve
1.11
wastewater flows several properties on
through Applicant’s the West side. Intent
property to existing was that all applicable
City collection system properties can use these
improvements.
Roads Onsite Onsite infrastructure to Preliminary Yes This item is consistent Cost unknown to
infrastructure be funded and agreement with developments staff
constructed by the within the City limits.
Applicant
Ownership & Streets will be owned Preliminary Yes This item is consistent $35K – snowplowing
Maintenance and maintained by the agreement with developments $2K – stormwater
City, and alleys will be within the City limits. $3K - sweeping
privately owned and $1.1M / 12-15 Years -
maintained asphalt
Cross sections Street cross sections to Unresolved TBD Applicant has requested TBD TBD TBD TBD
conform to City further discussion as the
Engineering Standards project progresses.
Offsite Funding for Unresolved TBD See new proposal on TBD TBD TBD TBD
infrastructure infrastructure Term Sheet in previous
improvements to agenda item.
mitigate negative
impacts Applicant’s proposal
does not conform to
methodologies that
properties within the
City limits must follow
nor to methodologies
established during the
Steamboat 700
application.
Transit Provision of Provision of City bus Unresolved TBD Applicant believes that $1.95M - Vehicles $700,000/year
City bus service service the residents will $2.7M –
approach the City in the Infrastructure (This is in order to
future for additional serve all
transit services, but is (This is in order to neighborhoods in West
not requesting it or serve all Steamboat)
providing funding at neighborhoods in
this time. Nearest West Steamboat)
existing bus stop is
located at the KOA
campground.
Fire Secondary A secondary access is Unresolved TBD Applicant is proposing Cost unknown to Potential cost to TBD
access required for 30 or more a secondary access at staff taxpayers if City
dwelling units if units commencement of has to provide
are not sprinklered; 50 second neighborhood. secondary access
1.12
or more dwelling units
if units are sprinklered
Parks, Open Parks 81 acres included in the Preliminary Yes Construction timeline Cost unknown to Developer is
Space, & form of parks, greens, agreement should be discussed. staff proposing private
and open space. POST amenities will
Trails be maintained by
On-site trails Over 3 miles of soft Preliminary Yes Construction timeline Cost unknown to HOA. Any public
surface, multi-use trails. agreement should be discussed. staff spaces will be
Core trail connectors maintained in
Nordic loop accordance with a
Bike skills park, geared separate agreement
towards younger riders between either the
Downhill flow trail Schools or the City.
Ownership & Parks, greens, open Preliminary Yes Phasing, Construction,
Maintenance space, and trails within agreement & Maintenance was Annual Estimated
the neighborhoods will noted as “additional Maintenance Costs:
be owned, constructed, considerations” in the Parkland - $7,600/acre
and maintained by the applicant’s Open Space-$750/acre
developer or the HOA. presentation. May need Trails - $2,500/mile
(Unless specified with to confirm.
another agreement with
the schools) Need additional
information from
developer on what is
private vs. public and
what type of parks,
greens and open space
is being proposed.
Off-site The applicant has not Unresolved TBD More discussion needed TBD
connector trails proposed any off-site on this topic.
trails construction or Signal cost/
contribution. underpass cost/
trail extension cost.
Sustainability Sustainability -Principles of TND Preliminary Yes
-Efficient use of land, agreement
infrastructure, site
design
-Water conservation
and efficiency
-Energy efficiency,
passive solar, site
optimization.
Police Police Admin, ~$330,000/year
Patrol,
Detectives, (Based on historical
Animal Control, PD cost per person
1.13
Community based on population
Service Officers and estimated
population increase)
Fire/EMS Fire ~$205,000/year
Suppression,
EMS, & Fire (Based on historical
Prevention FD cost per person
based on population
and estimated
City City Clerk’s ~$1,000-$2,000
Manager’s Election Costs
Office
City Human ~$1,800 per additional
Manager’s Resources FTE
Office (Additional operating
cost depends on
Transit, Streets, and
POST decisions)
Finance Admin, ~$20,000
Department Accounting,
Budgeting, (Based on estimated
Utility Billing additional expense)
Management,
Sales/Use Tax.
Planning Planning and Additional Planning
Department Code Services needed
Enforcement.
(Planning services are
not currently fully cost
recovered)
Public Works Admin Additional
/Engineering Engineering Services
needed
(Engineering services
are not currently fully
cost recovered)
Municipal ~$12,000
Court
(Based on historical
Muni Court cost per
person based on
population and
1.14
estimated population
increase)
General Admin, Additional mapping
Services Facilities, IT, responsibilities – cost
GIS, unknown.
procurement/ Unknown need for
contracting expansion of facilities
ore IT related to
annexation.
Legal ~$38,000
(Based on historical
Legal cost per person
based on population
and estimated
Utility Fund Utility Billing, ~$127,000 Water
meter reading, ~$197,000 Waste
and all other Water
water and sewer
operations (Based on historical
(excluding water and waste water
capital and cost per account x 436
capital new accounts)
maintenance)
1.15
The following was provided by Brynn Grey.
1.16
March 6, 2017
President Lacy and Steamboat Springs City Council
Re: West Steamboat Neighborhoods (“WSN”)

City Council Work Session
March 20, 2018
Dear President Lacy and Members of the City Council,
The purpose of this letter to forward the following:
1. WSN Revised Term Sheet

2. WSN Fiscal Impact Study
3. WSN Vision Document
4. WSN Compendium
A. Water Demand Study
B. Sewer Memo
C. Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan
D. Sustainability Plan
E. Housing Indices
F. Traffic Impact Study
G. WSN Master Schedule
Please let staff know if you would like these materials organized in a notebook, and we
can make those available prior to the meeting.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS, LLC
David G. O’Neil Melissa Sherburne

CEO / Founder Managing Partner
1.17
March 20, 2018
TERMS
• Property: 150 acres adjacent to the City of Steamboat Springs, contiguous to city
limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary.
• Developer: West Steamboat Neighborhoods, LLC, a Colorado limited liability

company.
• City: The City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, a Colorado municipal

corporation.
• Entitlements: At the time of annexation, the Property shall be incorporated into

the City of Steamboat Springs and zoned within the “Traditional Neighborhood
Development” Zone District (TND).
• Neighborhoods: West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) shall include three

neighborhoods – Gateway, Slate Creek, and Emerald Overlook – consisting of
approximately 400 homes and 50 LIHTC apartments. All three neighborhoods
shall have a distinct identity, and a variety of building types, lot sizes, and
configurations, while keeping with traditional neighborhood patterns consistent
with the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Zone District.
1.18
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT & CONTRIBUTIONS
1. HOUSING
118 homes and 50 apartments – 37% of the total development – shall be subject to a
local’s deed restriction, and located in the Gateway Neighborhood in order to create a
vibrant full-time residential population. Gateway shall be the first neighborhood
constructed.
• Gateway Neighborhood
• The Gateway Neighborhood shall consist of 148 homes and 50

apartments, of which 118 homes (80%) and 50 apartments (100%) shall be
subject to a locals’ deed restriction.
• The unit mix shall include single family homes, hillside homes, duplexes,
and townhomes, aimed at primary ownership opportunities, along with 50
apartments. The apartments shall be built on land contributed by the
Developer to the Yampa Valley Housing Authority.
• The deed restriction shall be recorded in conjunction with sale of the home
and be subordinate to construction and purchase money mortgage
financing.
• Town Council shall determine the specifics of the deed restriction, such as a work
requirement (30+ hours in Routt County) and appreciation limit.
• Slate Creek Neighborhood
• The Slate Creek Neighborhood shall consist of 145 homes.
• The unit mix shall include single family homes, carriages houses, hillside
homes, duplexes, and townhomes.
• Emerald Overlook
• The Emerald Overlook Neighborhood shall consist of 107 homes.
• The unit mix shall include single family homes, carriages houses, hillside
homes, duplexes, and townhomes.
1.19
Estimated Value of Locals’ Deed Restricted Housing: $8,400,0001
2. WATER
• Onsite infrastructure: Developer shall be responsible for all onsite

infrastructure pertaining to water service to residential properties.
• Standard Water Tap Fees: All homes pay standard water tap fees, paid
at the time of closing. Such fees estimated to be $10,000 per unit:
$4,000,000.
• Secondary 12” Water Line: Approximately one mile along Hwy 40, to
be built prior to prior to recording of any third neighborhood plat:
Estimated cost: $1,000,000.
• Pressure Relief Valve and Booster: Required to serve the property, and
will be built prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy: $200,000.
• Water Firming Fund: All unrestricted market homes shall pay $16,000
into a Water Firming Fund, to be administered by the City and used for
engineering, water rights and infrastructure. Contribution paid upon
closing of each market home: $4,512,000.
• Water Adequacy: The City shall make a positive adequacy determination

pursuant to C.R.S. §29-20-304 provided that demands are substantially
equivalent to the January 27, 2017 Water Demand Report.
Total WSN Contributions, Water: $9,712,000
2. ROADS & TRANSIT
• Funds for Extension of the Core Trail: Extend the Core Trail along
the Yampa to Slate Creek Road and, hopefully in concert with Great
Outdoors Colorado grant, extend the trail under Hwy 40 and into WSN,
such funds to be available for contribution prior to issuance of the first
1
Based on sales data for the difference between market rate and deed restricted homes; one-
quarter of that amount, averaged across all homes.
3
1.20
building permit on the Gateway Neighborhood. Estimated contribution:
not to exceed $1,000,000.
• Funds for Public Works Capital Costs: New equipment purchases to

service WSN, Overlook and Sunlight including Motor Grader, Sand
Truck, Front-End Loader, Equipment Storage, cost totaling $810,000 to be
contributed prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy in either the
Slate Creek or Emerald Overlook Neighborhoods.
• Funds for Slate Creek Road and Hwy 40 Intersection: Improvements at

Slate Creek Road: Developer responsible for actual cost, improvements to
be completed when required by CDOT: Estimated cost $600,000.
• Gloria Gossard Boulevard: WSN shall, prior to recording of any third

neighborhood plat, complete Gloria Gossard Boulevard: Estimated cost
$1,697,517.
• Off-site transportation improvements: WSN shall contribute

$2,679,000 to off-site transportation improvements where the
neighborhoods directly impact levels of service.
i. Each market home shall pay $9,500 towards a Traffic

Improvement Fund, at the time of closing, generating $2,679,000,
slightly above the estimate of the project identified below.
ii. Traffic Improvement Projects, as identified in the Traffic Impact

Study, and WSN’s proportional contribution (not in order of
priority):
WSN
Contribution to
Capital Cost
Based on Traffic
Capital Project WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY ($$$)
Roadway Segments
A.1 Slate Creek Road Intersection cost included above
A.2 Pedestrian Underpass and connection to Snow Bowl Plaza $249,973
B Highway 40 Downhill Drive to Elk River Road $190,093
C Highway 40 Elk River Road to Dream Island Plaza $1,119,711
D Highway 40 Dream Island Plaza to 13th Street $230,723
E Elk River Road Downhill Drive to Highway 40 $40,445
F Downhill Drive Highway 40 to Elk River Road $132,923
Intersections
1.21
1 Highway 40 and Downhill Drive $619,132
2 Highway 40 and 13th Street cost included in D above cost included in D above
3 Elk River Road and Downhill Drive $171,346
Total: $2,754,346
Note: Table amounts need to be prorate adjusted to reflect revised
total of $2,679,000.
Total WSN Road Contributions: $6,786,517
4. SEWER
• On-site infrastructure.
• Standard and customary plant investment fees paid in conjunction with

issuance of building permit: $5,000 per home, totaling $2,000,000.
• Work together to obtain easements for adjacent properties to convey

gravity-fed.
Total WSN Sewer Contributions: $2,000,000
5. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS
• POST amenities would be phased accordingly with the development of

each neighborhood, and as the Community Development Code requires.
• POST amenities would initially be “private” and would be owned and

maintained by the HOA (estimate $75 homeowner monthly HOA fee);
however, City may at any time convert any of the POST amenities to
“public” in which event, as to the converted amenity, it would be owned
and maintained by the City.
6. SUSTAINABILITY
• Homes to be Energy Star Certified.
• WSN will explore and innovate with respect to energy conservation, solar
orientation, passive solar gain, compact and efficient building envelopes,
1.22
recycling through construction, indoor air quality, and increased
insulation.
• WSN will, over the life of the project, investigate and, where appropriate,
implement new smart home and construction practice technologies.
7. MISCELLANEOUS
• Yampa Valley Housing Authority: Developer agrees to provide the

Yampa Valley Housing Authority land for a LIHTC apartment project
consisting of 50 apartments in the Gateway Neighborhood. The specific
terms of such agreement to be negotiated with the Yampa Valley Housing
Authority.
• School District: Developer agrees to provide the Steamboat Springs

School District land for an elementary school in the Slate Creek
Neighborhood. The specific terms of such agreement to be negotiated
with the School District in conjunction with any proposed bond and/or
referendum to fund construction of the elementary school.
• Moratoria and Growth Control Measures: No development

moratorium or growth control limitation shall be applied against the
development.
• Annexation Contingencies: The annexation of the Property and

effectiveness of this Agreement are contingent upon the occurrence of
both of the following events, the annexation and this Agreement shall be
effective on the date on which the last of the following events occur:
• Final approval of this Agreement and the Annexation Ordinance;
• and purchase of the Property by Developer.
• Vesting: There shall be normal and customary vested property rights for a
period of not less than ten years.
Total WSN ALL Contributions: $26,898,517
6
1.23
Final Draft Report
West Steamboat Neighborhood

Fiscal Impact Analysis
Prepared for:
Brynn Grey Partners

and
City of Steamboat Springs
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
March 6, 2018
EPS #173101
1.24
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................... 1
Proposed Development ............................................................................................ 1

Summary of Findings ............................................................................................... 3
2. BASELINE COMMUNITY TRENDS ................................................................................. 10
Growth Trends...................................................................................................... 10
Operating Revenues .............................................................................................. 13
Operating Expenditures ......................................................................................... 15
Capital Project Funding .......................................................................................... 17
3. FISCAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 18
Use of Fiscal Impact Analysis .................................................................................. 18

Methodology ........................................................................................................ 19
Steamboat Service Population................................................................................. 21
WSN Service Population ......................................................................................... 22
4. REVENUE ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 25
Sales Tax ............................................................................................................. 25

Property Tax ........................................................................................................ 27
Total General Fund Revenues ................................................................................. 28
5. EXPENDITURES AND NET FISCAL IMPACT ...................................................................... 30
Public Works ........................................................................................................ 30

Fire and Emergency Response ................................................................................ 33
Parks .................................................................................................................. 33
Transportation Services ......................................................................................... 33
Total General Fund Expenditures ............................................................................. 33
Net Fiscal Impact .................................................................................................. 36
6. ONE-TIME REVENUES AND POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION ................................................ 37
Excise Tax ........................................................................................................... 37
Building Permit Fees .............................................................................................. 38

Fiscal Impact Mitigation ......................................................................................... 39
A P P E N D I X ............................................................................................................ 42
1.25
List of Tables
Table 1 Proposed Development by Phase ...................................................................... 2
Table 2 Estimated Market Values ................................................................................. 2
Table 3 Net Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................... 4
Table 4 Fiscal Impacts and Net New Growth .................................................................. 6
Table 5 Public Works Capital Costs ............................................................................... 7
Table 6 Fiscal Impact Mitigation Mill Levy ...................................................................... 8
Table 7 Routt County Population Trends...................................................................... 10
Table 8 Routt County Housing Unit Trends .................................................................. 11
Table 9 Steamboat Springs Bed Base Trends ............................................................... 12
Table 10 City of Steamboat Service Population and Peak Population ................................. 21
Table 11 City of Steamboat Peak Visitor Population ........................................................ 22
Table 12 WSN Permanent Resident Households and Second Home Households ................... 23
Table 13 WSN Estimated Resident Population and Second Home Peak Population ............... 24
Table 14 Full-time Resident Spending and Sales Tax Estimates ........................................ 26
Table 15 Second Home Spending and Sales Tax Estimates .............................................. 26
Table 16 Fire District and Road and Bridge property taxes ............................................... 27
Table 17 General Fund Revenues ................................................................................. 29
Table 18 Public Works Estimated Maintenance Costs ...................................................... 31
Table 19 West Steamboat Area New Lane Miles ............................................................. 31
Table 20 Public Works Staffing Allocation by Development .............................................. 31
Table 21 Public Works Capital Costs ............................................................................. 32
Table 22 Fire Department Service Costs Adjusted to City Limits ....................................... 34
Table 23 Total General Fund Expenditures ..................................................................... 35
Table 24 WSN Net Fiscal Impact .................................................................................. 36
Table 25 Excise Tax Estimates .................................................................................... 37
Table 26 Estimated Building Permit Fees ...................................................................... 38
Table 27 Public Works Capital Costs ............................................................................. 39
Table 28 Fiscal Impact Mitigation Mill Levy .................................................................... 40
Table 29 Mill Levy Cost per Home per Year and Per Month .............................................. 40
Table 30 Real Estate Transfer Assessment Revenue ....................................................... 41
1.26
List of Figures
Figure 1 General Fund Revenues ................................................................................. 13
Figure 2 Sales Tax vs. Population and Skier Visits ......................................................... 14
Figure 3 General Fund Expenditures by Major Function .................................................. 15
Figure 4 General Fund Staffing Trends ......................................................................... 16
Figure 5 Excise Tax Revenue Trends ............................................................................ 17
1.27
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report presents the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of the proposed West Steamboat
Neighborhood (WSN) development in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. This report and analysis was
prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) under a contract with the developer, Brynn
Grey Partners, at the request of Steamboat Springs City Council and staff.
In preparing this report, EPS conducted interviews with the City’s finance and budget staff and
major department heads. EPS also did a detailed analysis of the City’s budget and financial
documents to structure the analysis in a manner that reflects the City’s operating revenues and
expenditures. EPS is a public-private real estate economics consulting firm specializing in fiscal
and economic impact analysis, real estate market and feasibility analysis, affordable and
workforce housing strategies, and economic development.
Proposed Development
Brynn Grey Partners is requesting that the City of Steamboat Springs annex approximately 150
acres of land on the western boundary of the city and grant the necessary zoning and
entitlements to develop a residential neighborhood, currently named the West Steamboat
Neighborhood (WSN). The development is comprised of three neighborhoods or phases totaling
450 dwelling units, shown in Table 1.
The WSN is designed in the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) style which has several
features and benefits.
• A mix of housing – TNDs often feature a wide variety of home types, designs, and
pricepoints to promote affordable and attainable housing, and mixed income neighborhoods.
Different types of housing (attached, detached, ownership, and rental) are often features of
TND to provide a range of housing choices for people with different preferences, needs, and
means.
• Compact and walkable – Compared to conventional suburban or rural development, TND

has smaller lot sizes. The more compact design results in less linear infrastructure such as
roads and utilities. This helps to reduce the annual maintenance costs of public
infrastructure. TND prioritizes access and circulation for pedestrians and bicycles, and
includes extensive sidewalk and other pathways.
• Amenities – TNDs also often contain neighborhood parks to provide residents with easy
access to outdoor spaces for recreation and gathering. The WSN is proposing to create a
homeowners association (HOA) to maintain these spaces and to reduce potential impacts on
City services.
Other TNDs in the region include Stapleton (Denver, CO), Eagle Ranch (Eagle, CO), the
Wellington Neighborhood (Breckenridge, CO), and South Main (Buena Vista, CO).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 173101-WSN Fiscal Impact 03-06-18.docx
1.28
West Steamboat Neighborhood Fiscal Impact Analysis
March 6, 2018
Table 1
Proposed Development by Phase
Large Medium Small Townhome Courtyard Mixed Use LIHTC

Neighborhood Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment Total Units
(Condo) (Condo)
Gateway 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
Type Market Rate Deed Restricted Deed Restricted Deed Restricted Deed Restricted Deed Restricted Deed Restricted
Percent 0% 21% 12% 27% 12% 3% 25% 100%
Slate Creek 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145

Type Market Rate Market Rate Market Rate Market Rate --- --- ---
Percent 0% 53% 18% 29% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Emerald Overlook 70 24 13 0 0 0 0 107

Type Market Rate Market Rate Market Rate Market Rate --- --- ---
Percent 65% 22% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Total 70 62 96 24 6 50 450
Source: Brynn Grey Partners; Economic & Planning Systems

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-05-2018.xlsx]1-Program
Phase I - Gateway
Homes in the first phase of the development will have a deed restriction intended to promote
housing for locals. The specific terms of the deed restriction are still being defined, but at the
core, residents must work in Routt County a minimum of 30 hours per week and the home must
be their primary residence. As shown, the Gateway neighborhood contains 198 units. One hundred
forty-eight are for-sale homes. The remaining 50 are proposed to be rental housing targeting
people earning 60 percent of area median income (AMI). The developer would seek a development
partner such as the Yampa Valley Housing Authority to secure low-income housing tax credits
(LIHTC) to help finance the project. The bulk of the offerings in Phase I are projected to be priced
in the $350,000 to $450,000 range subject to market conditions at the time of sale (Table 2).
Table 2
Estimated Market Values
Large Medium Small Townhome Courtyard Mixed Use LIHTC Total/

Neighborhood Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment Average
(Condo) (Condo)
Gateway 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
Estimated Market Value $0 $446,000 $430,000 $357,000 $350,000 $400,000 $0 $402,000
Slate Creek 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145

Estimated Market Value $0 $535,000 $516,000 $428,000 $0 $0 $0 $501,000

Estimated Market Value $825,000 $535,000 $516,000 $428,000 $0 $0 $0 $722,000

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-15-2018.xlsx]4-M arketVal
Phases II and III
The second and third phases are Slate Creek (145 units), and Emerald Overlook (107 units). The
specific sequencing of these two phases is not yet known. Both phases will be market rate with
no deed restrictions, which will likely result in a mixture of full- and part-time residents,
estimated at two-thirds and one-third respectively as detailed in Chapter 2. Projected market
values are higher, with more homes offered in the range of $500,000 to $825,000.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Final Draft Report
1.29
March 6, 2018
Summary of Findings
1. The West Steamboat Neighborhood is estimated to have a negative fiscal impact of

-$55,500 per year (-$121 per home) on the City’s General Fund.
The total estimated General Fund revenues and expenditures are shown in Table 3. At full
buildout, the net fiscal impact of the development is estimated at -$55,500 per year. The
Gateway phase has the least negative impact at -$4,400 (-$22 per home). The Emerald
Overlook and Slate Creek phases have negative impacts ranging from -$190 to -$212 per
home. The Gateway neighborhood has the lowest impact because it has the highest land use
and population densities, thereby generating more revenue per acre, per lane mile of streets,
and per unit of service costs.
Total General Fund revenues resulting from the project are estimated at $546,000 per year
with sales tax from resident and second homeowner spending $385,000 per year and 70
percent of total revenues. The remaining revenues are minor charges for services and other
miscellaneous revenues.
2. The WSN may include a small commercial center in the future. To be conservative,
no property tax or additional sales tax from commercial development is included in
this analysis.
The WSN may be able to attract a neighborhood commercial center or potentially a new
grocery store. Depending on the types of businesses, the commercial development may
generate additional sales tax. The proportion that is net new to the City will depend on the
specific business mix. Since commercial property pays higher property taxes than residential
development, there would also be additional property tax revenue that would bring the fiscal
impact closer to neutral.
3. As a traditional neighborhood design (TND), the WSN is likely to have a more

favorable fiscal impact than a lower density conventional subdivision.
With smaller lots than conventional development, TND often requires less linear
infrastructure per unit, particularly streets. With more revenue per acre of development and
per unit of streets, this efficient design helps to mitigate the cost of serving growth. In
addition, the developer is proposing to form an HOA to maintain all parks, alleys, and
amenities within the project resulting in no cost to the City for these elements.
1.30
March 6, 2018
Table 3
Net Fiscal Impact
Emerald
Gateway Slate Creek Overlook Total
REVENUE
TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
Sales Tax $133,625 $122,026 $129,450 $385,102
Other Taxes 34,526 18,238 13,530 66,294
TOTAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS $168,151 $140,265 $142,980 $451,396
LICENSES AND PERMITS $1,515 $788 $582 $2,885
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
County Road & Bridge $9,740 $12,137 $12,925 $34,802
Other Intergovernmental 501 246 181 928
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL $10,241 $12,383 $13,106 $35,730
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Recreation Program Fees $5,264 $4,642 $3,564 $13,469
Transit Fees $0 0 0 0
Fire/Emergency Medical Services 9,572 8,442 6,481 24,495
Other Charges for Services 5,680 4,239 3,222 13,141
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $20,516 $17,323 $13,266 $51,105
FINES AND FORFEITS $1,842 $1,624 $1,247 $4,713
OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $202,266 $172,382 $171,181 $545,829
EXPENDITURES
General Government $27,860 $24,569 $18,862 $71,291
Legal and Municipal Court 7,353 6,485 4,979 18,817
Community Development 6,313 3,283 2,423 12,020
Transfers 12,986 11,452 8,792 33,231
Subtotal - General Gov't $54,513 $45,789 $35,056 $135,358
Transportation Services $11,127 $9,813 $7,534 $28,474

Public Works $51,197 $68,379 $93,142 $212,718
Police $53,135 $43,563 $33,303 $130,001
Fire/EMS $10,595 $9,343 $7,173 $27,110
Parks $26,068 $22,989 $17,649 $66,706
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $206,636 $199,876 $193,856 $600,367
NET FISCAL IMPACT -$4,370 -$27,493 -$22,675 -$54,538

Per housing unit -$22.07 -$189.61 -$211.92 -$121.20
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-05-2018.xlsx]11-NFI
1.31
March 6, 2018
4. The benefits of permanently deed restricted and permanently affordable housing in

the WSN are not quantified in this analysis.
The Gateway neighborhood will include 148 homes with a permanent deed restriction. The
deed restriction will limit ownership and occupancy to people who work in Routt County at
least 30 hours per week, and the home must be their primary residence. The natural market
trend in Steamboat is for a large portion of new construction homes to be purchased by
second homeowners or very affluent residents. The WSN neighborhood will reserve the first
phase of development for residents and employees. In addition, the developer is seeking to
partner with the Yampa Valley Housing Authority or a similar organization to develop 50 units
of affordable rental housing through the LIHTC program.
No property tax from the LIHTC property is included in the analysis. If a public entity is a
development partner with an ownership stake—a common arrangement—the property
becomes tax exempt. The tax exemption helps to make the affordable development more
financially feasible, but would reduce Road and Bridge property tax revenues.
5. The City’s budget structure and level of service establish the framework of this
fiscal impact analysis.
Steamboat does not have a general property tax which results in less revenue per home than
in communities that do have a property tax. The City has been able to sustain its level of
service by relying heavily on sales tax that is boosted by the tourism and recreation
economy. However, sales tax is a volatile revenue source and the City has needed to budget
and staff its departments conservatively to protect itself against economic downturns and
season-to-season variations, but also to reserve some funding for capital projects.
The City’s staffing levels have dropped by 20 full-time employees (FTEs) since 2006 due to the
lingering impacts of the Great Recession. The departments that experienced major staffing
cuts include Parks, Public Safety, Public Works, and Planning. This means that the City has
had to “do more with less” to maintain City services. This is an important point related to
fiscal impact analysis: a fiscal impact analysis represents the current level of service (i.e.
staff per capita; costs and revenues per capita). This means that the project’s net fiscal
position reflects the City’s current level of service and should be viewed in that context.
6. The funding arrangement between the City and the Steamboat Springs Area Fire
Protection District (SSAFPD) exacerbates fiscal impacts for annexed property.
The SSAFPD is a special district located outside the Steamboat City limits. The district’s
primary purpose is to collect a mill levy and to contract for services with the City’s fire and
rescue department. The City’s fire and ambulance service serves the city limits plus this
larger area. Property outside city limits but within the SSAFPD pays a 7.000 mill property tax
to the City for fire protection and EMS. However, if property is annexed into the city, it is
then de-annexed from the SSAFPD and no longer pays the property tax. When property is
annexed and then developed, the City will still have to serve the property. There is
approximately $105,000 in property tax revenue that would be generated if the 7.000 mill
levy could be carried over. This revenue is not included in the net fiscal impact calculation.
1.32
March 6, 2018
7. The community has raised questions on the amount of net new population growth
that this development may create. This question cannot be answered definitively,
therefore a range of estimates and the estimated fiscal impacts are provided below.
Some of the people who choose to live in the WSN may move from other areas of Steamboat
or Routt County. Some may move out of roommate arrangements or out of their parents’
homes, which is ‘new household formation’ in demographer terms. Others may sell a home
to move into the WSN. In a market with a growing economy like Routt County, the labor
force demand will over time backfill any vacancies in the housing stock or other capacity
(e.g. roommates). On the other hand, some portion of homes that are sold to facilitate a
move to the WSN may be bought by second homeowners, decreasing the net population
growth. Estimating the net growth is highly speculative therefore a range of fiscal impacts at
50, 75, and 100 percent net new growth are provided in Table 4 for comparison. At 50
percent net new growth, the fiscal impacts are the most negative due to the fixed costs in
maintaining streets but lower sales tax revenues.
Table 4
Fiscal Impacts and Net New Growth
Emerald
Net New Growth Scenario Gateway Slate Creek Overlook Total
50% New Growth

Total Revenue $106,003 $92,260 $92,053 $290,315
Total Expenditures -120,426 -128,166 -138,988 -387,579
Net Fiscal Impact -$14,423 -$35,906 -$46,935 -$97,263
Per Unit -$72.84 -$247.63 -$438.64 -$216.14
75% New Growth

Total Revenue $152,998 $131,730 $131,181 $415,909
Per Unit -$53.20 -$222.69 -$329.35 -$173.48
100% New Growth

Total Revenue $202,266 $172,382 $171,181 $545,829
Per Unit -$22.07 -$189.61 -$211.92 -$121.20

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-05-2018.xlsx]12-NetNew_Summary
1.33
March 6, 2018
8. The developer and City are discussing a potential mitigation measures for the negative
fiscal impact. This analysis has estimated that a mill levy of 6.687 or a 0.5 to 1.0
percent real estate transfer assessment (RETA) would mitigate the net fiscal
impacts and the cost of Public Works equipment.
To mitigate the fiscal impacts of the WSN, the developer and City are discussing the
possibility of a property tax on new homes or a Real Estate Transfer Assessment (discussed
below). The revenue would be used by the City to offset the cost of providing City services
and acquiring equipment needed to maintain the public roads. The specifics on how this
would be implemented have not been discussed in detail yet, such as if a special district
would be formed. In addition, the developer and the City will need to have further
discussions to determine which mitigation tool, if required, is most appropriate.
The two impacts that are addressed in this analysis are the general city operations—the net
fiscal impact of -$55,500 per year—and the capital costs identified by Public Works. Public
Works identified several new equipment items that would need to be purchased to serve the
WSN, Overlook, and Sunlight developments in West Steamboat—the need for a new snow
removal route, and three FTEs to perform the work. The impact of the FTEs are included in
the -$55,500 per year net fiscal impact. The capital equipment cost attributed to the WSN
was allocated based on the number of lane miles in each development, and is estimated at
$474,000 as shown in Table 5. To minimize the impact on the marketability of the
development (the monthly cost to homeowners), these costs may need to be amortized over
time. Assuming a 15-year financing period at a 5.0 percent interest rate, the annual cost
would be $45,700.
Table 5
Public Works Capital Costs
Description Factors Cost
Cost Item
Motor Grader $330,000
Sand Truck $180,000
Front-End Loader $200,000
Equipment Storage $100,000
Total $810,000
Cost Allocation Allocation

Sunlight Subdivision 19.1% $154,683
Overlook Subdivision 22.4% $181,200
West Steamboat Neighborhood 58.5% $474,118
Total 100.0% $810,000
Amortized Annual Cost [1] $45,700
[1] Amortized over 15 years at 5.0% interest.

