city alternative funding

8/17/2019 City Alternative Funding

1/43

Updated March 24, 2016

AGENDA ITEM #4 Alternative Funding Subcommittee Report Update

COUNTY COMMISSION ANDCITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM

FROM: Doug Tumminello, Chairman, Alternative FundingSubcommitteeJim Boyne, Co-Chairman, Alternative FundingSubcommittee

THROUGH: Gary Suiter, Interim City Manager

DATE: May 2, 2016

ITEM: Alternative Funding Subcommittee UpdatePresentation to the Routt County Commission andSteamboat Springs City Council

FORM OF MOTION: Information item. Seeking direction on determiningwhat alternative funding mechanisms should befurther explored by committee

_ x_ DIRECTION _x__ INFORMATION ONLY ___ ORDINANCE ___ MOTION ___ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST/ISSUE & BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

In May of 2015, the City of Steamboat Springs Parks and Recreation Commissionpresented to the County Commission and City Council the recommendation toexplore alternative funding measures to help sustain and enhance parks andrecreation services in the city and the area. The commission convened a groupconsisting of one county commissioner, one city council member, two membersfrom the parks and recreation commission and other people in Routt County. The


2/43


group began its work in June of 2015.

Since this time, the group has toured cities in the county, engaged other parks andrecreation providers in the region (see attached report for list), and soughtguidance on viable funding measures for future sustainability. Chairman

Tumminello and Co-Chair Boyne will present the groups findings and seek directionon what funding mechanisms should be explored further.

II. ALTERNATIVES:

Presentation only. Direction given from the county commission and city council willallow for future vetting of pros and cons of alternative funding measures.

III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Listen to presentation and provide guidance to Alternative Funding Subcommittee.

IV. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Proposed Expenditure: tbdFunding Source: tbdRisk Assessment: tbd

V. LEGAL ISSUES:

No issues noted at this time. Would vary based upon final recommendations from

subcommittee.

VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

n/a

VII. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL GOALS AND POLICIES

Goal 2) Howelsen Hill- Work with all public stakeholders to develop a communityvision, strategic plan, master plan and long term maintenance plan

Goal 4) Develop a long-term fiscal sustainability plan for the City

Goal 7) Develop a sustainability plan with a focus on resource efficiency, costeffectiveness, and respect for the natural environment

Other City and/or County Plans:


3/43


2011 City of Steamboat Springs Economic Strategy –

- Two of the Three Legs of Economic Policy: “Preserve and Protect City Assets” and “Leverage Existing Assets”. Complete a deferred maintenanceinventory and budget annually to address issues – with a goal to resolve all

issues within the next fifteen (15) years- Establish a policy of requiring the funding of or plan for funding ongoing

operating and maintenance costs for new capital construction prior toconstruction

2009 Steamboat Springs Parks and Recreation Master Plan

- Goal 5:o Research Potential Traditional Funding Opportunitieso Pursue alternative funding to implement the master plan

- Goal 9:o Bring existing parks up to standards

Routt County Vision 2030

- Recreation Sectiono Develop and implement a county-wide recreation or coalitiono Research the development and implementation of a county-wide

recreation district, organization or coalition to ensure financialsustainability for recreation

o Encourage county and municipal participation in open space,

recreation, and trails coordination for non-incorporated areas of thecounty that are adjacent to municipalities

o Develop a cost analysis of operating programs and facilities

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – Presentation Attachment 2 – Initial Report from Alternative Funding Subcommittee


4/43

A l t e

r n a t i v eF u

n d i n g

S u b

c ommi t t e eR e p or t

M a y2 ,2

0 1 6


5/43

S c o p e

of W or k

2

• S t u d y a

n d ev al u a t e al t er n a t i v e p ar k s & r e c r e a t i o

n

or g ani z

a t i on al s t r u c t ur e s an

d f un d i n g s o ur c e s a

n d m ak e

pr el i mi n ar y r e c omm en d a t i o

n s t o t h e C i t y C o un c i l an d

C o un t y

C ommi s s i on er s .

• P ar k s &

R e c r e a t i on–n o t c on s i d er e d c or e s er v i c e s on a

pr i or i t y

l ev el wi t h f i r e an d s a

f e t y , s ew er an d w a t er , p u b l i c

r o a d s , e t c .

• O b v i o u

s f r om C omm uni t y S

ur v e y s , p ar t i c i p a t i on

a t p ar k s -

r el a t e d

m e e t i n g s , an d f r om

c a s u al o b s er v a t i on ,

t h a t p ar k s

an d r e c

r e a t i on ar ef un d am e

n t al t o t h er e gi on an

d h i gh l y

i m p or t a

n t t or e s i d en t s


6/43

P r o c e s s

3

•

C omm

i t t e eM em b er s

•

R ev i ew of d o c um en t s an d

an al y s e s

•

C omm

uni t y s i t ev i s i t s

•

P u b l i c

m e e t i n g s -I n p u t f r om C i t y s t af f , ex p er t s

an d o t h er s


7/43

P ar k S

y s t em

4

•

S y s t em–2 9 p ar k s i t e s t o t al i n g ov er 4 1 0 a c r e s

•

6 2 mi l e s of t r ai l s ,i n c l u d i n g

t h e7 -mi l eY am p a C

or eT r ai l

•

2 , 6 0 0

a c r e s of o p en s p a c e

,i n c l u d i n g S pr i n g C r e ek

P r e s er v e ,E m er al d M o un t a

i nP ar k an d Ri t aV al en t i n eP ar k

•

R e c r e a t i on pr o gr am s f or y o u t h , t e en s , a d ul t s an d s eni or s

•

R e gi on al r e c r e a t i onh u b an d m a j or a t t r a c t or of

v i s i t or s


8/43

S y s t em Gr ow t h

5

Gr ow t h s

i n c e2 0 0 0 :

