No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/13/07 PUBLIC HEARING November 13, 2007 Present: Am Menconi Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session A.M. Session It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing matters that may be subject to negotiation regarding pending water diligence cases with Denver which is ~propriate pursuant to C.R,s. 24-6-402(4)(b) and ( e) Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. P.M. Session It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing matters that may be subject to negotiation regarding potential open space acquisitions involving the Seago and B&B properties which are appropriate pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4Xb) and (e) Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Special Recognition - Tom Healy, Habitat for Humanity Chairman Menconi spoke about Mr. Healy's work with Habitat for Humanity. Commissioner Fisher thanked Mr. Healy for his support, leadership, and dedication to Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon added his thanks. He stated that Mr. Healy had provided an invaluable need to the community. Mr. Healy spoke. He thanked the board for their support and accepted the award on behalf of the organization. He believes that he was just the driver and hisstaft' was the engine of the .organization. Eco Transit free bus pass program for kids David Johnson, Eco Transit Chairman Menconi spoke about the Eagle County bus transit program. Beginning Saturday, November 17, all passengers 18 and younger may ride free. This program will n.ot only save kids money but also teach them the benefits of mass transit. The goal of the program is to introduce and encourages the use of the transit system through out their lives, which will ultimately reduce the reliance of automobiles, traffic congestion, air. pollution, green house gas emissions, and dependence on fossil fuels. . Commissioner Runyon stated that the program will help kids get used to using public transit. With the cost of fuels on the rise, it is critical to get these good life habits in place for the younger generations. Eagle County 1 11113/07 relies on the natural environment and if we do not take the lead in environmental responsibly who will. He thanked ECO transit for making this program possible. Commissioner Fisher stated that she believes it is a great opportunity not only to encourage our youth to use public transportation but it also provides greater opportunities for kids who are already drivers. The program opens the doors for more youth to be able to use transit and encourages transit use in their lifestyle. She thanked Mr. Johnson and the ECO board for their work on the program. David Johnson, Eagle County transit planner spoke. He stated that it is Try Transit Week November 12 - 16 and all buses will be free. They would like to encourage new residents and year around residents to give ECO transit a try. ECO had received outstanding ratings for safe driving, clean buses, courtesy, reliability, and . timeliness. Local radio stations are doing a lot of great promotions and daily prize drawings. He spoke about how they combined Try Transit week with a food drive to allow people to donate non-perishable food items instead in lieu of a ride fare. Chairman Menconi spoke about the neighboring transit systems and the importance of mass transit. He thanked Mr. Johnson for his work. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the weeks of November 12 and November 19,2007 (subject to review by the Finance Director) . Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for November 22, 2007 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners meetings for October 9 and October 15,2007 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Resolution 2007-109 re.;establishing election precincts of County of Eagle, State of Colorado Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder E. Edwards Annex Sublease Agreement between Eagle County and Mountain Valley Development Services Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services F. Master County Agreement between Gartner, Inc. and Eagle County, Colorado Innovation & Technology G. Agreement between CoUnty and Mary and Bill Stephens for removal of the Gypsum 4-H Barn from Site on Cooley Mesa Road County Attorney's Office Representative H. Resolution 2007-110 Establishing the Rate of Charge for Emergency Telephone Service County Attorney's Office Representative I. Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and the Town of Minturn for Animal Services Animal Services Representative J. Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and the Town of Red Cliff Animal Services Representative K. Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and the Town of Vail 2 11/13/07 Animal Services Representative L. Resolution 2007-111 Authorizing the Release of the 1-70 Interchange Parcel and Authorizing the Application to the Federal Aviation Administration for such release County Attorney's Office Representative M. Resolution 2007-112 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, Cou.qtyAttorney; RobertL. Morris, Deputy County Attorney; Christina L. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Alex Potente, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to letter of credit No. 876-7068 in the amount of $49,363.61 for the account of Vail Christian Schools County Attorney's Office Representative N. Resolution 2007-113 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney; Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney; Christina L. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Alex Potente, AssistantCounty Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to letter of credit No. 8592802 in the amount of $2,030.00 for the account of Front Range Construction, Inc. County Attorney's Office Representative O. Resolution 2007-114 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney; Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney; Christina L. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Alex Potente, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado; with respect to letter of credit No. SLCPPDX03680 in the amount of $807,092.50 for the account of Kummer Development County Attorney's Office Representative P. Resolution 2007-115 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney; Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney; Christina L. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Alex Potente, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to letter of credit No. SLCPPDX03678 in the amount of $620,566.92 for the account of Kummer Development , County Attorney's Office Representative Q. Resolution 2007-116 Approving the Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Red Canyon Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. County Attorney's Office RepresentativelEngineering Dept. R. Resolution 2007-117 Approving the Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Bachelor Gulch, Filing 4, Reconfiguration and Combination of Lots 107 and 108 County Attorney's Office Representative/Engineering Dept. S. Resolution 2007-118 Approving the Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Wolf Parking Lot Grading Permit, Vail Resorts, File No. MI-11950 County Attorney's Office Representative/Engineering Dept. T. Beaver Creek Subdivision, Sixteenth Amendment to the Fifth tiling, Lot 13, Block 5, Tract H (Eagle County File No. AFP-00255), the intent of this plat is to reconfigure the building envelope to allow for an addition to an existing structure. lena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that Item G would be pulled otherwise the agenda is appropriate for approval. 3 11/13/07 Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-T, excluding Item G. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input School District update-Interim School Superintendent, John Pacheco and Brooke Skjonsby were.present. Brook Skjonsby, Director of Communications for the School District spoke. She spoke about the School District's Community Outreach Program. She stated that there had been a lot of changes and new faces added to the Districtover the summer. They have a new Chief Financial director, Human Resource Director, Director of Elementary Education, and Interim School Superintendent, Mr. Pacheco, who was previously with Weld County School District. She listed the returning board members and the newly elected ones. . Mr. Pacheco spoke about the interim position of superintendent. He spoke about his experience in the - school business. He looks forward to making some positive changes to the Eagle County School District. He. thanked everyone in the community for their support in terms of passing the bond issue. He thanked the commissioners for their presence at the New America School opening. He is amazed that the Eagle County School district is the only one that he know who has built a new school for alternativeeducationandjoined a. partJl(>>'Ship with a person who is willing to set up these kinds of schools. He believes that if these types of schools were not available these children would not go to school. On behalf of the school district, he is pleased to hear about the new ECO transit program. For many of the students this type of transportation is a necessity. Because of the approved bond issue, the new Battle Mountain High School will be built along with a full stadium operation.. The stadium will have some outstanding fields and recreational services for students in the area. He stated that June Creek Elementary School and Red Canyon School conStruction were on time and on budget. Eagle Valley High School will be remodeled to allow for a greater capacity and insure a good operational high school. He believes the schools are performing well and an end of the year report will be complete by the middle of December. Chairman Menconi. suggested there be a: meeting with the school board. He would be interested in discussing the Bright Start program. He believes it is important to work together. Mr. Pacheco stated. that he would like an exchange to happen on a regular basis. Commissioner Fisher thanked Mr. Pacheco and Ms. Skjonsby for being present and she would like the opportunity to share ideas so there will be better programs and better solutions in the future. Commissioner Runyon thanked Mr. Pacheco for his work. stated that he was impressed with the IT lab in the new school. ' He wondered what would be happening to the current Battle Mountain High School site. Mr. Pacheco Stated that half of the facility sits on state property. There has been a lot of discussion about the options all of which would benefit not only the district but also the entire county; Commissioner Runyon spoke for the board and stated that they would like to be a part of that conversation. Planning Files 1.00-0078 F100dDlain OVerlav Zone District Greg Schroeder, Engineering ACTION: Amendment to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 3-350, Floodplain Overlay Zone District LOCATION: All of Eagle County OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Amendment to Chapter 2: Article 3, Division 3-3, Floodvlain Overlay Zone District, Section 3-350. Not Applicable Eagle County Staff PROJECT NAME: 4 11/13/07 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to adopt the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ("FEMA") issued Flood Insurance Rate Maps ("FIRM"). The proposed amendments will: · Update the existing regulation to formally adopt the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps ("FIRM") with a revision date of December 4,2007, from the old mapping with an effective date of January 25, 1983. · Update the existing Flood Insurance Study ("FIS") and formally adopt the new FIS with a revision date of Decembei 4,2007, from the old study with an effective date of January 25, 1983. · Indicate that DigitalFIRM ("DFIRM") mapping is available from FEMA's Map Service Center Website, at http://msc.fema.gov · Remove the obsolete language of" I 00 year floodplain" with the current and equivalent defmitionof "Special Flood Hazard Area~' ("SFHA") B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Eagle County and the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commissions considered this application at meetings held on the 7th and 8th .of November. Both Planning Commissions approved the proposed file as was presented. The Eagle County Planning Commission approved the application [4:0]; The Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission approved the application [3-0]. Z. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-Z30Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changin~ the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special. privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: . Section .5-Z30.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion. of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified. in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the. disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, .the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. There are no specific Standards directly applicable for changing the text of the Land Use Regulations. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals. the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs; Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice HAS been given; 5 11/13/07 Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of Chapter 2: Article 3, Division 3-3, Floodplain Overlay Zone District. Section 3-350 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and DO NOT amend the Official Zone District Map. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided (please see attached) Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l]Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Spei:ialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: Section 3.2 Section 3.3 Section 3.4 Section 3.5 Section 3.6 Section 3.7 Section 3.8 Section 3.9 Section 3.10 Section 4 General Develooment Economic Resources HoushU! Infrastructure and Services Water Resources Wildlife Resources Sensitive Lands Environmental Oualitv Future Land Use Mao Adooted Area Communitv Plans Policies a, C, e, f, g, h, i and k Policies b, c, d, e, f, h, j, mand 0 Policies a, d, e, g and n Policies a, C, g, i, j, k, m and 0 Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, hand i Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Policies a, C, e and g Policies a, cand d Policy a All relevant goals, policies and FLUM designations Additionally, all relevant goals & policies of the following plans or such equivalent plans and/or future plans, which may be in effect at the time of application for zone change: Eagle County Open Space Plan Eagle River Watershed Plan Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub-Area Master Plan This proposed amendment is consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and ancillary documents as related to natural hazard avoidance and floodplain management. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-23 O.D.2] Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s} surrounding the subject property. The issue of compatibility does not directly pertain to this proposal; however, the natural environment will benefit through the implementation of the greater detail and accuracy of the revised floodplain delineation. 6 11/13/07 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3] Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; chi/dcarefacilities;multi- modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE The greater detail and accuracy of the revised floodplain delineation provides a public benefit by both preserving natural water courses and protecting the public's health, safety, and welfare. STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the. immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Conditions have changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated due to significant population growth and development pressures. Implementation of the greater detail and accuracy of the revised floodplain delineation will provide a beneficial material change to the greater Eagle County community" EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? This amendment will not result in the need for new infrastructure. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE C. . REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Town of Avon - No comments (via email October 15,2007). . Colorado Geolol!ical Survev~Please refer to the attached email dated October 12, 2007. The mapping was approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and many of the areas of vulnerable channel migration are within the Special Flood Hazard Area ("SFHA "). . Colorado Historical Societv - Please referto the attached letter dated October 15,2007. Any of these structures may be handled on a case-by-case situation, perhaps with a variance request. 7 11/ 13/07 . Xcel/KN Enel"2V - No comments (via fax October 10, 2007). Additional Referral Agi!ncies - This proposal was referred'to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Airport, Animal Services, Assessors, ECO Trails, ECO Transit, Engineering, Housing, Road and Bridge, RE-5OJ &hool District, Sheriff's Office, Surveyor, Weed and Pest, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist. . Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Basalt, Town of Gypsum. . Braun Associates, Inc., Design Workshop, Isom and Associates, Knight Planning Services, Mauriello Planning Group, Land Studio, Otale, Pylman & Associates, Sid Fox and Co., Vag, Vail Resorts, . Alpine Engineering, Arroyo Engineering, Benchmark Engineering, CTL Thompson, Gamba & Associates, High Country Engineering, HP Geotech, Intermountain Engineering, Peak Land Consultants, Resource Engineering, Inc., Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Sopris Engineering, Archibeque Land Consulting, Backlund Land Surveys, Bookeliff Surveying, Eagle Valley Surveying, Eldridge Land Surveying, Gore Range Surveying, Jolm Curran, J&K, Leland Leclmer, Lines in Space, Marcin Engineering, River City Surveys, Starbuck Surveying. . State of Colorado: CDOT, Department of Local Affairs, Division of Minerals and Geology, Division of Water Resources, ~ivision of Wildlife, Forest Service, Water Conservation Board, Department of Health and Environment Water Quality and Air Quality, Historical Society,. . Federal: Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service . U.S. Army Corp of Engineers . U.s. Forest Service . Fire Protection Districts: WECAD, Eagle County lfealth Service District, Basalt & Rural FPD, Gypsum FPD, Greater Eagle FPD, Eagle River FPD, Town of Vail Fire Department . Special Districts: All . Mid Valley Trails Committee . Northwest Colorado Council of Governments . Roaring Fork Trqnsp()rtation Authority . Home Builder's Association . American Institute of Architects-- . Cattleman's Association . All Registered Home Owner's Associations antl Design Review Boards D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: . The proposed amendments to the regulation brings into effect the most current FEMA FIRM mappmg. . The accuracy of the revised mapping provides the public and county staft'thebest available resources for floodplain management practices. . Enhanced public health, safety, and welfare. . Natural water courses as defriled in the revised floodplain delineation will be better protected from future development and other human caused impacts. Disadvantages: . Some privately owned properties adjacent to natural water courses may become further encumbered by increased floodplain delineations. E. PLANNING COMMISSION / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT) request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is 8 11/13/07 in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [ECLUR tEXT AMENDMENT) request if it is determined that the ~tition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table thelECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT) request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT) request with conditions and/or performance standard~ if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is incompliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). (None) DISCUSSION: ~. Schroeder presented the file. He provided details using a PowerPoint slide show. He provided some history of other recent studies. Both planning commissions recommended approval by a unanimous vote. He provided additional details of the recent studies. The new.studies include incorporated and unincorporated areas. New $dies provide additional level of detail. Flood insurance rate maps for the old and new studies were compared with the new maps showing alIluch greater level of detail. Chairnlan Menconi opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher asked about the summary analysis. Mr. Schroeder stated that these studi~s identify areas that were always there, but this new detailed study identifies them. Commissioner Fisher wondered about folks already in a flood plane. Mr. Schroeder stated that .it would require a change in terms of insurance requirements and risk assessment. He indicated that this new mapping goes into effect December 4, 2007. Commissioner Runyon asked whether the old map had been .overlaid over the new map to determine incongruities. Mr. Schroeder indicated that there could be some areas affected. Commissioner Runyon moved that the board approve File No. LUR-0078 Floodplain Overlay Zone District. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Open Space funding request - Gates Ranch Conservation Easement Lisa de Graaf, Planning Title: Gates Ranch Conservation Easement Owner: George A. Gates & Sons 12590 County Road 39, Burns, CO Location: Derby Mesa area, west of Derby Junction on County Road 39 which is 27 miles north of Dotsero 9 11/13/07 Representative: Eagle Valley Land Trust I. Project Overview The Eagle Valley Land Trust, representing the Gates Family, are requesting Eagle County Open Space Tax funds in the amount of two million one hundred thousand dollars ($2,100,000) to secure a conservation easement. The Gates family is proposing the conservation of their 740 acre ranch, which is 27 miles north of Dotsero off of the Colorado River Road and County Road 39. Placing an easement on the property will allow George "Bud" Gates to settle his estate, and will allow Kip Gates to continue ranching the land. The conservation easement would also ensure the pr.otection of the ranching heritage which is a strong cultural Value in the area. The Open Space Advisory Committee reviewed this project in executive session on August 13,2007 and on September 17, 2007; the outcome .of that meeting is described later in this report. The existing land use is ranching; with a herd of up to 300 cattle and 40 horses. The irrigated pas1;ures that are hayed, equal approximately 317 acres and produce 400 tons of hay annually. The Gates have grazing and outfitting permits on USFS lands and operate a hunting/fishing and camping outfitting service on their property and the permitted property. The ranch is characterized by large expanses of irrigated pastureland on a mesa and on the northern side of the property, a relatively steep hillside descends to flat lands featuring a three-acre lake and a 'half-dozen natural springs that create a wetland area. The western end of the property is wooded forestS that provide shelter for large game. The property is significant to the Colorado River Road view shed and has important water rights that affect the upper Colorado River. The original homestead was founded in 1890. Theoriginal water adjudication date is 1902, with certific,ations for the Rodger's Ditch and South Derby Ditch in the 1950's. There is an access, utility and a right-of-way easement on the property. The funding request for Eagle County is $2,100,000, which is 62% of the easement value; $3.4 million. An application for $600,000 has been submitted to Great Outdoors Colorado. In addition, The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Conservation