C:\Users\bduffany\Documents\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-02-2018.xlsx]14-PubWks_Capital
1.34
March 6, 2018
To spread the cost of annual City operations and the Public Works equipment cost across all
homes in the WSN, a mill levy (property tax) of 6.687 would be needed. After 15 years, the
mill levy may be able to be reduced to cover only the O&M costs. This new property tax
would generate an estimated $100,000 per year in revenue. As shown in Table 6, 3.639
mills are estimated for mitigating the ongoing negative net fiscal impact, and 3.048 mills
would amortize the cost of the $474,000 in equipment over 15 years.
Table 6
Fiscal Impact Mitigation Mill Levy
Emerald
Factors Gateway Slate Creek Overlook Total Mill Levy
per $1,000
Total Market Value $58,254,000 $72,587,000 $77,298,000

Assessed Value 7.20% $4,194,288 $5,226,264 $5,565,456 $14,986,008
Mitigation
Fiscal Impact -$4,370 -$27,493 -$22,675 -$54,538 3.639 Mills
Public Works Capital --- --- --- -$45,678 3.048 Mills
Total -$4,370 -$27,493 -$22,675 -$100,216 6.687 Mills

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-05-2018.xlsx]M ill_Levy_Finance
The impact of the additional mill levy on homeowners would range from about $19.00 per
month on the lowest priced homes to $15.00 to $20.00 on the moderate and upper priced
homes and $30.00 per month on the highest priced homes in the Emerald Overlook
neighborhood.
9. A Real Estate Transfer Assessment (RETA) is another potential mitigation tool and
could generate $146,000 per year at buildout, and $2.1 million during construction
and absorption.
A RETA is a fee levied on property sales within a specific area. It is implemented by covenant
by the property owner(s) or the developer. The RETA modeled here assumes that homes are
sold by a builder(s) to homebuyers. If homebuyers purchase a lot and then contract with a
custom builder, the RETA will only capture the lot sale and not the finished home sale. This
could be the case for some of the highest priced homes in the Emerald Overlook neighborhood.
A RETA can be structured to apply to resales and/or initial sales; this analysis includes both
initial sale and resale revenues.
With a 1.0 percent RETA, the initial home sales to the first residents are estimated at $2.1
million over the buildout period. If this is spread over 10 years—a rough estimate—the
annual revenue would be $208,000 per year. At buildout, the annual RETA from resales
would be $146,000 per year at an average turnover rate of 7.0 percent. At buildout, the
annual 1.0 percent RETA revenues are estimated to cover the negative fiscal impact
(-$55,500) even if turnover rates drop by 40 to 50 percent or if a lower RETA rate (such as
0.5 to 0.75 percent) was implemented.
1.35
March 6, 2018
The initial sales RETA of $2.1 million (with a 1.0 percent RETA) would also cover the $474,000
in Public Works capital costs. These costs are roughly one quarter of the total initial sales
RETA. In terms of phasing, this would allow revenue to accrue before the full project is built
possibly allowing Public Works to purchase the new equipment before the WSN is fully built.
RETA revenues can be more volatile than property tax because they vary more with market
cycles. For this reason, some mountain communities use RETA to fund capital projects rather
than ongoing services.
1.36
2. BASELINE COMMUNITY TRENDS
This chapter contains background trends on population growth and the City’s budget including
major revenues and expenditures and staffing levels. This information provides context for
evaluating how the City has grown, how the WSN may affect City services, and how the City’s
budget structure factors into fiscal impact analysis.
Growth Trends
Steamboat has a full-time population of 12,700 which is 51 percent of the population of Routt
County, as shown in Table 7. Since 2000, the City grew by 2,200 people at an annual rate of
1.2 percent per year. There was an almost equal amount of growth in unincorporated Routt
County which added over 1,900 residents over the same time period. Since many Routt County
residents work and shop in and around Steamboat, growth in outlying areas creates additional
travel demand and traffic impacts on area roads.
Table 7
Routt County Population Trends
Steamboat Unincorp. Routt County

Year Hayden Oak Creek Springs Yampa Area Total
2000 1,589 815 10,509 426 6,784 20,123

2001 1,639 848 10,483 441 7,025 20,436
2002 1,646 855 10,591 436 7,364 20,892
2003 1,655 849 10,755 432 7,437 21,128
2004 1,652 842 10,953 424 7,422 21,293
2005 1,652 847 11,107 421 7,426 21,453
2006 1,676 861 11,419 426 7,504 21,886
2007 1,687 866 11,756 424 7,682 22,415
2008 1,672 844 12,280 423 7,712 22,931
2009 1,650 838 12,516 417 7,904 23,325
2010 1,805 883 12,056 427 8,268 23,439
2011 1,794 876 11,950 423 8,194 23,237
2012 1,796 876 11,943 425 8,217 23,257
2013 1,816 882 12,099 431 8,322 23,550
2014 1,855 893 12,340 440 8,482 24,010
2015 1,866 904 12,497 442 8,601 24,310
2016 1,883 914 12,698 448 8,736 24,679
Change 294 99 2,189 22 1,952 4,556

Growth Rate 1.1% 0.7% 1.2% 0.3% 1.6% 1.3%
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs; Economic & Planning Systems

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\Data\[173101-Steamboat Population and Households.xlsx]T-Population
1.37
March 6, 2018
Steamboat has 10,200 housing units (Table 8), of which 4,700 (46 percent) are estimated by
the State Demographer to be second homes and other vacant units. Over the past 16 years, the
City has had a net addition of 228 housing units. Many of these are high end homes or properties
near the Steamboat Base area targeted at second homeowners and for overnight rentals. In
contrast, the Gateway neighborhood will provide nearly 200 homes permanently restricted to
local resident workers.
Table 8
Routt County Housing Unit Trends
Steamboat Unincorp. Routt County

Year Hayden Oak Creek Springs Yampa Area Total
2010 807 512 9,979 214 4,809 16,321

2011 811 513 9,994 214 4,817 16,349
2012 812 513 10,015 215 4,830 16,385
2013 813 512 10,026 216 4,846 16,413
2014 817 510 10,062 217 4,863 16,469
2015 817 513 10,144 217 4,902 16,593
2016 817 514 10,207 218 4,933 16,689
Change 10 2 228 4 124 368

Growth Rate 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs; Economic & Planning Systems

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\Data\[173101-Steamboat Population and Households.xlsx]T-HousingUnits

1.38
March 6, 2018
The population to which the City provides services is comprised of full-time residents plus visitors
who stay in the overnight bed base. Tourism and recreation are a large component of the
Steamboat area economy and over the years a large bed base inventory has been developed
comprised of short term rental condominiums, homes, hotels, and condominium-hotels. The
City’s bed base is now approximately 3,400 units and 11,400 beds as shown in Table 9. The bed
base has not grown substantially over the past 20 years, although some of the bed base has
been modernized/replaced with newer redevelopment. Reflecting the static nature of the bed
base, there has been minimal net growth in the peak season visitor. The community has been
working successfully to diversify into more summer, spring, and fall destination tourism to
stabilize the economy to boost visitation outside the ski season.
Table 9
Steamboat Springs Bed Base Trends
Ski Season
Ending Year Units Beds Pillows
1997 3,280 10,130 17,218

2002 3,617 10,977 18,917
2007 3,495 10,836 18,705
2012 3,351 11,028 19,668
2017 3,390 11,411 20,542
Change 110 1,281 3,324

Growth Rate 0.2% 0.6% 0.9%
Source: Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association

H:\173101-Steambo at WSN Fiscal\Data\[173101-B ed B ase.xlsx]Summary
1.39
March 6, 2018
Operating Revenues
The fiscal impact analysis focuses on the City’s General Fund. The General Fund is the City’s
operating fund which pays for most essential services such as Police, Fire/EMS, Public Works,
and Parks and Community Services.
Sales tax is the City’s major operating revenue—accounting for nearly 70 percent of the General
Fund’s revenues as shown in Figure 1—averaging approximately $23.5 million over the past
three years. Several years ago, the City Council eliminated the general property tax mill levy
because of concerns that the property tax was adversely affecting local businesses. Property tax
is a more stable revenue source than sales tax, and is paid by all including second homeowners
regardless of time spent in the community. The City now relies heavily on sales tax which is
volatile with seasonal fluctuations and economic downturns. All other operating revenues
combined make up the remaining 30 percent of the General Fund revenues, highlighting the
City’s reliance on sales tax.
Figure 1
General Fund Revenues
1.40
Chart Title
March 6, 2018
Sales tax revenues correlate most strongly with tourism activity (Figure 2). Skier visits are the
best readily available metric for tracking tourism activity, although they do not include the robust
and growing summer season. Growth in the full-time resident population will contribute to sales
tax growth and create a more stable baseline; the major increase and decrease in sales tax are
driven by fluctuations in the visitor economy.
Figure 2
Sales Tax vs. Population and Skier Visits
Index from 2007

1.25
Sales Tax
($000s)
Routt
County
1.00 Population
Steamboat
Population
Skier Visits
(000s)
0.75
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: City of Steamboat Springs; CO DOLA; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\Data\[173101-Budget Data.xlsx]Trends
Another major revenue source is the 1.0 percent accommodations tax (on short term/overnight
rentals). The revenues are collected in the Accommodations Tax Capital Fund and used for
capital projects, including about $500,000 per year for regional trail projects in partnership with
the U.S. Forest Service. Over the past three years revenues have been approximately $800,000
to nearly $1.0 million per year. The WSN development is not expected to generate any
measurable accommodations tax as there is no lodging component.
1.41
March 6, 2018
Operating Expenditures
In aggregate, General Government accounts for the majority of the City’s operating expenses, at
$16.0 million per year or 43 percent as shown in Figure 3. General Government includes several
departments such as City Council, City Management, Clerk, Finance, and Community
Development. With the exception of Municipal Court, many of these functions are largely
administrative/support functions with larger proportions of fixed costs. These types of functions
vary (increase or decrease) less directly with growth than direct services such as Police, Fire/
EMS, and Public Works maintenance activities which have a larger proportion of variable costs in
their budgets (e.g. fuel, fleet maintenance, personal protective equipment, overtime labor).
Five other departments and divisions provide the major City services: Transit (Transportation
Services), Public Works, Police, Fire/EMS (the same department), and Parks. Parks is the largest
Chart TitleFund department, accounting for 15 percent of General Fund expenses.
General
Parks includes several large facilities with high fixed costs: the Howelson Hill Ski Area and
recreation complex, ice arena, Tennis Bubble, plus numerous large parks and the trail network.
User fees do not cover the cost of these facilities, and the General Fund provides operating
subsidies at about $900,000 of the $1.2 million annual operating budget.
Figure 3
General Fund Expenditures by Major Function
General Fund Expenditures

$18,000,000
43.4%
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000 15.1%
10.3% 11.2% 10.4%
$4,000,000 9.6%
$2,000,000
$0
General Government Transit Public Works Police Fire/EMS Parks and Recreation
Source: 2018 Budget Book; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\153106-Denver Blueprint Plan Update\Data\[153106-DenverVsN ationData.xlsx]T-AgeGroup_PercentPopul ation
1.42
March 6, 2018
Despite modest population growth, the City has not added significant numbers of staff over the
past 10 years (Figure 4). Some departments experienced major staffing cuts during and after
the Great Recession including Parks, Public Safety, Public Works, and Planning. This means that
the City has had to “do more with less” to maintain City services. This is an important point
related to fiscal impact analysis: a fiscal impact analysis represents the current level of service
(i.e. staff per capita; costs and revenues per capita). Fiscal impact analysis is typically based on
the assumption that new residents will receive the same level of service as existing residents.
Figure 4
General Fund Staffing Trends
1.43
March 6, 2018
Capital Project Funding
Another important revenue source is the City’s 1.2 percent excise tax. The excise tax is paid at
building permit and allocated to capital projects. Excise tax declined severely during the Great
Chart Title
Recession and real estate market crash, but shows signs of a modest rebound (Figure 5). Large
development projects near the Resort Base Area drove the high numbers in excise tax in the
mid-2000s. The slowdown in real estate following the Great Recession has resulted in lower
excise tax collections. With sales tax as the only major operating revenue, there is little flexibility
in allocating additional sales tax to capital projects.
Figure 5
Excise Tax Revenue Trends
Excise Tax
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Source: 2016 CAFR; Economic & Planning Systems

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\Data\[173101-Budget Data.xlsx]Rev_Trends_CAFR
1.44
3. FISCAL IMPACT METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the methodology used to develop the Fiscal Impact Model (FIM) for the
WSN. It begins with an overview of fiscal impact analysis as a decision support tool and its
limitations, followed by an in-depth description of the methodology used. Next, calculations of
the service population generated by the WSN are shown. These service population estimates
drive many of the revenues and costs in the FIM that lead to the net fiscal impact.
Use of Fiscal Impact Analysis
Fiscal impact analysis (FIA) is a planning tool that provides estimates of the costs and revenue
impacts (positive and negative) resulting from new development or changes in land use. FIA
compares the revenues generated by new development to the costs of public services required to
serve new development (at current levels of service) to estimate the annual net fiscal impact to
a city. Revenues and costs are estimated using the city budget for major departments, and an
assessment of relationship between each city service on that department’s budget. In this
analysis, the impacts to the General Fund, the City’s primary operating fund, are estimated.
FIA is not a budget forecasting tool as there are many economic and political externalities that
affect a city’s costs and revenues. For these reasons, it is also not a precise quantification of
impacts. It is a decision support tool most useful for comparing the relative impacts of different
development scenarios.
Fiscal impact analysis, including this analysis, is usually based on a city’s existing budget
structure. Implied in the existing budget is that the analysis assumes that new development
(new residents) receives the same level of service as existing development and residents. Most
fiscal impact analyses will result in similar results for the same type of land use regardless of
where it is in a community, especially in small cities where service costs do not vary greatly (or
measurably) by location.
Interpreting the results. Projects that have a positive fiscal impact will increase municipal
revenues above the costs, allowing a city to improve the level of service through the increase in
funding. Since a city generally aims to balance its budget, a project with a negative fiscal impact
will require continual re-allocations of funds to balance the budget, potentially resulting in a
decline in the level of service quality.
Community-wide Fiscal Balance. It is not practical to try to achieve fiscal balance in individual
development projects. A balanced land use mix at the city level—the same area covered by its
budget—is needed to achieve fiscal balance and sustainability. Commercial development pays
more in property tax and can bring in new sales tax revenue. However, commercial development
cannot be placed in every development because it would oversaturate the market. The fiscal
model recognizes that in-project residents will support businesses (and generate sales tax)
outside the project boundary but within the city.
1.45
March 6, 2018
Methodology
Modified Average Cost Method
Many city service costs vary according to the overall size and level of activity in the city. Fiscal
impact analysis therefore uses the concept of a “service population”. In Steamboat Springs, the
service population is comprised of Steamboat residents, people who work in Steamboat
businesses but commute from other areas, and visitors (second homeowners and overnight
lodging guests). Average costs and revenues for many items are calculated as a ratio to the
service population. This technique is referred to as the “average cost” method.
The average cost method is commonly used as it is a simple approach and uses readily available
data. A common criticism of the average cost method is that it implies that each additional unit
of growth has the same impact as the previous unit of growth—or in other words, that the
marginal cost of city services is equivalent to the average cost. The average cost method can
therefore overestimate the cost of city services, especially for small projects with a short
development period, or infill development that takes advantage of the existing economies of
scale in city services.
Fixed and Variable Cost/Revenue Adjustments
To better estimate the marginal costs of serving new development, adjustments to budget line
items are made to estimate the degree by which costs and revenues vary with new development
or are unrelated to growth. Some examples are given below.
• Administrative and overhead costs – Many general government costs such as City
Council, City Management, Finance, and City Clerk are largely fixed costs. In other words, a
city will not add another City Manager or City Attorney with growth. There still can be some
increases in staff time and operating costs though. At the upper levels of city and department
management, most costs are estimated to be 25 percent variable and 75 percent fixed.
• Grants, contract, and intergovernmental revenue – Many state and federal grants are
based on set formulas with a per-capita component. It is tempting to model these types of
revenues on a per-capita basis. However, if state and federal revenues are not growing
substantially but the multitude of communities that receive the grants are, the share of
revenue each community receives does not grow. The Highway User Trust Fund (gas tax) is
an example of this. Other intergovernmental revenues are competitive grants or set annual
amounts that do not vary with growth. Adjustments were made to several
intergovernmental, contract, and similar revenues to reflect expectations of future revenue
growth or the lack of growth.
• Direct services costs – The direct services provided by the City are more directly correlated
with growth: fire, police, EMS, and public works. These costs are modeled at a much higher
variability rate: 50 to 90 percent. Parks have a larger fixed cost component and are modeled
at 25 to 50 percent variable in most cases.
1.46
March 6, 2018
Items Not Estimated
Some cost and revenue items are not estimated. These are items that are either minor revenues
or expenses—unusual one-time occurrences, fixed or contract costs/revenues—or items that do
not have a direct nexus to new growth and development. In addition, services for which a fee is
charged are not estimated. They are treated as “cost recovery” items that are fiscally neutral, as
the City is setting the fee for the service at the cost of providing the service. These types of
services are not “profit centers” or revenue generators for general purposes. Building permit fees
are estimated as one-time revenues in the last chapter, but not included as operating revenues to
offset operating expenses. Some examples of costs and revenues that are not estimated include:
• Mineral Lease and Severance Taxes – The project will not include any mineral extraction.
• Highway Users Tax Fund – The City’s HUTF revenues are not growing due to flat gas tax
collections at the state level. The project would therefore not have any effect on these
revenues.
• Government Grants – Most government grants are either formula based or competitive and
more based on state and federal budget policies, not growth in a single community.
• Regional Transit Fares – The project is not expected to generate any significant ridership
on the regional commuter transit to Craig and Hayden.
• Other Revenues – There are many other miscellaneous revenues that the City receives that
will not be affected by the proposed development such as investment income, contributions,
and sales/use tax penalties.
Case Study Calculations
Several cost or revenue items are estimated using “case study” approaches, which is a term
used to describe customized calculations as opposed to the average cost method. For example,
property tax is based on estimated assessed values multiplied by the assessment ratios and
applicable tax rates. Sales tax is estimated from new households and the proportion of
household income spent on taxable retail purchases in Steamboat. In addition, specific cost
estimates were provided by department heads, particularly Public Works.
Annual Services vs. One-Time Capital Impacts
The focus of this analysis is on ongoing municipal services and operations and maintenance costs
(collectively O&M costs). The one-time capital costs are being addressed in a separate process
led by Brynn Grey Partners. This report does estimate excise tax revenues in the last chapter.
1.47
March 6, 2018
Steamboat Service Population
Several metrics are defined to estimate revenues and expenses, described below with supporting
calculations shown in Table 10.
• Per Capita – Cost or revenue divided by the City population of 12,698.
• Per Household – Cost or revenue divided by the current number of households—5,466. A

household is a group of people, related or unrelated, living in one housing unit.
• Population Plus Commuting Employees – The City population plus half the number of
employees who commute into Steamboat. Commuting employees are estimated to have
roughly half of the impact of a resident.
• Peak Population – This service population metric reflects the sizing of City services
necessary to serve the resident population, employees, and visitors (overnight lodging and
second homes) at peak occupancy. At peak occupancy (estimated at 90 percent for overnight
accommodations), the overnight bed base is estimated to add 10,700 people; second homes—
at 65 percent occupancy—are estimated to add 4,600 people as illustrated in Table 11. The
total peak population is therefore estimated at 30,000.
Table 10
City of Steamboat Service Population and Peak Population
# % Year Source
Population 12,698 2016 CO DOLA
Households 5,466 2016 CO DOLA
Peak Population
Employment
Resident 6,844 61.7% 2015 US Census LEHD On The Map
Commute In 4,257 38.3% 2015 US Census LEHD On The Map
Total 11,101 100.0%
50% of Commuters 2,129
Local Population + Communting Employees 14,827
Peak Population 30,127
Source: Economic & Planning Systems' analysis of above data sources.

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-15-2018.xlsx]5-SB_Service_Pop

1.48
March 6, 2018
Table 11
City of Steamboat Peak Visitor Population
# Year Source
Peak Visitor Population

Bed Base (condos and hotel rooms) 3,390 2017 Chamber and Resort Assoc.
People per Unit 3.5 2017 EPS estimate
Peak Occupancy 90% 2017 EPS estimate
Peak Visitor Population (Rounded) 10,700
Second Homes
Total Vacant Housing Units 4,741 CO DOLA
Minus Condominium Bed Base [1] -2,740 American Community Survey (Census)
Estimated Second Homes Not in Short Term Rentals 2,001
People per Unit 3.5 EPS estimate
Peak Occupancy 65% EPS estimate
Peak Second Home Population (Rounded) 4,600
Population 12,698 2016 CO DOLA

50% of Commuters 2,129 2015 US Census LEHD; EPS Calc.
Population plus Commuting Employees 14,827
Peak Visitor Population 30,127
[1] Condos only. The hotel inventory estimated at 650 rooms is deducted.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems' analysis of above data sources.
H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-15-2018.xlsx]6-SB_Visitor_Pop
WSN Service Population
The service population of the WSN is estimated in two steps. First, the number of homes occupied
by year-round residents and by second homeowners is estimated, illustrated in Table 12. Next,
household size and annual occupancy estimates are applied to calculate population. The year-
round population is calculated for permanent residents. For second homeowners, the peak
population is calculated (i.e. persons at one time). The peak population is the population when
all second homes are at their maximum occupancy, estimated at 90 percent.
The Gateway neighborhood will be 100 percent full-time residents, as homes will be deed
restricted to Routt County resident employees. There will therefore be 198 full-time resident
households in this phase, and a full-time population of approximately 420 as shown in Table 13.
In the Slate Creek and Emerald Overlook Neighborhoods, it is estimated that two-thirds of the
homes will be occupied by year-round residents and one-third by second homeowners. The
resulting year-round population is 219 in Slate Creek and 161 in Emerald Overlook. In total, the
WSN would add 800 residents to Steamboat. At peak occupancy during busy holiday periods, the
second homes in both phases would have an additional 275 people.
1.49
March 6, 2018
Table 12
WSN Permanent Resident Households and Second Home Households

Neighborhood Notes Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment Total
(Condo) (Condo)
Gateway 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
% Yr. Round Deed Restricted 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
% Second Home 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Yr. Round 0.0 41.0 23.0 54.0 24.0 6.0 50.0 198.0
Second Home 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Slate Creek 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145

% Yr. Round Market Rate 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%
% Second Home 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
Yr. Round 0.0 51.6 17.4 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.2
Second Home 0.0 25.4 8.6 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.9

% Yr. Round Market Rate 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 72
% Second Home 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 35
Yr. Round 46.9 16.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.7
Second Home 23.1 7.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3
Total Units 70.0 142.0 62.0 96.0 24.0 6.0 50.0 450.0
Yr. Round 46.9 108.7 49.1 82.1 24.0 6.0 50.0 366.8
Second Home 23.1 33.3 12.9 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.2

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-14-2018.xlsx]2-Prog_Occy
1.50
March 6, 2018
Table 13
WSN Estimated Resident Population and Second Home Peak Population
Large Medium Small Townhome Courtyard Mixed Use LIHTC Peak

Neighborhood Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment Population
Demographics
Resident Household Size 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.80 1.80
Second Home People/Unit 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
Second Home Annual Occupancy 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
Second Home Peak Occupancy 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Gateway
Yr. Round Population 0.0 92.3 51.8 121.5 54.0 10.8 90.0 420.3
Second Home Avg. Population 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second Home Peak Population 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Peak Population (Yr. Round + Second Homes) 0.0 92.3 51.8 121.5 54.0 10.8 90.0 420.3
Slate Creek
Emerald Overlook
Total
Total Peak Population (Yr. Round + Second Homes) 188.7 364.5 145.3 222.2 54.0 10.8 90.0 1,075.5

\\epsdc02\Proj\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-05-2018.xlsx]3-Prog_Pop
1.51
4. REVENUE ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes the analysis and calculations prepared to estimate General Fund revenues
generate by the proposed WSN development. Specific case study calculations are shown for the
4.0 percent sales tax and for property tax from the County Road and Bridge and Steamboat
Springs Area Fire Protection District. Other revenues are estimated using service population
multipliers and adjustments for correlations with growth and their nexus to new development.
Sales Tax
Sales tax is estimated using separate calculations for residents and second homeowners adjusted
for their different spending and occupancy characteristics. There is the potential that the WSN
could have a small grocery store or commercial center in the future; however, no revenues from
commercial development have been considered in this analysis. The WSN will generate sales tax,
as it is household spending that creates demand for retail which in turn generates sales tax. The
estimates used to estimate spending for full-time residents are detailed below.
Permanent Residents
• 35 percent of household income spent on retail based on an analysis of the Census of Retail
Trade.
• Previous work by EPS in 2009 estimated that Steamboat residents make 67 percent of their
purchases in Steamboat (spending capture). However, the growth of online retail since then
may have reduced the amount spent locally. To be conservative, spending capture has been
reduced by 10 percent to account for the growth of online retail. The City does not receive
sales tax from online purchases unless the business has a physical presence in Steamboat.
• Full-time residents are estimated to generate $328,000 in annual sales tax, shown in
Table 14.
Second Homeowners
Sales tax from second homeowners is estimated similarly with an adjustment for lower housing
occupancy and higher household incomes.
• 25 percent annual occupancy (owners and guests/friends).
• 90 percent spending capture.
• Average household income 150 percent above resident households.
• Second homes are estimated to generate $56,800 in sales tax, shown in Table 15.
1.52
March 6, 2018
Table 14
Full-time Resident Spending and Sales Tax Estimates

Neighborhood Factors Single FamilySingle FamilySingle Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment Total
Gateway
Yr. Round Households 0.0 41.0 23.0 54.0 24.0 6.0 50.0 198.0
Avg. Household Income $190,000 $110,000 $105,000 $90,000 $80,000 $90,000 $50,000
Total Income $0 $4,510,000 $2,415,000 $4,860,000 $1,920,000 $540,000 $2,500,000
% Spent on Retail 35.0% $0 $1,578,500 $845,250 $1,701,000 $672,000 $189,000 $875,000
% Spent in Steamboat [1] 57.0% $0 $899,745 $481,793 $969,570 $383,040 $107,730 $498,750
Sales Tax 4.0% $0 $35,990 $19,272 $38,783 $15,322 $4,309 $19,950 $133,625
Slate Creek
Avg. Household Income $200,000 $130,000 $125,000 $105,000 $0 $0 $0
Total Income $0 $6,706,700 $2,177,500 $2,954,700 $0 $0 $0
% Spent on Retail 35.0% $0 $2,347,345 $762,125 $1,034,145 $0 $0 $0
% Spent in Steamboat [1] 57.0% $0 $1,337,987 $434,411 $589,463 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax 4.0% $0 $53,519 $17,376 $23,579 $0 $0 $0 $94,474
Emerald Overlook
Avg. Household Income $200,000 $130,000 $125,000 $105,000 $0 $0 $0
Total Income $9,380,000 $2,090,400 $1,088,750 $0 $0 $0 $0
% Spent on Retail 35.0% $3,283,000 $731,640 $381,063 $0 $0 $0 $0
% Spent in Steamboat [1] 57.0% $1,871,310 $417,035 $217,206 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax 4.0% $74,852 $16,681 $8,688 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,222
Total Sales Tax $74,852 $106,191 $45,336 $62,361 $15,322 $4,309 $19,950 $328,322
[1] 2007 Economic Develompent Assessment by EPS estimated 67% spending capture. This has been reduced by 10% to account for the grow th in online retail.
H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-14-2018.xlsx]14-Resident_Sales_Tax
Table 15
Second Home Spending and Sales Tax Estimates

Neighborhood Factors Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment Total
Gateway
Second Home Households 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Avg. Household Income $190,000 $110,000 $105,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $50,000
Total Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
% Spent on Retail 35.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ann. Occupancy 25.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
% Spent in Steamboat 90.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax 4.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Slate Creek
Avg. Household Income 150% $300,000 $195,000 $187,500 $157,500 $0 $0 $0
Total Income $0 $4,954,950 $1,608,750 $2,182,950 $0 $0 $0
% Spent on Retail 35.0% $0 $1,734,233 $563,063 $764,033 $0 $0 $0
Ann. Occupancy 25.0% $0 $433,558 $140,766 $191,008 $0 $0 $0
% Spent in Steamboat 90.0% $0 $390,202 $126,689 $171,907 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax 4.0% $0 $15,608 $5,068 $6,876 $0 $0 $0 $27,552
Emerald Overlook
Avg. Household Income 150% $300,000 $195,000 $187,500 $157,500 $0 $0 $0
Total Income $6,930,000 $1,544,400 $804,375 $0 $0 $0 $0
% Spent on Retail 35.0% $2,425,500 $540,540 $281,531 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ann. Occupancy 25.0% $606,375 $135,135 $70,383 $0 $0 $0 $0
% Spent in Steamboat 90.0% $545,738 $121,622 $63,345 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales Tax 4.0% $21,830 $4,865 $2,534 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,228
Total Sales Tax $21,830 $20,473 $7,601 $6,876 $0 $0 $0 $56,780

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-14-2018.xlsx]15-Second Home Sales Tx
1.53
March 6, 2018
Property Tax
While there is no City general property tax, there are two other property tax mill levies that need
to be considered in the FIA: the Steamboat Springs Area Fire Protection District (SSAFPD) and
the County Road and Bridge mill levy.
The SSAFPD is a special district located outside the Steamboat City limits. The City’s fire and
ambulance service serves this area and the city limits. Property outside city limits but within the
SSAFPD pays a 7.000 mill property tax to the City for fire and EMS. If property is annexed into
the city, it is typically then de-annexed from the SSAFPD but the City will still have to serve the
property, resulting in an increase in service costs. This fire district revenue is not included in the
net fiscal impact calculation.
Routt County levies 7.850 mills for road and bridge maintenance. The City of Steamboat receives
approximately 30 percent of this revenue through the distribution formula.
Property tax is calculated by multiplying the estimated market values for each housing type by
the residential assessment ratio and the appropriate mill levy. Mill levies are expressed in dollars
per $1,000 of assessed value. The resulting annual property tax estimates are as follows,
illustrated in Table 16:
• Road and Bridge: $34,800 per year to Steamboat
• SSAFPD: When the WSN is de-annexed from the SSAFPD, the fire district forgoes $104,900
in annual property tax (not shown). The City will not receive this revenue either unless the
terms of the funding agreement are revised.
Table 16
Fire District and Road and Bridge property taxes

Gateway
# of Units 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
Avg. Market Value (per unit) $0 $446,000 $430,000 $357,000 $350,000 $400,000 $0
Assessed Value (Total) 7.2% $0 $32,112 $30,960 $25,704 $25,200 $28,800 $0
County Road and Bridge 7.850 ($/$1,000) $0 $10,335 $5,590 $10,896 $4,748 $1,356 $0 $32,925
To Steamboat 29.6% $0 $3,058 $1,654 $3,223 $1,405 $401 $0 $9,740
Slate Creek
# of Units 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145
Avg. Market Value (per unit) $0 $535,000 $516,000 $428,000 $0 $0 $0
Assessed Value (Total) 7.2% $0 $38,520 $37,152 $30,816 $0 $0 $0
County Road and Bridge 7.850 ($/$1,000) $0 $23,283 $7,583 $10,160 $0 $0 $0 $41,026
To Steamboat 29.6% $0 $6,888 $2,243 $3,006 $0 $0 $0 $12,137
Emerald Overlook
# of Units 70 24 13 0 0 0 0 107
Avg. Market Value (per unit) $825,000 $535,000 $516,000 $428,000 $0 $0 $0
Assessed Value (Total) 7.2% $59,400 $38,520 $37,152 $30,816 $0 $0 $0
County Road and Bridge 7.850 ($/$1,000) $32,640 $7,257 $3,791 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,689
To Steamboat 29.6% $9,656 $2,147 $1,122 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,925
Fire District 7.000 ($/$1,000) $29,106 $6,471 $3,381 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,958
Total
County Road and Bridge $9,656 $12,092 $5,018 $6,229 $1,405 $401 $0 $34,802

C:\Users\bduffany\Documents\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-02-2018.xlsx]15-PTax
1.54
March 6, 2018
Total General Fund Revenues
The annual revenues estimated from the sales and property tax case studies above are combined
with the remaining other annual General Fund revenues in this section. Most other General Fund
revenues are more minor in their amount and estimated with service population multipliers and
variability/correlation adjustments. Table 17 shows all General Fund revenues combined.
Appendix Table 1 shows the more detailed budget estimating factors.
• Total Revenues – Total General Fund revenues are estimated at $546,000 per year.
• Sales Tax – Sales tax from resident and second homeowner spending is estimated $385,000
per year and 70 percent of total revenues.
• Property Tax (Intergovernmental) – The County Road and Bridge mill levy contributes
$34,800 (6 percent) to the General Fund. Due to the funding structure of the SSAFPD, there
is $105,000 per year in forgone property tax upon annexation; neither the SSAFPD nor the
City receives this revenue (bottom of Table 17).
1.55
March 6, 2018
Table 17 General Fund Revenues
Project Nexus Factor Project Revenue Impact

Net
2016-2018 Percent Revenue Slate Emerald Slate Emerald
Revenue Item Average Estimating Method Variable Factor Gateway Creek Overlook Gateway Creek Overlook Total