•

2 5 a c r e

s of n ew p ar k s an d am

eni t i e s ( c on t i n ui n g t o

gr ow )

•

8 5 0 a c r e s of o p en s p a c e / n ew

t r ai l s

•

E x p an d e d f o o t pr i n t of b ui l d i n g

s an d c ov er e d s h el t er

s

•

L an d s c

a pi n g an d m ai n t en an c

e of C i t y c omm on ar e a s ,

m e d i a

n s ,r i gh t s - of -w a y an d gr e en b el t s

B u d g e t o

v er t i m e:

•

S i n c e2

0 0 0 ,P ar k s & C omm uni t y S er v i c e s a c c o un t s

f or 1 1 %-

1 4 % of C i t y b u d g e t

•

L o s s of em pl o y e e s d u e t o b u d g e t c on s t r ai n t s

•

C ur r en t ann u al g en er al f un d al l o c a t e d t oP ar k s & C omm uni t y

S er v i c e

s - $ 5 , 0 5 7 , 0 6 3


9/43

C h al l e

n g e s

6

•

I nf r a s t r u c t ur e t h a t r e q ui r e s

s i gni f i c an t f un d i n gf or d ef er r e d

m ai n t e

n an c e an d g en er al u pk e e p. Un pl ann e d

c on t i n g en c i e s a d d t o t h e b

ur d en , a s d oi n c r e a s

i n g

am eni t i e s .

•

P ar k A

c r e s p er 1 , 0 0 0 r e s i d

en t s –1 4 . 8 a c r e s , a s c om p ar e d

t o b en

c h m ar k of 1 2 .1

•

O p en

S p a c eA c r e s p er 1 , 0

0 0 r e s i d en t s –2 0 0 a

c r e s

•

O p er a

t i n gE x p en d i t ur e s p e

r A c r e of L an d M ai n t ai n e d -

$ 4 , 8 5 5 / a c r e , a s c om p ar e d

t o b en c h m ar k of $ 7 , 6 6 6 / a c r e


10/43

C h al l e

n g e s

7

•

T r ai l M

ai n t en an c eD ol l ar s p er Mi l e- $ 1 ,2 4 9 / mi l e , a s

c om p a

r e d t o b en c h m ar k of $ 2 , 5 0 0 / mi l e.B r e c k

enr i d g e-

$ 3 , 8 0 0 / mi l e

•

O p en

S p a c eM ai n t en an c e

D ol l ar s p er A c r e- $ 1 8 / a c r e , a s

c om p a

r e d t oL ar i m er C o un

t y a t $ 3 0 0 / a c r e ; B r e

c k enr i d g e a t

$ 4 0 2 / a c r e ; D ur an g o $ 5 0 / a c r e

•

C o s t r e c ov er y – S t e am b o a

t i s a t 2 9 % ,wh i l en a

t i on al

b en c h

m ar k i s 3 2 %


11/43

C h al l e

n g e s

8

•

2 0 1 6

B u d g e t / 6 y e ar C I P –

al m o s t $ 4 mi l l i oni n

p ar k s –

r el a t e

d pr o j e c t s

•

D ef er r e d M ai n t en an c e–2 0 1 1 E c on omi c S t r a t

e g y :

o

C om pl e t e a d ef er r e

d m ai n t en an c ei nv en t or y an d

b u d g e t ann u al l y t o a d d r e s s t h ei s s u e s

o

R e s ol v e al l i s s u e s b y 2 0 2 6

o

C ur r en t d ef er r e d m ai n t en an c er e q ui r em

en t s ar e

$ 6 . 6 7 mi l l i on t h r o u g

h 2 0 2 1

o

C ur r en t l ev el s of f un d i n g ar ei n a d e q u a t e t om e e t

d ef er r e d m ai n t en an

c er e q ui r em en t s


12/43

C h al l e

n g e s

9

•

A p pr ox i m a t el y $ 3 3 mi l l i on

i n p ar k e d pr o j e c t s h av e b e en

i d en t i f i e d , b u t h av en o c ur r en t p o s s i b i l i t y of f un d i n g

•

N ewr e s t r o om s a t t r ai l h e a d

s , c om pl e t i n gr o d e o

m a s t er

pl an ,

C or eT r ai l ex t en s i on

, b al l f i el d c om pl ex ,f i el d h o u s e ,

e t c .

•

C ur r e

n t s y s t emi s i n a d e q u a t e b o t h or g ani z a t i o

n al l y an d

f i n an c i al l y t o b r i n g an y p a

r k e d pr o j e c t t of r ui t i o

n

•

C ommi t t e e’ s c on c l u s i on s

d on o t a s s um e or r e

q ui r e t h a t

i d en t i f i e d p ar k e d pr o j e c t s

wi l l or ev en s h o ul d b

er e al i z e d


13/43

C on c l u s i on s

1 0

•

O p er a

t i on s s h or t f al l - $ 6 9 2 , 0 0 0 ann u al l y

•

D ef er r

e d m ai n t en an c e s h o

r t f al l - $ 1 . 3 3 mi l l i on ann u al l y

•

T o t al s

h or t f al l ( wi t h n on ew

am eni t i e s ) - $ 2 . 0 3 m

i l l i on

ann u a

l l y

•

P l ann e d c a pi t al pr o j e c t s t h

r o u gh 2 0 2 1 - $ 3 . 9 4 mi l l i on

•

P ar k e d pr o j e c t s –A d d i t i on al $ $

•

D e t ai l s i n s pr e a d s h e e t a t t a

c h e d t oR e p or t – J i m

B o y n e an d

J oh n O

v er s t r e e t pr e p ar e d

t o a d d r e s s q u e s t i on s


14/43

P o t en t i al S t r u c t ur e s & F un d i n g

1 1

•

C ur r e

n t S t r u c t ur e– C i t y G

en er al F un d an d P a

r k s an d

C omm uni t y S er v i c e s D e p

ar t m en t

o

C o s t =N e u t r al

o

M gm t .E f f .=N e g a t i v e

o

F un d i n g S o ur c e s =N

e g a t i v e

o

C om pl ex i t y of I m pl em

en t a t i on=P o s i t i v e

•

A d d i t i on of C i t y -m an a g e d

P ar k s an d R e c F un d ( t h r o u gh

e ar m ar k e d g en er al f un d a

s s e t s , t o g e t h er wi t h

on g oi n g

pr o p e

r t y , s al e s or ex c i s e t ax e s )