Trust, Colorado Open Lands, The Gates Foundation, The Elk Foundation and the Colorado Deparbnent of Wildlife have been contacted for donation requestS. The amount received to date is currently unknown by staff. IT. Land Description Gate's Ranch includes two residential homes, a barn, calving shed, tooVequipment shed, garage, root cellar, grainary/woodshed and two mechanical shops. The primary access to the property is from County Road 39, which runs though neighboring property (legal access has been granted.) There is one historic structure on the property, which is the original homestead, built in 1902 (now used as the 'tooVequipment shedJ On the relatively steep hillside portion of the property, the sometimes thick. vegetation includes a mix of juniper , evergreen, aspen, douglas fur, spruce, sebarberry, dogwood, and willow. Elevations on the property ranch from 7000 to 8000 feet. m. Site and Transaction Information Total land area: 740 acres Land Area in Eagle County: 740 acres Current Land Use/Zoning: Agricultural/Resource Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning: East: AgriculturallResource West: Agricaltural/Resource North: Agricultural/Resource South: Agricultural/Resource 10 11/13/07 Proposed Ownership: Ownership of the ranch would remain with the Gates family, with a conservation easement to be held by the Eagle Valley Land Trust. $3.4 Million $400,000 (12%) $~ million $100,000 Appraised Value: Owner's Contribution: Owner's asking price: Transactional Cost: (Monitoring fees" legal defense funding and related costs) Other Funding Sources: $600,000 request from GOCO Remainder to come from EVL T and private sources Funding Request: $2,100,000 (approx. 62% of appraised value) IV. OSAC Recommendation: At its scheduled meeting of September 17,2007, the Citizen's Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) considered the information submitted by the owners' representative, EVL T, the staff rep6rt, a presentation by both staff and the proponent of the project, and the conformance of the proposal to applicable Eagle County Open Space criteria before deliberating the overall merits of this funding request. A Motion was made to recommend that the Gates property be conserved per the open space criteria. the vote was eleven in favor. one against. (11 to 1). OSAC recommended that Gates Proposal be funded by the County in the amount of $2.5 million dollars. A second Motion was made that the Eagle County Board .of Commissioners aoprove and pay fora second appraisal prior to purchasin2 the Gates property: the vote was nine in favor. three against (9 to 3). . V. Project Analysis The following analysis is offered pursuant to Eagle County Resolution 2004,..021, Approving and Adopting Open Space Criteria to Prioritize the Selection of Eligible Lands for Open Space: ,. . '\ A. Background / On November 5, 2002, the voters of Eagle County approved Referendum 1 H, which provided for an increase in taxes to fund an open space acquisition and maintenance program for the County. Theba/lot provided that open space.fimds could be used for preserving wildlife habitat, protecting working farms and ranches, conserving scenic landscapes and vistas, protecting wetlands andfloodplains, providing public access points to rivers and streams and servicingfuture voter approved debt related to this ptopose. Pursuant to this end, six criteria were developed to be used by OSAC to evaluate properties that might be acquired or set aside as open space within the County. For each criterion, qualitative ratings of High. Medium, Low and Not Applicable can be assigned based on the property's known physical characteristics. B. Open Space Criteria A description regarding the attributes of the Gate Ranch fol1ows each of the open space evaluation criteria listed below. I. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. Preserve and protect. Eagle County's outstanding natural bea~ty and visual quality. / The pastures, structures and vegetation on the property are very scenic. The property, with its verdant green irrigated pastures, is front-and-center of the Derby Mesa viewshed. Although the Gates Ranch shows up almost in entirety on the Eagle County view corridors map, it is visible only from the Colorado River Road. Staff Recommendation - Scenic Quality Ranking: MEDIUM 11 11/13/07 n. Remonal Herita2e. A2riculture and Ranchin2. Retain Eagle County's history, culture and agricultural land uses. The Gates Ranch is part of the. working ranches in northwest Eagle County and specifically in the Derby Mesa area. This is also the last remaining areas in Eagle County where large acreage can be purchased at relatively reasonable prices. The conservation of the Gates Ranch may create a ripple effect among other neighboring ranchers that may ultimately result in the protection of the ranching way of life that has characterized this region for more than a century. According to the applicant, the Gates Family has worked this property as a ranch since the 1890's. Staff Recommendation - Regional Heritage Ranking: HIGH m. Wildlife. Wildlife Habitat and Mi2ration Routes. Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife. The applicant indicates the mixed forest areas on the northern portions of the ranch in particular maintain a high level of biodiversity for this area and provide habitat for both resident and migratory species; the following species that have been identified include: raptors (hawks,.bald and golden eagles,.owls, vultures, falcons), wild turkey, woodpeckers, waterfowl (ducks and geese), great blue heron, migratory song birds (mountain bluebird, violet~green swallow, warblers), bighorn sheep, black bear, trout, ground squirrels, bobcat, mountain lion, long~tailed weasel, pine marten, badger, coyote. The County wildlife maps indicate a medium level of mule deer concentrations and migration, but larger portions of the property are used by elk. Staff Recommendation - Wildlife Ranking: HIGH IV. Sensitive Lands & Environments. Protect riparian areas, flood plains, and other sensitive, unique or endangered ecosystems or environments. There are a half-dozen naturally-occurring springs on the northern side of the property that create a natural wetland. This area harbors a variety of wildlife. Protection of the ranch will preserve these areas. Staff Recommendation - Sensitive Lands Ranking: MEDIUM V. PhySical and Visual Buffers. Promote community separation and distinction, and provide separation between developed areas and sensitive lands. This property is not directly adjacent to federal lands and existing open space; however public lands are near by and preserving this property could very possibly serve to create physical and visual buffers if/when near-by ranches are subdivided into 35 acre home sites. Staff Recommendation - Physical and Visual Buffer Ranking: LOW VI. Access to Streams. Rivers. Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation OpPOrtunities. Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation. The ranch contains two lakes but does not have any significant streams or rivers. In addition, since the ranch will remain privately held and not available to the public, this criterion is not applicable. Staff Recommendation - Access Ranking: NA 12 . 11/13/07 C. Additional Project Considerations The following represents those items listed as "Additional Criteria and Considerations" in Eagle County's Open Space Criteria For the purpose of discussion, the two sections, "Factors Favoring Land Protection" and "Factors Weighing Against Land Protection" have been consolidated into single positive statements that can be evaluated for conformance. I. Economv. Discounts, other funding, partnerships, land donation, and/or endowment contribution favorably reduce the County's portion of the purchase cost. This is a funding partnership with a request from GOCO in the amount of $600,000. At this time, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners is being asked to commit to funding this project in an amount not to exceed $2.1 million; the land owner is contributing $400,000. In addition, private monies are being sought to off-:-set the remaining amount. II. Master Plan. Land or development rights acquisition is supported by the intent and purposes of applicable Eagle County Master Plan documents. The preservation of this property meets the intent of the Eagle County Open Space Plan, which states that the functions of Open Space include the following: Enhance community identity and maintain rural atmosphere Protect natural and social resources Maintain visual quality Control development in unsuitable areas Policies within the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan that also apply to this project include 3 .2~2 - Ouali1;y of Life. Policy - a. Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should bepreservedfor future generations. 3.3.5 - Other Industries. Policy - j. Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations. m. Ul'l!encv. Development of the property, to a degree that open space values.would be significantly compromised, is imminent. The urgency is two-fold; Bud Gates is in failing health and he wants to be sure his estate is in order, sooner than later. Secondly, his son Doug needs the proceeds from the easement sale to . purchase his own ranch and, this transaction will most likely occur with a 1031 exchange so he needs to move quickly should this project be funded. However urgency in regards to development is not imminent at this time. IV. Uniaueness. The subject property is the only remaining, or one of a very few remaining, opportunities to protect open space of its kbld. . This property is unique in that it is a working ranch, owried by a family that wishes to stay and work the ranch. The property is in excellent condition and is visible from the Colorado River Road. V. Precedent. The project sets positive precedent for open space preservation values and objectives, and may motivate other landowners to consider preservation alternatives. Because this project involves the preservation of a working ranch, it sets a strong positive precedent for conservation easements and open space acquisitions. And because it would be the fIrst of its kind in the northwest area of the County, the Precedent is an important one. The project is well leveraged, with funding from a variety of sources. 13 11/13/07 VI. Education. Preservation would provide unique educational opportunities No unique educational opportunities have been proposed or identified. Vll. SUDoort. There is wide-spread community support for the project. Letters of support are attached. VIII. Bit! Picture. The project has potentially significant benefit on a regional or state-wide basis. See Precedent. IX. Encumbrance. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights- of-way or easements. There are two access easements on. the property and one may need adjustments in the future to allow access for any use other than agricultural/ranching. The mineral rights are owned by the Gates family and remain on the property. X. Environmental Hazards The property is not significantly burdened by environmental hazards (chemicals) or other waste or refuse. There would not appear to be any negative environmental hazards on the property. XI. Maintenance. The.long term cost to the County of maintaining and/or monitoring the land is expected to be reasonably low. It is expected that the holder of the conservation easement, EVL T, will include the amount of monitoring cost (in perpetuity) into the total request. DISCUSSION: Ms. De Graafhighlighted the details of the request using a PowerPoint slide show presentation. She presented a site plan of the ranch. The Gates family is proposing the conservation of their 740-acre ranch, which is 27 miles north of Dotsero off the Colorado River Road. The current land use is agricultural ranching. There is no public access proposed in the conservation easement. The ownership would remain in the Gates family. The Eagle Valley Land Trust would hold the easement. The value is $3.53 million dollars. Other funding services include $600,000 that was a requested from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO). The funding request for Eagle County is $2.5 million. The Open Space Advisory Committee voted 11-1 in favor of this funding. They also moved to recommend a second appraisal prior to approving the purchase. She presented some photographs of the property. She showed an overview of the wildlife asseSsment. Mule Deer, black bear and the potential for lynx habitat are in the area. She highlighted the evaluation criteria as presented in the staff report. Cindy Cohagen of the Eagle Valley Land Trust was present and spoke to the board. She believes this property meets the criteria for open space funding. She reminded those present of the acceptable uses for the open space tax funding, which includes conservation easements for working ranches. By way of background, the Eagle Valley Land Trust (EVL n currently holds conservation easements on 16 properties totaling roughly 4600 acres in Eagle County. EVL T believes that the tax should be used cost effectively and judiciously and used to protect the most land for the least cost. In addition to the Gates Ranch, the EVL T is working on two donated easements. One will be visible from Gypsum Creek and the other is an easement up Brush Creek. There are many other potential projects that may become available for protection in the future. She stated that the Gate's property meets the identified criteria for open space dollars. Eagle County is being asked to be a partner with Great Outdoors Colorado and from private donors. The Gates family has stepped forward with a $400,000 contribution. She urged support of this request. 14 11/13/07 Bud Gates spoke to the board as owner of the property. He stated that they have tried to figure out ways to preserve the ranch for their family to keep it going forward. He asked the board to support the request. Kip Oates also spoke to the board as a fifth generation property owner of the ranch. His wife and he have put together some programs opening up the ranch to the elementary school in Edwards for a week each year to learn about a working cattle ranch. In 2005, they set up a cowgirl trip as a fundraiser to raise funds for schools and raised over 80,000. . They as a family would like to keep the ranch as a sustainable living environment so they can pass it on to their children and keep it open space. Doug Gates spoke about the access intp the property. There are three other ways to get into the property. Ms. De Graaf clarified that the requestto Eagle County had been reduced by the $400,000 due to the Gate's family contribution - the new total request is $2,100,000. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. He indicated that the Board had received all related reports and appraisals related to the property. He asked people to limit their comments to three minutes. Steve Conlin spoke to the board. He came as a rancher that owns property in Sweetwater. He told the board that they are neighbors to the Gates. The parcel near them was recently sold for over 7 million and this property had been broken into eight parcels for sale. On the other side of his property a historic ranch was purchased by another developer- and this parcel has also been broken into 15 lots, which are not yet on the market. Developers are active in the area. He has recently spent over $6000.00 in water attorney's bills to fend off developers who want to build ponds to make their properties more attractive_. In neighboring Garfield County, adjacent lands are under development pressure. He encouraged support for the conservatioJ:l easement. Susanne Gates Stout spOke to theboafd. She is a litnitedpartnerin the property. Shedoesn'thavean opinion. She wondered if the board considers this easement to be the highest and best use of the Gate's property. She also wondered whether the acreage being considered would comprise the entire property. Chairman Menconi stated that it is standard procedure for questions directed to the