Sales Tax 23,595,090 Case Study N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $133,625 $122,026 $129,450 $385,102
Vehicle Use Tax 877,530 Per Household 75% $120.41 198.0 97.2 71.7 23,841 11,698 8,632 44,170
Franchise Fees 1,124,090 Local Population + Commuting Employees 25% $18.95 420.3 218.6 161.3 7,966 4,143 3,057 15,167
Special Assessments 9,892 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Retail Marijuana State Tax 129,747 Peak Population 100% $4.31 420.3 370.7 284.6 1,810 1,596 1,226 4,632
Cigarette Tax 65,124 Peak Population 100% $2.16 420.3 370.7 284.6 909 801 615 2,325
TOTAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS $25,801,473 $168,151 $140,265 $142,980 $451,396
LICENSES AND PERMITS 71,273 Local Population + Commuting Employees 75% $3.61 420.3 218.6 161.3 $1,515 $788 $582 $2,885
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
County Road & Bridge 252,064 Case Study N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $9,740 $12,137 $12,925 $34,802
Mineral Lease 101,089 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Mineral Severance 115,865 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Highway Users Taxes 469,526 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Government Grants 777,686 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Additional Motor Vehicle Taxes 55,336 Per Household 25% $2.53 198.0 97.2 71.7 501 246 181 928
Other Intergovernmental 1,925 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL $1,773,491 $10,241 $12,383 $13,106 $35,730
Botanic Park Fees 14,708 Peak Population 100% $0.49 420.3 370.7 284.6 $205 $181 $139 $525
Park User Fees and Concessions 54,853 Peak Population 25% $0.46 420.3 370.7 284.6 191 169 130 490
Recreation Program Fees 503,045 Peak Population 75% $12.52 420.3 370.7 284.6 5,264 4,642 3,564 13,469
Open Space and Trails Fees 37,335 Peak Population 75% $0.93 420.3 370.7 284.6 391 345 264 1,000
Community Center and Mesa Schoolhouse Fees 22,816 Peak Population 50% $0.38 420.3 370.7 284.6 159 140 108 407
Tax Management Fees 55,904 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Transit Fees 189,092 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Planning Fees 143,062 Cost Recovery/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Police Department Fees 50,786 Cost Recovery/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Building Permit Fees 187,357 Cost Recovery/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
Howelsen Hill Ski Area Fees and Concessions 257,234 Per Capita 25% $5.06 420.3 218.6 161.3 2,129 1,107 817 4,053
Howelsen Hill Rodeo Fees and Concessions 38,697 Peak Population 25% $0.32 420.3 370.7 284.6 135 119 91 345
Howelsen Hill Ice Arena Fees and Concessions 666,740 Peak Population 25% $5.53 420.3 370.7 284.6 2,325 2,051 1,574 5,951
Tennis Center Fees and Concessions 41,574 Peak Population 25% $0.34 420.3 370.7 284.6 145 128 98 371
Fire/Emergency Medical Services 686,136 Peak Population 100% $22.78 420.3 370.7 284.6 9,572 8,442 6,481 24,495
Fire Deployment Fees 85,876 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $3,035,215 $20,516 $17,323 $13,266 $51,105
FINES AND FORFEITS 132,025 Peak Population 100% $4.38 420.3 370.7 284.6 $1,842 $1,624 $1,247 $4,713
OTHER No Nexus/Not Estimated 0% $0.00 N/A N/A N/A $0 $0 $0 $0
OVERHEAD FROM FUNDS & DEPARTMENTS 1,511,889 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 $0 $0 $0
TRANSFERS 1,419,146 No Nexus/Not Estimated N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $37,265,544 $202,266 $172,382 $171,181 $545,829
Fire Protection Services 814,555 Case Study N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29,360 36,584 38,958 104,902
Source: 2018 Budget Book
H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-15-2018.xlsx]9-GF_Rev_Impact
1.56
5. EXPENDITURES AND NET FISCAL IMPACT
This chapter shows the estimated annual operations and maintenance expenditures under the
General Fund. The Public Works department provided specific cost estimates to maintain the
public roads and storm water infrastructure. Other costs are estimated using the modified
average cost method described in Chapter 2, with adjustments for fixed and administrative
costs, and nexus to growth.
Public Works
Operations and Maintenance
The Public Works department provided the cost estimates in Table 18 to maintain the new roads
and storm drains built in the project. General maintenance costs include periodic maintenance
(e.g. crack sealing, sweeping, pothole repair) estimated at $3,000 per lane mile. Storm water
drainage was estimated at $2,000 for all phases and was allocated by EPS proportionally based
on lane miles. Snow removal operating are covered in the addition of two FTE and the other
average cost metrics in the Public Works department within the General Fund budget analysis.
A lifecycle replacement cost estimate for the asphalt surface is also included, estimated at $1.1
million 2017 dollars and $1.6 million in 15 years. Annualized at 5.0 percent interest, the
replacement cost is $73,000 per year.
The City estimates the need to hire three new FTE in Public Works to serve the WSN plus the
Sunlight and Overlook subdivisions that are likely to be completed soon. These staff are needed
as the result of a new snow plowing route that will have to be created to serve these
developments and additional street maintenance work. The staff cost attributable to the WSN is
allocated on the number of lane miles in the development, and represents 58.5 percent of the
impact or $65,850 per year, illustrated in Table 19 and Table 20. The total annual expenditures
for Public Works maintenance is approximately $173,000 per year (Table 18).
1.57
March 6, 2018
Table 18
Public Works Estimated Maintenance Costs
O&M Cost Factors Annual Costs

15 Yr.
Pavement Storm Pavement Pavement Storm 3.0 New
Phase Lane Miles Maint. [1] Water Maint. [1] Repl. Water FTE Total
Gateway 2.1 $3,000/ln. mi. $392/phase $6,300 $14,242 $392 $12,890 $33,824
Slate Creek 3.5 $3,000/ln. mi. $646/phase $10,395 $23,500 $646 $21,269 $55,810
Emerald Overlook 5.2 $3,000/ln. mi. $963/phase $15,489 $35,015 $963 $31,691 $83,157
Totals 10.7 $32,184 $72,757 $2,000 $65,850 $172,791
Pavement Lifecycle Cost

(Replace in 15 Years) [2] $1,570,000 $72,757
[2] $1.1 million in 2017 dollars, 3.0% inflation, 5.0% interest.

Source: Department interview s; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-05-2018.xlsx]12-PubWks_O&M
Table 19
West Steamboat Area New Lane Miles
Development Lane Miles Percent
Sunlight Subdivision 3.50 19.1%

Overlook Subdivision 4.10 22.4%
West Steamboat Neighborhood 10.73 58.5%
Total 18.33 100.0%
Source: Public Works; Economic & Planning Systems

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-02-2018.xlsx]13-WSB_Growth
Table 20
Public Works Staffing Allocation by Development
Cost incl.
Description FTE / Factors Benefits
(Streets Admin.)
Staff Positions
Full Time Operator 1.0 $56,250
Seasonal Operator 0.5 $28,125
Seasonal Operator 0.5 $28,125
Total 2.0 $112,500
WSN Allocation 58.5% $65,850

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-02-2018.xlsx]15-PubWks_Staff
1.58
March 6, 2018
Capital Costs
Public Works identified several new equipment items that would need to be purchased to serve
the WSN, Overlook, and Sunlight developments in West Steamboat. The cost attributed to the
WSN was allocated based on the number of lane miles in each development, and is estimated at
$474,000 as shown in Table 21. This is a large one-time cost; to minimize the impact on the
marketability of the development (the monthly cost to homeowners), these costs may need to be
amortized over time. Assuming a 15-year financing period at a 5.0 percent interest rate, the
annual cost would be $45,700 spread across the 450 homes. These capital costs are addressed in
Chapter 6, which evaluates one-time revenues, capital costs, and potential mitigation measures.
Table 21
Purchase
Description Factors Price
Cost Item
Sand Truck $180,000
Total $810,000

Total 100.0% $810,000
WSN Cost per Housing Unit 450 $1,054

Annual Cost [1] $45,700
[1] Amortized of 15 years at 5.0% interest.


1.59
March 6, 2018
Fire and Emergency Response
The Steamboat Springs Fire Department serves properties within city limits and within the
SSAFPD outside city limits. The purpose of the district is to contract for services with the City fire
and rescues department; it does not have its own emergency response staff. The SSAFPD pays
approximately $800,000 per year for this service. Therefore, to estimate the cost to serve the
incorporated city limits, this revenue reimbursement is deducted from the Fire Suppression/EMS
(direct services) budget of $3.5 million as shown in Table 22. This deduction results in a city
limits cost of $2.6 million. After applying the peak population factors to the WSN, the resulting
annual cost is $28,500 to serve the WSN. The Gateway phase has the highest service cost due to
the larger year-round population.
Parks
Neighborhood parks within the WSN are proposed to be maintained by the HOA, resulting in no
direct cost to the City. The growth in residents and second home population will however have a
modest impact on the larger citywide park system.
Parks is a large department with a budget of $5.5 million, or 15 percent of the General Fund.
However, many of the expenditures are largely fixed in nature such as operating and maintaining
the Howelson Hill complex and Tennis Bubble facilities. New residents will have a modest impact
on the maintenance to these facilities as well as trails and parks. Costs for Parks are modeled at
25 percent variable and 75 percent fixed. Recreation programs (childcare, other programming)
will experience a more direct impact and are modeled at 90 percent variable. The annual impact
to Parks is estimated at $67,600, shown in Table 23 with all other General Fund expenditures.
Transportation Services
Discussions with Transportation Services indicate that the WSN will not result in any new transit
stops or any service changes. There is the potential though to relocate the existing stop at the
KOA campground to the WSN Gateway entrance on Highway 40 and provide a better turnaround
than the existing KOA location which has operational benefits. While there is no direct impact
anticipated, a conservative estimate of the impacts of the increased population is included with
costs modeled at 25 percent variable to account for potential increases in station dwell times and
general impacts of growth. This is a conservative estimate because transit operations costs do
not vary strongly with ridership (i.e. most costs are fixed). The impact to transit is calculated at
nearly $30,000 per year as shown in Table 23.
Total General Fund Expenditures
After combining the case study cost estimates above with the other costs estimated through the
modified average cost method, the total General Fund expenditures are $600,000 as shown in
Table 23. The more detailed budget estimating factors and methods are shown in Appendix
Table 2. The largest impacts are to Public Works maintenance services at $173,000 per year
and Police at $130,000 per year.
1.60
March 6, 2018
Table 22
Fire Department Service Costs Adjusted to City Limits
Service Population Expenditures

2016-2018 Estimating Nexus Gross Percent Net Slate Emerald Slate Emerald
Expenditure Item Average Method Factor Exp. Factor Variable Exp. Factor Gateway Creek Overlook Gateway Creek Overlook Total
Fire/EMS Expenditures
Fire Services Administration $285,505 Peak Population 28,627 $9.97 25% $2.49 420.3 370.7 284.6 $1,048 $924 $710
Fire Prevention 116,578 Peak Population 28,627 $4.07 25% $1.02 420.3 370.7 284.6 $428 $377 $290
Fire Suppression /EMS $3,450,073 N/A N/A 90% N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A
Less Fire District Revenue -814,555 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A
City Limits Cost $2,635,518 Peak Population 28,627 $92.07 25% $23.02 420.3 370.7 284.6 $9,674 $8,531 $6,549
Total $11,150 $9,833 $7,549 $28,531
Source: 2018 Budget Book

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-05-2018.xlsx]13-FireEM S

1.61
March 6, 2018
Table 23 Total General Fund Expenditures

1.62
March 6, 2018
Net Fiscal Impact
The total estimated General Fund revenues and expenditures are combined in Table 24 to
calculate the net fiscal impact of the WSN. At buildout, the annual net fiscal impact of the
development is estimated at -$55,500 per year or -$121 per home. The Gateway neighborhood
has the least negative impact at -$4,400 per year because it has the highest land use and
population densities, thereby generating more revenue per acre, per lane mile of streets, and per
unit of service costs. With more second homes and lower land use densities, the other two
phases have larger negative impacts ranging from -$190 to -$212 per year per home.
Table 24
WSN Net Fiscal Impact
Emerald
Gateway Slate Creek Overlook Total
REVENUE
Sales Tax $133,625 $122,026 $129,450 $385,102
Other Taxes 34,526 18,238 13,530 66,294
TOTAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS $168,151 $140,265 $142,980 $451,396
LICENSES AND PERMITS $1,515 $788 $582 $2,885
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
County Road & Bridge $9,740 $12,137 $12,925 $34,802
Other Intergovernmental 501 246 181 928
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL $10,241 $12,383 $13,106 $35,730
Recreation Program Fees $5,264 $4,642 $3,564 $13,469
Transit Fees $0 0 0 0
Fire/Emergency Medical Services 9,572 8,442 6,481 24,495
Other Charges for Services 5,680 4,239 3,222 13,141
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $20,516 $17,323 $13,266 $51,105
FINES AND FORFEITS $1,842 $1,624 $1,247 $4,713
OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $202,266 $172,382 $171,181 $545,829
EXPENDITURES
General Government $27,860 $24,569 $18,862 $71,291
Legal and Municipal Court 7,353 6,485 4,979 18,817
Community Development 6,313 3,283 2,423 12,020
Transfers 12,986 11,452 8,792 33,231
Subtotal - General Gov't $54,513 $45,789 $35,056 $135,358
Transportation Services $11,127 $9,813 $7,534 $28,474

Public Works $51,197 $68,379 $93,142 $212,718
Police $53,135 $43,563 $33,303 $130,001
Fire/EMS $10,595 $9,343 $7,173 $27,110
Parks $26,068 $22,989 $17,649 $66,706
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $206,636 $199,876 $193,856 $600,367
NET FISCAL IMPACT -$4,370 -$27,493 -$22,675 -$54,538

Per housing unit -$22.07 -$189.61 -$211.92 -$121.20
H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-05-2018.xlsx]11-NFI
1.63
6. ONE-TIME REVENUES AND POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
In this Chapter, one-time revenues and costs are evaluated. There are two one-time revenue
sources that will accrue during construction of the project: the 1.2 percent excise tax and
building permits fees. The excise tax is one of the City’s primary sources for funding capital
projects. Building permit fees are largely a cost recovery fee to cover the cost of plan review and
inspection. This chapter also provides revenue mitigation estimates from a new mill levy on the
WSN and from a potential Real Estate Transfer Assessment.
Excise Tax
Excise tax was estimated from the projected market values and the City’s construction valuation
schedule. Homes with a valuation under $250,000 are exempt from the excise tax as part of a
policy of promoting workforce housing. As illustrated in Table 25, the project would generate
approximately $974,000 in excise tax over the buildout period. The Gateway neighborhood
would generate $146,000. We have assumed that the LIHTC apartments would be exempt from
the excise tax. Excise tax is deposited in the City’s capital projects fund for citywide capital and
major maintenance projects.
Table 25
Excise Tax Estimates

Neighborhood Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment Total
Gateway 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
Avg. Sq. Ft. 2,100 1,500 1,275 1,100 1,100 1,100 0
Valuation Cost/Sq. Ft. $198 $198 $145 $145 $145 $198 $0
Total Valuation $415,800 $297,000 $184,875 $159,500 $159,500 $217,800 $0 $1,434,475
Exempt? (under $250K) No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Excise Tax per Unit $4,990 $3,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.2% Excise Tax (X # units) $0 $146,124 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $146,124
Slate Creek 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145

Avg. Sq. Ft. 2,100 1,500 1,275 1,100 1,100 1,100 0
Total Valuation $415,800 $297,000 $252,450 $217,800 $217,800 $217,800 $0 $1,618,650
Exempt? (under $250K) No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Excise Tax per Unit $4,990 $3,564 $3,029 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.2% Excise Tax (X # units) $0 $274,428 $78,764 $0 $0 $0 $0 $353,192

Avg. Sq. Ft. 2,100 1,500 1,275 1,100 1,100 1,100 0
Total Valuation $415,800 $297,000 $252,450 $217,800 $217,800 $217,800 $0 $1,618,650
Exempt? (under $250K) No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Excise Tax per Unit $4,990 $3,564 $3,029 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.2% Excise Tax (X # units) $349,272 $85,536 $39,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $474,190
Total Excise Tax $973,507

C:\Users\bduffany\Documents\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-02-2018.xlsx]Excise_Tax

1.64
March 6, 2018
Building Permit Fees
Building permit fees are calculated on the same construction valuation as excise tax. The Gateway
neighborhood would contribute $229,000 in permit fees, as shown in Table 26. Slate Creek and
Emerald Overlook would pay approximately $250,000 in permits fees for a total of $721,000.
Building permit fees are a cost recovery revenue; the building permit fee pays for the cost of
review and inspection services. They are treated as a revenue neutral item.
Table 26
Estimated Building Permit Fees
Large Medium Small Townhome Courtyard Mixed Use LIHTC Total

Neighborhood Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment (Rounded)
Gateway 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
Total Valuation $415,800 $297,000 $184,875 $159,500 $159,500 $217,800 $0
Fee per unit $2,486.01 $1,887.26 $1,322.15 $1,194.26 $1,194.26 $1,488.09 $390.38
Total $0.00 $77,377.66 $30,409.45 $64,490.04 $28,662.24 $8,928.55 $19,519.00 $229,000
Slate Creek 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145

Total Valuation $415,800 $297,000 $252,450 $217,800 $217,800 $217,800 $0
Fee per unit $2,486.01 $1,887.26 $1,662.73 $1,488.09 $1,488.09 $1,488.09 $390.38
Total $0.00 $145,319.02 $43,230.93 $62,499.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $251,000

Total Valuation $415,800 $297,000 $252,450 $217,800 $217,800 $217,800 $0
Fee per unit $2,486.01 $1,887.26 $1,662.73 $1,488.09 $1,488.09 $1,488.09 $390.38
Total $174,020.84 $45,294.24 $21,615.46 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $241,000
Total Fees $721,000

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 02-05-2018.xlsx]BldgPermit
1.65
March 6, 2018
Fiscal Impact Mitigation
To mitigate the fiscal impacts of the WSN, the developer and City are discussing the possibility of a
property tax on new homes and a Real Estate Transfer Assessment (RETA). A RETA is a fee levied
on property sales within a specific area. It is implemented by covenant by the property owner(s)
or the developer. The revenue from these mechanisms would be used by the City to offset the
cost of providing City services and acquiring equipment needed to maintain the public roads. On
the property tax, the specifics have not been discussed or determined of whether a special taxing
district would need to be formed or if the City could implement the mill levy on its own.
Mill Levy
In the previous chapter, the net fiscal impact (annual city operations) was estimated at
-$55,500 per year or approximately -$121 per housing unit. This is the ongoing impact of
providing city services. The ongoing fiscal impact does not include capital cost impacts discussed
in this section.
Public Works identified several new equipment items that would need to be purchased to serve
the WSN, Overlook, and Sunlight developments in West Steamboat. The cost attributed to the
WSN was allocated based on the number of lane miles in each development, and is estimated at
$474,000, shown below in Table 27. This is a large one-time cost; to minimize the impact on
the marketability of the development (the monthly cost to homeowners), these costs may need
to be amortized over time. Assuming a 15-year financing period at a 5.0 percent interest rate,
the annual cost would be $45,700 spread across the 450 homes.
Table 27
Description Factors Cost
Cost Item
Sand Truck $180,000
Total $810,000

Total 100.0% $810,000
Amortized Annual Cost [1] $45,700
[1] Amortized over 15 years at 5.0% interest.

1.66
March 6, 2018
To spread the cost of annual City operations and the Public Works equipment cost, a mill levy
(property tax) is calculated on the total estimate assessed value in the development. The total
assessed value is $14.0 million, as shown in Table 28. A mill levy is calculated by dividing the
revenue needed (negative fiscal impact and Public Works costs) by the assessed value and
multiplying by 1,000. Mill levies are expressed in dollars per $1,000 of assessed value. The mill
levy estimated to mitigate the annual fiscal impact is 3.639. To finance the Public Works costs
over 15 years, a mill levy of 3.048 would be needed. The total mill levy is therefore 6.687 and
would generate an estimated $100,000 per year in revenue.
Table 28
Fiscal Impact Mitigation Mill Levy
Emerald
Factors Gateway Slate Creek Overlook Total Mill Levy
per $1,000
Total Market Value $58,254,000 $72,587,000 $77,298,000

Assessed Value 7.20% $4,194,288 $5,226,264 $5,565,456 $14,986,008
Mitigation
Fiscal Impact -$4,370 -$27,493 -$22,675 -$54,538 3.639 Mills
Public Works Capital --- --- --- -$45,678 3.048 Mills
Total -$4,370 -$27,493 -$22,675 -$100,216 6.687 Mills

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-05-2018.xlsx]M ill_Levy_Finance
The impact of the additional mill levy on homeowners is shown below in Table 29. The monthly
costs range from about $15.00 to $20.00 per month on most homes and just over $30 per
month on the highest priced homes in the Emerald neighborhood.
Table 29
Mill Levy Cost per Home per Year and Per Month

(Condo) (Condo)
Gateway
# of Units 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
Avg. Market Value (per unit) $0 $446,000 $430,000 $357,000 $350,000 $400,000 $0
Assessed Value (Total) 7.2% $0 $32,112 $30,960 $25,704 $25,200 $28,800 $0
Fiscal Impact Mitigation 6.687 ($/$1,000) $0.00 $8,804.42 $4,761.88 $9,282.05 $4,044.47 $1,155.56 $0.00 $28,048.39
Per Home per Year $0.00 $783.22 $1,346.09 $476.00 $1,050.00 $4,800.00 $0.00
Per Home per Month $0.00 $17.90 $17.25 $14.32 $14.04 $16.05 $0.00
Slate Creek
# of Units 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145
Assessed Value (Total) 7.2% $0 $38,520 $37,152 $30,816 $0 $0 $0
Fiscal Impact Mitigation 6.687 ($/$1,000) $0.00 $19,834.75 $6,459.59 $8,655.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,949.50
Per Home per Year $0.00 $500.26 $1,428.92 $733.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Emerald Overlook
# of Units 70 24 13 0 0 0 0 107
Assessed Value (Total) 7.2% $59,400 $38,520 $37,152 $30,816 $0 $0 $0
Fiscal Impact Mitigation 6.687 ($/$1,000) $27,805.72 $6,182.26 $3,229.80 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37,217.77
Per Home per Year $848.57 $1,605.00 $2,857.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $100,215.66

H:\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-05-2018.xlsx]Cost_Unit
1.67
March 6, 2018
Real Estate Transfer Assessment
A RETA could also be implemented to provide additional mitigation revenues. The RETA modeled
here assumes that homes are sold by a builder(s) to homebuyers. If homebuyers purchase a lot
and then contract with a custom builder, the RETA will only capture the lot sale and not the
finished home sale. This could be the case for some of the highest priced homes in the Emerald
Overlook neighborhood. This analysis also includes revenue from the initial sales from builders to
buyers; some RETAs do not include the initial sales but only the resales
With a 1.0 percent RETA, the initial home sales to the first residents are estimated at $2.1
million over the buildout period as shown in Table 30. If this is spread over 10 years, a rough
estimate, the annual revenue would be $208,000 per year. At buildout, the annual RETA from
resales would be $146,000 per year at an average turnover rate of 7.0 percent.
Table 30
Real Estate Transfer Assessment Revenue
Large Medium Small Townhome Courtyard Mixed Use LIHTC Totals/

Neighborhood Factors Single Family Single Family Single Family and Duplex Apartment Apartments Apartment 1.0% RETA
Gateway
# of Units 0 41 23 54 24 6 50 198
Avg. Market Value $0 $446,000 $430,000 $357,000 $350,000 $400,000 $0
Total Market Value $0 $18,286,000 $9,890,000 $19,278,000 $8,400,000 $2,400,000 $0
Intital Sales RETA 1.0% $0 $182,860 $98,900 $192,780 $84,000 $24,000 $0 $582,540
Annual Sales (Buildout) 7.0% turnover $0 $1,280,020 $692,300 $1,349,460 $588,000 $168,000 $0
Resale RETA 1.0% $0 $12,800 $6,923 $13,495 $5,880 $1,680 $0 $40,778
Slate Creek
# of Units 0 77 26 42 0 0 0 145
Total Market Value $0 $41,195,000 $13,416,000 $17,976,000 $0 $0 $0 $725,870
Intital Sales RETA 1.0% $0 $411,950 $134,160 $179,760 $0 $0 $0 $725,870
Annual Sales (Buildout) 7.0% turnover $0 $2,883,650 $939,120 $1,258,320 $0 $0 $0
Resale RETA 1.0% $0 $28,837 $9,391 $12,583 $0 $0 $0 $50,811
Emerald Overlook
# of Units 70 24 13 0 0 0 0 107
Total Market Value $57,750,000 $12,840,000 $6,708,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $772,980
Intital Sales RETA 1.0% $577,500 $128,400 $67,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $772,980
Annual Sales (Buildout) 7.0% turnover $4,042,500 $898,800 $469,560 $0 $0 $0 $0
Resale RETA 1.0% $40,425 $8,988 $4,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,109
Total RETA
Initial Sales [1] $577,500 $723,210 $300,140 $372,540 $84,000 $24,000 $0 $2,081,390 $208,139/yr.
Resales $40,425 $50,625 $21,010 $26,078 $5,880 $1,680 $0 $145,697
[1] Initial RETA w ill accrue one time during the buildout. At a rough estimate of 10 years, the revenue is $208,000 per year.
C:\Users\bduffany\Documents\173101-Steamboat WSN Fiscal\M odels\[173101-WSN FIM 03-02-2018.xlsx]RETA
At buildout, the annual RETA revenues are estimated to cover the negative fiscal impact
(-$55,500) even if turnover rates drop significantly. The initial sales RETA would also cover the
$474,000 in Public Works capital costs. These costs are roughly one quarter of the total initial
RETA. In terms of phasing, this would allow revenue to accrue before the full project is built
possibly allowing Public Works to serve the initial phase before needing to purchase all of the
new equipment.
RETA revenues can be more volatile than property tax because they vary more with market
cycles. For this reason, some mountain communities use RETA to fund capital projects rather
than ongoing services.
1.68
Appendix
1.69
March 6, 2018
Appendix Table 1 General Fund Revenues and Estimating Methods
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 Appendix

1.70
March 6, 2018
Appendix Table 2 General Fund Expenditures and Estimating Methods
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 Appendix

1.71
Vision Document
Submitted to Submitted by Concept Plan by

the City of Steamboat Springs Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd. Wolff • Lyon Architects
City Council Breckenridge • Frisco • Boulder, Colorado Boulder, Colorado
March 20, 2017 www.brynngrey.com www.wlarch.com
C opyright © 2018 • B rynn G rey P artners , L td . • W olff •L yon A rchitects • A ll R ights R eserved
1.72
Table of Contents
I. I ntroduction 1
II. C ommunity C ontext 2
III. C reating P lace 3
IV. D evelopment P lan 7
V. H omes 9
VI. C ommunity E ngagement 14
VII. T he S teamboat L ook 15
W e s t S t e a m b oat N e i g h b o r h o o d s © Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd
1.73
I. Introduction
Past, Present and Future
Steamboat Springs is a great community, and great communities founded in 1960, solidified Steamboat’s tourism economy. Today,
are built around neighborhoods, and ultimately, the locals that while still grounded in its ranching and recreation roots, the
live in them. economy is evolving into one that includes start-ups, location-
neutral jobs, and generally, a workforce that is more steady and
Downtown Steamboat Springs is the epicenter of life in year-round than a typical resort town that ebbs and flows with
Steamboat and is, by design, a traditional neighborhood with a seasons, weather, and trends.
main street commercial corridor, alive with local businesses and
activity; homes of all sizes and architectectural styles, many of Steamboat is growing. The Colorado Department of Local
them classic Colorado bungalows with small lots, alleys, front Affairs (DOLA) estimates that Routt County’s population will
porches, and farmhouse elements; and community gathering double in the next 30 years. The community is at an inflection
places, like the library, the hot springs pool, City Hall, and point in its history where it can decide how Steamboat Springs
local churches. The Yampa River and Howelsen Hill complete should grow. We have seen this in many of Colorado’s finest
downtown as an authentic, and totally unique place. mountain communities — uncontrolled sprawl and locals
being pushed farther and farther out of the communities that
Mountain Village and its surrouding development areas, they support. Is this the future? Or, does Steamboat embrace
are central to resort life in Steamboat, providing homes to locals with the land that is left, to ensure that it preserves the
visitors, second home owners, and locals. With a world-class character, heritage and surrounding landscape that make it so
ski area, luxury hotels and condominiums, golfing, trails, and special to begin with?
shopping, Mountain Village embodies Colorado’s recreation and
tourism-driven economy — while still maintaining a uniquely The West Steamboat Neighborhoods depict a
“Steamboat” look and feel. vision for preserving community character, celebrating and
continuing Steamboat’s stream of history, and seizing an
Heritage Park, Steamboat II, Silver Spur on the west side of opportunity for controlled, thoughtful, and sustainable growth
Steamboat; Walton Creek, Whistler, and the South Valley area for the future.
on the south side of the city; Fairview, Pioneer Village, and West
End within the city — these and others all shape how and where Over the last two years, Brynn Grey and the City of Steamboat
people live in Steamboat. As these neighborhoods become built Springs have analyzed the topics of: Water Resources,
out and their values rise, locals are left with fewer and fewer Sewer, Parks/Trails/Open Space, Sustainability, Roads/
options to own (or even rent) a place of their own within the Transit, and Fiscal Impacts. Each topic has been complex and
Steamboat community. Many are faced with long commutes included a discussion of tradeoffs, balancing objectives such as Carl Howelsen, courtesy of History Colorado
to Oak Creek, Hayden and Stagecoach; which, especially community benefit and fiscal responsibility. The West Steamboat
for families, is complicated and not a long-term solution for Neighborhoods Vision specifies how this development will
sustaining a workforce and future leaders of the community. contribute to the housing supply in Steamboat, specifically to
local working families. Destiny is not a matter of chance; but a matter of choice. It is not a thing to
Steamboat was built upon the ideas and perserverence of
trailblazers like James Crawford (founder and first Mayor) and
be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.
Carl Howelson (Norweigen ski jumping pioneer). The ski area, - Williams Jennings Bryan
1.74 1
II. Community context
West Steamboat Neighborhoods: Community Context
The development pattern of Steamboat Springs closely follows
its natural features, topography and setting. The Yampa River Strawberry Park Area
is the backbone, running through Downtown and the oldest
parts of the city; Emerald Mountain, Howelsen Hill, and Mount its
Lim
Werner form the majestic backdrops of the city while also Ci
ty
creating natural barriers to growth; and ranch and protected

open lands on the south and west side of the city reinforce the
pastoral setting so special to Steamboat.
Airport / Copper
From a birds-eye view, there are several primay areas of density Ridge
within Steamboat Springs, including: Downtown Steamboat

Springs, the Mountain Village area, and the West Steamboat
Sanctuary
area. Downtown is the heart & soul, with historic homes that set West West End
Curve Blue Sage
Steamboat Pioneer Village
Downtown
the architectural tone of development, vibrant local businesses Core
Ci
Trail Steamboat Springs
ty
and restaurants, and of course the Yampa River flowing Yam R iver
Lim
ary pa
nd
its
u
right through. There is no doubt why home and land values th
Bo
row Silver Spur
Downtown are soaring; people near and far want the experience an
G
Ski Area
Urb Fairview
that Downtown offers.
Steamboat II
Angler’s
The Mountain Village area is the resort epicenter and drives Heritage
Park
winter and summer recreation-based tourism. It also anchors
Mountain Village
the many subdivisions and condominium developments that
provide a diverse array of options for vacation properties,
40
rentals, and locals housing, should they choose to live in an area
without a critical mass of year-round residents.
Whistler
The West Steamboat area is currently anchored by the Emerald Mountain
Steamboat II, Silver Spur and Heritage Park neighborhoods, Walton Creek
which function as predominantly locals’ neighborhoods towards

the middle to high end of the market for single family homes.
They are lower density with larger lots than found elsewhere
in Steamboat. The West Steamboat area is currently part of the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), which is where the South Valley Area
community decided growth should occur in the future in order

Routt National Forest
to prevent sprawl, preserve natural buffers surrounding town,
and encourage efficient progression of infrastructure (West 1 mile
Steamboat Springs Area Plan).
The West Steamboat Neighborhoods are within the West

Steamboat area and the UGB, adjacent to City infrastructure (a
water main currently runs through the property), and a short
distance from the Yampa River Core Trail.