o


o


o

F un d i n g S o ur c e s =P

o s i t i v e

o


en t a t i on=N e g a t i v e


15/43

P o t en t i al S t r u c t ur e s & F un d i n g

1 2

•

E s t a b

l i s h m en t of a G en er

al I m pr ov em en t Di s t r i c t or

P u b l i c I m pr ov em en t Di s t r i c t

o

C o s t =N e g a t i v e

o


o


o s i t i v e

o


en t a t i on=N e g a t i v e

•

E s t a b

l i s h m en t of aP ar k s

an d R e c r e a t i onF o un d a t i on

o


o

M gm t .E f f .=P o s i t i v e

o


o s i t i v e

o


en t a t i on=P o s i t i v e


16/43

R e c om

m en d e d S t r u c

t ur e1 3

•

E s t a b l i s h m en t of aP ar k s a

n d R e c r e a t i onDi s t r i c t

o

C

o s t =N e g a t i v e

o

M

gm t .E f f .=P o s i t i v e

o

F un d i n g S o ur c e s =P o s i t i v e

o

C

om pl ex i t y of I m pl em en t a t i on=N e g a t i v e

•

Di s t r i c

t w o ul d pr ov i d e t h e s t r on g e s t or g ani z a t i o

n al pl a t f or m

t o enh

an c em an a g em en t ,r e s p on s i v en e s s an d

s t r a t e gi c

v i s i on

f or p ar k s an d r e c r e a

t i on

•

F o un d

a t i on t o s u p pl em en t

an d s u p p or t t h eDi s t r i c t

i ni t i a t i v e s w o ul d enh an c ef

un d r ai s i n g ov er t i m e


17/43

R e c om

m en d e d S t r u c

t ur e1 4

•

Di s t r i c

t w o ul d f o c u s ex c l u s

i v el y on p ar k s an d r e c r e a t i on ,

wi t h o u

t t h e d i s t r a c t i on of h i gh er pr i or i t y c om p e t i n g pr o j e c t s

an d s e

r v i c e s

•

E l e c t e

d g ov er ni n g b o d y wi t h f i d u c i ar y r e s p on s i b i l i t y t o t h e

Di s t r i c

t an d i t s r e s i d en t s t o

d ev el o p an d i m pl em

en t on g oi n g

s t r a t e gi e s

•

F r e e u

p C i t y C o un c i l ,m an a g er i al ov er s i gh t an d

t h e g en er al

f un d t of o c u s onh i gh er pr i or i t y s er v i c e s

•

S om e

p o t en t i al g e o gr a ph i c

b o un d ar i e s t o b e s t u d i e d :

•

Ur b an Gr ow t h B o un d

ar y ,

•

S t e am b o a t F i r eDi s t r i c t ( i n c l u d i n g t h e C i t y ) ,

•

S c h o ol Di s t r i c t


18/43

R e q u e s t / N ex t S t e p s

1 5

G ui d an c e b y C o un c i l an d t h e

C ommi s s i on er s onh ow t o

pr o c e e d ,

i n c l u d i n g:

•

I s a t a

r g e t e d / f o c u s e d ev a

l u a t i on of or g ani z a t i on al

s t r u c t u

r e an d f un d i n g s o ur c e s d e s i r e d ?

•

I s t h er

e pr el i mi n ar y c on s en s u s on t h e C ommi t t

e e’ s

r e c om

m en d a t i on s on ei t h e

r or g ani z a t i on al s t r u c t ur e or

f un d i n

g o p t i on s ?

•

S h o ul d t h e C ommi t t e e ev a

l u a t em or e s p e c i f i c a

l l y t ax

i m p a c t s of c er t ai nDi s t r i c t b o un d ar i e s ?

•

F i r eDi s t r i c t , Ur b an G

r ow t h B o un d ar y , e t c .


19/43

R e q u e s t / N ex t S t e p s

1 6

•

S h o ul d t h e C ommi t t e e c on

d u c t f ur t h er an al y s i s

on

c omm

uni t y i m p a c t of f un d i n g s o ur c e s :

o

S t u d y p o t en t i al pr o p e

r t y t ax i m p a c t s ( i n c l u d i n g

r ami f i c a t i on s onr e s i d

en t i al an d c omm er c i al pr o p er t y

own er s )

o

S t u d y p o t en t i al s al e s

or ex c i s e t ax i m p a c t s

o

A s s e s s u s er f e e s an d

s t r u c t ur e

•

C an C

o un c i l / C ommi s s i on

er s e s t a b l i s h am an d a t e an d

pr o c e s s f or f ur t h er ev al u a t i on an d a s s e s s m en t :

o

P r o c e s s t h a t w o ul d i n

c l u d em or e t ar g e t e d a

n al y s i s /

a s s e s s m en t .

o

O b t ai nf ur t h er i n p u t ,i d e a s , an d b e gi n t o g a u

g el ev el of

s u p p or t or o p p o s i t i on

t h r o u gh c omm uni t y o u

t r e a c h


20/43

12005908330_1

Initial Report and Recommendations: Alternative Management Structures and Funding

Sources for Steamboat Springs / Routt County Parks and Recreation Facilities and Programs

The Alternative Funding Sources Sub-Committee of Steamboat Springs’ Parks and Recreation

Commission is comprised of the following individuals:

Doug Tumminello, Chair

Jim Boyne, Vice Chair

Jim Clark

Chrissy Lynch

David Scully

Tom Todd

Scott Ford (City Council representative)

Heather Sloop (Alternate City Council representative)

Nikki Knoebel

Cari Hermacinski attends Committee meetings as a representative of the Routt County Commissioners,

and in that capacity expresses no opinion as to Committee’s recommendations.