board or applicant to be addressed after public comment. Jay Whaley, husband of Shiloh Gates and extension agent in Routt County spoke. They are seeing development rights sold for many reasons. Routt County frods it difficult for larger ranches to survive. He shared the results of a sUl'Vey done by CSU Department of Agriculture Economics. This survey found that tourists . and residents alikel,lppreciate the value of open space. Ifworking ranch landscapes are sold and converted to urban uses, annuallyJ8.7 million dollars of tourist income would be lost from Routt County. Those who have taken the time to preserve their ranches through conservation easerpents are also typically working these lands. This family has a long history of sharing the ranching heritage with others, including students. The Gate's family has owned the property since 1937. This sale will sustain the ranch for future generations to enjoy and perpetuate the history of these lands. He believes.it.is an important step. He urged approval. Randy Schlegel spoke. He works for the county in the Road and Bridge Department. He statedthat Eagle County does not have road capacity to sustain development and this will go a long way to eliminating development. The neighboring ranch has already indicated that they are not interested in a conservation easement on their property. Therefore, he believes it is important to get one on this property. The Gate's family has shown a long history .of sharing the ranch value and style with people back to when he was a child. He believes the Gate's family is taking a risk by offering the conservation easements because who knows what the future price of the property might be. Roger Zastrow spoke. They have an adjacent property. His family is in support of this easement to keep this property in the family as ranching land. Kim Gustafson thinks the whole issue boils down to open land and development. He came to the valley in 1967 and he wondered what would happen to the resort in the future. At that, time people didn'tbelieve there would be any development down valley. He lives in Edwards and remembers driving through years ago when there was a Gashouse and a filling station. He believes it is our responsibility to preserve. open space for future generations. He strongly rec<;>mmends approval. . Jay Precourt, Vail resident spOke. He read a portion of a letter he wrote for the record. He asked that the entire letter be part of the record. He put a conservation easement on some property that he owns. He learned about conserving ranch lands and he encourages others to do.likewise. He issued a challenge pledge of up to $100,000 to support the Gate's project. He will donate .50 for every dollar donated to the Eagle Valley Land Trost up to $100,000. David Smith spoke. He suspects that all agree about the opportunity for the ranching heritage and open space preservation. This induces a private 1 public partnership. He believes the Gate's property represents a great 15 11/13/07 opportunity for partnerships. This keeps the property on the tax rolls and does not require maintenance. It leverages state and private interestS. Most importantly, it leverages the willingness of the Gate's familyJo do the right thing. He takes his hat off to the family. Kim Langmaid spoke. She grew up in Vail and has had the opportunity to see change she didn't believe imaginable. She has visited the ranch on two occasions. She saw abundant wildlife and a rich habitat, migratory birds as well. She is mostly interested in preserving the ranch for future generations. She sees so many disappearing places and fears that future. generations will not have opportunities.to experience these wonderful areas. For the conservation value and for future generations she asks for support. Julie Young spoke. She has been an Edward's resident for 36 years. She was born and raised in Southern Colorado in a ranching family. She feels that the life of working on a ranch makes up and important part of who she is today. She thinks this heritage is an important part of our county and urged approval. Tom Edwards spoke. He read some of the ballot question, which addressed the open space tax. The tax is to be used for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining preserv~g open space in Eagle County such as preserving wildlife habitat, protecting working farms and ranches, conserving scenic landscapes and vistas, protecting wetlands and flood planes and providing public access points to rivers and streams. He stated that it was never intended that any property meet all of the requirements. He believes this property meets at least three of those requirements and is exactly what was intended to be preserved by the ballot issue. He stated that opposition has expressed concern that the property is not available to the public. He stated that this land is available for all to view. This property is 100010 in Eagle County. The evaluation of the land cOuld house 35-acre parcel subdivision, which destroys the ranching community. He asked for approval. Dr. Tom Steinberg spoke that he is biased towards the project. He is on the Eagle Valley Land Trust Board. The Town of Vail owns 430 acres for which they have spent over 14 million dollars. In today's prices, that same money would buy 2 acres. He is aware that people are saying the appraisal is too expensive. It is imperative to get as' quickly as possible to get what is left. He indicated that he would donate $5000.00 towards Mr. Precourt's challenge. Debbie l~uckley indicated that. she intends no disrespect to the Gates family in opposing the funding. She requested that the board deny the request because the property is 25 miles off the 1-70 corridor, Access to the ranch is poor at best. The average person will not see the ranch. She is happy to hear that the EVL T is pursuing situations closer to.the 1-70 corridor. She feels the priCe is controversial. Open space money should be saved (or deals thatare closer to the more populated partso(the county. Finally, she asks for a denial and for the commissioners'to look for a deal that would strike a balance between land preservation and resident recreation. Nathan Nottingham spoke. He also expressed respect for the Gate's family. He thanked Tom Edwards for his comments. He feels that at $8000 an acre this property is highly overvalued. The Gate's family has no legal access that would allow development. He questions the value of development rights on the ranch. There are two recent appraisals in the same area showing the land is worth $2500.00 per acre or less. He spoke about another ranch in the area that recently sold for less than $3000 per acre. The facts show that this is not a good deal for the citizens of Eagle County and he asks for denial. Bobby Warner spoke. He lives in Edwards and has been in Eagle County 40 years. When he moved to the county, there was very little development west of Eagle-Vail. He believes there willl>e pressure. on every acre of land in the cOunty. He related his experiences as a developer. He believes preserving the ranching way of life is important. He stated that not all land is accessible that is publicly owned. When he came to Eagle County, he thought that 800./0 of the county was federally owned open space. He spoke about the last 40 years and what has happened on the 1-70 corridor. He believes this is possible in the next 30-40 years. Buying property along the 1-70 corridor will be expensive and not feasible. He requests approval. Diane Cecala spoke. She is an Edward's resident and coordinator of the Eagle County citizens for open space. As part of her investigation, Vail Resorts funded research by a prominent research ftrm. The research indicated that conservation values were consistent and solid across the board, including water, wildlife, and western heritage. Any of these criteria would be enough to merit conservation of a property. She thinks this property provides a great opportunity to accomplish these goa~s. This family willing to offer this type of 0 pportunity . She believes the opportunity to purchase land in Burns is as important as purchasing land on the 1-70 Corridor. Should properties become available, the county will pay the full retail price of the properties, but this will make it less economical for tax dollar use. She urges support. Ellen Eaton spoke. She and her husband Mike are in full support of the property. She believes that the ranching heritage is very important to the county. Marka Moser stated her support as a 38-year resident. 