2
1.75
III. Creating Place
Neighborhoods
The overall goal is to build three traditional neighborhoods in Provide Community Housing for a Variety of Residents
G ood N eighborhoods N eed ...
West Steamboat, each with a sense of community and place. Then
each neighborhood’s unique character will be defined by six compelling
An appropriate mix of housing types creates diversity within the
neighborhood and is more responsive to the needs of different
T he P attern L anguage 1 S afe and P lentiful C onnections
objectives: kinds of residents, including families, singles, the elderly, or
On the following pages, our design approach is further A sensitive local road and path network will help encourage
other special populations. Good quality affordable housing is
Provide Steamboat Affordable Home Ownership expressed through a simple pattern language which entails how walking and promote a sense of community among residents.
created without compromising other community objectives.
Opportunities the overall vision will be accomplished through the site and An extensive and pleasant path system will benefit all residents,
Affordable housing maintains community diversity and vitality. Encourage Sustainable Development building design. particularly children. Therefore:
The neighborhood can be sustainable and of positive benefit This language is not intended to be fixed and unchangeable
It gives people a chance to live in the community where they • Design the proposed street sections to ensure that the street
to an existing city when its concept and site planning are
work, to serve on boards, to volunteer in their kid’s classes, and but rather a flexible and evolving expression of what all those design and travel lane widths will naturally enforce desired
based on certain principles. The housing is located close to
to take full measure in “reinventing where they live and work”. involved in the creation of the West Steamboat Neighborhoods design speeds.
the community it serves, helping to eliminate long commutes
Providing affordable housing near existing city centers enhances seek to accomplish. Many of the principles found here are
which create problems of pollution and traffic congestion.
the entire community’s quality of life by eliminating commuting echoed in the City’s West Steamboat Springs Area Plan and the • Ensure that vehicular connections are plentiful, dispersing
Having a location within walking distance of a mix of uses
and reducing traffic congestion, noise, and pollution. It also Community Development Code’s Traditional Neighborhood Design zone traffic throughout the neighborhoods. But make sure that
encourages residents to leave their cars at home when possible.
enhances the quality of life of each neighborhood resident. Time Sustainability is encouraged through an appropriate selection district, the policy documents that guide and regulate growth in cut-through trips to desinations outside the neighborhood is
spent in the car can be redirected. A two car family might be of building materials that use renewable or recycled products. West Steamboat. discouraged.
able to get by with one. Providing affordable housing is only half The goals of water and energy conservation, as well as solar We anticipate that the first neighborhood will follow these • Carefully evaluate the street design to make sure that there
the puzzle. access and design are promoted through careful site and building patterns. Then with each additional neighborhood, refinement is a simple and efficient system for snow plowing and
design. Finally, buildings are arranged in a compact community will be repeated, ensuring that a dynamic process maintains
Create a Sense of Community within each removal, but do not let this objective negatively impact the
which will facilitate mass transit alternatives and leave more land
Neighborhood the core values and timeless design, while responding human and pedestrian scale of the neighborhood.
available for parks and open space.
Opportunities for neighborly interaction and public life are to unimaginable changes in technology, architecture,
Preserve and Enhance Neighborhood Connections to transportation, sustainability, and construction. • Make paths that are charming and inviting and accessible in
encouraged through ensuring the well being of the residents
the Core Trail and Trail System all seasons.
and the vitality of the neighborhood. This sense of community is The proposed design solutions are derived from our analysis of
Trails are the connective tissue of Steamboat Springs, a.k.a. the site, our understanding of Steamboat’s history, climate, and • Enhance connections to the Core Trail, the Steamboat
fostered by a variety of design responses, such as front porches
Bike Town USA.Year-round, recreationists and commuters can
and community greens. Although many of these may seem mountain-ranching character, and our extensive experience in Springs trail network, and other recreational trails on
walk, bike, and ski on the extensive trail system found within
small in themselves, over time and together they will produce creating community through sensitive site and building design. neighboring public lands.
the city and on adjacent public lands. The West Steamboat
significant results. Neighborhoods plan preserves and enhances these important
Establish a True Sense of Place by Respecting the trails. The trails continue to work as they originally evolved by
Physical Design Patterns of Traditional Neighborhoods remaining the most attractive route from point ”A” to point
“B”. The trails are enhanced by being surfaced and widened so
The relationship between dwellings, the mix of uses, and the
as to accommodate frequent use and by creating pedestrian
neighborhood’s friendly and walkable human scale all contribute
interest along the path through the use of portals, landscaping
to a memorable place. These qualities are created and even
and thoughtful orientation of adjoining structures. In addition,
enhanced by understanding the old principles of neighborhood where the trails cross the bike path, there will be improvements
design, through careful evaluation, and where necessary to minimize the danger of crossing the bike path during periods
inventing new patterns. of busy times.
Gates, kiosks, and fencing are integral parts of the open space system.These amenities encourage use and create a strong sense of place.

3
1.76
Creating Place continued
• Look for opportunities to tie neighborhood paths into

primary paths throughout within the entire community.
2 A V ariety of R esidents , B uildings , &
U ses to M ake T hem W hole
3 G ood N eighborhoods N eed ...
B uildings with W elcoming F aces
• Consider good lighting solutions along major pedestrian
routes to increase comfort and safety for kids and all Many new developments are so homogeneous that they are Our best traditional neighborhoods often contain houses that
residents, while respecting the rural environment and dark unable to provide the variety and choice that leads naturally to a present a pleasant and sociable face to the street. The houses
skies. lively and spirited neighborhood. A variety of residents in terms address the street in ways that encourage residents to stop and
• Along major pedistrian routes, create memorable settings at of income, family size, and household composition require spend time with their neighbors. The homes work together to
path intersections, corners, and community facilities, which different building types and home sizes. This variety will lead to create unified streetscapes, often by sensitively repeating certain
allow residents to orient themselves to their surroudings. streetscapes that are charming and alive, as well as promote a design elements. Therefore:
Use sculpture and whimsy to create these settings. more enduring and diverse sense of community. Therefore:
• For any neighborhood community buildings, consider • Create ample porches as extensions of the living space of
arcades, recessed entries, and storefronts to provide greater • Provide variety by allowing each building to respond each home and place them so that the residents can observe
shelter along their edges. sensitively to its specific site conditions in terms of view, sun and monitor the life of the street or path. A second level porch on the high side of the street provides a commanding view
and lot size. and a friendly face to the street.
• Consider patterned crosswalks and/or neckdowns at • Consider placing garages and parking areas behind buildings
important pedestrian crossings. • Consider carefully each building’s relationship to the street, off alleys wherever possible to insure that cars and garages • Place small embellishments in special places to create
• Provide convenient access to public transit and make the other buildings, and the path system where appropriate. do not dominate the streetscape. individuality, interest, and the “suprise” of finding something
place to wait comfortable and alive. Place these at the • Use different building types that are naturally suited to • Make lots short in depth so that attached garages are close special.
crossroads of routes with important pedestrian interest. specific home sizes, floor plans and configurations. to the alley edge, helping reduce winter snow shoveling. • Provide articulation to the building facade and grouping
• Identify and test possible neighborhood-related uses such as • Where lots have garages accessed from the street, make of buildings to create visual interest and positive outdoor
greenhouses and community gardens. sure that they are wide enough to insure that garages never space.
occupy more than 40% of the lot frontage. • Make sure corner buildings address both streets whenever
• Provide specific amentities for the needs of special
populations where appropriate. • Design a cascade of roofs so that where possible the possible.
buildings come down to a humanly scaled one-story at the
• Create variety, without signficant cost increases, by using
edges.
different facade treatments on buildings with identical floor
plans. • Direct the fronts of buildings to the public rights of way,
including parks and common areas.
• Consider a range of designs with floor plans that address
a home for a single person, a couple, a small family, and a • Make the front yards large enough to have some small
large family. shrubs and flowers, but place the porches quite close to the
streets and paths to encourage neighborly interaction and
View from an upper level porch of a hillside home. Buildings placed close to the make the most effective use of each lot. Single-car garage doors on hillside homes do not dominate the face to the
sidewalk with ample porches encourage casual interaction and create a sense of street. By partially covering the driveway or inporporating the garage into the
sefety. • Provide a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet to building porch, as shown on the right, the impact of the garage can be further reduced.
walls and allow open proches to encroach a maximum of 5
feet into the setback.
1.77 4
• Where possible, preserve established plantings on the site providing alleys to avoid conflicts with pedestrians and • Be sensitive to any off-site impacts that new development
W ell -D efined P ublic R ealms
and incoporate them into the site design, particularly as
park or path amenities.
improve the quality of the streetscape. might have and help devise feasible solutions for their
mitigation.
• Shape the proposed alleys into pedestrian lanes by giving
• Look for possibilities to create terminated vistas, by placing them the same design attention as streets, and look for • Create buildings that are adaptable to current and future
Over the past fifty years, the average American’s expectations solar and photovoltaic technologies.
community buildings or special structures at T intersections opportunities with the careful placement of trees, shrub
in regard to housing have increased dramatically and in general
or at the ends of pedestrian paths. plantings, secure trash storage, single car garages, and fences • Improve building envelopes, increase insulation, and
we have done a pretty good job of fulfilling them. However,
to shape the space and create character and scale. implement systems that monitor envelope construction and
in doing so we have ignored the importance of the spaces in • Explore if a community building incorporating a
performance.
between. We have forgotten how to create well-defined and greenhouse is desirable and economically feasible. • Design more intimate sheltered paths that provide alternate
engaging public outdoor rooms, whether they be streets, Explore what activities it might contain and place it to get routes for residents and children in particular. • Design buildings with efficient floor plans to allow the
alleys, parks, or public squares. We can do better. In addition, maximum involvement with other nearby amenities like a greatest benefits to be derived from the smallest building
the site presents a significant opportunity to shape and define neighborhood park. • Establish the separation between public and private realms areas, saving initial construction costs and reducing energy
Steamboat’s western gateway. Therefore: with low fencing, walls using stones from the site, and/ costs over time.
• Create calm streets with a well designed planting strip using or landscaping to encourage residents to take good care of
• Increase the amount of south-facing window area and
native or high altitude species, insuring that the edges of the their own outdoor rooms.
• Place small parks throughout the neighborhood and look for reduce glazing on north elevations, within the constraints of
street are a pleasant gathering place for residents.
opportunities to front buildings and their porches towards • Provide stair seats, benches, and places to sit close to paths, this type of density.
them. • Minimize the number of curb cuts along the street by sidewalks, parks, and community buildings. • Take advantage of common walls, where possible, to reduce
initial costs and save energy over time.
• Consider creating a focal point for each West Steamboat
Neighborhood, such as a tower or windmill that helps to • Research and select materials that conserve resrouces and
shape its identity. are recycled from waste products, such as compressed fiber
hardboard, oriented strand board, cellulose insulation, and
“trex” decking material.
5 G ood N eighborhoods S hould ...
P romote S ustainability • Include energy efficient heating equipment and appliances
to lower operating costs (e.g. programmable thermostats,
Many local governments and concerned citizens have become tankless domestic hot water heaters, L.E.D. bulbs, and
increasingly committed to creating policies that promote Energy Star appliances).
sustainability on many levels. How we use the land and how • Ensure good indoor air quality by choosing appropriate
we design new developments is crucial to fulfilling this goal. solvent free products, indoor air quality systems, and
Providing new housing for year-round residents who work exhaust fans where necessary.
within the community makes good sense. West Steamboat
• Use water conserving plants, reduced turf areas, and
Neighborhoods’ density is a good start towards ensuring
irrigation technologies to reduce water consumption.
sustainability. Other ideas and devices should be explored and
considered. Therefore: • Provide community garden facilities, for residents to grow
their own plants and food on-site.
• Explore ways to eliminate or minimize potential car trips • Use vegetated swales to filter stormwater runoff, and direct
through public transportation. these towards the wetlands to enhance the quality of wildlife
• Provide pedestrian paths and trails that connect with and habitat while maintaining stormwater on-site.
A “ranch cluster” celebrates Steamboat’s heritage through community buildings resembling historic barns and focal elements such as a windmill. enhance Steamboat’s existing trail network.

1.78 5
• Name the streets and lanes after historical places, stagecoach

G ood N eighborhoods S hould ...
6 R espect T he H istorical C ontext
W hich they are a P art
of and railroad lines, to reflect Steamboat’s past.
• Reinforce the visual unity of each block through the

repetition of similar building types and scale placed
Steamboat Springs has a rich Native American and ranching
consistently in relation to the street.
heritage that can provide an inspiration for contemporary design
and planning solutions. The architecture can play an important • Identify and maintain established plantings on the site.
role in revealing history and character. Therefore: • Consider low rail fences and native stone walls to define the
yard edge in front of residences in a low-key manner.
• Consider using simple architectural forms inspired and • Create an alignment and spacing pattern of street trees to
influenced by those found in Steamboat Springs. give character along each street.
• Employ a modified grid of streets and alleys with short • Use vertically-oriented window proportions similar to those
walkable blocks as the main organizing structure of the found in the area’s historic buildings.
neighborhood.
• Provide alleys so that garages and parking areas do not

dominate the streetscape or turn the principal building G ood N eighborhoods in S now C ountry
facade into a garage-house. 7 S hould ...U se H igh C ountry D esign
S olutions
High altitude design constraints necessitate specific practical

responses consistent with long winters, cold temperatures
and large amounts of snow. However, since there are other
seasons besides winter, responding to these concerns should be Gable roofs oriented away from pedestrian access points and snow stacking areas help manage snow in the high country.
tempered and balanced by other design objectives whose goals
are to create a desirable human scale and promote a sense of • Design the street R.O.W. wide enough to allow for • Make use of appropriate building materials and details that
adequate pavement with drive over curbs and ample protect the building edges from contact with snow and
community and place. A good neighborhood should find the
planting strips on each side, while not too wide that it moisture.
balancing point that addresses community design concerns
discourages a pedestrian environment. Snow can be pushed
and employs design solutions that are sensitive to the alpine • Plan pedestrian paths along the edges of the parks. Keep
and stored on these ample edges in winter.
environment. Therefore: these paths accessible in winter and provide benches for
• Create designated snow stacking zones for alley snow at the seating with good southern exposure directly adjacent to
• Provide small setbacks (less than 10’) between the edge of intersection of each street and alley. Corner lots can access the path.
the public right-of-way and the front porch allowing for their garages or parking areas idrectly from the side street
convenient access and reduced snow shoveling during the rather than the alley. • Design the roofs so that snow does not pile up in front of
winter, but with enough space for some shrubs, flowers and access areas.
• Allow for adequate snow storage between buildings by
possibly a low fence. placing them 10-12 feet apart or by attaching them together.
• Provide 32 feet between garages along alleys to allow for • Arrange steep gable roofs so that snow will slide off into
storage and room for plows to maneuver. Eliminate poles areas away from pedestrian traffic where there is adequate
The Mesa Schoolhouse represents classic Steamboat building form.
and other obstructions within the alley R.O.W. room for the snow to remain.
1.79 6
IV. Development Plan
Unit Mix and Building Types
Open Space
Large Sm/ Green Hillside Town- Courtyard LIHTC Mixed WSN
Neighborhood Lot Med Lot Court SF Duplex home Apartment Apart- Use Totals
SF SF SF ment Apartment
Gateway
0 17 24 23 16 38 24 50 6 198
80% workforce
Slate Creek 0 77 0 26 26 16 0 0 0 145
Emerald 70 2 22 13 0 0 0 0 0 107
Totals 70 96 46 62 42 54 24 50 6 450
Emerald
Sm/Med Lot Single Family
Slate Creek Large Lot Single Family
Riparian
Corridor
Hillside Single Family

Tot Lot
Elementary
Co
re Multi-use
Fields
Tr
ail
Tr ail
Co
ow
Fl
n
n ne
ctor
Picnic Alley-Loaded Duplex

Area
Gloria Gossard Pkwy

Garden/ Apartments
Greenhouse
Open Space
Daycare
Bouldering
Rock
Gateway Townhomes
Road
Watchtower Road
© Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd

ek
Cre
Slate
Dog Play Meadow
So
US Hwy 40 ft
Su
rfa
ce
W e s t S t e a m b oat N e i g h b o r h o o d s © Brynn G©rey Partners

Brynn Grey , LPartners, Ltd
td
1.80 7
Development Plan: Gateway Neighborhood
Steamboat Ski Area Emerald Mountain
G at e way Single Famiy

& Duplex
Neighborhood
Townhomes Grocery
Hwy 40
Slate Creek Road
Mixed Use
Daycare Facility
Looking SE
1.81 8
V. Homes
The following homes represent a sampling of models that we have built in other neighborhoods, which would serve as a starting point upon which to base WSN models. Architectural details, colors, interior finishes and floor patterns would be designed specifically to
meet the character of the Steamboat community and needs of its homeowners. They include models within the categories: Townhome, Duplex, Deed Restricted Single Family, and Market Single Family.
Townhome Willow Duplex
• 3 Bed / 1.5 Bath • 3 Bed / 2 Bath
• 1,147 sf • 1,287 sf, 129 sf deck, 25 sf storage
• All bedrooms on the second floor, optional 3/4 bath in master bedroom, plus ample storage: large • Open and sizable living space on the main level, main level bedroom and full bath, and plenty of storage.
closets, crawl space and attic. Tons of windows and large front porch.

9
1.82
Homes continued
Hawthorne Deed Restricted Single Family Oak Deed Restricted Single Family
• 3 Bed / 2 Bath • 3 Bed / 2 Bath
• 1,544 sf, 223 sf deck, 15 sf storage • 1,469 sf, 266 sf deck, 18 sf storage
• Kitchen with an island and open living area for entertaining. The main level Master Suite offers a large walk-in closet, • Sizable mudroom, a spacious, open living area with large bedrooms and an expansive front porch.
and upstairs bedrooms for kids and guests. The mudroom features a large closet for gear.

10
1.83
Homes continued
Aspen Deed Restricted Single Family Cottonwood Deed Restricted Single Family
• 3 Bed / 1.75 Bath • 3 Bed / 2 Bath
• Open main level for entertaining or accommodating the whole family. There is additional storage for all gear, and large • Front and back storage for gear, strollers, and bikes. Family designed floorplan with all the bedrooms on the upper
windows to bring in the Colorado sunshine and mountain views. level, and a large kitchen. The Master Suite has a large walk-in closet and a convenient second level laundry.

11
1.84
Homes continued
Juniper Deed Restricted Single Family Ponderosa Market Single Family
• Ideal for a growing family with all the bedrooms on the 2nd level including the Master Suite with 2 walk-in • Open floor plan, optimal storage space, and large wrap around porch. With four bedrooms, there is plenty of room
closets. The lower level features a large kitchen with pantry and open floor plan for entertaining, additional for a growing family or for guests.
storage, plus a welcoming front entry and efficient mudroom for gear.
1.85 12
Homes continued
Interior Features
• Energy Star Certified: Our homes save approximately 20%
on utility bills, offering substantial long-term savings.
• Smart Smoke Detector: Monitor smoke detector from your

phone for peace of mind while on the go.
• Smart Thermostat + Lighting: Control home

temperature and lighting from anywhere through the Lutron
app.
• Bold Storage Solutions: Designed to optimize interior and

exterior storage space.
• Sound System: Exceptional whole home audio controlled

directly from a phone.
• Media/AV Center + HUB: Cat5 to HuB + RG6 with

whole home smart technology options.
• Customization: Choices from several designer finishes and

semi-custom upgrades to personalize each home.
Residents
• Active 25-44 year olds, and 52% kids

“This community has naturally attracted people who share the “Never before have we enjoyed the kind of community the
• 2-income households making ~$100,000/year values that the neighborhood represents: family, friends, safety, Wellington neighborhood offers. We walk down the street and
• Many married with average of 1 child the environment, and recreation.” – Susie C., resident, mother say hello to neighbors. We have met lifelong friends who will
of three, entrepreneur, snowboarder be around to watch our child grow into adulthood. It is an
• Already living in the community, many first time buyers immeasurable and invaluable addition to our lives.” – Ellen R.,
• Jobs include “work-anywheres”, local business owners, mother, school director & mountain biker
“That’s one of the greatest points about Wellington. It’s full of
recreation and service industry, government locals who have kids. The neighborhood was designed in such
a way that there is never any real traffic that flows through
• 26% of households have a kid under the age of 5
the main streets; thus at any given time the sounds of children
• 50% dog owners playing safely in the streets can be heard.” – Tyler H., Father,
husband, tech wiz and XC skier
• Most important factors in buying a home in this
neighborhood: kid-friendly, convenient to work, access to
recreation

13
1.86
VI. Community Engagement
O verview Each Focus Group opened with asking participants to “imagine
Over the last two and a half years, Brynn Grey Partners has owning your own home in Steamboat....”. Brynn Grey then
spent time to get to know the Steamboat Springs community. In walked participants through several activities to get feedback
particular, in the last six months, our team has reached out to a on the neighborhoods as a whole and land planning; on home
diverse array of individuals, stakeholder groups, businesses, and design and technology; and finally, architectural elements and
community leaders to understand the needs of the community defining the “Steamboat Look” (see next page). At the end of
as a whole, and what potential residents would like to see in each session, our notes were generated into a word cloud,
their neighborhood and homes. symbolizing the words that were said most frequently (see
image).
F ocus G roups Comments and themes that emerged throughout the Focus
In January and February of 2018, Brynn Grey conducted a series Groups included (by category):
of five Focus Groups, to gain feedback on a variety of levels:
from business leaders who face challenges housing employees, Neighborhood & Land Planning
to employees themselves who struggle to find that next step
• Core Trail Connector is of great importance to nearly all
in home ownership in Steamboat, to people that want to learn
participants of the Focus Groups
more about WSN and the future of Steamboat. In total, we met
with nearly 100 people across a wide range of perspectives.
• Proximity to recreation is a key reason for staying in
Steamboat
Home Design & Technology Architecture
• Most people fell in love with Steamboat and have found a
• Technology is a given (Sonos, Nest) • Wide ranging opinions on architecture and what defines the
way to stay (many great stories of how they got here)
Steamboat Look
• Sustainbility features must be balanced with affordability
• New development for locals is long overdue
(e.g. passive solar fantastic, but adding solar panels might • Most agreed that Steamboat is not “cookie cutter”, is diverse
add too much cost) and eclectic with a variety of forms and natural materials,
• Steamboat is all about family and kids, the future
with rustic elements or historic touches
• Garages and storage are extremely important, geared
• Open spaces, trails, greens, and outdoor living spaces are
towards active lifestyles and mountain families • Porches (front and back) and outdoor space, including
highly important to residents
private back yards and shared greens, were widely
• Having flexible space and adaptable floorplans for families supported
• Neighborhood commercial would add convenience, alleviate
and visitors very important
traffic, and help define a sense of community in WSN
• Mountain modern was most well-liked as a look to consider
• Ensure that homes are suitable for location-neutral jobs for WSN, with simple lines, rustic materials, ample
• People would love a grocery store or market on the west
(office / flex space; high speed internet) windows and outdoor spaces
side of town
• Light and outdoor living space; bring the outdoors in • Looking to the future, the most popular homes were
• Support for an Elementary School, with questions about
who it would serve and traffic modern takes on tried-and-true forms, such as a modern
farmhouse that consistently got the highest applause
• People would like to see carriage houses above garages
1.87 14
VII. The Steamboat Look
The Steamboat Look is a modern take on tried-and-true forms, with simple lines, rustic materials, ample light
and outdoor space, and nods to Steamboat’s ranching and Alpine recreation heritage. The modern farmhouse
shown in the upper right recieved the highest applause from Focus Group participants, who liked its contrasting
colors and materials, its efficient design and indoor/outdoor space, and its elegent simplicity. Front porches
and a variety of roof forms and home types, shown above, were also popular elements that people would like
to see in WSN.
Inspiration can be found throughout Steamboat, from the historic schoolhouse, the iconic barn, and Howelsen
Hill; as well as in new designs in mountain neighborhoods.
1.88 15
WATER DEMAND REPORT
DRAFT
West Steamboat Neighborhoods
Fish Creek Falls
Prepared by:
R. Scott Fifer, P.H.
Ashley Moffatt, P.E.
Resource Engineering, Inc.

909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
(970) 945-6777
January 27, 2017
Job No. 1491-1.0
1.89
TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4
1.1 West Steamboat Neighborhoods ...................................................................................... 4
2.0 WATER DEMAND AND CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE ............................................. 5
2.1 Domestic In-house Water Demands ................................................................................. 5
2.2 Irrigation Water Demands ................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Summary, WSN Water Demands...................................................................................... 7
3.0 ABILITY OF CITY’S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM TO MEET DEMAND ....................... 7
3.1 Fish Creek Water Availability ............................................................................................. 8
3.2 Fish Creek Water Treatment Plant Capacity ................................................................... 8
3.3 Timing of increased Water Supply Demand .................................................................. 10
4.0 REDUNDANT WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................ 11
5.0 WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT MITIGATION ....................................... 11
6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 12
1.90
TABLE 1:
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Water Demand and Consumptive Water Use Analysis

DRAFT
West Steamboat Neighborhoods 14
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map

West Steamboat Neighborhoods 15
FIGURE 2: Water Supply and Demand Summary

Fish Creek Sustainable Yield 16
FIGURE 3: Build-Out Water Demand

With and Without West Steamboat Neighborhoods 17
FIGURE 4: Existing Water Quality Treatment

With and Without West Steamboat Neighborhoods 18
FIGURE 5: Redundant Water Supplies

Fish Creek Forest Fire 19
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1: Consumptive Use Calculations for Lawn Irrigation

TR-21 Spreadsheet (Colorado Division of Water Resources)
APPENDIX 2: Technical Memorandum

Validating the Projected WSN Water Demands
1.91
1.0 INTRODUCTION DRAFT
The following Water Demand Report was prepared in support of Brynn Grey’s proposed West
Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) residential development. The development is located
adjacent to the City of Steamboat Springs (City) on property that borders the northwesterly
boundary of existing city limits. As such, the proponents of WSN are seeking to annex the
property and its associated development into the City. The City’s municipal code at Secs. 25-
77(b) and (d), requires that any applicant requesting an extension of municipal water service
must prepare and submit a Water Demand Report detailing the water supply requirements for
the development. Specifically, the municipal code requires that the report address the
following items:
1. An analysis of the annual and monthly water requirements and consumptive uses
for each type of use including estimates of peak day summer and winter demands.
2. An analysis of the ability of the city’s municipal water supply to meet the identified
demands of the development.
3. A demonstration that the new development does not interfere with service to
existing customers and will not interfere with the city’s ability to meet reasonably
anticipated future water supply needs.
4. Water conservation measures that may be implemented within the development.
1.1 West Steamboat Neighborhoods
The WSN development will consist of a mixture of 400 multiplex and single family residential
units, plus 50 apartment units, constructed on approximately 160 acres of land located 2.5
miles west of downtown Steamboat Springs, CO, as shown in Figure 1. Of the 400 residential
units, 100 units will be dedicated to employee housing and the remaining 300 units will be free
market homes. In addition to these multiplex and single family homes, the WSN development
will also include a 50 unit apartment complex that will consist of a mix of one, two and three
bedroom residences. In order to support the water demands associated with these units, the
WSN development will need to connect to the City’s potable water supply and distribution
network. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water trunk line that bisects the WSN project
site. This line currently provides water to the Steamboat II Metropolitan District, which serves
the neighboring communities of Steamboat II, Heritage Park and Silver Spur Estates.
1.92
2.0 WATER DEMAND AND CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE DRAFT
The water demands and associated consumptive water use for the WSN development include
water supplies that are necessary to support domestic in-house uses and lawn irrigation uses.
Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) calculated the water demands and consumptive
use estimates for each type of use, using standard procedures commonly used in the water
supply planning profession.
2.1 Domestic In-house Water Demands
The domestic in-house water requirements were calculated based upon the assumption that
each multiplex and single family residential unit will be occupied, on average, by 3.5 residents
and that each resident would require 80 gallons of water per day (gpcd). Further, it was
assumed that all 400 residential units would be occupied 100% of the year. Using these
assumptions, each multiplex and single family home (SFH) would require approximately 280
gallons of water per day (gpd) (3.5 residents * 80 gpcd * 100 % of days). This demand can
also be expressed in terms of Equivalent Residential Units (EQR). For the WSN development,
each SFH is equivalent to 1.0 EQR, meaning that 1.0 EQR is equal to 280 gpd for in-house
use. Accordingly, the multiplex/single family residential units at WSN represent 400 EQR of
demand.
The in-house water demand for the individual apartment units will be less than the demand
for each SFH. The overall living space for the apartment units will be smaller and as such,
there will be, on average, fewer residents occupying each unit. The domestic in-house water
requirements associated with the apartment units, therefore, were calculated based upon
assumption that each unit will be occupied, on average, by 2.5 residents. The same per capita
water demand (80 gpcd) and occupancy (100% year-round) assumptions that were used to
determine the domestic water requirements for each SFH were also used to calculate the
domestic water requirements for each apartment unit. As a result, the in-house demand per
apartment unit is equal to 200 gpd (2.5 resident * 80 gpcd * 100% of days). This daily rate is
equivalent to 0.71 EQR per unit (1.0 EQR = 280 gpd). Accordingly, the in-house water use
associated with the 50 apartment units is equivalent to 35.5 EQRs (50 units x 0.71 EQR/unit).
The total in-house, domestic water demand for the WSN development is therefore equal to
435.5 EQR (400 EQR, Multiplex/SFH units + 35.5 EQR, Apartment units), which is equal to
136.7 acre-feet (AF) of water annually. This total annual amount is summarized monthly in
1.93
DRAFT
Column 1 of Table 1 attached. Of this amount, most of the water will be returned to the river
as treated effluent. In the water resource planning profession, it is common to assume that if
water is treated at a central wastewater treatment plant, 5% of the water diverted for in-house
use will be consumed. Thus, of the 136.7 AF diverted, 6.8 AF will be consumed and the
balance, 129.9 AF will be returned to the Yampa River as treated effluent. The total annual
portion of the in-house water supply that will be consumed (6.8 AF) is summarized monthly in
Column 7 of Table 1 attached.
2.2 Irrigation Water Demands
Lawn irrigation water use at the WSN development will be limited. On average, it is assumed
that each EQR of development will irrigate approximately 4,000 square feet of lawn or a total
area of 40 acres. In order to determine the irrigation water requirements for the WSN
development, RESOURCE evaluated the expected consumptive use (evapotranspiration) for
lawn grass at the WSN site and then adjusted the calculation upward to account for irrigation
efficiencies.
The generally accepted methodology of calculating evapotranspiration varies by crop type.