John Overstreet, Director of Parks & Community Services, and Ally Press, Parks & Community Services

Office Coordinator, are the primary City staff members involved in the Committee’s work.

I. Scope of Work

With the approval of Steamboat Springs City Council (“Council”) and Routt County Commissioners

(“Commissioners”), the Steamboat Springs Parks and Recreation Commission formed a sub-committee, the

Alternative Funding Sources Sub-Committee (the “Committee”), to study and evaluate alternative

organizational structures and funding sources and to make recommendations to the Council and the

Commissioners. The annual budget for the City’s Parks & Community Services department now exceeds$5 million and accounts for approximately 13% of the City’s budget, yet the budget and funding for parks

and recreation has not kept pace with operations, deferred maintenance and infrastructure

repairs/replacement for existing facilities and open space, or capital funding for future projects.

As a result of City policy, parks and recreation are not considered “core services” on a priority level with

fire and safety, sewer and water, public roads, snow removal and other issues of public necessity.

Nonetheless, community surveys conducted by the City and public attendance at parks-oriented Council

meetings amply demonstrate that recreation is an important priority for Steamboat residents. Accordingly,

the Committee was charged with evaluating the current organizational and funding model, identifying and

assessing management and funding gaps, and making recommendations regarding potentialsolutions to theseissues.

This report reflects the Committee’s initial conclusions and recommendations regarding management

and funding of the City’s parks and recreation amenities. It is the Committee’s expectation that these

conclusions and recommendations will develop and could modify as the Committee continues its work


21/43

22005908330_1

toward a final recommendation and receives additional information, analysis and input from the City,

the County, the public, and other interested parties.

II. Summary of Process and Resources Evaluated

A. Review of Documents and Analyses

Members of the Committee, together with various City staff members, began meeting in the summer of

2015. Guests and public comments were welcomed. The Committee evaluated a number of documents

and analyses during various meetings, including:

• 2003 Yampa River Management Plan

• 2004 Bear Creek Master Plan

• 2008 Open Space and Trails Master Plan

• 2008 Hayden Parks and Recreation Master Plan

• 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan

• 2009 Rodeo Master Plan

• 2011 City of Steamboat Springs Economic Development Policy

• 2012 Howelsen Hill Rodeo Facility Design Plan

• 2013 Emerald Mountain Park Master Plan

• 2014 Oak Creek Parks and Recreation Master Plan

• 2014 Howelsen Hill Master Plan (draft)

• 2014 Community Survey

• 2014 PRC Ops Budget Report

• Recreation Vision 2030 Plan

• Key Parks & Recreation operating costs and ratios relative to other similar

communities

• Park Foundations documents from other cities• City of Steamboat Springs Tax Policy Advisory Board Reports

• City of Steamboat Springs community surveys relating to City services

• Routt County Purchase of Development Rights information

B. Community Site Visits

Members of the Committee, together with John Overstreet, participated in meetings and site

visits in Oak Creek and Hayden to observe and discuss their respective parks and recreation assets

and operations, and their potential needs and wants. These meetings were also intended to

evaluate whether Oak Creek or Hayden had any interest in participating in the discussions

regarding a regional solution to organization and funding of regional parks and recreation assetsand programs. The largest issue for both Oak Creek and Hayden seemed to be related to

transportation to and from Steamboat Springs. There was also a view from both community

leaders that neither wanted to see a regional solution to parks and recreation that would result in a

tax increase.


22/43

32005908330_1

C. Meetings and Conference Calls with Experts:

Members of the Committee, together with John Overstreet, participated in meetings and

conference calls with a variety of experts on a number of topics to gather information, advice and

perspective on organizational and funding options for parks and recreation, including topics such

as:

• Geographic boundaries of the city/county/state/federal lands

• Formation and governance of parks and recreation oriented nonprofit foundations

• The City’s role in seeking third party grant funding

• Formation and governance of General Improvement Districts, Public Improvement

Districts, and Parks and Recreation Districts

• Taxation issues and options, including sales tax, excise tax, and property tax

The Committee heard from numerous experts and City staff throughout the process,

including:

• Winnie DelliQuadri (City Government Programs Manager)• KimWeber (City Director of Finance)

• Jim Haskins (Hayden and Colorado Parks & Wildlife)

• Kent Foster (U.S. Forest Service)

• Paul Hughes (former City Manager and former member of citizensTax Policy Advisory

Board)

• Dee Wisor, Esq. (public finance attorney, Butler and Snow)

• Professor Dr. Nathan Schaumleffel (Associate Professor at Indiana State University

and Proprietor & Senior Consultant at Driven Strategic LLC)

III. Description of the Steamboat Springs Parks and Recreation System

A. Overview

Steamboat has 29 park sites1 totaling over 410 acres which host a multitude of amenities. Within the

park system are the Yampa River, six mineral springs, a ski area and ski jumping complex, two skate

parks, 10 playgrounds, three volleyball courts, tennis and pickleball courts, 22 athletic fields, an indoor

ice rink, an amphitheater, pond and river fishing access, rodeo grounds and related facilities, horseback

riding, nature/hiking trails, open play areas, picnic tables, and rental facilities. The City also owns an

indoor/outdoor tennis facility with competition courts which is privately run by a concessionaire, and

the Haymaker Golf Course.