16 11/13/07 Kent Erickson spoke. He has been associated with the county since 1957. He is in support of the contribution. This easement meets all the criteria for use of open space funds. The land will continue to be loved and maintained by the Gate's family. He plans on making a $20,000 contribution. .' Muhammad Ali Hasan spoke to the board. He appreciates the commissioner's service. He has spoken with Susan Nottingham who invited him to her property. When he fmally got to her ranch, he understood that the access issues. He challenges the open space board to fmd something a better piece of land with better access. . He wants it to be open to everyone in Eagle County. He is not in support of the funding. He thanked Susan Nottingham for helping himto understand. Michael Cacioppo spoke. He has known Bud Gates for a long time. He doesn't believe this is the right project. For him open space is about parks and recreation.. He doesn't like tax dollars being spent for farmers to not farm. He is notoffended by 3S-acre development. He doesn't understand why ranchers can't sell off their property in 35 acre parcels, thus alleviating tax dollars being spent on these . easements. There are a lot of regular people in the county who cannot rely on the public funds to help their way. He had predicted that in 2005 when the Democrats took over Eagle County they would spend like kids in a. candy store. He is shocked and appalled that the board could contemplate raising taxes again. He believes this is wasted tax money on a project far away from the center of the county. He is in disagreement with the funding. He is betting that it will pass and that the board will go after a tax increase. Dave Mott spoke. He understands that this is a very important decision. . His statements are about open space and not about the Gates family. He supports other comments against this funding. He asked about priorities. He spoke about.good decisions related to open space funding. He is concerned about the appraisal. He wonders about the appraiser's credentials. The appraisal is three times that of the adjacent Nottingham property, He doesn't believe this is a working ranch. The Open Space Advisory Council voted 9-3 to seek an independent appraisal. He urged the board to pursue the details of the appraisal. . Donna. Spinelli spoke as a conservationist. She believes one of the most important slides indicated in the presentation was that the ranking is not applicable for certain criteria. This project is not being considered among other projects because there are no other candidates. She believes the project is too far away. She doesn't believe in subsidizing their financial problems. She believes there isa tremendous problem right here in Eagle on Brush Creek and Salt Creek Road. She is not in favor of funding. New New Wallace spoke. She is a member of the OSAC board. She believes this is a good project and believes that it fits the criteria perfectly. The voters indicated that they desire to protect ranching land in Eagle County. It is where it is and is incredibly beautiful. She remembers 23 years ago going from Eagle-Vail to Edwards was going to the remote areas. She believes this is a very good deal and is exactly what was voted for. She supports the funding. Kimberly Roland spoke. She is in support of the project. She represents a number of people who support this philosophically and financially. Her husband and she are honored to support Jay Precourt's challenge. She urges Mr. Precourt's example. They will put forward $600.00 towards this purchase. Andrea Vesque spoke in favor. She has lived up Brush Creek since 1982, which. has changed vastly since then. She has watched Adam's Rib for 30 years. She knows what it's like o~t in the boonies. She has four generations living on 10 acres that she was fortunate enough to be able to buy. Eagle County needs this property preserved. Tim Nottingham stated that he is uncertain about how he feels. Last year he was on the Bair Ranch and was kicked off the property. He thought it was open space. He wonders if there will be public access to this property. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Commissioner Fisher asked about legal access. She understands that there are easements, which do allow access onto the property. Doug Gates stated that Mr. Zastrow owns property next to the Gate's property and there is another, many for which have roads adjacent. There is a road up the canyon of which the property could be accessed. Bryan Treu stated that they would have to research the fact that there would or would not be legal access to the property.. He disagreed with the statement that there is no legal access to this property. Bud Gates wondered if Susan Nottingham owns the adjacent property. Mr. Treu indicated that he was not aware of this situation. Ms. Cohagen stated thatshe has had assurances from the Zastrow family, contiguous property owners that access would be available through their property. 17 11/13/07 Commissioner Fisher asked Ms. Nottingham about her comments. Ms. Nottingham indicated that she owns one of the easements and at this time the Gate's family does not have legal access that would allow development. Commissioner Fisher asked about the appraisal. The Appraiser indicated that there are at least 70 less than 35-acre parcels. Greg Powell spoke to the board, as one of the appraisers of the property. From a cursory inspection of the county GIS maps, the area from State Bridge down to the Sweetwater area there are at least 70 parcels of 70 acres or smaller. Of those parcels, 88% of them were of the state minimum of35 acres or larger. Commissioner Fisher asked if these parcels had been developed. Mr. Powell indicated that some had been developed. They were trying to determine the development potential of the property. Mr. Powell indicated that the appraiser, Mr. Peterson is an approved GOCO review appraiser, which is significant because in order to become this you have to have completed a substantial number of appraisals to GOCO, which have not had any issues. He has been appraising rural properties in Colorado, New MeXico, and Wyoming for the last 40 years and is a Colorado Certified General Appraiser. They specialize in conservation easement appraisals. They are very familiar with IRS issues and challenges. They attempt in every case to do work that will pass every challenge with the least amount of issues and in a professional fashion. Commissioner Fisher stated that she had reviewed Mr. Peterson's credentials. Commissioner Runyon stated that the dollar value and worth question is a tough question. He has reviewed the appraisal carefully and he believes it is exhaustive in its completeness. He has seen the property. Ifhe had had the opportunity to buy the property, he would - it is spectacular. He doesn't think it's unrealistic to think the property is worth it. Is this the best use of county dollars at this time? He goes back to the ballot question. Nowhere in the ballot question does it say the fund should only be used for public access. Twice as much has to be , - , . ~ -.I"'~'. . -- ;0 .' < .,.' - spent to get pr.operty'm tee snrtple-ownershlp. When the Eaton property ".'as purchased the comments were about the incredible expense. Tbefe is no easy way to decide how these funds should be best spent. He believes it is important to establish and honor the western heritage to protect working farms and ranches. He also believes it is important to invest in the valleys and immediate areas near the valley. There has been a. balance between the outlying and closer in properties. In 1972, Vail Resorts sent him to what is now'known as Beaver Creek-leapfrog development has been occurring in the valley. It is important to look into the future 30 to 40 years. He spoke about the John Fiedler book about the "then and now". ' Chairman Menconi asked about ownership of the property. Mr. Gates stated that the 740 acres is owned by Mr. Gates and his sons. Chairman Menconi spoke about the highest and best use. He spoke about Dave Mott's earlier question about working or recreational ranch. Ms. Cohagen stated that the appraisal was created based on the property being used as recreational ranch property, because this could be the case if the property is sold. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mott about his interpretation. Mr. Mott quoted the appraiser who appraised it as not being a working ranch. Mr. Powell, appraiser explained the termworking ranch. In real estate appraisals of rural properties, working ranch primarily has the understanding of a ranch or farm that can generate enough income to pay for a mortgage given a standard 20-25% down payment. A typical working ranch can only support a price per acre .of approximately $800 per acre. Technically this is not a working ranch and for that matter, there are few if any of existing in Colorado. If the Gates family were going to sell their property to an upstart rancher, the ranch could not sustain the property and pay the mortgage. The appraisal defmition speaks to the. economics of the operation. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Powell to go through the main components of the appraisal. Mr. Powell stated that price per acre as of November 10, 2007 is $7660.00 per acre in the before condition. After the easement is in place, the price would be $7660.00 times a multiplier to take into account the affects of the conservation easement. The new calculation would decrease the value by 60% or approximately $3064.00. Chairman Menconi wondered about future appreciation value. Mr. Powell stated it is based solely on today's values. Chairman Menconi asked about comparison of land values surrounding the area and comments related to highest and best use. Mr. Powell stated that these are the two primary considerations they use to determine property value. They also look at sales that have occurred in the marketplace to fmd other properties with a similar highest and best use. Chairman Menconi spoke about the earlier testimony that the appraisal was overvalued. Mr. Powell stated that in doing the sales comparison process, they identified the properties specifically mentioned on the Colorado River. Given the fact that there is a direct correlation between size and price, some 18 11/13/07 . properties were discarded. When the size of the properties get factored in it ~hanged significantly the price per acre. Other adjustments included identifying properties relatively close to the Gate's Ranch. They went farther north and east as well. They believe strongly that these values are valid and supported prices per acre. He spoke about the values that the Nottingham property had indicated. These values were restricted values. Not all of the data that has been used to arrive at these amounts has not been disclosed. They cannot review that appraisal because of the way it was prepared. Chairman Menconi asked about the easement accesses. Mr. Gates indicated that there were three, owned by three different people. Chairman Menconi indicated that the attorney' s view so far is that a metro district could be created in order to expand the easement access. He asked about control of a metro distrkt. Mr. Treu stated that an expansion of the metro district would go to a vote of the people by the people in the service area. Commissioner Fisher indicated that she intends to support the file. She grew up on a working ranch and understands some of what the family is experiencing. In her case, the ranch was split between the two heirs. In Montana, there was not the resort draw that pushed real estate values up. The working ranches did however subdivide. Her vision of the future of the county is not 35-acrehobby ranches. She spoke about Gypsum Creek, which has now become developed with homes and golf courses. Chairman Menconi stated that he sees the need for a vision on open space purchases. There are at least 10 current or past elected officials and a handful.ofpeople who sit on advisory boards present today. He feels that so many people who have represented the community are in favor of this. He feels the limited dollars left in the open space fund should be applied to the valley floor. He has seen at least four offers of willing sellers along the valley floor, where he sees the most ultimate threat of development along the river corridor. Recently the board has discussed the lack of dollars for infrastructure, the threat of development and open space. He wants t.o qontinue the dialog in trying to preserve the valley floor. They project to have 2.4 million dollars at the end of the year, and in 2008, the projection is 404 million dollars. There will be just under $6,000,000 to spend. The properties av3ilable on the valley floor are available for a range of costs. He would hate to see strip centers along 1-70 from one end of the valley to the other. He thinks developments along the river valley have much greater environmental impacts and are of greater cost to the taxpayers. These are two primary reasons for a vision for open space purchases. He would like to continue the vision related to the valley floor before prices go up even higher. He doesn't see an imminent threat of development although it could be developed. In order to make a decision about the value of a purchase the OSAC has a number of criteria to consider. He reviewed these criteria and explained how points · could be given. He thinks there can be comparisons in terms of what is being evaluated. The OSAC committee found that it was difficult to evaluate this property completely as there was not a comparable property. Commissioner Runyon stated that he is in favor. These decisions are subjective. He clarified that even with this purchase there would be some funds available for valley floor purchases in future years. He thinks it's importantto manage growth and development. He thinks it is money well spent. He thanked the Gates for contributing $400,000 to the project. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Open Space funding request of $2.1 million dollars for the Gates Ranch Conservation Easement with the following conditions. 1. Prior to the release of any funds by Eagle County, County staff shall have a timely opportunity to thoroughly review and comment on any final agreements, closing documents and other materials that. may be created in connection with the Gates Ranch Conservation Easement. 2.. If the County Attorney deems any fmal agreements, easement, closing documents and other materials that may be created in connection with the Gates Ranch Conservation Easement unacceptable or in need of revision as written to protect the interests of Eagle County, the County reserves the right to revise and/or add other conditions as may be necessary to make such docUments acceptable to the County for approval or alternatively may withdraw its contribution. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. 19 11/ 13/07 Commissioner Fisher thanked the Gates family again for having the foresight to step up and she hopes that their move will set a precedent. She is aware that the Gore Range Natural Science School has expressed supp.ort along with other teachers and students. Chairman Menconi spoke about the ranch conservation easements which have recently been approved. He believes the pressing need is for preservation of the valley floor. He hopes he has been effective at sparking a dialogue about preserving the valley floor. The vote was called; Commissioners Runyon and Fisher voted in favor of approval and Commissioner Menconi voting against. Attest: There being no further business before ~oumed until December 4, 2007. 20 11/13/07