The State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources (DWR) recommends that for bluegrass
consumptive use is most accurately calculated using the Blaney Criddle Method as Modified
by Pochop. As such, RESOURCE used the Modified Blaney Criddle Method as outlined by
the Soil Conservation Service in Technical Release No. 21 to calculate bluegrass
consumptive use. Consumptive use coefficients and altitude correction factors were taken
from the Pochop, Borrelli and Burman Paper titled “Elevation – A Bias Error in SCS Blaney
Criddle Estimates” (ASCE, 1984). This methodology requires the user to input data regarding
the temperature, precipitation, and elevation of the irrigated land. The necessary climatic
parameters for irrigation at WSN was calculated using data available from the Steamboat
Springs weather station (USC00057936).
Based upon the Blaney Criddle method described above, the evapotranspiration rate of
bluegrass at WSN is calculated to be 1.43 AF per acre of irrigation. Thus, an irrigated area
of 40 acres will consume approximately 57.1 AF of water annually (40 acres x 1.43 AF/acre
CU). Assuming an irrigation efficiency of 85%, the irrigation demand at WSN is calculated to
be 67.2 AF annually. The total annual water requirement for lawn irrigation (67.2 AF) and the
portion of that supply that is consumed (57.1 AF) are summarized monthly in Columns 2 and
1.94
DRAFT
8 of Table 1 attached. A copy of the Blaney-Criddle TR-21 work sheet used to develop the
described water demands is provided in Appendix 1.
2.3 Summary, WSN Water Demands
As summarized in Table 1, the development will require approximately 203.9 AF of water

annually for its combined domestic and irrigation uses. Of this amount, 136.8 AF (67%) will
be required for domestic use and 67.2 AF (33%) will be required for lawn irrigation. Moreover,
the peak monthly water demand is calculated to be 0.33 MGD or 0.51 cfs during the summer
season between May and September and 0.12 MGD or 0.19 cfs during the winter period.
The water demand information summarized above was reviewed for “compatibility” in the
context of prior water use studies relied upon by the City. In this case, the projected demands
were compared to similar analyses and historic water use patterns as contained in the City’s
Water Supply Master Plan (Stantec 2008). The review suggests that the water use projections
developed in this study are reasonable and consistent with the results of similar, prior studies.
The results of this review are summarized in a technical memorandum provided in Appendix
2.
3.0 ABILITY OF CITY’S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM TO MEET DEMAND
The source, size, and reliability of the City’s water supply system was described in some detail
by Mr. Jon Snyder during his September 16, 2016 water resources technical presentation to
City Council. This information provided the basis for the following assessment regarding the
ability of the City’s water supply system to meet existing and future water demands, including
demands associated with the WSN project.
The City’s primary source for its municipal water supply originates from direct flow and storage
water rights located in Fish Creek. Moreover, the City, in cooperation with the Mt. Werner
Water District, is in the process of developing additional supplies from shallow infiltration
galleries located adjacent the Yampa River. These supplies, however, are modest in yield
compared to Fish Creek and are considered by the City to be its back-up, “redundant” water
supply should the Fish Creek source fail due to adverse impacts associated with forest fires
or other unforeseen system problems. As a general rule, the yield from City sources on Fish
Creek is considered to be the maximum available supply for planning purposes, and that the
1.95
DRAFT
City is trying to develop sufficient yield from its Yampa River infiltration galleries to provide
sufficient back-up supply to meet the total in-house water demands of its service area.
3.1 Fish Creek Water Availability
In assessing the availability of water from the Fish Creek water supply system, RESOURCE
utilized the following information and water use assumptions provided by City staff.
• The City’s sustainable water supply associated with its Fish Creek system is
estimated to be 4.05 MGD.
• The City assesses its existing and future water needs based on average daily
water demands occurring during peak month periods. Water usage on peak days
(weekend watering during the summer) can be higher but for relatively short
durations.
• During the summer, the City’s average peak month demand is 2.3 MGD. During
the winter, the average peak month demand is 1.0 MGD.
• The City estimates that its average summer peak month water demand at build-
out, including infill within city limits, will total 3.6 MGD.
• There is currently 1.3 MGD that is undeveloped within the City’s projected water
demand at build-out (3.6 MGD future – 2.3 MGD existing).
• To assess when the future water demands might occur, the City believes that an
assumed growth rate of 50 units (50 EQR) per year is reasonable for planning
purposes.
Based upon the above assumptions, the City’s sustainable Fish Creek water supply system
exceeds its future peak month water demands at full build-out, plus the build-out demands
associated with the WSN development. There exists 1.75 MGD of excess capacity over
existing demands of which 1.3 MGD will be required to meet the water demands of the City’s
once infill is built-out (4.05 MGD – 2.3 MGD). The balance, 0.45 MGD, could be applied to
meet the needs of WSN. As outlined in Section 2.1 above, the peak month demand of the
WSN project is calculated to be 0.33 MGD. A graphic showing the available Fish Creek water
supply and the City’s existing demands is shown in Figure 2, attached.
3.2 Fish Creek Water Treatment Plant Capacity
The City’s municipal water supplies are treated at the Fish Creek Water Treatment Plant
(FCWTP) operated by the Mt. Werner Water District (District). RESOURCE examined the
treatment capacity of the City/District FCWTP to assess its ability to meet future demands.
1.96
DRAFT
This assessment relied upon the following information and water treatment assumptions
provided by City staff.
• The FCWTP currently has 10 filter trains that can each treat 0.75 MGD, for a total
treatment capacity of 7.5 MGD.
• Due to system backwash requirements, it is assumed that one filter train could be
out of service at any one time.
• The City owns 6 of the 10 filter trains. One filter train, however, is currently leased
to the District at an annual rate of $50,000/year.
The City’s existing treatment capacity associated with its 5 filter trains is approximately 3.75
MGD (5 x 0.75 MGD). This represents ½ of the plants total capacity as the District also utilizes
5 filter trains (total plant capacity = 7.5 MGD). For planning purposes, however, it is assumed
that one of the 10 total filters (City and District) is offline due to periodic backwash procedures.
Therefore, the effective treatment capacity that the City currently has access to is 4.5 filter
trains (5 filters – (1 backwater filters / 2)). This equates to 3.375 MGD which exceeds the
City’s existing water demands of 2.3 MGD as outlined in Section 3.1 above. The existing
treatment capacity, however, is less than the City’s projected peak month water demand of
3.6 MGD. This potential shortfall, though, does not factor in the City’s 6th filter train, which can
be reclaimed from the District when the City’s demand for water increases beyond its current
treatment capacity at FCWTP. At that point in time, the City’s effective treatment capacity
would approach 4.125 MGD (5.5 effective filters x 0.75 MGD). Thus, for planning purposes,
there is potential to serve an additional 1.825 MGD of demand over existing conditions (4.125
MGD – 2.3 MGD). This future treatment capacity is shown graphically in Figure 2, attached.
The City’s ability to effectively treat up to 4.125 MGD at the FCWTP suggests that it has
capacity to meet both its projected build-out demand of 3.6 MGD, plus the 0.33 MGD
associated with the WSN project, for a total demand of 3.93 MGD.
The above estimates utilize the City’s expected peak month water demands, not a peak day
demand that might occur during a weekend at the height of irrigation. Still, these estimates
are judged reasonable for broad planning purposes. The higher peak day demands are of
relatively short duration and can be met, in part, from the City’s municipal treated storage
supplies. Moreover, the effective treatment capacity at the FCWTP is higher than 4.125 MGD
that is stated above, as it assumes that one filter train at the FCWTP is out of commission at
all times due to backwash. In actual practice, however, it is RESOURCE’s understanding that
1.97
DRAFT
any one filter train that is undergoing backwash conditions is only inoperable for limited
periods of time (15 to 20 minutes). During the summer period, backwash is required at the
plant 12 to 14 times per day depending upon stream turbidity (Jay Gallagher, email 2009).
Accordingly, one filter is lost for only 3 to 5 hours per day, not 24 hours as assumed in this
study.
3.3 Timing of increased Water Supply Demand
This analysis assumes that the City’s demand for water will increase at a rate equivalent to
50 EQRs per year. As discussed in Section 3.1, the City’s future additional water demand
necessary to serve its infill build-out capacity is approximately 1.3 MGD. The number of EQR
units associated with this water use can be derived based on the same procedures that were
used to calculate the water demands for WSN. WSN’s peak summer month water demand
was calculated to be 0.33 MGD for 435.5 EQRs (includes in-house use and lawn irrigation).
Assuming a similar relationship for the City’s future demand, each MGD of increased water
use will support 1,320 EQRs.1 Thus, approximately 1,716 additional EQRs can be expected
to be developed as infill within the City (1.3 MGD x 1,320 EQRs). At an assumed growth rate
of 50 EQRs per year, the City will reach build-out in the year 2052, approximately 35-years
from now (1,716 EQRs / 50 EQRs per year).
The growth rate for the WSN development has previously been projected to be somewhere
between 25 to 40 units per year (Brynn Grey, October 25, 2016). Assuming an average of 30
units per year, WSN would reach built-out in the year 2032, approximately 15-years from now
(450 EQRs / 30EQRs per Year). The annual water requirements through these periods of
growth are shown in Figure 3 attached. In addition, this figure also displays the combined
water demand, which can then be compared to the sustainable water supply available from
Fish Creek to examine the impact both with and without the WSN development.
The same growth projections were used to evaluate the impact WSN would have on the City’s
treatment capacity at the FCWTP. As shown in Figure 4 attached, without the WSN project,
the City will have to reacquire its 6th filter sometime around the year 2045. With service to
WSN, the time frame is accelerated by approximately 8 years; to 2037.
1 . ,
. ,
0.757 / 1,000 .
1,320 /
10
1.98
4.0 REDUNDANT WATER SUPPLY DRAFT
The City’s has long recognized the need to develop a redundant source of water supply,
should the Fish Creek Plant go down due to forest fire or other reasons. At least two options
are currently being examined: (1) to construct a new surface water treatment system utilizing
Yampa River diversions from a location upstream of its wastewater facility discharge, and (2)
to construct a new surface treatment system utilizing Elk River diversions. Either alternative,
or a combination of the two, will require a major investment by the City. In the interim, it is the
City’s goal to develop the water supply from its existing and future Yampa River infiltration
galleries at a level sufficient to provide water to meet the “in-house” demands of its residents.
The City staff has calculated the existing in-house peak month water demand to be
approximately 1.0 MGD. If approved, WSN would add to this demand. At the growth rates
assumed in this study, ten years from now (2027), the City’s in-house demand would be 1.3
MGD. With the WSN development on line, the demand would increase to 1.35 MGD, an
approximate 4% increase. The expected in-house water demands of the City over time, both
with and without the WSN development are shown in Figure 5.
5.0 WATER CONSERVATION AND DROUGHT MITIGATION
In 2013, Civil Design Consultants (CDC) prepared a Water Conservation and Drought
Mitigation Plan for the then proposed Steamboat 700, a large residential project proposed for
the same property as the WSN. The CDC plan was thoughtful and comprehensive and
therefore, those portions of the CDC plan that are applicable to the WSN project are adopted
for this project (see list below).
• Minimize the amount of water needed on the property by designing public green
spaces, streetscapes, and commercial areas to incorporate xeriscaping
techniques, low water-use landscapes, and drought-resistant vegetation.
• Issue design guidelines in order to limit the amount of turf areas allowed in public
landscapes and allow bluegrass turf only where necessary in recreational areas.
• Issue design guidelines in order to specify the use of high efficiency irrigation
systems and evapotranspiration controllers in all irrigated areas.
• Issue design guidelines in order to stipulate water-efficient fixtures and appliances,

including toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucets in both commercial and
residential buildings.
11
1.99
•
DRAFT
Support water main distribution and service line leak identification.
• Support dissemination of information regarding water use efficiency measures,

through public education, customer water audits, and water-saving
demonstrations.
• Support water rate structures and billing systems designed to encourage water
conservation.
• Support regulatory measures designed to encourage water conservation.
• Support incentives to implement water conservation techniques including rebates

to customers to encourage the installation of water conservation measures.
• Support steps to develop, implement, monitor, review, and revise a City-wide

Water Conservation Plan that outlines how the City will improve water efficiency
over the long term.
• Support steps to develop, implement, monitor, review, and revise a City-wide

Drought Mitigation Plan that addresses the curtailment measures and actions
needed in an emergency to prepare, monitor, and mitigate the effects of a
forecasted or existing drought or equipment malfunction.
• Support development of an on-going public education and awareness program

related to water supply, water conservation and drought preparedness.
6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The sustained yield of the City’s Fish Creek water supply system exceeds the identified peak
month build-out demands of the City and the WSN development combined. Providing water
service to WSN should not interfere with the City’s ability to meet reasonably anticipated future
water supply needs. These conclusions are based upon the following study findings:
1. Fish Creek’s sustainable water supply is estimated to be 4.05 MGD which exceeds
the combined total of the City’s projected infill build-out demand plus WSN. The
combined demand = 3.95 MGD.
2. The City’s effective treatment capacity at the FCWTP is currently 3.375 MGD with
ability to increase to 4.125 MGD with utilization of its 6th filter train. This is
sufficient to meet both, its projected infill build-out demand of 3.6 MGD, plus the
0.35 MGD associated with the WSN project (total demand = 3.95 MGD).
3. The City will be required to reacquire its 6th filter train from the District with or
without WSN. Providing water service to WSN, however, will accelerate the
timeframe necessary to acquire the filter by approximately 8 years.
12
1.100
4. DRAFT
The City will need to develop a redundant water supply for its residents with or
without WSN. The City’s near term goal is to provide sufficient redundant supplies
that would at minimum, provide City residents with adequate in-house water
supplies. At full build-out, WSN would add approximately 0.12 MGD to this
demand.
5. It is RESOURCE’s understanding that Brynn Grey, proponents for WSN, have

proposed to contribute approximately $4.8M in fees, over and above the City’s
existing tap fee requirements. These additional fees are intended to help address
the City’s redundant water supply issues.
Respectfully,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
R. Scott Fifer, P.H. Ashley N. Moffatt, P.E.

Hydrologist Water Resource Engineer
13
1.101
DRAFT
Table 1
Water Demand and Consumptive Water Use Analysis
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (400 Single Family Homes, 50 Apartments)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Monthly Water Demands Monthly Consumptive Use
In-House Irrigation Total Percent Average Average In-House Irrigation Total
Month Demand Demand Demand Annual Daily Rate Daily Rate Month Consumption Consumption Consumption
(AF) (AF) (AF) Demand (cfs) (MGD) (AF) (AF) (AF)
Jan 11.6 0.0 11.6 5.7% 0.19 0.12 Jan 0.6 0.0 0.6
Feb 10.5 0.0 10.5 5.1% 0.19 0.12 Feb 0.5 0.0 0.5
Mar 11.6 0.0 11.6 5.7% 0.19 0.12 Mar 0.6 0.0 0.6
Apr 11.2 0.0 11.2 5.5% 0.19 0.12 Apr 0.6 0.0 0.6
May 11.6 5.0 16.6 8.1% 0.27 0.18 May 0.6 4.2 4.8
Jun 11.2 17.5 28.7 14.1% 0.48 0.31 Jun 0.6 14.8 15.4
Jul 11.6 20.0 31.6 15.5% 0.51 0.33 Jul 0.6 17.0 17.6
Aug 11.6 16.0 27.7 13.6% 0.45 0.29 Aug 0.6 13.6 14.2
Sep 11.2 8.7 19.9 9.8% 0.34 0.22 Sep 0.6 7.4 8.0
Oct 11.6 0.0 11.6 5.7% 0.19 0.12 Oct 0.6 0.0 0.6
Nov 11.2 0.0 11.2 5.5% 0.19 0.12 Nov 0.6 0.0 0.6
Dec 11.6 0.0 11.6 5.7% 0.19 0.12 Dec 0.6 0.0 0.6
Total 136.7 67.2 203.9 Total 6.8 57.1 63.9
67.0% 32.9% 100.0% Percent of Total Demand
NOTES: (1) In-house (domestic) water demand for SFH = 400 residential units with 3.5 residents/unit that each need 80 gpd (400 units * 280 gpd/unit = 112,000 gpd).
In-house (domestic) water demand for Apartment Units = 50 units with 2.5 residents/unit that each need 80 gpd ( 50 units * 200 gpd/unit = 10,000 gpd).
(2) Irrigation water demand = 4,000 sq. ft per EQR or 40 acres (4,000 sq. ft * 435.5 EQR = 1,742,000 sq. ft.). Evapotranspiration demand was calculated for bluegrass
using the methodology set forth in the S.C.S. Manual TR No. 21, Revised September 1970. An irrigation efficiency of 85% was assumed.
(3) Total Demand = In-house Demand (Col. 1) + Irrigation Demand (Col. 2).
(4) Percent Annual Demand = Monthly Demand / Total Annual Demand.
(5) & (6) Average Daily Rate = Monthly Demand converted to Daily Rate, Expressed in cubic feet per second (Col. 5) and million gallons per day (Col. 6).
(7) In-house (domestic) consumptive water use = 5% of In-house water demand, meaning 5% of the treated water supply is consumed.
A factor of 5% is a commonly accepted engineering standard for homes connected to central wastewater treatment facilities.
(8) Irrigation consumptive water use = 85% of irrigation water demand, meaning that 85% of the treated water supply is consumed.
(9) Total consumptive water use = In-house Consumption (Col. 7) + Irrigation Consumption (Col. 8).
Water Use Assumptions Daily Water Use Summary AF/Day CFS MGD
80 gpcd, In-house (domestic) use only Avg Demand = 0.6 0.28 0.18
400 Total SFH Units * Avg Demand (Peak Summer) = 1.0 0.51 0.33
3.5 average Residents per SFH * Avg Demand (Peak Winter) = 0.4 0.19 0.12
50 Total Apartment Units ** Peak Day Demand = 1.3 0.68 0.44
2.5 average Residents per Apartment (avg unit = 2 bedrooms)
5.0% In-House Consumptive Use Rate (WTP) * The City assess its water needs based on peak month water use.
85.0% Irrigation Efficiency ** Peak Day = Average Daily Demand x 2.4 (Table 2-13, Stantec 2008).
1.102
(Approximate
Neighborhoods
(Approximate Boundary)
Boundary)
West Steamboat
Slate Creek
Yampa River
Downtown
Steamboat Springs
Source: X
Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Approximate Annexation Area,
1.103

DRAFT
Miles Date: 2017-01-27

RESOURCE File: 1491-1.0
E N G I N E E R I N G, I N C. Drawn: ANM/ABS
909 Colorado Avenue / Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
®
Voice: (970) 945-6777 - Web: www.resource-eng.com 0 0.5 1 2 Approved: RSF

DRAFT
DRAFT
Figure 2
Water Supply and Demand Summary
Fish Creek Sustainable Yield
Physical Water Availability Treatment Capacity
5.000 5.000
2 2
Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
4.000 4.000
4 4
1.750 MGD = 2,310 EQR's 1.825 MGD = 2,409 EQR's

3.000 3.000
2.000 2.000
CAPACITY
DEMAND
DEMAND
SUPPLY
1.000 1.000
1 3 1 3
0.000 0.000
Notes: (1) Fish Creek Sustainable Yield: 4.050 MGD Notes: (1) Existing Treatment Capacity (4.5 Trains): 3.375 MGD
(2) Yampa River Infiltration Gallery: + 0.365 MGD (2) Future Expansion (1.0 Train): + 0.750 MGD
Available Physical Water Supply: 4.415 MGD Planned Treatment Capacity (5.5 Trains): 4.125 MGD
* Infiltration Gallery Considered a Redundant Supply
(1) Fish Creek Sustainable Yield: 4.050 MGD Planned Treatment Capacity (5.5 Trains): 4.125 MGD
(3) Existing Peak Month Water Demand: - 2.300 MGD (3) Existing Peak Month Water Demand: - 2.300 MGD
(4) Remaining Available Supply: 1.750 MGD (4) Remaining WTP Capacity: 1.825 MGD
1 MGD = 1,320 EQR 1 MGD = 1,320 EQR
1.104
DRAFT
Figure 3
Build-Out Water Demand
With and Without West Steamboat Neighborhoods
Development Rate
50 EQR's per Year = Infill within the City of Steamboat Springs
30 EQR's per Year = West Steamboat Neighborhoods Development
Combined Development = City Infill (50 EQR/Yr. for 35 Years) + WSN (30 EQR/Yr. for 15 Years)
5.000
4.000 Fish Creek Sustainable Yield = 4.050 MGD
3.000
2.000
1.000
2032 2052
0.000
City of Steamboat Springs West Steamboat Neighborhoods

ASSUMPTIONS
1.300 MGD Will Reach Build-Out 0.330 MGD Will Reach Build-Out
Future Demand = Build-Out Demand =
1,716 EQR in 35-Years 435.5 EQR in 15-Years
* Future (MGD) = Build-Out (3.6 MGD) - Existing (2.3 MGD) * Build-Out (MGD) = 0.330 MGD
* Future (EQR) = 1,320 EQR / 1.0 MGD * Build-Out (EQR) = 1,320 EQR / 1.0 MGD
* City Infill Timeline = 1,716 EQR / 50 EQR per Year * WSN Timeline = 435.5 EQR / 30 EQR per Year
1.105
DRAFT
Figure 4
Existing Water Quality Treatment
Development Rate
5.000
4.000
PLANNED WTP Capacity = 4.125 MGD
EXISTING WTP Capacity = 3.375 MGD
3.000
2.000
1.000
2037 2045
0.000
City of Steamboat Springs FISH CREEK WATER TREATMENT PLANT

ASSUMPTIONS
1.300 MGD Will Reach Existing 4.5 Trains

Future Demand = Existing WTP Capacity:
1,716 EQR Capacity in 28 Years 3.375 MGD
5.5 Trains
Planned WTP Capacity:
West Steamboat Neighborhoods 4.125 MGD
0.330 MGD Will Reach Existing
Build-Out Demand =
435.5 EQR Capacity in 20 Years
1.106
DRAFT
Figure 5
Build-Out Water Demand, In-House Use Only
Development Rate
2.000
Potential Fish Creek Redundant Supply = 1.750 MGD
1.500
2037
1.000
2027
0.500
0.000
PEAK MONTH WINTER IN-HOUSE DEMAND In-House Demand Comparison

EXISTING City of Steamboat Springs 1.000 MGD Combined Development 1.241 MGD
ASSUMPTIONS
City of Steamboat Springs + 0.565 MGD Infill within the City - 1.161 MGD
PROJECTED
West Steamboat Neighborhoods + 0.120 MGD Difference in 10 Years 0.080 MGD
Total Future In-House Demand 1.685 MGD
Combined Development 1.443 MGD
Infill within the City - 1.323 MGD
Difference in 20 Years 0.120 MGD
1.107
DRAFT
APPENDIX 1
Consumptive Use Calculations for Lawn Irrigation

TR-21 Spreadsheet (Colorado Division of Water Resources)
1.108
DRAFT
TR-21 Spreadsheet developed by the Colorado Division of Water Resources
Modified Blaney-Criddle Crop Consumptive Use Estimate.

Developed from S.C.S. Manual "Irrigation Water Requirements, Technical Release No. 21", April 1967, Revised September 1970.
Crop = BLUEGRASS (Pochop Borelli & Burman's Temperature, Growth Stage Coefficients & Elevation Factors Applied)
Climate Data Source: Steamboat Springs Weather Station (USC00057936) Average Average
Month Temperature Precipitation
Latitude: 40.51 Decimal Degrees (oF) (inches)
Elevation: 6,720 Feet Jan 15.1 2.61
Elevation Factor: 1.07 (+2.865% per 1,000 ft above 4,429 ft) Feb 19.2 2.35
Mar 27.9 2.17
Crop / Irrigation Data: Bluegrass Apr 39.1 2.35
May 48.6 2.20
Irrigated Area: 40.00 acres Jun 55.8 1.62
Depth of Application: 1.25 inches Jul 62.2 1.58
Growing Season: 129 Length of Season in Days (inclusive) Aug 60.5 1.67
Sep 52.8 1.90
Month Day Date Oct 42.4 1.99
Start of Season: 5 19 139 Nov 28.9 2.03
End of Season: 9 25 267 Dec 17.2 2.53
Annual 25.00
Analysis of Crop Irrigation Requirements during the Growing Season
Average Consumptive Consumptive Consumptive Consumptive

Growth Stage Average Effective
Temperature Crop Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation
Month % Daylight (t*p)/100 Kt Coefficient Precipitation Precipitation
Demand Requirement Requirement Requirement
(oF) Kc (inches) (inches)
(inches) (inches) (feet) (AF)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr 0.97
May 50.8 3.96 2.01 0.82 1.00 1.75 0.89 0.48 1.27 0.11 4.24
Jun 55.8 10.08 5.63 0.83 1.10 5.50 1.62 1.05 4.45 0.37 14.84
Jul 62.2 10.24 6.38 0.85 1.06 6.15 1.58 1.06 5.09 0.42 16.98
Aug 60.5 9.59 5.81 0.85 0.98 5.15 1.67 1.06 4.09 0.34 13.64
Sep 53.6 6.77 3.63 0.83 0.97 3.10 1.56 0.88 2.22 0.19 7.40
Oct 0.89
Nov
Dec
Annual 21.65 7.33 4.52 17.13 1.43 57.10
1.109
DRAFT
APPENDIX 2
Technical Memorandum
Validating the Projected WSN Water Demands
1.110
DRAFT
Resource Engineering, Inc.
909 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970)-945-6777 Voice
(970)-945-1137 Facsimile
Memorandum
To: Brynn Grey
From: R. Scott Fifer, P.H.
Date: 1-26-2017
Re: Validating the Projected WSN Water Demands
To confirm that water use projections as outlined in the WSN Water Demand Report are reasonable,
RESOURCE compared its results to water use information available in the City’s 2008 Water Supply
Master Plan (Stantec 2008). At Section 2.3.1.1, the City examined potential water demands within its
West Steamboat Growth Area using a Water Demand Study prepared by Civil Design Consultants (CDC)
for the then proposed Steamboat 700 Project. The Steamboat 700 project consisted of a residential and
commercial development proposal that was situated on the same property as the proposed WSN
development. The scale of the proposed Steamboat 700, however, was 4 to 5 times larger than the
proposed WSN development. The expected water demands projected for Steamboat 700 as prepared
by CDC and adopted in the City’s Water Supply Master Plan are summarized in Column 1 of Table 1
attached. In its analysis, CDC had independently evaluated the water demands associated with a project
at the WSN site. However, as detailed below, the water use estimates developed by CDC are remarkably
similar to the estimates developed by RESOURCE for WSN.
The water demand projections for the WSN development as presented in RESOURCE’s Water Demand
Report are summarized in Column 2 of Table 1 attached. The demands are approximately 20% to 25%
of those developed by CDC for Steamboat 700. The Steamboat 700 demands, however, are almost
equivalent to those developed by RESOURCE if the size of the previously proposed development is
adjusted downward to be equivalent in size to WSN (Column 3 of Table 1). This finding indicates that
the water demand projections developed for the WSN development by RESOURCE are consistent with
demand projections utilized by the City in its 2008 Water Supply Master Plan.
The RESOURCE water demand estimates for WSN also appear reasonable when comparing the
expected monthly distribution of water use compared to historic water use records maintained by the
City. The City’s Water Supply Master Plan, at Table 2-5, displays the City’s historic monthly water use
expressed as a percent of total annual demand. The monthly water use patterns displayed in Table 2-5
(Stantec 2008) are shown in Column 1 of Table 2 attached, and the projected water demands for the
WSN development, also expressed as a percent of the total annual demand are shown in Column 2 of
Table 2 attached. In comparison, these two monthly distributions are very similar, which indicates that
the water use assumptions used in the WSN Water Demand Report are reasonable and are in close
alignment with historic water use patterns within the City.
From the Desk of R. Scott Fifer Page 1 of 1
1.111
DRAFT
Table 1
Steamboat 700 Water Demands vs. West Steamboat Neighborhood Demands
Validation of RESOURCE's 2017 Water Demand Report prepared for West Steamboat Neighborhoods
20.5%
(1) (2) (3)
Steamboat 700 West Steamboat Neighborhoods ADJUSTED Steamboat 700
Water Use Metric Previously Proposed Development Proposed Development 20.5 % of WSN Proposal
City's WSMP (CDC) RESOURCE (450 units / 2,200 units)
1. Residential Units 2,200 450 ↔ 451
2. Estimated Population 7,370 1,525 ↔ 1,511
3. In-house use/day (gpd) 572,150 122,002 ↔ 117,291
4. In-house use/resident/day (gpcd) 77.6 80.0 ↔ 77.6

5. In-house use/ year (AF) 640.9 136.7 ↔ 131.4
6. Irrigation use/year (AF) 286.6 67.2 ↔ 58.8
7. Total water use/year (AF) 927.5 203.8 ↔ 190.1
8. Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 1.86 0.44 ↔ 0.38

Summer Peak Month (mgd) Not Reported 0.33 ↔ NA
NOTES: (1) The City's Water Supply Master Plan (Stantec 2008) included a water demand analysis of the then proposed Steamboat 700 Development.
The Steamboat 700 project was proposed for the same property as the West Steamboat Neighborhoods, but at a scale 4 to 5 times larger in size.
The adjusted population was estimated based upon the assumption that 330 of the planned 2,200 units would consist of apartment units.
WSN Development = 450 Units consisting of 400 SFH @ 3.5 residents/unit + 50 apartments @ 2.5 residents/unit. Total population = 1,525 residents.
Steamboat 700 = 2,200 units consisting of 1,870 SFH @ 3.5 residents/unit + 330 apartments @ 2.5 residents/unit. Total population = 7,370 residents.
(2) Water use metrics as presented in Resource Engineering Inc.'s 2017 Water Demand Report prepared for the West Steamboat Neighborhoods.
(3) Water use metrics as presented in the City's Water Supply Master Plan for the Steamboat 700 Development adjusted to a size more representative of WSN.
Adjustment = 450 units/2,200 units = 20.5 %
1.112
Table 2
Comparison of Water Use by Month
Percent of Total Annual Demand
DRAFT
(1) (2)
Historic Water Use Projected Water Use
Month
City of Steamboat Springs West Steamboat Neighborhoods
Jan 5.9% 5.7%
Feb 5.4% 5.1%
Mar 6.3% 5.7%
Apr 6.0% 5.5%
May 8.2% 8.1%
Jun 14.3% 14.1%
Jul 15.8% 15.5%
Aug 12.8% 13.6%
Sep 8.7% 9.8%
Oct 6.0% 5.7%
Nov 5.2% 5.5%
Dec 5.4% 5.7%
100.0% 100.0%
NOTES: (1) City's historic water use pattern as outlined in

its Water Supply Mater Plan (Table 2-5, Stantec 2008)
(2) Projected water use pattern for WSN as presented in

RESOURCE's Water Demand Report (Table 1, Col. (4)).
1.113
March 14, 2017
President Magill and Steamboat City Council

137 10th St.
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
Re: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Sewer
Dear President Magill and Steamboat Springs City Council,
On February 28th, we met with Jon Snyder and Gilbert Anderson on the topic of Sewer
capacity and facilities, as they relate to West Steamboat Neighborhoods. Our understanding
is as follows:
On the matter of the wastewater collection system, there is an existing 12-24” sewer line
that reaches the property. That line is ample to serve the property and no upgrades are
needed. The last upgrade occurred in 2007 and was sized for growth.
On the matter of wastewater treatment, the current facility is estimated to be at 72% of

capacity. Per EPA regulations, the plant will need to be expanded at 80% capacity. While Jon
and Gilbert can elaborate on flow, effluent, and loading, we determined through our
discussion that West Steamboat Neighborhoods would raise capacity of the facilities from
72% to 74%.
Given that, and as required by the Community Development Code, we would proposed to
pay for all on-site infrastructure, and standard and customary plant investment fees (PIFs).
We also are aware that our on-site infrastructure must conform to neighboring properties,
so would provide necessary easements to do so.
Thank you,
David O’Neil Melissa Sherburne

Founder/CEO Partner
Brynn Grey Partners Brynn Grey Partners
1.114
April 11, 2017

137 10th St.
Re: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Parks, Open Space and Trails
Parks, open space and trails fuel the Steamboat Springs lifestyle and economy. It is clearly a
top priority for community members and leaders to reinforce and build upon that into the
future – “enhancing public spaces, parks, and trails” ranked very high as a focus area
amongst 75% of Steamboat residents in the 2015 Community Survey. The amount of work
and investment made by the City for parks, open space and trails is also seen in the
outstanding level of service that has been established and national reputation that
Steamboat is known for.
Brynn Grey similarly prioritizes parks, open space and trails, in our neighborhoods and in
our communities. West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) will carry forward our tradition
of integrating public spaces and connectivity throughout a development, as well as
reflecting the community-wide recreation culture and goals.
During our process so far, we have met with several stakeholder groups who are passionate,
and instrumental, to this conversation. Their continued input will be critical to creating a
program that is vibrant, appeals to a diversity of residents, and is technically sound.
The WSN Parks, Open Space and Trails (POST) program brings the concept to life, creates
cohesion between the three neighborhoods, provides a unique array of recreational
opportunities for residents, and will carry forward the unparalleled experience that the City
and community have established so far in Steamboat Springs.
City Guidance:
The City of Steamboat Springs has several guiding documents pertaining specifically to
Parks, Open Space and Trails, which we have looked to for guidance (Master Plan) and
would have a regulatory function during a development application stage (Community
Development Code). These include:
1.115
• Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• Open Space and Trails Master Plan
• STAR Communities Report
• Steamboat Springs Community Development Code (Chapter 26), Article V.

Development Standards:
o Sec. 26-136. - Open space, vegetation and site grading
o Sec. 26-154. - Parks and open space standards.
o This section provides standards and regulations to guide the future
subdivision of parcels within the traditional neighborhood development
(TND) zone district.
Our Proposal:
West Steamboat Neighborhoods encompass 151 acres of land total. 81 acres (53%) of that
is included in the POST program in the form of parks, greens, and open space.
The WSN POST program includes a hierarchy of unique public spaces that create cohesion
between neighborhoods and provide a variety of opportunities for residents to spend time
outdoors. These include:
• Parks:
o Greens, which serve as neighborhood gathering spaces and places to play
o Tot lot
o Community garden
o Bouldering rock
o Picnic area
o School sports field
o School play ground
• Open Space:
o Riparian corridor
o Natural open space
o Dog play meadow
• Trails:
o Over 3 miles of soft surface, multi-use trails
o Core trail connectors
o Nordic loop
o Bike skills park, especially geared towards younger riders
o Downhill flow trail
2
1.116
POST amenities would be phased accordingly with the development of each neighborhood,
and as the Community Development Code requires. The majority of maintenance
responsibility would fall upon the HOA, with the exception of the School facilities and other
agreements with the City, if found appropriate.
Based upon discussions with staff, we believe the proposal will fall well within City
requirements for acreage and walking distance to parks. Most importantly we believe this
program will create a vibrant, incredible place to live for Steamboat locals. We look forward
to your feedback.
Thank you,
David O’Neil Melissa Sherburne

Founder/CEO Partner
Brynn Grey Brynn Grey
Attachment A: WSN Concept Plan, POST Program
3
1.117
Attachment A
WSN Conceptual Plan Parks, Open Space & Trails
Unit Mix
Large Sm/Med Town- WSN
Neighborhood Lot SF Lot SF Duplex house Hillside Totals
Gateway
0 53 28 38 12 131
Neighborhood 80% workforce
Green Slate Creek 16 48 30 16 36 146
Open Space
p
oo
ic
L Emerald 5 50 14 0 48 117
rd
No
Totals 21 151 72 54 96 394
Slate Creek
Green Court
Green Community Garden
Riparian
Corridor
Riparian
Corridor
Elementary
School Bike Skills Hillside Homes
School Play-
Sports ground
Open Space
Field
Tr ail
Bike ow
Fl
Skills
Picnic Park
Tot Lot Area Trailhead Portal
Co re Tr a
il Co
Emerald
nne
c to r
Bouldering
Bouldering Cottages
Overlook
Rock
Current City Limits
Community
Garden Green
Green
Gateway
Open Space
Dog Play Meadow
Sports Field
So
Apartments
ft
Su
rfa
ce
Tr a ils
1.118
April 11, 2017

137 10th St.
Re: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Sustainability Program
Despite changing political winds, sustainability is not going anywhere.