The park system currently contains 62 miles of trails, consisting mostly of unpaved and natural surfacetrails. The trails are used for mountain biking, hiking and walking, cross-country skiing and horseback

1Bear River Skateboard Park, Lithia Springs, Stockbridge, Iron Springs, West Lincoln Park, Steamboat Springs Park,

Howelsen Park, Little Toots Park, Rodeo Grounds, Brooklyn Park, Ski Town Lions Park, Memorial Park, Stehley Park,

Strawberry Park Field, Spring Creek, Dr. Rich Weiss Park, Snake Island, Emerald Park, Yampa River Botanic Park,

Fetcher Park, Rita Valentine Park (and adjacent M&H Property), Rotary Park, Ski Town Park, Casey’s Pond, River

Creek Park, Whistler Park, West Side Park, Heritage Park. Newly-created Workman Park, funded by “2A”

Accommodation Taxes, will be functional in 2016.


23/43

42005908330_1

riding. The trails include the approximately 7 mile paved Yampa River Core Trail, which serves as the

major connector of many of the City’s parks and public spaces. As a result of the allocation in 2013 of

“2A Accommodations Taxes,” $5.1 million in new trails are being added to the system over the next

decade.

The City’s open space program is responsible for maintenance and management of over 2,600 acres of

undeveloped and agricultural land ranging in size from less than 10 acres to the 880 acre Spring Creek

Mountain Preserve, the 586 acre Emerald Mountain Park, and the 40+ acre Rita Valentine Park (this park

is classified as a park but maintained as open space).

In addition to parks, open space and trails, the City’s Parks & Community Services Department is

responsible for maintaining the landscaping on Highway 40 medians coming into town, the downtown

streetscape, ski area medians and other landscaping.

The parks and recreation system acts as a regional recreation hub, serving both the residents of

Steamboat Springs and those who live outside City limits but in the general region. The system is a

major attractor of out-of-town visitors, enhancing the region’s reputation as a 4-season recreational

center. The system also benefits Steamboat’s substantial population of second home owners throughthe general appreciation in real estate values that comes with living in a popular resort and recreation-

oriented area.

B. Selected Parks

Howelsen Park is the “crown jewel” of Steamboat City Parks. The complex includes the Howelsen Hill

Ski Area, Romick Rodeo Arena, Howelsen Hill Ice Arena, outdoor recreation trails on Emerald Mountain,

four baseball fields (used locally and for Triple Crown tournament play), an equestrian stable for public

riding, a track circling the rodeo grounds, tennis and pickleball courts, winter snow tubing facilities, a

skate/bike park, the Alpine Slide, sand volleyball courts, two playgrounds, two basketball hoops, a

concert venue for summer concerts, two gazebos/picnic shelters, slacklining poles, numerous restroom

facilities, numerous concession venues and the historic Howelsen Hill lodge (including Olympian Hall).All of this is accessible directly from downtown.

The Yampa River itself offers an almost unique park experience, including boating, tubing, fishing,

wildlife viewing, and passive contemplation. The improved Core Trail parallels the river and provides

visual and physical access to the water. It also provides active recreation in the form of running, cycling,

and other recreational means of non‐motorized travel. Passive recreational opportunities offered by

the Core Trail include educational and interpretive signs, wildlife viewing, strolling, art, and places to sit.

Like Howelsen Park, Emerald Park accommodates a large amount of active recreation. It is a prime

location for soccer and other field sports, as well as baseball and softball. It also serves as the gateway

to the Yampa River Botanic Park. The Yampa River Core Greenway runs adjacent to the park, providinggood access for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Little Toots Park is centrally located between downtown, the river, and the library. It is heavily used by

families and others as a place to picnic and play. This park serves as a more passive counterpart to

Howelsen Park in the downtown area.


24/43

52005908330_1

Ski Town Park is an active park primarily focused on tennis and field sports. It includes a first‐rate tennis

center with indoor and outdoor courts, both clay and hard surfaced. It also has a turf field area that is

heavily programmed for a variety of local and tournament sports.

The rodeo grounds play host to special events, including nationally-sanctioned rodeo events. Together

with the adjacent Howelsen Park, the rodeo grounds are part of Steamboat Springs’ identity as an active

and energetic place. Overall, the rodeo grounds have a broken‐in character that indicates they are well‐

loved and well‐used. At the same time, they represent a bit of Steamboat Springs’ classic identity as a

traditional western town that differentiates it from glitzier “prefab” resorts in the region.

In addition to the main parks and specialized facilities listed above, Steamboat has numerous smaller

parks and playgrounds that offer places to play, relax, attend an event, or discover something unique

like a natural spring or piece of sculpture. Many of these are located along the river and are accessible

by way of the Core Trail. Others are located within neighborhoods away from the river such as

Memorial Park and Stehley Park.

The City’s robust open space and trail program provides for access to extensive in-town open space

parks and beginner to advanced multi-use trails.

C. Programs

The Parks & Community Services Department offers a wide variety of recreation programs for youth,

teens, adults and seniors which range from afterschool programs and summer camps, to adult sports

and senior trips. In addition to traditional youth programs, the department sponsors and facilitates

numerous sports leagues and tournaments that attract users from the region and nationally.

In 2015, youth summer camp attendance on a weekly basis averaged over 450 students and summer

camp slots per year have increased from 4,027 to 4,157. Adult sports leagues attract an additional 100-

plus participants per year, the most popular being spring and fall hockey, summer beach volleyball andoutdoor summer soccer.

D. Recent Growth of Parks and Recreation System

Since year 2000, there have been extensive parks and recreation amenities and services added to the

system. For example, the City has added approximately 25 acres of new parks and amenities, 850 of

Steamboat’s 2,600 acres of open space (about one-third of its total open space) have been added since

2000 and the department enhanced and/or expanded its footprint of buildings and covered shelters,

including:

• Parks and Community Services Administrative/Maintenance Offices Expansion

• Trillium House (Botanic Park)

• Rotary Park Pavilion

• Howelsen Beach Pavilion

• Ski Town Pavilion

• Tennis Bubble Expansion (from 4 courts to 6 courts)

• Haymaker Clubhouse (in the golf course enterprise fund)


25/43

62005908330_1

It should be noted that the department also maintains City common areas; and some of these have been

added to the inventory since 2000. The amount of parks added and common maintenance areas

include:

• Bear River Park

• Workman Park

• Emerald Park (enhanced maintenance for tournaments and events)

• Strawberry Park Middle School Baseball Fields improvements and Triple Crown maintenance

• Westside Park greenbelt and two playgrounds

• Gloria Gossard Parkway landscaping, irrigation and fencing

• Community Center landscaping and irrigation

• Stockbridge Multi-Modal landscaping, irrigation and playground

• Bud Werner Library landscaping, irrigation and maintenance

• Mountain Fire Station landscaping and irrigation

• Centennial Hall landscaping and irrigation

• Elkins House landscaping and irrigation

•

New restroom – Little Toots Park

Since 2000 there have been extensive improvements to the Yampa River, the Core Trail and the trails

systems. The City has made meaningful strides in improving river access, bank stabilization and

remediation on the Yampa River. The City has added over 9,000 linear square feet to the Core Trail and

improved it to a 10 foot wide concrete trail. Additionally, the City has added 6.5 miles of backcountry

trails to the system, and improved the level of service on all trails.

The City has also made numerous improvements to Howelsen Ski Area since 2000, including doubling

snowmaking capacity, adding a terrain park, adding 10 kilometers of new Nordic ski trails, adding year-

round ski jumps (HS75 and HS 45 plastic jumps), installing a magic carpet surface lift, and increasing

services in partnership with the Steamboat Springs Winter Sports Club, including the summer alpine

slide and winter tubing, which require added maintenance costs to the City and its valued partners.

While this growth in services and amenities continues to date with, for example, the addition of new

trails and parks through 2A Accommodations Taxes, levels of service have either remained constant or

dropped as a result of resource reductions, particularly since the 2008 economic downturn.

E. Changes to Parks & Community Services Resources and Budget Over Time

Since 2000, Parks & Community Services spending has generally accounted for approximately 11% - 14%

of the City’s annual budget, despite the rapid growth of amenities and services described above.

Further, since the economic downturn in 2008, the Parks & Community Services Department has lost

twenty-four full time employees due to the City’s budget constraints. That reduction of employees

accounted for more than half of the total employee cuts citywide. Despite the upturn in the economy,

those employees have not been added back to the City’s budget.


26/43

72005908330_1

F. Key Challenges for Parks and Recreation Operating System

The City’s parks and recreation system has aging infrastructure that requires significant funding for

deferred maintenance and general upkeep. Unplanned contingencies such as the continuing land slide

issues at Howelsen Hill add to the burden, as do the amenities added over time.

Since 2014, staff has focused on determining the cost of services for parks, open space, trails andrecreation programming. Decision-makers have made a concerted effort to benchmark service levels

against best-practice agencies, regional comparisons, and national standards. The department has

tracked costs for standardized practices, special events, and reactive services in order to better track

where work is performed, for what service, and the estimated costs attributed to those activities.

The City has partnered with the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and has provided

inputs into the group’s PRORAGIS (Park and Recreation Operating Ratio and GIS system). Since 2014,

the department has been able to benchmark against agencies nationally and regionally to see “where

we stand” against agencies of similar population, climate, terrain, etc. A comparison of the parks and

recreation system to national benchmarks is illuminating. Below are some examples of the City’s

existing levels of service versus agencies nationally or regionally.

Park Acres per Thousand of Population – Steamboat fares above the national benchmark in this

category. Steamboat has 14.76 acres of developed park acreage per thousand residents, while the

national benchmark is 12.1 acres. Steamboat has invested well in its provision of developed parks.

Additionally, as noted above, Steamboat enjoys 2,600 acres of open space. While there is no national

benchmark for open space, Steamboat’s 200 + acres of open space per thousand residents is

extraordinary.

Estimated Operating Expenditures per Acre of Land Maintained – The average national benchmark for

operating expenditures per acre of maintained park land is $7,666 per acre. Steamboat spends

approximately $4,855 per acre, almost $3,000 per acre less than the benchmark. For purpose of

comparison, Golden, Colorado spends approximately $5,613 per acre. In 2014, Breckenridge, Durango,

Fruita, Grand Junction and Silverthorne compiled an average of $3,670 per acre for maintained parks.

Durango stated its costs to be significantly higher – +/-$6,000 per acre – but much of that cost is for

maintenance of athletic/sports field turf.

Trail Maintenance Dollars Per Mile – While the City continues to construct trails, its operating

expenditures per mile to maintain those trails – $1,249 – falls well below benchmark averages. National

benchmarks estimate the cost to be $2,500 per mile to maintain, so the City is spending about one-half

of the benchmark for trail maintenance. For comparison, Breckenridge spends over $3,800 per mile and

Durango spends $11,000 for each paved mile of trail. (For purposes of illustration, at Durango’s

maintenance level, Steamboat would be spending close to $80,000 annually to maintain the Core Trail.)

While much of the trail system in Steamboat is snow-covered through winter, the trails still require

benchmark-consistent maintenance. The benchmark itself accounts for trail maintenance in snowy

regions. Trails are subject to intense use during throughout the spring, summer and winter seasons and

are impacted by erosion and damage caused by use, which results from the wet, snowy conditions and

water run-off that comes each spring.