Urban Land Institute’s Center for Sustainability,
“Trends in Real Estate Sustainability: Perspectives from Industry Leaders”, March 22, 2016
On a March 22, 2016 webinar, sustainability leaders from Urban Land Institute’s (ULI)
Center for Sustainability stressed the importance of working locally, with local
governments, to realize the greatest benefits for a development, the community and,
ultimately, the world.
Sustainable design and development is integrated into the core of Brynn Grey thinking and
methodology. An understanding of the benefits of sustainability was a big part of our
thinking back in 1999 when we launched the Wellington Neighborhood. For starters, we
took a historic mining brownfield with thirty-foot high basketball sized rock and
transformed it into a thriving traditional neighborhood. This resulted in our being awarded
the EPA’s highest award, the National Award for Smart Growth Achievement.
At the same time (long before LEED, Green Globes or Energy Star became standard
practice), we worked directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory to review and critique our plans to maximize
energy efficiency and sustainability. Then, over the last two decades, we have implemented
various sustainability programs including Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes1 and the
EPA’s Energy Star2 programs. Taken together, this depth of experience will be of great value
as we work with the Steamboat community to make West Steamboat a model of
sustainability.
1
https://www.thegbi.org/green-globes-certification/
2
https://www.energystar.gov/
1.119
City Guidance:
The City of Steamboat Springs has pursued several sustainability initiatives, including:
• EPA Building Blocks, “Sustainable Strategies for Small Cities and Rural Areas, Next
Steps Memorandum”: actions centered on affordable housing and energy efficiency.
• STAR Communities Report: comprehensive assessment of the City’s community
conditions related to sustainability, including built environment, climate and energy,
economy and jobs, education arts and community, equity and empowerment, health
and safety, and innovation and process.
• The Steamboat Springs Community Development Code (Chapter 26) has
development standards (Article V) and subdivision regulations (Article VII) that
pertain to on-site infrastructure, stormwater and drainage, design standards,
environmental best practices, and more, that are addressed during the development
application stage.
Brynn Grey Best Practices:

As noted, Brynn Grey has taken sustainability seriously for many years: energy efficiency,
water conservation, indoor air quality, and recycling have been important components of
our design solutions since the beginning. Many of these techniques are now formalized in
programs such as United States Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) program, such as solar orientation, passive solar gain,
compact and efficient building envelopes, recycling through construction, indoor air quality
measures, increased insulation levels, etc.
Our attention to good sustainable design has also been directed to the community level
where there have been strong advocates of an urbanism that promotes a compact, diverse,
walkable, affordable, mixed-use urban form. Our communities have promoted master plans
and design standards that through mixed-use and mixed-density create neighborhoods that
are less dependent on fossil fuels. And, they look for opportunities where an individual
design approach may have multiple benefits. For instance, neighborhood design solutions
that incorporate narrower streets may help reduce infrastructure costs, reduce car speeds
increasing safety and livability, and encourage residents to walk more while using their cars
less.
Best practices and our proposal are summarized according to Site and Community
(measures taken to promote sustainability throughout the development and for the
community) and Home Performance (measures taken within the home to maximize
sustainability on a per household basis).
2
1.120
SITE AND COMMUNITY
By design, the site patterns of traditional neighborhood developments (TND) are more
compact, and lead to many environmental and social benefits. The LEED-Neighborhood
Development (ND) Guide3 summarizes these benefits as follows:
“Compact neighborhoods use land and infrastructure efficiently, they avoid
fragmentation of wildlife habitat and farmland loss, conserve economic resources, and
slow the spread of low-density development across a region’s landscape. Residents
enjoy convenient access to shops, services, and public spaces within walking and
bicycling distance, and when people choose to drive, they take shorter automobile
trips, saving time and avoiding emissions. Compact development also facilitates access
to public transportation because transit becomes more economically viable when
supported by higher concentrations of population.
In addition, the small block sizes associated with compact neighborhoods encourage
walking and bicycling because of increased connectivity, shorter travel distances,
slower automobile traffic, and a more inviting pedestrian environment. The slower
traffic speeds typically found in dense developments also can reduce injury rates. The
environmental and public health benefits that accompany increased transportation
choices and reduced rates of driving are further discussed in the introduction to Smart
Location and Linkage.
Features such as sidewalks and trails, street trees, inviting building façades, small
setbacks, minimal parking lot area, and measures to slow automobiles also increase
pedestrian activity. Public spaces, such as parks, plazas, and playing fields, can
encourage social interaction and active recreation while helping control rainwater
runoff and reducing urban heat island effects. Community gardens also promote social
interaction and physical activity while increasing access to fresh, locally grown
produce.
Communities with diverse housing types that accommodate a range of incomes, ages,
and physical abilities permit residents to live closer to their workplaces, help the
community retain residents, and allow families to remain in the neighborhood as their
circumstances change over time.”
Wellington Neighborhood and Peak One Neighborhoods are both within the urban growth
areas of Breckenridge and Frisco, respectively, and well connected to multi-modal
transportation network and recreational trails. Residents have reduced auto-dependency
and extremely high quality of life, in addition to a reduced carbon footprint. Community
gardens, bike maintenance stations, community greens, sidewalks and pathways
throughout all contribute to the overall sustainable lifestyle found there.
3
http://www.usgbc.org/guide/nd
3
1.121
HOME PERFORMANCE
All homes in our neighborhoods implement Energy Star®. To earn this certification, a home
must meet strict guidelines for energy efficiency set by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), making them 20-30% more efficient than standard homes4.
This can save money on energy bills, provides a more comfortable living environment with
better indoor air quality, and helps protect the environment. Energy Star® programs save so
much energy, in fact, its equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road each year.
Homes achieve this level of performance through a combination of energy-efficient
improvements including:
• Effective Insulation Systems
• High-Performance Windows
• Tight Construction and Ducts
• Efficient Heating and Cooling Equipment
• Energy Star® Qualified Lighting and Appliances

All homes are third-party inspected and Home Energy Rating System (HERS) rated to meet
the stringent Energy Star® standards required for certification — resulting in lower energy
consumption and reduced green house gas emissions. The rater works closely with the
builder throughout the construction process to help determine the needed energy-saving
equipment and construction techniques and conduct required on-site diagnostic testing and
inspections to document that the home is eligible to earn the Energy Star® label.
Additional features that add to homes’ resource efficiency include low flow plumbing
fixtures, passive solar orientation, and smart home monitoring systems.
Our Proposal:
West Steamboat Neighborhoods will continue our tradition of compact, diverse, and
sustainable neighborhoods. Specifically, we propose to:
SITE AND COMMUNITY
• Maximize efficient use of land and infrastructure through narrow streets and
alleyways.
• Minimize auto-dependency and maximize multi-modal connectivity through
incorporating transit, shared parking areas, and bicycle facilities and establishing a
hierarchy of interconnected trails, sidewalks and pathways.
• Promote effective and sustainable stormwater management through a hierarchy of

green infrastructure (such as an interconnected network of open spaces and natural
4
https://www.energystar.gov/
4
1.122
areas) that improve water quality while providing recreational opportunities,
wildlife habitat, air quality and urban heat island benefits, and other community
benefits.
• Minimize the impacts of the construction process by confining activities to certain
areas, establishing strict boundaries, and implementing an erosion and
sedimentation control plan.
HOME PERFORMANCE
• Implement Energy Star®, or most applicable comparable program to measure

energy and resource efficiency within the homes.
• Promote water conservation through:
o in-home low flow fixtures.
o maximizing xeriscaping and native ground cover (i.e. minimize bluegrass
and turf areas); and high efficiency irrigation systems. The use of invasive
species will be prohibited.
• Utilize smart home monitoring systems to improve efficiency, such as Nest or

equivalent.
• Maximize passive solar opportunities, and work with homebuyers, who are
interested, to identify and implement solar technology.
• Promote innovative sustainable design strategies over the life of the development,
as new tools and programs emerge in the market to reduce environmental footprint,
improve quality of life for WSN residents, and Steamboat Springs as a whole.
Finally, and perhaps most important, in this period “where there is a change in the pace of
change”, we endeavor to stay current on matters related to the environment, culture and
technology and work with our residents and the community to keep actively exploring
opportunities to innovate and improve West Steamboat Neighborhood’s sustainability.
Thank you,
David O’Neil Melissa Sherburne, LEED AP

Founder/CEO Partner
Brynn Grey Brynn Grey
1.123
W e s t S t e a m b o a t
N E I G H B O R H O O D S
H o u s i n g V i s i o n
Submitted to Submitted by Concept Plan by
the City of Steamboat Springs Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd. Wolff • Lyon Architects
City Council Breckenridge • Frisco • Boulder, Colorado Boulder, Colorado
May 30, 2017 www.brynngrey.com www.wlarch.com
C opyright © 2017 • B rynn G rey P artners , L td . • W olff •L yon A rchitects • A ll R ights R eserved
1.124
Table of Contents
I. I ntroduction 1
II. C ommunity C ontext 2
III. C reating P lace 3
IV. D evelopment P rogram 7
V. H omes 8
VI. H ousing I ndices 13
VII. A ffordability & P ricing 14
W e s t S t e a m b oat N e i g h b o r h o o d s : H o u s i n g V i s i o n © Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd
1.125
I. Introduction
Past, Present and Future
Steamboat Springs is a great community, and great communities founded in 1960, solidified Steamboat’s tourism economy. Today,
are built around neighborhoods, and ultimately, the locals that while still grounded in its ranching and recreation roots, the
live in them. economy is evolving into one that includes start-ups, location-
neutral jobs, and generally, a workforce that is more steady and
Downtown Steamboat Springs is the epicenter of life in year-round than a typical resort town that ebbs and flows with
Steamboat and is, by design, a traditional neighborhood with a seasons, weather, and trends.
main street commercial corridor, alive with local businesses and
activity; homes of all sizes and architectectural styles, many of Steamboat is growing. The Colorado Department of Local
them classic Colorado bungalows with small lots, alleys, front Affairs (DOLA) estimates that Routt County’s population will
porches, and farmhouse elements; and community gathering double in the next 30 years. The community is at an inflection
places, like the library, the hot springs pool, City Hall, and point in its history where it can decide how Steamboat Springs
local churches. The Yampa River and Howelsen Hill complete should grow. We have seen this in many of Colorado’s finest
downtown as an authentic, and totally unique place. mountain communities — uncontrolled sprawl and locals
being pushed farther and farther out of the communities that
Mountain Village and its surrouding development areas, they support. Is this the future? Or, does Steamboat embrace
are central to resort life in Steamboat, providing homes to locals with the land that is left, to ensure that it preserves the
visitors, second home owners, and locals. With a world-class character, heritage and surrounding landscape that make it so
ski area, luxury hotels and condominiums, golfing, trails, and special to begin with?
shopping, Mountain Village embodies Colorado’s recreation and
tourism-driven economy — while still maintaining a uniquely The West Steamboat Neighborhoods depict a
“Steamboat” look and feel. vision for preserving community character, celebrating and
continuing Steamboat’s stream of history, and seizing an
Heritage Park, Steamboat II, Silver Spur on the west side of opportunity for controlled, thoughtful, and sustainable growth
Steamboat; Walton Creek, Whistler, and the South Valley area for the future.
on the south side of the city; Fairview, Pioneer Village, and West
End within the city — these and others all shape how and where Over the last five months, Brynn Grey and the City of
people live in Steamboat. As these neighborhoods become built Steamboat Springs have analyzed the topics of: Water
out and their values rise, locals are left with fewer and fewer Resources, Sewer, Parks/Trails/Open Space, Sustainability,
options to own (or even rent) a place of their own within the and Roads/Transit. Each topic has been complex and
Steamboat community. Many are faced with long commutes included a discussion of tradeoffs, balancing objectives such as Carl Howelsen, courtesy of History Colorado
to Oak Creek, Hayden and Stagecoach; which, especially community benefit and fiscal responsibility. The West Steamboat
for families, is complicated and not a long-term solution for Neighborhoods Housing Vision specifies how this development
sustaining a workforce and future leaders of the community. will contribute to the housing supply in Steamboat, specifically
to local working families. Destiny is not a matter of chance; but a matter of choice. It is not a thing to
Steamboat was built upon the ideas and perserverence of
trailblazers like James Crawford (founder and first Mayor) and
be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.
Carl Howelson (Norweigen ski jumping pioneer). The ski area, - Williams Jennings Bryan
1.126 1
II. Community context
West Steamboat Neighborhoods: Community Context
The development pattern of Steamboat Springs closely follows
its natural features, topography and setting. The Yampa River Strawberry Park Area
is the backbone, running through Downtown and the oldest
parts of the city; Emerald Mountain, Howelsen Hill, and Mount its
Lim
Werner form the majestic backdrops of the city while also Ci
ty
creating natural barriers to growth; and ranch and protected

open lands on the south and west side of the city reinforce the
pastoral setting so special to Steamboat.
Airport / Copper
From a birds-eye view, there are several primay areas of density Ridge
within Steamboat Springs, including: Downtown Steamboat

Springs, the Mountain Village area, and the West Steamboat
Sanctuary
area. Downtown is the heart & soul, with historic homes that set West West End
Curve Blue Sage
Steamboat Pioneer Village
Downtown
the architectural tone of development, vibrant local businesses Core
Ci
Trail Steamboat Springs
ty
and restaurants, and of course the Yampa River flowing Yam R iver
Lim
ary pa
nd
its
u
right through. There is no doubt why home and land values th
Bo
row Silver Spur
Downtown are soaring; people near and far want the experience an
G
Ski Area
Urb Fairview
that Downtown offers.
Steamboat II
Angler’s
The Mountain Village area is the resort epicenter and drives Heritage
Park
winter and summer recreation-based tourism. It also anchors
Mountain Village
the many subdivisions and condominium developments that
provide a diverse array of options for vacation properties,
40
rentals, and locals housing, should they choose to live in an area
without a critical mass of year-round residents.
Whistler
The West Steamboat area is currently anchored by the Emerald Mountain
Steamboat II, Silver Spur and Heritage Park neighborhoods, Walton Creek
which function as predominantly locals’ neighborhoods towards

the middle to high end of the market for single family homes.
They are lower density with larger lots than found elsewhere
in Steamboat. The West Steamboat area is currently part of the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), which is where the South Valley Area
community decided growth should occur in the future in order

Routt National Forest
to prevent sprawl, preserve natural buffers surrounding town,
and encourage efficient progression of infrastructure (West 1 mile
Steamboat Springs Area Plan).
The West Steamboat Neighborhoods are within the West

Steamboat area and the UGB, adjacent to City infrastructure (a
water main currently runs through the property), and a short
distance from the Yampa River Core Trail.

2
1.127
III. Creating Place
Neighborhoods
The overall goal is to build three traditional neighborhoods in Provide Community Housing for a Variety of Residents
West Steamboat, each with a sense of community and place. Then
each neighborhood’s unique character will be defined by six compelling
An appropriate mix of housing types creates diversity within the
neighborhood and is more responsive to the needs of different
T he P attern L anguage 1 S afe and P lentiful C onnections
objectives: kinds of residents, including families, singles, the elderly, or
On the following pages, our design approach is further A sensitive local road and path network will help encourage
other special populations. Good quality affordable housing is
Provide Steamboat Affordable Home Ownership expressed through a simple pattern language which entails how walking and promote a sense of community among residents.
created without compromising other community objectives.
Opportunities the overall vision will be accomplished through the site and An extensive and pleasant path system will benefit all residents,
Affordable housing maintains community diversity and vitality. Encourage Sustainable Development building design. particularly children. Therefore:
The neighborhood can be sustainable and of positive benefit This language is not intended to be fixed and unchangeable
It gives people a chance to live in the community where they • Design the proposed street sections to ensure that the street
to an existing city when its concept and site planning are
work, to serve on boards, to volunteer in their kid’s classes, and but rather a flexible and evolving expression of what all those design and travel lane widths will naturally enforce desired
based on certain principles. The housing is located close to
to take full measure in “reinventing where they live and work”. involved in the creation of the West Steamboat Neighborhoods design speeds.
the community it serves, helping to eliminate long commutes
Providing affordable housing near existing city centers enhances seek to accomplish. Many of the principles found here are
which create problems of pollution and traffic congestion.
the entire community’s quality of life by eliminating commuting echoed in the City’s West Steamboat Springs Area Plan and the • Ensure that vehicular connections are plentiful, dispersing
Having a location within walking distance of a mix of uses
and reducing traffic congestion, noise, and pollution. It also Community Development Code’s Traditional Neighborhood Design zone traffic throughout the neighborhoods. But make sure that
encourages residents to leave their cars at home when possible.
enhances the quality of life of each neighborhood resident. Time Sustainability is encouraged through an appropriate selection district, the policy documents that guide and regulate growth in cut-through trips to desinations outside the neighborhood is
spent in the car can be redirected. A two car family might be of building materials that use renewable or recycled products. West Steamboat. discouraged.
able to get by with one. Providing affordable housing is only half The goals of water and energy conservation, as well as solar We anticipate that the first neighborhood will follow these • Carefully evaluate the street design to make sure that there
the puzzle. access and design are promoted through careful site and building patterns. Then with each additional neighborhood, refinement is a simple and efficient system for snow plowing and
design. Finally, buildings are arranged in a compact community will be repeated, ensuring that a dynamic process maintains
Create a Sense of Community within each removal, but do not let this objective negatively impact the
which will facilitate mass transit alternatives and leave more land
Neighborhood the core values and timeless design, while responding human and pedestrian scale of the neighborhood.
available for parks and open space.
Opportunities for neighborly interaction and public life are to unimaginable changes in technology, architecture,
Preserve and Enhance Neighborhood Connections to transportation, sustainability, and construction. • Make paths that are charming and inviting and accessible in
encouraged through ensuring the well being of the residents
the Core Trail and Trail System all seasons.
and the vitality of the neighborhood. This sense of community is The proposed design solutions are derived from our analysis of
Trails are the connective tissue of Steamboat Springs, a.k.a. the site, our understanding of Steamboat’s history, climate, and • Enhance connections to the Core Trail, the Steamboat
fostered by a variety of design responses, such as front porches
Bike Town USA.Year-round, recreationists and commuters can
and community greens. Although many of these may seem mountain-ranching character, and our extensive experience in Springs trail network, and other recreational trails on
walk, bike, and ski on the extensive trail system found within
small in themselves, over time and together they will produce creating community through sensitive site and building design. neighboring public lands.
the city and on adjacent public lands. The West Steamboat
significant results. Neighborhoods plan preserves and enhances these important
Establish a True Sense of Place by Respecting the trails. The trails continue to work as they originally evolved by
Physical Design Patterns of Traditional Neighborhoods remaining the most attractive route from point ”A” to point
“B”. The trails are enhanced by being surfaced and widened so
The relationship between dwellings, the mix of uses, and the
as to accommodate frequent use and by creating pedestrian
neighborhood’s friendly and walkable human scale all contribute
interest along the path through the use of portals, landscaping
to a memorable place. These qualities are created and even
and thoughtful orientation of adjoining structures. In addition,
enhanced by understanding the old principles of neighborhood where the trails cross the bike path, there will be improvements
design, through careful evaluation, and where necessary to minimize the danger of crossing the bike path during periods
inventing new patterns. of busy times.
Gates, kiosks, and fencing are integral parts of the open space system.These amenities encourage use and create a strong sense of place.
1.128 3
• Look for opportunities to tie neighborhood paths into

primary paths throughout within the entire community.
2 A V ariety of R esidents , B uildings , &
U ses to M ake T hem W hole
B uildings with W elcoming F aces
• Consider good lighting solutions along major pedestrian
routes to increase comfort and safety for kids and all Many new developments are so homogeneous that they are Our best traditional neighborhoods often contain houses that
residents, while respecting the rural environment and dark unable to provide the variety and choice that leads naturally to a present a pleasant and sociable face to the street. The houses
skies. lively and spirited neighborhood. A variety of residents in terms address the street in ways that encourage residents to stop and
• Along major pedistrian routes, create memorable settings at of income, family size, and household composition require spend time with their neighbors. The homes work together to
path intersections, corners, and community facilities, which different building types and home sizes. This variety will lead to create unified streetscapes, often by sensitively repeating certain
allow residents to orient themselves to their surroudings. streetscapes that are charming and alive, as well as promote a design elements. Therefore:
Use sculpture and whimsy to create these settings. more enduring and diverse sense of community. Therefore:
• For any neighborhood community buildings, consider • Create ample porches as extensions of the living space of
arcades, recessed entries, and storefronts to provide greater • Provide variety by allowing each building to respond each home and place them so that the residents can observe
shelter along their edges. sensitively to its specific site conditions in terms of view, sun and monitor the life of the street or path. A second level porch on the high side of the street provides a commanding view
and lot size. and a friendly face to the street.
• Consider patterned crosswalks and/or neckdowns at • Consider placing garages and parking areas behind buildings
important pedestrian crossings. • Consider carefully each building’s relationship to the street, off alleys wherever possible to insure that cars and garages • Place small embellishments in special places to create
• Provide convenient access to public transit and make the other buildings, and the path system where appropriate. do not dominate the streetscape. individuality, interest, and the “suprise” of finding something
place to wait comfortable and alive. Place these at the • Use different building types that are naturally suited to • Make lots short in depth so that attached garages are close special.
crossroads of routes with important pedestrian interest. specific home sizes, floor plans and configurations. to the alley edge, helping reduce winter snow shoveling. • Provide articulation to the building facade and grouping
• Identify and test possible neighborhood-related uses such as • Where lots have garages accessed from the street, make of buildings to create visual interest and positive outdoor
greenhouses and community gardens. sure that they are wide enough to insure that garages never space.
occupy more than 40% of the lot frontage. • Make sure corner buildings address both streets whenever
• Provide specific amentities for the needs of special
populations where appropriate. • Design a cascade of roofs so that where possible the possible.
buildings come down to a humanly scaled one-story at the
• Create variety, without signficant cost increases, by using
edges.
different facade treatments on buildings with identical floor
plans. • Direct the fronts of buildings to the public rights of way,
including parks and common areas.
• Consider a range of designs with floor plans that address
a home for a single person, a couple, a small family, and a • Make the front yards large enough to have some small
large family. shrubs and flowers, but place the porches quite close to the
streets and paths to encourage neighborly interaction and
View from an upper level porch of a hillside home. Buildings placed close to the make the most effective use of each lot. Single-car garage doors on hillside homes do not dominate the face to the
sidewalk with ample porches encourage casual interaction and create a sense of street. By partially covering the driveway or inporporating the garage into the
sefety. • Provide a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet to building porch, as shown on the right, the impact of the garage can be further reduced.
walls and allow open proches to encroach a maximum of 5
feet into the setback.

1.129 4
• Where possible, preserve established plantings on the site providing alleys to avoid conflicts with pedestrians and • Be sensitive to any off-site impacts that new development
W ell -D efined P ublic R ealms
and incoporate them into the site design, particularly as
park or path amenities.
improve the quality of the streetscape. might have and help devise feasible solutions for their
mitigation.
• Shape the proposed alleys into pedestrian lanes by giving
• Look for possibilities to create terminated vistas, by placing them the same design attention as streets, and look for • Create buildings that are adaptable to current and future
Over the past fifty years, the average American’s expectations solar and photovoltaic technologies.
community buildings or special structures at T intersections opportunities with the careful placement of trees, shrub
in regard to housing have increased dramatically and in general
or at the ends of pedestrian paths. plantings, secure trash storage, single car garages, and fences • Improve building envelopes, increase insulation, and
we have done a pretty good job of fulfilling them. However,
to shape the space and create character and scale. implement systems that monitor envelope construction and
in doing so we have ignored the importance of the spaces in • Explore if a community building incorporating a
performance.
between. We have forgotten how to create well-defined and greenhouse is desirable and economically feasible. • Design more intimate sheltered paths that provide alternate
engaging public outdoor rooms, whether they be streets, Explore what activities it might contain and place it to get routes for residents and children in particular. • Design buildings with efficient floor plans to allow the
alleys, parks, or public squares. We can do better. In addition, maximum involvement with other nearby amenities like a greatest benefits to be derived from the smallest building
the site presents a significant opportunity to shape and define neighborhood park. • Establish the separation between public and private realms areas, saving initial construction costs and reducing energy
Steamboat’s western gateway. Therefore: with low fencing, walls using stones from the site, and/ costs over time.
• Create calm streets with a well designed planting strip using or landscaping to encourage residents to take good care of
• Increase the amount of south-facing window area and
native or high altitude species, insuring that the edges of the their own outdoor rooms.
• Place small parks throughout the neighborhood and look for reduce glazing on north elevations, within the constraints of
street are a pleasant gathering place for residents.
opportunities to front buildings and their porches towards • Provide stair seats, benches, and places to sit close to paths, this type of density.
them. • Minimize the number of curb cuts along the street by sidewalks, parks, and community buildings. • Take advantage of common walls, where possible, to reduce
initial costs and save energy over time.
• Consider creating a focal point for each West Steamboat
Neighborhood, such as a tower or windmill that helps to • Research and select materials that conserve resrouces and
shape its identity. are recycled from waste products, such as compressed fiber
hardboard, oriented strand board, cellulose insulation, and
“trex” decking material.
5 G ood N eighborhoods S hould ...
P romote S ustainability • Include energy efficient heating equipment and appliances
to lower operating costs (e.g. programmable thermostats,
Many local governments and concerned citizens have become tankless domestic hot water heaters, L.E.D. bulbs, and
increasingly committed to creating policies that promote Energy Star appliances).
sustainability on many levels. How we use the land and how • Ensure good indoor air quality by choosing appropriate
we design new developments is crucial to fulfilling this goal. solvent free products, indoor air quality systems, and
Providing new housing for year-round residents who work exhaust fans where necessary.
within the community makes good sense. West Steamboat
• Use water conserving plants, reduced turf areas, and
Neighborhoods’ density is a good start towards ensuring
irrigation technologies to reduce water consumption.
sustainability. Other ideas and devices should be explored and
considered. Therefore: • Provide community garden facilities, for residents to grow
their own plants and food on-site.
• Explore ways to eliminate or minimize potential car trips • Use vegetated swales to filter stormwater runoff, and direct
through public transportation. these towards the wetlands to enhance the quality of wildlife
• Provide pedestrian paths and trails that connect with and habitat while maintaining stormwater on-site.
A “ranch cluster” celebrates Steamboat’s heritage through community buildings resembling historic barns and focal elements such as a windmill. enhance Steamboat’s existing trail network.
1.130 5
• Name the streets and lanes after historical places, stagecoach

G ood N eighborhoods S hould ...
6 R espect T he H istorical C ontext
W hich they are a P art
of and railroad lines, to reflect Steamboat’s past.
• Reinforce the visual unity of each block through the

repetition of similar building types and scale placed
Steamboat Springs has a rich Native American and ranching
consistently in relation to the street.
heritage that can provide an inspiration for contemporary design
and planning solutions. The architecture can play an important • Identify and maintain established plantings on the site.
role in revealing history and character. Therefore: • Consider low rail fences and native stone walls to define the
yard edge in front of residences in a low-key manner.
• Consider using simple architectural forms inspired and • Create an alignment and spacing pattern of street trees to
influenced by those found in Steamboat Springs. give character along each street.
• Employ a modified grid of streets and alleys with short • Use vertically-oriented window proportions similar to those
walkable blocks as the main organizing structure of the found in the area’s historic buildings.
neighborhood.
• Provide alleys so that garages and parking areas do not

dominate the streetscape or turn the principal building G ood N eighborhoods in S now C ountry
facade into a garage-house. 7 S hould ...U se H igh C ountry D esign
S olutions
High altitude design constraints necessitate specific practical

responses consistent with long winters, cold temperatures
and large amounts of snow. However, since there are other
seasons besides winter, responding to these concerns should be Gable roofs oriented away from pedestrian access points and snow stacking areas help manage snow in the high country.
tempered and balanced by other design objectives whose goals
are to create a desirable human scale and promote a sense of • Design the street R.O.W. wide enough to allow for • Make use of appropriate building materials and details that
adequate pavement with drive over curbs and ample protect the building edges from contact with snow and
community and place. A good neighborhood should find the
planting strips on each side, while not too wide that it moisture.
balancing point that addresses community design concerns
discourages a pedestrian environment. Snow can be pushed
and employs design solutions that are sensitive to the alpine • Plan pedestrian paths along the edges of the parks. Keep
and stored on these ample edges in winter.
environment. Therefore: these paths accessible in winter and provide benches for
• Create designated snow stacking zones for alley snow at the seating with good southern exposure directly adjacent to
• Provide small setbacks (less than 10’) between the edge of intersection of each street and alley. Corner lots can access the path.
the public right-of-way and the front porch allowing for their garages or parking areas idrectly from the side street
convenient access and reduced snow shoveling during the rather than the alley. • Design the roofs so that snow does not pile up in front of
winter, but with enough space for some shrubs, flowers and access areas.
• Allow for adequate snow storage between buildings by
possibly a low fence. placing them 10-12 feet apart or by attaching them together.
• Provide 32 feet between garages along alleys to allow for • Arrange steep gable roofs so that snow will slide off into
storage and room for plows to maneuver. Eliminate poles areas away from pedestrian traffic where there is adequate
The Mesa Schoolhouse represents classic Steamboat building form.
and other obstructions within the alley R.O.W. room for the snow to remain.
1.131 6
IV. Development Program
WSN Conceptual Plan
Unit Mix
LargeNeighborhood
Sm/Med Town- Apart- HOMES WSN
Neighborhood Lot SF Lot SF Duplex house ments Hillside Totals
Gateway
Gateway
0 80% workforce
53 28 38 50 181
12 181
80% workforce
Slate Creek 16 Slate
48Creek30 16 0 146
36 146
Emerald 5 Emerald
50 14 0 0 48
117 117
Totals 21 Totals151 72 54 50 96
444 444
Slate Creek
Duplex
Elementary
School Hillside Homes
Emerald
Overlook Apartments
Gateway
Current City Limits
US Hwy 40
Green Court
W e s t s t e a m b oat N e i g h b o r h o o d s © Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd

7
1.132
V. Homes
The following homes represent a sampling of models that we have built in other neighborhoods, which would serve as a starting point upon which to base WSN models. Architectural details, colors, interior finishes and floor patterns would be designed specifically to
meet the character of the Steamboat community and needs of its homeowners. They include models within the categories: Townhome, Duplex, Deed Restricted Single Family, and Market Single Family.
Townhome Willow Duplex
• 3 Bed / 1.5 Bath • 3 Bed / 2 Bath
• 1,147 sf • 1,287 sf, 129 sf deck, 25 sf storage
• All bedrooms on the second floor, optional 3/4 bath in master bedroom, plus ample storage: large • Open and sizable living space on the main level, main level bedroom and full bath, and plenty of storage.
closets, crawl space and attic. Tons of windows and large front porch.
1.133 8
Homes continued
Hawthorne Deed Restricted Single Family Oak Deed Restricted Single Family
• Kitchen with an island and open living area for entertaining. The main level Master Suite offers a large walk-in closet, • Sizable mudroom, a spacious, open living area with large bedrooms and an expansive front porch.
and upstairs bedrooms for kids and guests. The mudroom features a large closet for gear.