27/43

82005908330_1

Open Space Maintenance Dollars Per Acre – Steamboat has 2,600 acres of open space and spends

approximately $18 per acre for management and maintenance. These costs run the range from noxious

weed eradication to interpretive education to encroachment enforcement. Larimer County spends

approximately $300 per acre on urban open space management and maintenance and spends $150 per

acre on regional open space. Golden spends in excess of $3,500 per acre, Breckenridge budgets

$402 per acre and Durango expends $57 per acre.

Cost Recovery from Programs – Median – The City has fared well with cost recovery even without

having a dedicated recreation center facility, which typically drives cost recovery. Steamboat’s

recreation system-wide cost recovery is approximately 29% while the national benchmark is 32%. This

means that for every $1.00 spent by the City throughout the system, 29 cents are recovered through

system-related revenues. The fact that the City’s system-wide cost recovery is near the national

benchmark suggests that some improvements in cost recovery may be obtainable, but the improvement

would provide fairly limited benefit to the system overall.

It is important to keep in mind that much of the system’s assets are non-revenue-generating properties

such as open space, trails, passive parks and playgrounds. In comparison, Golden, which has a

recreation center, three sports complexes, an RV Park and a whitewater park, states its parks and

recreation-related cost recovery at 76%. Thus, for every $1.00 spent, 76 cents is recovered through the

revenues generated by those assets. These types of complexes, which charge a fee for service or use,

tend to increase overall cost recovery. In contrast, trails, open space, and passive parks and playgrounds

decrease cost recovery because fees aren’t charged for their use. PRORAGIS states that of the

organizations supplying information to the database, 78.5% had a dedicated recreation/community

center and that the median population for those cities having a facility is 24,804.

G. Key Challenges for Parks and Recreation Capital System and Deferred Maintenance;

Six Year Capital Budget

The City’s capital budgets are forecasted for a period of six years; currently through 2021. According tothe 2016 City Budget, the department has planned for $3,937,000 in parks-related capital projects. This

figure accounts for City costs only and does not include or account for private donations or other

contributions such as grants. Those projects are included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),

meaning that they are higher priority capital projects.

As examples, the Igloo was originally budgeted for replacement in 2014 and its site improvement and

construction costs have escalated its original cost significantly over its development budget. The

planned second sheet of ice/community indoor complex currently in the CIP in year 2020 is forecasted

to have substantial private contributions, but there have been discussions by City Council about moving

this project to an earlier year in part because there is no guarantee that private contributions would be

available in 2020.

Deferred Maintenance is maintenance that was not performed at the required intervals to adequately

maintain and protect parks and recreation facilities and assets over the expected life cycle of those

facilities and assets. It is the total of unfunded maintenance/repair deficiencies. The City adopted an

economic development policy in 2011 and one of the three “legs” of the policy includes “preserve and

protect city assets.” These deficiencies must be remedies in order to preserve and protect them and to

achieve service life expectancies. Without the required work, the asset may become unusable or may


28/43

92005908330_1

eventually require emergency repairs at a higher cost than may have been required to perform timely

maintenance / repairs. With adequate funding and proper investment, deferred maintenance can be

significantly reduced to a manageable, more prudent level, but not fully eliminated.

A defined Deferred Maintenance Program was first identified in the 2011 City of Steamboat Springs

Economic Strategy. The document states under Strategy 1, 1A to “complete a deferred maintenance

inventory and budget annually to address the issues – with a goal to resolve all issues within the next

fifteen (15) years.” The City has planned for some facility maintenance throughout the parks and

community services department and can address some of these needs when funds are budgeted.

The funding analysis during this Committee process found that there currently is not adequate funding

to address all deferred maintenance by 2026. Recent findings related to some existing facilities, like

remediating Howelsen Hill soils and infrastructure may take millions of dollars to remedy. Other

examples included funding to make the Howelsen Lodge more modern, fixing existing bathrooms in

parks, and upgrading existing equipment and infrastructure at Howelsen Hill. The committee has made

adjustments to the deferred maintenance program and addresses this in Section IV.

H. Parked Projects and Other Capital Programs

The City accounts for “parked projects”; those projects that have been identified through a master plan

or through public demand that are not identified for funding in the next six years. (See Tab 3 of

Exhibit 1.) The 2016 City Budget currently identifies approximately $33 million in parked projects for

parks and recreation ranging from new restrooms at trailheads to completing the rodeo master plan and

Core Trail extension – South. Recent projects that have been identified include a new field house

($12mm) and sports field complex ($6mm). These cost estimates are considered place-holders and

would require modification based upon land acquisition, partnering opportunities, types of finishes, field

surfacing, and other amenities.

It is important to note that the Committee’s conclusions do not assume or require that the identified

parked projects will or even should be realized, except in certain identified circumstances where the

parked projects are for deferred maintenance. The parked projects are included in this analysis to

demonstrate overall impact if those projects, or a subset of those projects, are to be realized.

IV. Identify Estimate of Need

A. Gap Analysis for Current Parks and Recreation Services, Infrastructure, Parks and

Facilities

The Committee worked with City staff and other stakeholders to identify a defined current level of

service necessary to sustain the City’s parks, open space, trails and recreation amenities. Our analysis

has shown that while the appetite for parks and recreation continues to grow in Steamboat and theregion, the necessary funding for these services has fallen far behind and will continue to lag as non-

essential services within the city government.

City staff has worked to review the current budget, benchmark defined levels of service against the

existing funding and determine the shortfall, if any, in current funding. This base analysis only

determines what should be funded to maintain existing parks, recreation facilities, open space, and


29/43

102005908330_1

trails, support planned capital improvement projects and provide adequate deferred maintenance to

assets.