9
1.134
Homes continued
Aspen Deed Restricted Single Family Cottonwood Deed Restricted Single Family
• 3 Bed / 1.75 Bath • 3 Bed / 2 Bath
• Open main level for entertaining or accommodating the whole family. There is additional storage for all gear, and large • Front and back storage for gear, strollers, and bikes. Family designed floorplan with all the bedrooms on the upper
windows to bring in the Colorado sunshine and mountain views. level, and a large kitchen. The Master Suite has a large walk-in closet and a convenient second level laundry.
1.135 10
Homes continued
Juniper Deed Restricted Single Family Ponderosa Market Single Family
• Ideal for a growing family with all the bedrooms on the 2nd level including the Master Suite with 2 walk-in • Open floor plan, optimal storage space, and large wrap around porch. With four bedrooms, there is plenty of room
closets. The lower level features a large kitchen with pantry and open floor plan for entertaining, additional for a growing family or for guests.
storage, plus a welcoming front entry and efficient mudroom for gear.
1.136 11
Homes continued
Interior Features
• Energy Star Certified: Our homes save approximately 20%
on utility bills, offering substantial long-term savings.
• Smart Smoke Detector: Monitor smoke detector from your

phone for peace of mind while on the go.
• Smart Thermostat + Lighting: Control home

temperature and lighting from anywhere through the Lutron
app.
• Bold Storage Solutions: Designed to optimize interior and

exterior storage space.
• Sound System: Exceptional whole home audio controlled

directly from a phone.
• Media/AV Center + HUB: Cat5 to HuB + RG6 with

whole home smart technology options.
• Customization: Choices from several designer finishes and

semi-custom upgrades to personalize each home.
Residents
• Active 25-44 year olds, and 52% kids

“This community has naturally attracted people who share the “Never before have we enjoyed the kind of community the
• 2-income households making ~$100,000/year values that the neighborhood represents: family, friends, safety, Wellington neighborhood offers. We walk down the street and
• Many married with average of 1 child the environment, and recreation.” – Susie C., resident, mother say hello to neighbors. We have met lifelong friends who will
of three, entrepreneur, snowboarder be around to watch our child grow into adulthood. It is an
• Already living in the community, many first time buyers immeasurable and invaluable addition to our lives.” – Ellen R.,
• Jobs include “work-anywheres”, local business owners, mother, school director & mountain biker
“That’s one of the greatest points about Wellington. It’s full of
recreation and service industry, government locals who have kids. The neighborhood was designed in such
a way that there is never any real traffic that flows through
• 26% of households have a kid under the age of 5
the main streets; thus at any given time the sounds of children
• 50% dog owners playing safely in the streets can be heard.” – Tyler H., Father,
husband, tech wiz and XC skier
• Most important factors in buying a home in this
neighborhood: kid-friendly, convenient to work, access to
recreation
1.137 12
VI. Housing Indices
Housing Working Group
Deed Restricted
Brynn Grey has followed the Housing Working Group’s (HWG) Finally, relevant to this proposal, the Housing Working Groups Unit Mix Square Feet Low Income Entry Level Move-Up Market Total
progress since its inception. The dialogue has been rich and concluded that the average new units needed per year to match One Bedroom
informative, and many of the statements and conclusions from demand will be, across segments: (page 6) LIHTC Micro Rental 400 12 − − − 12
Two Bedroom
the HWG’s Final Report (December 7, 2016), are relevant to
• Seasonal: 34 Beds A Duplex, Glencliff 1,000 − 8 − − 2
WSN Housing Vision: B Duplex, Glencliff 1,000 − 8 − − 2
• Low Income: 101-137 Units C Cottage/Cabin SF/Weller 1,051 − 8 8 2 14
“The City of Steamboat Springs City Council and the Routt D Cottage/Cabin SF/Wylie 935 − − 10 2 12
County Board of County Commissioners endorsed and • Entry level: 67-111 Units E LIHTC Micro Rental 625 26 − − − 26
authorized the Community Housing Steering Committee Three Bedroom
• Move Up: 50-92 Units E Cottage/Cabin SF/Pitkin 1,250 − 10 − − 7
(Steering Committee) to study the housing market in Routt
F Cottage/Cabin SF/Bailey 1,270 − 8 − − 3
County on March 15, 2016. The Steering Committee was made As a result of many conversations with members of the HWG, 1,283 − 10 − − 10
B Duplex, La Veta
up of locally elected and appointed officials, business leaders and and at the suggestion of others throughout our analysis process, G Standard SF, Boreas 1,436 − − 4 9 12
community members.” (page 3) Brynn Grey would consider a 50 rental units as part of the H Standard SF, Kenosha 1,467 − − 6 6 12
overall development program. This market segment potentially J Hillside SF, Valdora 1,375 − − 7 9 16
“The Community Housing Steering Committee approached K Hillside SF, Braddock 1,650 − − 8 8 16
would be constructed through a public / private partnership
L LIHTC Micro Rental 750 12 − − − 12
their study of the housing market by looking at four distinct between the Yampa Valley Housing Authority and Brynn Grey. Four Bedroom
segments of the market defined below:” (page 3)
L Hillside SF, Gunnison 1,820 − − − − 12
The Gateway Neighborhood includes a variety of locals’ homes, I Standard SF, Frisco 1,655 − − − − 12
• Seasonal – short term (less than 6 months), rental housing consisting of single-family cottages, duplexes, and townhomes Total 50 52 43 36 181
in a traditional neighborhood pattern. The following table Percentage 28% 29% 24% 20% 100%
• Low Income – long-term apartment or mobile home
rentals, year round residents, up to 60% AMI includes illustrates how the WSN development program aligns with the
senior citizens, homeless population and college students HWG findings.
• Entry level – permanent residents in the market for bottom

third of the for sale market; condos, single family homes in
outlying communities
• Move Up – middle third of for sale market; larger

HWG-Existing / HWG-Forecasted / WSN Projected
townhomes, single family homes, permanent residents.” Segment
Catch-Up Demand Keep Up (Annually) Supply
“Consequences of the housing shortage across all segments Seasonal 179 34 0
include:” (page 8) Low Income -819 101-137 50
• Loss of workforce across all segments (out-migration) and Entry Level -153 67-111 52
employee turnover Move Up 49 50-92 43
• Loss of businesses due to inability to adequately staff
33% of the total development program are deed restricted (145/444)
• Loss of “Community Character”
1.138 13
VII. Affordability & Pricing
Deed Restriction
Resort communities, such as Steamboat Springs, face serious challenges in creating neighborhoods that serve the needs of employees, particularly the needs of first time home buyers and young families. Certainly rapidly appreciating real property values are a
major problem; however, “neighborhoods” dominated by rentals and second home owners also pose a challenge.
To address these concerns, we have created a program which balances the interests of the City, the homeowners (current and future), the founders, and mortgage lenders that is simple enough to be easily administered, and ultimately ensures that the “locals price”
is paid.
a) Homeowners must be individuals, work 30 hours per week in Routt County, and reside in the house. This would include professionals that work out of their home, i.e. “work-anywheres”.
b) Short-term rentals are prohibited (VRBO, Airbnb).
Pricing
Our goal is to have the West Steamboat Neighborhood Gateway homes priced similarly to our current Lincoln Park neighborhood prices, which are as follows:
• Townhome - $272,900
• Duplex - $315,900 to $350,900
• Deed Restricted Single Family- $413,900 to $429,900
• Market Single Family- $529,900 to $849,900
These prices are offered at this early stage of the development process with two important caveats:
First, there exists considerable headwinds, e.g., extraordinary expenses, relative to developing the West Steamboat Neighborhoods that do not exist with Lincoln Park and which did not exist with either the Wellington or Peak One Neighborhoods. These include:
• Significantly higher land costs;
• Challenges and expense posed by the existing shale dominated soil conditions; and
• City of Steamboat Springs requirements, including: collection of normal and customary water and sewer tap fees, plant investment fees, building permit fees and inspection fees on all deed restricted homes; offsite improvements (Hwy 40 water line
extension and possible secondary access), contributions to the Water Firming Fund and the Highway 40 Corridor Improvements.
Second, construction is a dynamic business with a variety of external factors that can significantly influence costs, including:
• Local contractor availability, material costs and general vertical construction costs that exceed comparable Summit County costs;
• Extraordinary horizontal and vertical development costs; and
• Interest rates.
As we get closer to annexation and construction, we will be better able to pin down these costs. In any event, we will be offering an extraordinary – certainly unprecedented for Steamboat – level of transparency. We have begun the process of sharing with
Steamboat’s Finance Director detailed Gateway proformas, including details on terms of the land acquisition, construction cost estimates and amounts paid to the development team members. In addition, during Gateway construction she will be able to review and
approve the actual construction draws prior to funding. As a result, the City’s Finance Director will see virtually all costs and expenditures and then, in turn, can share summary data to Council in executive session. So, at the end of day, there will be unprecedented
transparency and “it will cost what it costs”.

14
1.139
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Steamboat Springs, CO
West Steamboat
Neighborhoods
PREPARED FOR:
Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd.
777 Pearl Street, Suite 200| Boulder | CO 80302
PREPARED BY: Bill Fox, PE

DATE: September 12, 2017
FTH PROJECT: #17027
P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, CO 80308-2768

PHONE: 303-652-3571 | FAX: 303-652-6574
1.140
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 5
3.0 EXisting conditions ......................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................ 6
3.3 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ......................................................................... 6
4.0 Proposed Development Traffic ...................................................................................... 7
4.1 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 7
4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................................. 8
5.0 Future Traffic Conditions with Site Development ........................................................ 8
5.1 Year 2037 Traffic Growth Projections ........................................................................... 8
5.2 Year 2037 Intersection Capacity Analysis ..................................................................... 9
6.0 Queuing Analysis ............................................................................................................ 9
7.0 Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................................................... 10
8.0 WSN contribution to the funding of roadway capital improvement projects in the
west Steamboat area ................................................................................................................ 10
9.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – WSN Concept Plan Preliminary Trip Gereration ......................................................... 13
Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 August 31, 2017
1.141
Table 2 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................................... 14
Table 3 – Peak Hour Average and 95th Percentile Queue Lengths ............................................ 15
Table 4 – WSN Contribution to Transportation Facility Costs in West Steamboat Springs ........ 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3 – Year 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................................................ 19
Figure 4 – Directional Distribution of WSN Traffic Without Gossard Parkway ............................ 20
Figure 5 – Directional Distribution of WSN Traffic With Gossard Parkway ................................. 21
Figure 6 – Assignment of WSN Traffic Without Gossard Parkway ............................................. 22
Figure 7 – Assignment of WSN Traffic With Gossard Parkway .................................................. 23
Figure 8 – Year 2037 Traffic Without Gossard Parkway ............................................................. 24
Figure 9 – Year 2037 Traffic With Gossard Parkway .................................................................. 25
Figure 10 – Peak Hour Signal Warrant ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 11 – Capital Improvement Projects .................................................................................. 27
APPENDIX
Level of Service Definitions

Existing Traffic Data
CDOT Traffic and 20-Year Growth Data
Intersection Capacity Worksheets
1.142
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The West Steamboat Springs Area Plan (original 1999 Plan and 2006 Update) identifies the
area generally west of Steamboat Springs, east of Steamboat II and north of US 40 as the
location for future higher density residential and supporting commercial development in the
Steamboat Springs area. Transportation access to this area west of Steamboat Springs in the
US 40 corridor has always been an important consideration. The community rejected an earlier
proposal called Steamboat 700 which included plans for developing 2,100 residential units and
over 350,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor area that would have encompassed much of this
area.
The current West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) proposal includes only 436 residential units
and 15,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood supporting retail space in the eastern end of what was the
larger Steamboat 700 project area. Figure 1 includes a vicinity map for the proposed WSN
development.
The purpose of this WSN Traffic Impact Study is to:
 Quantify the anticipated off-site automobile traffic that will be generated by the WSN
project.
 Provide an overall trip generation, distribution, and assignment analysis for the WSN
project for use in the estimation of WSN financial contribution or cost sharing for needed
off-site transportation system improvements in the US 40 corridor west of downtown
Steamboat Springs.
Future amendments to this study will project and analyze on-site transportation system needs
and operation for the WSN site, along with bicycle, pedestrian and transit access improvements.
1.143
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The WSN project proposes to construct 436 residential dwelling units in three neighborhoods
just north of US 40 and just west of the current city limits. The three neighborhoods combined
would include 244 single family units, 130 townhome units, 62 apartments, and 15,000 sq. ft. of
neighborhood supporting retail development. Figure 2 includes a conceptual site plan for the
project and Table 1 details the distribution of the units between the three neighborhoods.
The WSN site will have direct access onto US 40 at what is being called West Steamboat
Boulevard. At some point, it is likely that a secondary access will be provided by extending the
new Gossard Parkway (formerly referred to as New Victory Parkway) west to reach the WSN
site. This will relieve traffic loading on a portion of US 40 west of Downhill Drive and will provide
options for connecting to the local network in the “Curve” area via US 40, Downhill Drive, or Elk
River Road (CR 129).
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This traffic study addresses the existing traffic volumes and operations at a number of locations
in the US 40 corridor west of downtown Steamboat Springs specified by City staff as follows:
 Highway 40 - West Steamboat Boulevard to Downhill Drive

 Highway 40 – Dream Island Plaza to 13th Street
 Highway 40 – 12th Street to 13th Street
 Elk River Road – Downhill Drive to Highway 40
 Intersection of US 40 and Downhill Drive
 Intersection of Downhill Drive and Elk River Road
 Intersection of US 40 and 13th Street
New traffic counts were procured, and signalized and unsignalized intersection operations were
evaluated using the procedures and methodologies set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM)1 using Synchro (version 8) software.
1 Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, 2010.
1.144
3.1 Data Collection
Weekday AM and PM peak hour turning-movement volumes were collected in August 2017 at
the three study area intersections listed above. Daily or 24-hour traffic counts were also
collected on the four roadway segments listed above. City staff provided a monthly factor to
adjust these counts to reflect summer (July) conditions. The July volumes are higher by an
approximate factor of 1.08 when compared to August volumes.
The existing July traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 3. The existing intersection geometry
and traffic control are also shown on the traffic volume figure. Count data sheets are provided
in the Appendix.
3.2 Level of Service Criteria
To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation
engineers and planners commonly use a grading system referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS)
that is defined by the HCM. LOS characterizes the operation conditions of an intersections
traffic flow, ranging from LOS A (indicating very good, free flow operations) and LOS F
(indicating congested and sometimes oversaturated conditions). These grades represent the
perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with
traveling through the intersections. The intersection LOS is represented as a delay in seconds
per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each turning movement.
The City of Steamboat Springs considers LOS A through C to be good for the overall
intersection operations with LOS D as acceptable in peak hours. For individual movements,
LOS E and F may be acceptable for left-turns or minor street approaches. Criteria contained in
the HCM were applied for these analyses in order to determine existing peak hour LOS. A more
detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference.
3.3 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
The results of the LOS calculations for the existing intersections are summarized in Table 1.
The intersection level of service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The data in the
tables show that:
 US 40 and Downhill Drive: This unsignalized intersection is calculated to operate at

LOS F overall in the AM peak hour and LOS A in the PM peak hour. The poor AM peak
LOS is due to a high level of delay for southbound vehicles turning left onto US 40 to
head into town. This delay is caused by the heavy flow of eastbound or inbound traffic
1.145
on US 40 in the morning peak hour. A review of the Peak Hour Signal Warrant at this
intersection is summarized in Section 7.0 of this report.
 Elk River Road and Downhill Drive: This unsignalized intersection is calculated to
operate at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours. The eastbound approach
currently operates at LOS E in the AM peak.
 US 40 and 13th Street: This signalized intersection is calculated to operate at LOS F

overall in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour using the signal timing
information that was provided by CDOT, which appears to allocate too much time to the
13th Street approach and not enough time to the approaches on US 40. For this reason,
this analysis has tested an optimized signal timing scenario where more time was
allocated to US 40. In this optimized case, the overall intersection was improved to LOS
C in the AM and B in the PM, while still maintaining LOS C/D on the 13th Street
approach. In this context, it is recommended that the City discuss adjusting the signal
timing at this location with CDOT to improve existing signalized operations.
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
4.1 Trip Generation
A trip generation estimate was performed to determine the traffic characteristics of the planned
project. The trip rates contained in the previous Steamboat 700 traffic study were utilized for
this project, and were applied to the WSN land uses described above. Ultimately, the trip rates
are based on information in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual2.
The results of this analysis are detailed in Table 1. It is projected that the WSN development
will generate 3,331 automobile trips per day that exit the site onto area roadways, with 255 trips
off-site trips occurring in the morning peak hour and 333 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. It
is also projected that the retail development within the WSN site is truly neighborhood serving,
and does not generate additional off-site traffic.
2 Trip Generation 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.
1.146
4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
The estimated off-site trip volumes presented in Table 1 were distributed onto the study area
roadway network based on existing traffic characteristics of the area, existing and future land
uses, and the relationship of this project to the greater Steamboat Springs community. Trip
distribution estimates were prepared for two conditions, WITHOUT, and WITH the completion of
the Gossard Parkway. The overall assumed distribution for the year 2037 WITHOUT the
Gossard Parkway is illustrated in Figure 4. The assumed trip distribution WITH the completion
of the Gossard Parkway is illustrated in Figure 5.
The off-site traffic generated by the WSN project described above was assigned to the area
roadway network using these trip distribution estimates. Figure 6 illustrates site traffic
WITHOUT Gossard Parkway, and Figure 7 illustrates site traffic WITH Gossard Parkway in
place.
5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT
This section projects the future traffic conditions in the year 2037 (20-year horizon) with the
WSN project in place, and projected additional traffic from other developments west of
downtown Steamboat Springs.
5.1 Year 2037 Traffic Growth Projections
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintains a database of 20-year projected

growth factors for all roadway segments that make up the state highway system in Colorado. In
theory, these growth factors should include the additional traffic for developments such as WSN
that may develop within the next 20 years. For this project, CDOT’s traffic growth factors for US
40 in this area were reviewed as a starting point. The growth projected by CDOT was
compared to the traffic growth projected on US 40 from the WSN site. It was determined that
the CDOT growth factors should be increased slightly to ensure that there was the potential for
additional development, beyond the WSN traffic, to occur in the next 20 years and be included
in the projected future traffic volumes.
The resulting 20-year traffic growth factors used for this study (that ultimately include the WSN
traffic) are:
 US 40 west of Downhill Drive: 1.30
1.147
 US 40 between Curve Court and 13th Street: 1.15

 US 40 east of 13th Street: 1.15
 Elk River Road north of US 40: 1.15

The resulting Year 2037 traffic volumes, without and with Gossard Parkway, are illustrated in
Figures 8 and 9 respectively. These traffic projections include the added traffic from WSN plus
additional traffic from other developments or changes along US 40 anywhere to the west of
Steamboat Springs.
5.2 Year 2037 Intersection Capacity Analysis
The projected 2037 traffic volumes in Figures 8 and 9 were evaluated using the same LOS
calculation procedure discussed above. It can be seen in Table 1 that the intersection of US 40
and Downhill Drive is projected to function at LOS F, with or without the Gossard Parkway if it
remains unsignalized.
The Downhill Drive and Elk River Road intersection will continue to function well in the LOS B/C
range overall, with or without the Gossard Parkway extension to WSN.
The signalized intersection of US40 and 13th Street will continue to function at LOS F in the AM
and PM peak hours using existing CDOT timing plans in the traffic signal controller. However, if
the signal timing is optimized, the intersection will operate at LOS D in the AM peak and LOS C
in the PM peak, with all approach movements in the LOS A-D range.
6.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was performed at the three key intersections evaluated to determine if the
worst case 95th percentile queues would be accommodated by the existing storage length and if
any of the queues impact an upstream intersection/access. Table 3 provides the storage
lengths, distance to nearest intersection/access, and the longest 95th percentile queue for each
scenario.
It can be seen in Table 3 that the Downhill Drive and US 40 intersection will have significant
southbound left turn queues during peak hours if the existing stop sign control is maintained. If
this intersection is signalized (see next section) and the intersection is improved, a 290-foot long
left turn lane would be needed to accommodate the longest peak hour left turn queue.
1.148
No queuing issues are anticipated at the Downhill Drive and Elk River Road intersection under
any of the scenarios modeled in this study.
The US 40 and 13th Street intersection is projected to continue to have queuing issues on US 40
if the existing CDOT signal timing is maintained. However, if the timing is optimized, the
queuing on US 40 will be significantly reduced, with only minor queuing on the 13th Street
approach.
7.0 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
A planning level peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of US 40
at Downhill Drive due to the existing and projected congestion at this intersection. The peak
hour volumes for AM and PM were compared to the peak hour warrant threshold set forth by the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, March 2009). Figure 10 illustrates the
traffic signal warrant status at this intersection during peak periods. It can be seen that a traffic
signal is currently warranted in the AM and PM peak hours at the US 40 and Downhill Drive
intersection, and in this context, it would continue to be warranted in the future. [It should be
noted that the Peak Hour Signal Warrant is only one of nine warrants in the MUTCD when
considering the installation of a traffic signal, but it is a good indicator.]
It can also be seen in Figure 10 that the Elk River Road and Downhill Drive intersection is not
projected to meet a traffic signal warrant in the Year 2037, with or without the completion of
Gossard Parkway.
Lastly, it is likely that a traffic signal will be warranted at the intersection of US 40 and West
Steamboat Boulevard at some point during the development of the WSN project.
8.0 WSN CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUNDING OF ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS IN THE WEST STEAMBOAT AREA
The previous Steamboat 700 analysis had identified a number of roadway system capital
improvement projects in the West Steamboat area that would be needed over the course of the
that project development. That project had also developed a cost sharing model for the
Steamboat 700 project to contribute to project funding.
1.149
Now, in the context of the current WSN proposal, City staff has identified 10 capital
improvement projects (7 roadway links or segments, and 3 intersections) for consideration in a
possible cost sharing by WSN. The 10 projects being considered are illustrated in Figure 11.
The cost sharing methodology being discussed is to treat the WSN project the same as any
other development within the City, and calculate the WSN funding percentage based on the
project’s percentage of the total Year 2037 automobile traffic that will utilize each of the 10
improvement locations. The 7 roadway link project calculations utilize daily traffic contribution,
and the 3 intersections calculations utilize the higher of the AM or PM peak hour traffic
contribution.
Table 4 includes the total traffic at each project location and the amount of traffic that will be
generated by the WSN project. The WSN percent traffic contribution to each project is then
calculated. The WSN percent contribution percentage is then applied to the total project cost
estimate to yield the potential WSN project cost contribution. Note that the project specific cost
estimates in Table 4 have been provided by City staff, and it is our understanding that they are
based on earlier cost estimates prepared as part of the Steamboat 700 annexation process.
Table 4 includes separate calculations for the WITHOUT and WITH Gossard Parkway, as this
results in differing traffic projections for some project locations.
It can be seen in Table 4 that estimated total cost of the 10 projects that have been identified
ranges between $50 million and $53 million, depending on whether the Gossard Parkway is
extended or not. Using this cost distribution model, the WSN project would potentially
contribute between $5.5 million and $6.4 million if all 10 projects were to be completed. This
analysis will help the City and WSN evaluate which off-site improvements are of highest priority,
the appropriate phasing of these improvements, and what is a reasonable expectation for WSN
to help fund these improvements.
9.0 CONCLUSION
The original West Of Steamboat Springs Area Plan (and subsequent revisions) recommended
adding residential development on the western fringe of Steamboat Springs. The WSN project
is designed to implement part of that vision with the construction of 436 residential units and
neighborhood supporting commercial development just west of the western city limits.
1.150
Unfortunately, the existing roadway capacity in the US 40 corridor west of downtown Steamboat
is limited and congestion is already evident, particularly to the east of Downhill Drive. City staff
has identified a number of potential transportation system improvement projects in the West
Steamboat area (based on earlier work done for the Steamboat 700 proposal) that will be
needed to mitigate existing congestion and accommodate projected traffic growth in the US 40
corridor. The WSN project has the potential to meet some of the community’s housing needs
while providing a portion of the funding necessary to implement these off-site transportation
system improvements in the west Steamboat area.
This WSN Traffic study:
 projects the off-site traffic that will be added to area roadways by WSN;
 estimates additional growth in background traffic in the US 40 corridor west of downtown

Steamboat;
 includes a cost allocation model (Table 4) based on future traffic for calculating the
potential WSN contribution to transportation system improvement projects in the area.
This study and its findings should be helpful in determining the appropriate WSN contribution to
these off-site transportation system needs as part of annexation negotiations.
1.151
FTH 17027 West Steamboat Neighborhood 8/31/2017
Table 1 WSN Concept Plan - Preliminary Trip Generation

External A.M. Peak Hour External P.M. Peak Hour
Trip Reduction Factors Average Daily Trips Trips Trips
Internal Total
Trips and External
Multi- Total Trips Trips With
ITE Purpose with No Trip Trip
Code Land Use Size Unit Multi-Modal Trips Pass-By Rate Reductions Reductions Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out
Gateway
210 Single Family Detached 74 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 9.57 708 673 0.75 53 13 40 1.01 71 45 26
230 Townhome / Condo / Duplex 58 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.86 340 323 0.44 24 4 20 0.52 29 19 10
221 Apartment 48 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 6.59 316 301 0.46 21 4 17 0.58 26 17 9
Neighborhood Serving Retail: 15 1,000 sq.ft. 0.15 1.00 0.00 44.32 665 0 0.96 0 0 0 2.71 0 0 0
Gateway Residential Subtotal: 180 2,029 1,297 98 21 77 126 81 45
Slate Creek
Slate Creek Residential Subtotal: 152 1,227 1,166 90 20 70 117 74 43
Emerald
Emerald Residential Subtotal: 104 914 868 67 16 51 90 58 32
Total External Off-site Trips: 436 4,170 3,331 255 57 198 333 213 120
Table 1 trip generation 8 28 17
1.152
FTH# 17027 West Steamboat Neighborhoods 8/29/2017
Traffic Impact Study
Table 2 - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary

2017 Existing + Optimized Signal 2037 Future 2037 Future without Gossard 2037 Future 2037 Future with Gossard
2017 Existing
Timing without Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements with Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements
Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Lanes Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
STOP SIGN CONTROL
US 40 at Downhill Dr. 80 F 6 A 125 F 9 A 106 F 7 A

Eastbound Left 9 A 10 A Refer to Signal Control 9 A 11 B 9 A 10 B Refer to Signal Control
Eastbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Eastbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Left 10 B 8 A 10 B 8 A 1 A 9 A
Westbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Northbound Left+Through+Right 23 C 15 C 23 C 21 C 21 C 19 C
Southbound Left >120 F 28 D >120 F 56 F >120 F 48 E
Southbound Through+Right 11 B 16 C 12 B 20 C 12 B 18 C
Elk River Rd. at Downhill Dr. 9 A 8 A 10 A 9 A 15 C 10 A

Eastbound Left+Through+Right 36 E 23 C 38 E 27 D 53 F 27 D
Westbound Left+Through+Right 25 D 31 D 25 D 34 D 30 D 36 E
Northbound Left+Through 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A
Northbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Southbound Left+Through+Right 0 A 0 A 1 A 0 A 1 A 0 A
SIGNAL CONTROL
US 40 at 13th Street 154 F 80 E 29 C 20 B 195 F 119 F 36 D 25 C
Eastbound Left 30 C 0 A 15 B 0 A 31 C 0 A 16 B 0 A Same as 2037 without Gossard Same as 2037 without Gossard
Eastbound Through+Right >120 F >120 F 33 C 24 C >120 F >120 F 48 D 30 C
Westbound Left 46 D 57 E 49 D 18 B 61 E 89 F 54 D 41 D
Westbound Through+Right 28 C 35 D 12 B 13 B 31 C 45 D 12 B 14 B
Northbound Left+Through 15 B 14 B 30 C 30 C 15 B 14 B 30 C 30 C
Northbound Right 19 B 16 B 41 D 32 C 19 B 17 B 39 D 33 C
Southbound Left+Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
US 40 at Downhill Dr. 34 C 21 C 33 C 21 C 29 C 19 B
Eastbound Left Refer to Stop Sign Control 9 A 12 B Refer to Stop Sign Control 9 A 10 B Refer to Stop Sign Control 9 A 9 A
Eastbound Through 44 D 14 B 39 D 11 B 31 C 11 B
Eastbound Right 10 B 11 B 10 B 8 A 10 B 10 B
Westbound Left 24 C 10 B 24 C 7 A 20 B 7 A
Westbound Through 17 B 21 C 16 B 17 B 16 B 16 B
Westbound Right 14 B 13 B 14 B 10 A 14 B 10 A
Northbound Left+Through+Right 43 D 43 D 49 D 57 E 49 D 57 E
Southbound Left 39 D 34 C 53 D 52 D 53 D 52 D
Southbound Through+Right 30 C 31 C 35 C 40 D 35 C 40 D
Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle.
Page 1 of 1 17027_LOS
1.153
FTH# 17027 West Steamboat Neighborhoods 8/29/2017
Traffic Impact Study
Table 3 - Peak Hour Average and 95th Percentile Queue Lengths
Storage or 2017 Existing + 2037 Future 2037 Future without Gossard 2037 Future 2037 Future with Gossard
2017 Existing
Adjacent Improvements without Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements with Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements
Intersection and Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Lanes Groups Distance Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th
STOP SIGN CONTROL
US 40 at Downhill Dr.
Eastbound Left 800' - 12' - 5' Refer to Signal Control - 13' - 7' Refer to Signal Control - 13' - 7' Refer to Signal Control
Eastbound Through 800' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Eastbound Right 800' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Westbound Left 550' - 2' - 3' - 2' - 4' - 2' - 5'
Westbound Through 550' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Westbound Right 275' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Northbound Left+Through+Right 240' - 24' - 7' - 22' - 10' - 20' - 8'
Southbound Left 60' - 502' - 78' - 643' - 153' - 607' - 138'
Southbound Through+Right 125' - 8' - 30' - 13' - 45' - 12' - 40'
Elk River Rd. at Downhill Dr.
Eastbound Left+Through+Right 240' - 112' - 57' - 122' - 73' - 187' - 82'
Westbound Left+Through+Right 115' - 20' - 62' - 20' - 65' - 25' - 68'
Northbound Left+Through 1100' - 6' - 6' - 6' - 7' - 7' - 7'
Northbound Right 200' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Southbound Left+Through+Right 400' - 1' - 1' - 1' - 1' - 1' - 1'
SIGNAL CONTROL
US 40 at 13th Street
Eastbound Left 1050' 1' 5' 0' 0' 0' 3' 0' 0' 3' 15' 0' 0' 2' 10' 0' 0' Same as 2037 without Gossard Same as 2037 without Gossard
Eastbound Through+Right 1050' 777' 861' 497' 633' 483' 555' 286' 411' 892' 1032' 628' 766' 635' 776' 389' 509'
Westbound Left 275' 96' 207' 102' 234' 93' 187' 59' 111' 112' 259' 123' 291' 110' 228' 106' 193'
Westbound Through+Right 275' 271' 330' 362' 451' 165' 201' 214' 266' 321' 400' 448' 595' 195' 244' 264' 326'
Northbound Left+Through 65' 12' 26' 7' 21' 18' 37' 11' 31' 12' 29' 8' 21' 17' 42' 12' 32'
Northbound Right 155' 43' 65' 0' 43' 116' 160' 0' 65' 42' 113' 14' 62' 103' 223' 15' 92'
Southbound Left+Through+Right 80' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0'
US 40 at Downhill Dr.
Eastbound Left 800' Refer to Stop Sign Control 40' 54' 13' 27' Refer to Stop Sign Control 42' 68' 14' 28' Refer to Stop Sign Control 42' 68' 14' 28'
Eastbound Through 800' 546' 670' 123' 188' 715' 1047' 149' 219' 618' 938' 149' 219'
Eastbound Right 800' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 39'
Westbound Left 550' 3' 9' 10' 23' 5' 14' 12' 25' 5' 14' 12' 25'
Westbound Through 550' 121' 159' 313' 455' 131' 198' 406' 581' 123' 187' 343' 490'
Westbound Right 275' 0' 21' 15' 48' 0' 31' 27' 62' 0' 31' 27' 62'
Northbound Left+Through+Right 240' 7' 24' 6' 20' 8' 50' 9' 40' 8' 50' 9' 40'
Southbound Left 60' 131' 200' 102' 158' 179' 289' 142' 220' 179' 289' 142' 220'
Southbound Through+Right 125' 1' 33' 3' 44' 4' 44' 4' 58' 4' 44' 4' 58'
Note: Queue represented in feet.

Queues highlighted in blue font exceed the exisitng or proposed storage length or reach the upstream intersection.
Page 1 of 1 17027_LOS
1.154
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) Traffic Study Updated: 9/13/2017
Table 4
WSN Contribution to Transportation Facility Capital Costs in West Steamboat Springs ‐ WITHOUT and WITH the Extension of Gossard Parkway
WSN
WSN Daily WSN AM Peak WSN PM Peak Capital Project Contribution to
Year 2037 Year 2037 Year 2037 Traffic Hour Traffic Hour Traffic WSN Daily WSN AM WSN PM Improvement Capital Cost
Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Contribution Contribution Contribution Traffic Peak Hour Peak Hour Cost Based on Traffic
Capital Project ‐ WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY (vpd) Traffic (vph) Traffic (vph) (vpd) (vph) (vph) % % % ($$$)(2) ($$$)
Roadway Segments
A Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive
A.1 West Steamboat Blvd. Intersection n/a n/a 100.0% $600,000 $600,000
A.2 Pedestrian Underpass and connection to Snow Bowl Plaza 19,800 2,830 14.3% $2,800,000 $400,202
A.3 Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive ‐ widen to 4 lanes 19,800 2,830 14.3% $15,268,820 $2,182,362
B Highway 40 ‐ Downhill Drive to Elk River Road 25,500 2,730 10.7% $2,560,540 $274,128
C Highway 40 ‐ Elk River Road to Dream Island Plaza 34,700 2,165 6.2% $17,946,405 $1,119,711
D Highway 40 ‐ Dream Island Plaza to 13th Street 34,700 2,165 6.2% $3,697,960 $230,723
E Elk River Road ‐ Downhill Drive to Highway 40 12,000 70 0.6% $620,000 $3,617
F Downhill Drive ‐ Highway 40 to Elk River Road 6,000 100 1.7% $864,000 $14,400
G Gossard Parkway ‐ WSN to west end of existing road 0 0 0.0% $0 $0
Intersections
1 Highway 40 and Downhill Drive 1865 1740 216 285 11.6% 16.4% $5,036,220 $824,898
2 Highway 40 and 13th Street 3015 2890 167 220 5.5% 7.6% $0 $0
3 Elk River Road and Downhill Drive 980 985 13 16 1.3% 1.6% $1,800,000 $29,239
Total: $51,193,945 $5,679,279
WSN
WSN Daily WSN AM Peak WSN PM Peak Capital Project Contribution to
Year 2037 Year 2037 Year 2037 Traffic Hour Traffic Hour Traffic WSN Daily WSN AM WSN PM Improvement Capital Cost
Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Contribution Contribution Contribution Traffic Peak Hour Peak Hour Cost Based on Traffic
Capital Project ‐ WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY (vpd) Traffic (vph) Traffic (vph) (vpd) (vph) (vph) % % % ($$$) ($$$)
Roadway Segments
A Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive
A.1 West Steamboat Blvd. Intersection n/a n/a 100.0% $600,000 $600,000
A.2 Pedestrian Underpass and connection to Snow Bowl Plaza 18,650 1,665 8.9% $2,800,000 $249,973
A.3 Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive ‐ widen to 4 lanes 18,650 1,665 8.9% $15,268,820 $1,363,141
B Highway 40 ‐ Downhill Drive to Elk River Road 24,650 1,830 7.4% $2,560,540 $190,093
C Highway 40 ‐ Elk River Road to Dream Island Plaza 34,700 2,165 6.2% $17,946,405 $1,119,711
D Highway 40 ‐ Dream Island Plaza to 13th Street 34,700 2,165 6.2% $3,697,960 $230,723
E Elk River Road ‐ Downhill Drive to Highway 40 12,800 835 6.5% $620,000 $40,445
F Downhill Drive ‐ Highway 40 to Elk River Road 6,500 1,000 15.4% $864,000 $132,923
(1)
G Gossard Parkway ‐ WSN to west end of existing road 1,456 1,165 80.0% $2,121,532 $1,697,517
Intersections
1 Highway 40 and Downhill Drive 1795 1635 135 201 7.5% 12.3% $5,036,220 $619,132
2 Highway 40 and 13th Street ‐ cost included in D above 3015 2890 167 220 5.5% 7.6% $0 $0
3 Elk River Road and Downhill Drive 1045 1040 77 99 7.4% 9.5% $1,800,000 $171,346
Total: $53,315,477 $6,415,004
1 Assume some other development in the area along Gossard Parkway such that WSN traffic is 80% of the total.
2 Cost estimates provide by City of Steamboat Springs staff.
1.155
Steamboat
Airport
West Steamboat
Neighborhoods
Old Town
(Downtown)
T ra n s p o r ta t i o n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
VICINITY MAP
Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 1
1.156
New Gossard
Parkway
Access onto
US 40
T ra n s p o r ta t i o n G rou p
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 2
1.157
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
YEAR 2017 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 3
1.158
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WSN TRAFFIC WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY
1.159
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WSN TRAFFIC WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY
1.160
ASSIGNMENT OF WSN TRAFFIC WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY
1.161
ASSIGNMENT OF WSN TRAFFIC WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY
1.162
YEAR 2037 TRAFFIC WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY
1.163
YEAR 2037 TRAFFIC WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY
1.164
PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT
1.165
CR
24
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1.166
Appendix:
CDOT Traffic and 20‐Year Growth Data
1.167
1.168
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic
volumes, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good
operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and
unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in
seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal
and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference.
Level Delay in seconds per vehicle (a)
of Service Definition
Rating Signalized Unsignalized
Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is
A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers
are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.
Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction
of operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is
B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0
only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and
drivers are not subject to appreciable tension.
Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is
more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory
C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0
operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer
vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor.
Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in
volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in
D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0
ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion.
Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable.
Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and
average travel speeds of one‐half to one‐third the free flow speed.
Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief
E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0
duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor
signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at
signalized corridors.
Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays
at critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and
F > 80.0 > 50.0
stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of
downstream congestion.
(a) Delay ranges based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual criteria.
1.169
1.170
1.171
1.172
1.173
1.174
1.175
1.176
1.177
1.178
1.179
1.180
1.181
1.182
1.183
1.184
CDOT Traffic and 20‐Year Growth Data
1.185
1.186
1.187
1.188
1.189
08/29/2017 1: Downhill Drive/Riverside Drive & US 40
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 119 760 3 11 238 109 0 7 36 198 1 58
Future Volume (Veh/h) 119 760 3 11 238 109 0 7 36 198 1 58
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph) 159 1013 4 14 301 138 0 11 55 225 1 66
Pedestrians 5 2 2
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 441 1017 1732 1800 1015 1724 1666 308
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1331 1331 331 331
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 400 469 1394 1335
vCu, unblocked vol 441 1017 1732 1800 1015 1724 1666 308
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 86 98 100 94 81 0 99 91
cM capacity (veh/h) 1122 686 152 175 289 98 170 727
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 159 1013 4 14 301 138 66 225 67
Volume Left 159 0 0 14 0 0 0 225 0
Volume Right 0 0 4 0 0 138 55 0 66
cSH 1122 1700 1700 686 1700 1700 261 98 693
Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.60 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.08 0.25 2.30 0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 0 2 0 0 24 502 8
Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 23.4 685.6 10.7
Lane LOS A B C F B
Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.3 23.4 530.7
Approach LOS C F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 79.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
West Steamboat Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study Synchro 9 Report

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group Page 1
1.190
08/29/2017 2: Elk River Road & Downhill Drive/Copper Ridge Drive
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.74 0.74 0.74
Pedestrians 3 1 4 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 69 74 90 87 92 99 93 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 258 273 679 176 266 801 1131 1276
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 216 50 321 52 443
Volume Left 80 23 84 0 15
Volume Right 65 5 0 52 142
cSH 325 228 1131 1700 1276
Volume to Capacity 0.67 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 20 6 0 1
Control Delay (s) 35.6 25.2 2.7 0.0 0.4
Lane LOS E D A A
Approach Delay (s) 35.6 25.2 2.4 0.4
Approach LOS E D
Average Delay 9.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A

1.191
08/29/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 1456 214 925 34 432
v/c Ratio 0.01 1.55 0.83 0.65 0.05 0.47
Control Delay 30.0 283.1 49.9 28.7 15.5 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.0 283.1 49.9 28.7 15.5 6.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 ~777 96 271 12 43
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 #861 #207 330 26 65
Internal Link Dist (ft) 664 1177 530
Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75
Base Capacity (vph) 142 940 266 1433 685 920
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 1.55 0.80 0.65 0.05 0.47
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

1.192
08/29/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1241 11 188 812 2 26 0 333 0 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 1 1241 11 188 812 2 26 0 333 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3500 1787 3504 1785 1566
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 530 3500 225 3504 1423 1566
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 1443 13 214 923 2 34 0 432 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 1455 0 214 925 0 0 34 266 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 8 8 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 8
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 29.5 45.0 45.0 53.0 53.0
Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 29.5 45.0 45.0 53.0 53.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.48
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 142 938 255 1433 685 754
v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 c0.09 0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.26 0.02 c0.17
v/c Ratio 0.01 1.55 0.84 0.65 0.05 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 40.2 26.3 26.1 15.1 17.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 253.4 20.0 2.3 0.1 1.3
Delay (s) 29.6 293.7 46.3 28.4 15.3 19.1
Level of Service C F D C B B
Approach Delay (s) 293.5 31.7 18.8 0.0
Approach LOS F C B A
HCM 2000 Control Delay 154.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E
c Critical Lane Group

1.193
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.86 0.86 0.86
Pedestrians 8 2 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 432 432 729 729
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 868 883 456 435
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 93 97 95 99 97 45 99 72
cM capacity (veh/h) 829 1237 177 275 713 330 348 465
Volume Total 54 323 3 43 643 154 32 181 133
Volume Left 54 0 0 43 0 0 8 181 0
Volume Right 0 0 3 0 0 154 22 0 128
cSH 829 1700 1700 1237 1700 1700 384 330 459
Control Delay (s) 9.6 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 28.3 16.0
Lane LOS A A C D C
Approach Delay (s) 1.4 0.4 15.2 23.1
Approach LOS C C
Average Delay 5.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B

1.194
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81
Pedestrians 3 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/s) 3.5 3.5
Percent Blockage 0 0
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 72 95 87 77 75 99 92 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 226 298 717 218 284 800 1179 1305
Volume Total 168 130 324 24 394
cSH 369 268 1179 1700 1305
Control Delay (s) 22.6 30.5 2.8 0.0 0.2
Lane LOS C D A A
Approach Delay (s) 22.6 30.5 2.6 0.2
Approach LOS C D
Average Delay 8.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A

1.195
08/29/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR

Lane Group Flow (vph) 1085 218 1111 21 303
v/c Ratio 1.22 0.87 0.81 0.03 0.32
Control Delay 144.3 57.5 35.7 14.2 2.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 144.3 57.5 35.7 14.2 2.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~497 102 362 7 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #633 #234 451 21 43
Turn Bay Length (ft) 75
Base Capacity (vph) 891 251 1368 708 937
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.22 0.87 0.81 0.03 0.32

1.196
08/29/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3482 1787 3503 1777 1571
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3482 234 3503 1417 1571
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1042 43 218 1107 4 21 0 303 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 5 5 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.1 43.0 43.0 55.0 55.0
Effective Green, g (s) 28.1 43.0 43.0 55.0 55.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 889 245 1369 708 785
v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.09 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.01 c0.10
v/c Ratio 1.22 0.89 0.81 0.03 0.19
Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 27.3 29.9 14.0 15.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 108.0 29.3 5.3 0.1 0.5
Delay (s) 148.9 56.6 35.2 14.0 15.8
Level of Service F E D B B
Approach Delay (s) 148.9 38.7 15.7 0.0
Approach LOS F D B A
HCM 2000 Control Delay 79.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E

1.197
Queues 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 1013 4 14 301 138 66 225 67
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.93 0.00 0.08 0.32 0.16 0.26 0.62 0.15
Control Delay 8.6 37.7 0.0 8.4 17.4 3.0 17.8 41.2 8.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 37.7 0.0 8.4 17.4 3.0 17.8 41.2 8.8
Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 #670 0 9 159 21 24 200 33
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1336 1275 592 708
Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 681 1088 988 184 936 860 254 364 455
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.93 0.00 0.08 0.32 0.16 0.26 0.62 0.15

1.198
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.89 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 1845 1599 1787 1845 1561 1621 1767 1542
Flt Permitted 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 923 1845 1599 135 1845 1561 1621 1033 1542
Adj. Flow (vph) 159 1013 4 14 301 138 0 11 55 225 1 66
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 5 2 2 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 69.0 62.5 62.5 58.3 55.8 55.8 14.0 29.0 29.0
Effective Green, g (s) 69.0 62.5 62.5 58.3 55.8 55.8 14.0 29.0 29.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.13 0.26 0.26
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 1048 908 109 935 791 206 345 406
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.55 0.00 0.16 0.01 c0.07 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.04 c0.11
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.97 0.00 0.13 0.32 0.09 0.09 0.65 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 8.8 22.8 10.3 23.1 16.0 14.0 42.4 34.5 30.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 20.8 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.8 4.4 0.2
Delay (s) 9.0 43.6 10.3 23.6 16.9 14.2 43.2 38.9 30.4
Level of Service A D B C B B D D C
Approach Delay (s) 38.8 16.3 43.2 36.9
Approach LOS D B D D
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C

1.199
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.00 0.88 0.82 0.43 0.09 0.71
Control Delay 17.0 33.8 48.6 11.6 30.7 22.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 17.0 33.8 48.6 11.6 30.7 22.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 483 93 165 18 116
Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 555 #187 201 37 160
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.00 0.88 0.73 0.43 0.09 0.71

1.200
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3500 1787 3504 1785 1566
Flt Permitted 0.31 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 581 3500 134 3504 1423 1566
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 1443 13 214 923 2 34 0 432 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 8 8 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 276 1664 258 2166 388 427
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.42 0.02 c0.16
v/c Ratio 0.00 0.87 0.83 0.43 0.09 0.59
Uniform Delay, d1 15.2 25.9 30.5 10.9 29.8 34.6
Delay (s) 15.2 32.7 49.0 11.5 30.2 40.5
Level of Service B C D B C D
Approach Delay (s) 32.6 18.5 39.7 0.0
Approach LOS C B D A

1.201
Queues 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.64 0.17 0.15 0.44 0.27
Control Delay 8.1 14.4 0.0 7.5 21.8 5.1 23.9 35.6 7.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.1 14.4 0.0 7.5 21.8 5.1 23.9 35.6 7.7
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.31 0.00 0.06 0.64 0.17 0.15 0.44 0.27

1.202
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1845 1563 1786 1845 1599 1637 1766 1541
Flt Permitted 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.70 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 485 1845 1563 1002 1845 1599 1506 1301 1541
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 323 3 43 643 154 8 2 22 181 5 128
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 8 2 2 8
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 1019 863 609 996 863 195 388 406
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.18 0.00 c0.35 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.01 c0.08
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.65 0.12 0.07 0.47 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 11.6 13.3 11.0 10.1 17.9 12.4 42.0 33.3 30.6
Delay (s) 11.8 14.2 11.0 10.1 21.1 12.7 42.6 34.2 31.1
Level of Service B B B B C B D C C
Approach Delay (s) 13.8 19.0 42.6 32.9
Approach LOS B B D C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5% ICU Level of Service D

1.203
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.65 0.66 0.51 0.05 0.47
Control Delay 24.5 19.7 12.8 30.2 6.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.5 19.7 12.8 30.2 6.2
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.47

1.204
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Existing (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3482 1787 3503 1777 1571
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3482 280 3503 1417 1571
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1042 43 218 1107 4 21 0 303 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 5 5 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1668 327 2165 386 428
v/s Ratio Prot 0.31 c0.07 0.32
v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 0.01 c0.05
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.67 0.51 0.05 0.19
Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 14.1 11.7 29.5 30.7
Delay (s) 23.6 18.0 12.6 29.8 31.7
Level of Service C B B C C
Approach Delay (s) 23.6 13.5 31.6 0.0
Approach LOS C B C A
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B

1.205
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 5 2 2
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1266 1266 346 346
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 430 490 1324 1277
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 86 97 100 94 84 0 97 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 1117 724 161 184 317 106 174 728
Volume Total 161 944 11 22 300 144 61 267 84
Volume Left 161 0 0 22 0 0 0 267 0
Volume Right 0 0 11 0 0 144 50 0 78
cSH 1117 1700 1700 724 1700 1700 280 106 593
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 21.4 776.2 12.1
Lane LOS A B C F B
Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.5 21.4 593.4
Approach LOS C F
Average Delay 105.9

1.206
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 3 1 4 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 63 70 83 84 91 99 91 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 242 257 695 134 253 788 1153 1258
Volume Total 284 50 350 56 422
Volume Left 89 22 100 0 17
cSH 338 193 1153 1700 1258
Control Delay (s) 52.5 30.0 3.0 0.0 0.5
Lane LOS F D A A
Approach Delay (s) 52.5 30.0 2.6 0.5
Approach LOS F D
Average Delay 15.2

1.207
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.06 1.73 0.90 0.73 0.05 0.47
Control Delay 32.4 361.9 60.4 31.0 15.5 6.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 32.4 361.9 60.4 31.0 15.5 6.5
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 1.73 0.90 0.73 0.05 0.47

1.208
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3499 1787 3502 1785 1566
Flt Permitted 0.21 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 397 3499 227 3502 1423 1566
Adj. Flow (vph) 6 1583 17 239 1039 6 33 0 428 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 8 8 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 105 925 261 1432 685 754
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.27 0.02 c0.17
v/c Ratio 0.06 1.73 0.92 0.73 0.05 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 30.2 40.5 27.7 27.4 15.1 17.7
Delay (s) 31.2 373.0 61.1 30.7 15.3 19.0
Level of Service C F E C B B
Approach Delay (s) 371.7 36.3 18.7 0.0

1.209
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 8 2 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 517 517 806 806
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 961 990 538 863
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 92 94 95 97 97 25 97 67
cM capacity (veh/h) 770 874 120 224 656 282 235 431
Volume Total 64 388 346 53 700 184 29 211 150
Volume Left 64 0 0 53 0 0 6 211 0
Volume Right 0 0 346 0 0 184 17 0 144
cSH 770 1700 1700 874 1700 1700 282 282 417
Control Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 19.2 47.9 18.4
Lane LOS B A C E C
Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.5 19.2 35.7
Approach LOS C E
Average Delay 6.9

1.210
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 3 1
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 67 94 83 75 74 99 91 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 202 271 706 178 259 778 1164 1277
Volume Total 201 122 356 28 411
Volume Left 67 44 100 0 11
Volume Right 117 11 0 28 122
cSH 359 235 1164 1700 1277
Control Delay (s) 27.0 35.8 3.0 0.0 0.3
Lane LOS D E A A
Approach Delay (s) 27.0 35.8 2.7 0.3
Approach LOS D E
Average Delay 9.8

1.211
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 1.41 1.00 0.93 0.03 0.37
Control Delay 222.4 83.8 45.6 14.2 3.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 222.4 83.8 45.6 14.2 3.9
Queue Length 95th (ft) #766 #291 #595 21 62
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.41 1.00 0.93 0.03 0.37

1.212
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3482 1787 3503 1777 1571
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3482 235 3503 1417 1571
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1201 49 250 1272 5 22 0 350 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 5 5 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 886 247 1369 708 785
v/c Ratio 1.41 1.01 0.93 0.03 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 28.9 32.1 14.0 15.7
Delay (s) 231.1 89.3 44.9 14.0 16.5
Level of Service F F D B B
Approach Delay (s) 231.1 52.2 16.3 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.3% ICU Level of Service F

1.213
Queues 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.86 0.01 0.11 0.30 0.16 0.28 0.76 0.19
Control Delay 8.2 30.5 0.0 8.2 16.5 2.7 20.9 53.7 9.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.2 30.5 0.0 8.2 16.5 2.7 20.9 53.7 9.9
Queue Length 95th (ft) 68 #938 0 14 187 31 50 #289 44
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.86 0.01 0.10 0.30 0.16 0.28 0.76 0.19

1.214
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.89 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 1845 1599 1787 1845 1561 1623 1766 1559
Flt Permitted 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 941 1845 1599 196 1845 1561 1623 1019 1559
Adj. Flow (vph) 161 944 11 22 300 144 0 11 50 267 6 78
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 5 2 2 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 677 1079 935 162 994 841 175 335 389
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.51 0.00 0.16 0.01 c0.09 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.05 c0.11
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.87 0.01 0.14 0.30 0.09 0.09 0.80 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 8.5 21.2 10.4 19.3 15.2 13.4 48.2 40.6 34.3
Delay (s) 8.7 31.1 10.4 19.7 16.0 13.6 49.3 53.0 34.6
Level of Service A C B B B B D D C
Approach Delay (s) 27.6 15.4 49.3 48.6
Approach LOS C B D D

1.215
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.03 0.99 0.85 0.48 0.09 0.69
Control Delay 17.6 49.5 51.9 12.3 30.7 20.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 17.6 49.5 51.9 12.3 30.7 20.1
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.99 0.77 0.48 0.09 0.69

1.216
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3499 1787 3502 1785 1566
Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 516 3499 137 3502 1423 1566
Adj. Flow (vph) 6 1583 17 239 1039 6 33 0 428 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 8 8 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 1622 279 2164 388 427
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.43 0.02 c0.15
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.99 0.86 0.48 0.09 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 16.0 29.1 33.0 11.4 29.8 34.3
Delay (s) 16.2 48.4 54.2 12.2 30.2 39.4
Level of Service B D D B C D
Approach Delay (s) 48.3 20.0 38.8 0.0
Approach LOS D C D A
HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D

1.217
Queues 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.32 0.30 0.08 0.58 0.17 0.23 0.72 0.39
Control Delay 6.2 11.8 1.9 5.8 16.5 5.5 34.4 57.6 10.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.2 11.8 1.9 5.8 16.5 5.5 34.4 57.6 10.0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.32 0.30 0.07 0.58 0.17 0.14 0.71 0.28

1.218
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1845 1563 1786 1845 1599 1669 1766 1540
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.66 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 526 1845 1563 919 1845 1599 1497 1229 1540
Adj. Flow (vph) 64 388 346 53 700 184 6 6 17 211 6 144
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 8 2 2 8
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 413 1159 982 658 1157 1003 67 297 296
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.21 0.00 c0.38 c0.08 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.09 0.01 c0.06
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.33 0.22 0.08 0.61 0.15 0.19 0.71 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 8.9 10.5 9.6 6.8 13.4 9.2 55.2 44.5 40.0
Delay (s) 9.1 11.3 10.1 6.8 15.8 9.5 56.6 52.3 40.2
Level of Service A B B A B A E D D
Approach Delay (s) 10.6 14.0 56.6 47.3
Approach LOS B B E D
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B

1.219
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.79 0.80 0.59 0.06 0.53
Control Delay 30.7 41.1 14.0 30.2 8.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.7 41.1 14.0 30.2 8.1
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.67 0.59 0.06 0.53

1.220
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Future with Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3482 1787 3503 1777 1571
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3482 167 3503 1417 1571
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1201 49 250 1272 5 22 0 350 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 5 5 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1582 309 2165 386 428
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.81 0.59 0.06 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 27.3 12.6 29.6 31.4
Delay (s) 29.6 40.9 13.8 29.8 33.0
Level of Service C D B C C
Approach Delay (s) 29.6 18.2 32.8 0.0

1.221
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 5 2 2
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1333 1333 363 363
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 447 507 1390 1339
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 85 97 100 94 83 0 96 89
cM capacity (veh/h) 1101 686 147 172 289 92 161 712
Volume Total 161 1011 6 22 317 144 61 267 84
Volume Left 161 0 0 22 0 0 0 267 0
Volume Right 0 0 6 0 0 144 50 0 78
cSH 1101 1700 1700 686 1700 1700 258 92 572
Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 23.3 951.0 12.4
Lane LOS A B C F B
Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.5 23.3 726.3
Approach LOS C F
Average Delay 124.5

1.222
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 3 1 4 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 67 73 90 87 92 99 92 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 253 267 695 171 263 788 1153 1258
Volume Total 222 50 339 56 422
cSH 320 227 1153 1700 1258
Control Delay (s) 38.2 25.3 2.8 0.0 0.5
Lane LOS E D A A
Approach Delay (s) 38.2 25.3 2.4 0.5
Approach LOS E D
Average Delay 10.0

1.223
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.06 1.73 0.90 0.73 0.05 0.47
Control Delay 32.4 361.9 60.4 31.0 15.5 6.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 32.4 361.9 60.4 31.0 15.5 6.5
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 1.73 0.90 0.73 0.05 0.47

1.224
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3499 1787 3502 1785 1566
Flt Permitted 0.21 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 397 3499 227 3502 1423 1566
Adj. Flow (vph) 6 1583 17 239 1039 6 33 0 428 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 8 8 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 105 925 261 1432 685 754
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.27 0.02 c0.17
v/c Ratio 0.06 1.73 0.92 0.73 0.05 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 30.2 40.5 27.7 27.4 15.1 17.7
Delay (s) 31.2 373.0 61.1 30.7 15.3 19.0
Level of Service C F E C B B
Approach Delay (s) 371.7 36.3 18.7 0.0

1.225
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 8 2 1
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 517 517 880 880
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1035 1064 538 522
tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5
tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free % 91 95 94 97 97 21 98 63
cM capacity (veh/h) 722 1169 98 207 656 266 288 391
Volume Total 64 388 5 53 774 184 29 211 150
Volume Left 64 0 0 53 0 0 6 211 0
Volume Right 0 0 5 0 0 184 17 0 144
cSH 722 1700 1700 1169 1700 1700 250 266 386
Control Delay (s) 10.5 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 21.3 55.9 20.2
Lane LOS B A C F C
Approach Delay (s) 1.5 0.4 21.3 41.0
Approach LOS C E
Average Delay 8.9

1.226
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians 3 1
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free % 67 94 87 77 74 99 91 99
cM capacity (veh/h) 202 271 706 192 259 778 1164 1277
Volume Total 178 122 356 28 411
Volume Left 67 44 100 0 11
cSH 338 243 1164 1700 1277
Control Delay (s) 27.0 33.9 3.0 0.0 0.3
Lane LOS D D A A
Approach Delay (s) 27.0 33.9 2.7 0.3
Approach LOS D D
Average Delay 9.2

1.227
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 1.41 1.00 0.93 0.03 0.37
Control Delay 222.4 83.8 45.6 14.2 3.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 222.4 83.8 45.6 14.2 3.9
Queue Length 95th (ft) #766 #291 #595 21 62
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.41 1.00 0.93 0.03 0.37

1.228
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3482 1787 3503 1777 1571
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3482 235 3503 1417 1571
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1201 49 250 1272 5 22 0 350 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 5 5 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 886 247 1369 708 785
v/c Ratio 1.41 1.01 0.93 0.03 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 41.0 28.9 32.1 14.0 15.7
Delay (s) 231.1 89.3 44.9 14.0 16.5
Level of Service F F D B B
Approach Delay (s) 231.1 52.2 16.3 0.0

1.229
Queues 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.92 0.01 0.14 0.32 0.16 0.28 0.76 0.19
Control Delay 8.3 36.7 0.0 9.1 16.7 2.8 20.9 53.7 9.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.3 36.7 0.0 9.1 16.7 2.8 20.9 53.7 9.9
Queue Length 95th (ft) 68 #1047 0 14 198 31 50 #289 44
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.92 0.01 0.13 0.32 0.16 0.28 0.76 0.19

1.230
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisFuture without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.89 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 1845 1599 1787 1845 1561 1623 1766 1559
Flt Permitted 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 915 1845 1599 116 1845 1561 1623 1019 1559
Adj. Flow (vph) 161 1011 6 22 317 144 0 11 50 267 6 78
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 5 2 2 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 662 1079 935 119 994 841 175 335 389
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.55 0.01 0.17 0.01 c0.09 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.05 c0.11
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.94 0.00 0.18 0.32 0.09 0.09 0.80 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 22.9 10.4 23.0 15.4 13.4 48.2 40.6 34.3
Delay (s) 8.7 38.8 10.4 23.8 16.2 13.6 49.3 53.0 34.6
Level of Service A D B C B B D D C
Approach Delay (s) 34.5 15.8 49.3 48.6
Approach LOS C B D D

1.231
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.03 0.99 0.85 0.48 0.09 0.69
Control Delay 17.6 49.5 51.9 12.3 30.7 20.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 17.6 49.5 51.9 12.3 30.7 20.1
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.99 0.77 0.48 0.09 0.69

1.232
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisFuture without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3499 1787 3502 1785 1566
Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 516 3499 137 3502 1423 1566
Adj. Flow (vph) 6 1583 17 239 1039 6 33 0 428 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 8 8 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 1622 279 2164 388 427
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.43 0.02 c0.15
v/c Ratio 0.03 0.99 0.86 0.48 0.09 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 16.0 29.1 33.0 11.4 29.8 34.3
Delay (s) 16.2 48.4 54.2 12.2 30.2 39.4
Level of Service B D D B C D
Approach Delay (s) 48.3 20.0 38.8 0.0
Approach LOS D C D A
HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D

1.233
Queues 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.64 0.17 0.23 0.72 0.39
Control Delay 6.4 11.8 0.0 5.8 18.2 5.5 34.4 57.6 10.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.4 11.8 0.0 5.8 18.2 5.5 34.4 57.6 10.0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.64 0.17 0.14 0.71 0.28

1.234
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisFuture without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.86
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1845 1563 1786 1845 1599 1669 1766 1540
Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.66 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 442 1845 1563 919 1845 1599 1497 1229 1540
Adj. Flow (vph) 64 388 5 53 774 184 6 6 17 211 6 144
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 8 2 2 8
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 361 1159 982 658 1157 1003 67 297 296
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.21 0.00 c0.42 c0.08 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.01 c0.06
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.67 0.15 0.19 0.71 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 10.1 10.5 8.3 6.8 14.3 9.2 55.2 44.5 40.0
Delay (s) 10.4 11.3 8.3 6.8 17.4 9.5 56.6 52.3 40.2
Level of Service B B A A B A E D D
Approach Delay (s) 11.1 15.4 56.6 47.3
Approach LOS B B E D

1.235
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
Queues 2037 Future without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour

v/c Ratio 0.79 0.80 0.59 0.06 0.53
Control Delay 30.7 41.1 14.0 30.2 8.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 30.7 41.1 14.0 30.2 8.1
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.79 0.67 0.59 0.06 0.53

1.236
08/30/2017 3: 13th Street & US 40
2037
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisFuture without Gossard Parkway (with Improvements) - PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3482 1787 3503 1777 1571
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.76 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3482 167 3503 1417 1571
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1201 49 250 1272 5 22 0 350 0 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 5 5 5 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1582 309 2165 386 428
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.81 0.59 0.06 0.27
Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 27.3 12.6 29.6 31.4
Delay (s) 29.6 40.9 13.8 29.8 33.0
Level of Service C D B C C
Approach Delay (s) 29.6 18.2 32.8 0.0

1.237
WSN Master Schedule
1.238
1.239

Brynn Grey Financial Impact Study

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Brynn Grey Financial Impact Study

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AGENDA ITEM #1.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM

FROM: Kim Weber, Finance Director

THROUGH: Gary Suiter, City Manager

DATE: March 20, 2018

ITEM: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Work Session

I. REQUEST/ISSUE & BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Project Description: West Steamboat Neighborhoods proposes annexing

Fiscal Impact Analysis:

“Despite modest population growth, the City has not added

GENERAL TERM SHEET COMMENTS

Water Firming Fund: This is a departure from our previous preliminary

Water adequacy: Staff believes it is premature to make this determination

2. Roads and Transit

Gloria Gossard Parkway: As discussed at City Council work sessions

Offsite Transportation Improvements: After City Council work sessions

YVSC provided a breakdown of housing needs from the 2016 Community

Brynn Grey’s current proposal lists the following:

Estimated prices are:

SUSTAINABILITY (with input from YVSC)

Site Design and Landscaping

Construction and Demolition Waste

PARKS AND RECREATION

President Lacy and Steamboat Springs City Council

Re: West Steamboat Neighborhoods (“WSN”)

Dear President Lacy and Members of the City Council,

The purpose of this letter to forward the following:

1. WSN Revised Term Sheet

Very truly yours,

WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS, LLC

David G. O’Neil Melissa Sherburne

• Developer: West Steamboat Neighborhoods, LLC, a Colorado limited liability

• City: The City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, a Colorado municipal

• Entitlements: At the time of annexation, the Property shall be incorporated into

• Neighborhoods: West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) shall include three

• The Gateway Neighborhood shall consist of 148 homes and 50

• Slate Creek Neighborhood

• The Slate Creek Neighborhood shall consist of 145 homes.

• The Emerald Overlook Neighborhood shall consist of 107 homes.

• Onsite infrastructure: Developer shall be responsible for all onsite

• Water Adequacy: The City shall make a positive adequacy determination

Total WSN Contributions, Water: $9,712,000

2. ROADS & TRANSIT

• Funds for Public Works Capital Costs: New equipment purchases to

• Funds for Slate Creek Road and Hwy 40 Intersection: Improvements at

• Gloria Gossard Boulevard: WSN shall, prior to recording of any third

• Off-site transportation improvements: WSN shall contribute

i. Each market home shall pay $9,500 towards a Traffic

ii. Traffic Improvement Projects, as identified in the Traffic Impact

Total WSN Road Contributions: $6,786,517

• Standard and customary plant investment fees paid in conjunction with

• Work together to obtain easements for adjacent properties to convey

Total WSN Sewer Contributions: $2,000,000

5. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS

• POST amenities would be phased accordingly with the development of

• POST amenities would initially be “private” and would be owned and

• Homes to be Energy Star Certified.

• Yampa Valley Housing Authority: Developer agrees to provide the

• School District: Developer agrees to provide the Steamboat Springs

• Moratoria and Growth Control Measures: No development

• Annexation Contingencies: The annexation of the Property and

• Final approval of this Agreement and the Annexation Ordinance;

• and purchase of the Property by Developer.

Total WSN ALL Contributions: $26,898,517