Operations

Attached as Exhibit 1 is an overall analysis of existing funding and the estimated shortfall when

compared to benchmark standards. In order to achieve a defined median level of service that isconsistent with comparable agencies, the budget is $691,911 deficient in funding for FY 2016, and that

amount will continue to grow through 2021.

Deferred Maintenance

The City is planning to evaluate its existing deferred maintenance schedule versus the actual funding

needed for assets. Preliminary assessments for deferred maintenance forecasted from 2017 to 2021

(including certain items listed in Parked Projects which are required to maintain/repair existing assets)

show an annual shortfall in deferred maintenance of approximately $1.3 million annually.

Planned Capital and Community Driven Projects

Planned capital improvements included in the CIP through the year 2021 total $3.937mm. (See Tab 2 of

Exhibit 1.) This does not include any private or other contributions that may occur with these projects.

It is also important to note that the Combined Shortfall discussed below does not include $3.937 million

in capital improvements identified in the CIP since those items are already included in the City’s 6-year

budget.

Parked Projects

While not factored into our initial recommendations, the 2016 Budget Book identifies other priority

based parked projects that would be considered, the total cost of which approaches $30 million. As

described above, we recast certain parked projects that are required for maintaining or repairing

existing assets, including:

• Little Toots Community House renovation – $120,000

• Completion of 2009 Rodeo Master Plan – $2.5 mm of which is deferred

maintenance

• Howelsen Hill Snowmaking Repair/Replacement – $720K

If all of the parked projects were funded, the average shortfall over a ten year period is almost $3 million

annually for those projects that are not included as deferred maintenance.

Combined Shortfall

Using the numbers shown above as a guide, and not taking into consideration parked projects otherthan those that are deferred maintenance, the annual projected shortfall is currently estimated to be

$2.03 million:

Operating Gap $691,911

Deferred Maintenance Gap (including Parked Projects

required to maintain/repair existing assets) $1,334,567


30/43

112005908330_1

TOTAL $2,026,478

Adding in all parked projects that are not considered deferred maintenance, the annual projected

shortfall is estimated to be $4.77 million:2

Operating Gap $691,911

Deferred Maintenance Gap (including Parked Projectsrequired to maintain / repair existing assets) $1,334,567

Other Parked Projects $2,945,700

TOTAL: $4,972,178

V. Discussion of Potential Organization Structures and Alternative Funding

The Committee evaluated the current “City-managed” parks and recreation organizational structure,

and also evaluated a number of alternative organizational structures. The Committee met with Dee

Wisor, a public finance attorney from Butler Snow LLP, to discuss alternative organizational structures

and the process for implementing, including a discussion of the formation, governance and fundingpossibilities through each structure. (See Butler Snow LLP memo attached as Exhibit 3.) The Committee

also had a conference call with Dr. Nathan Schaumleffel from Driven Strategic, LLC, to discuss the

creation and implementation of parks and recreation nonprofit foundations.

Below is a summary of the types of organizational structures considered and the pros and cons of each,

including “impact ratings,” in the opinion of the Committee, of Cost; Management Effectiveness;

Funding Sources Available; and Complexity of Implementation, using a rating scale of “Positive,”

“Negative,“ and “Neutral.” Where a factor is rated as a Positive, that factor weighs in favor of the

proposed structure, where it is rated as a Negative, it weighs against the structure, and where it is

Neutral, the impact on implementation is neutral.

A. Current Structure – City General Fund and Parks and Community Services Department

Cost = Neutral

Mgmt. Eff. = Negative

Funding Sources = Negative

Complexity of Implementation = Positive

The current structure, with the Parks and Community Services Department managed by the City and

funded through the City General Fund, is the current status quo. Maintaining the current status quo

would not incur any implementation costs and there are no structural obstacles to continue with the

current model. However, it would not provide any enhancements to management effectiveness or

propelling a long-term vision for parks and recreation nor would it address the funding gaps that exist.

Based on City Council’s direction that parks and recreation are not “core services,” it is unlikely that the

current structure and funding model will be effective going forward. If this direction continues, the

costs associated with maintaining, enhancing, and improving both amenities and infrastructure within

parks and recreation will continue to remain far down the list of City Council funding priorities.

2Of course, adding in some of the parked projects, but fewer than all, would result in a smaller number.


31/43

122005908330_1

As discussed, there is a significant accumulation of parks and recreation deferred maintenance and

additional initiatives that are on the “parked projects” list, which is not part of the CIP list approved by

City Council and are not a focus for City funding. This lack of priority and focus also impacts the City’s

ability to solicit and garner funding from third parties. City staff has indicated that the City’s efforts to

apply for funds from third parties (such as GOCO, private grants, and other state and federal funding

sources) is driven by the CIP list. Historically, many important parks and recreation maintenance,infrastructure repairs, and other strategic initiatives have been regularly deferred and are not included

in the CIP list. As the CIP list informs the City’s staff as to which initiatives are the subject of grant

applications, there is little focus on seeking funding from third party sources for parks and recreation as

it is not a “core service.” Even when a parks-related item is included on the CIP, the implementation of

that item is subject to adequate funding in the General Fund and will be deferred if priority core service

items are identified.

Additionally, continuity of management and vision under the current structure will continue to

negatively impact charting a long-term course and vision for parks and recreation as the majority of City

Council members turn over every few years, which can result in shifting priorities and new directions.

The General Fund is available for everything, but the sitting City Council at the time allocates thosefunds as they see fit. There are times when parks and recreation have been a higher priority and times,

like now, when they are not. Under the current structure and funding model, the ability to set and

follow a long-term strategic vision for parks and recreation will be challenging.

Also, given the current estimate of the parks and recreation funding gap, without changes in the City’s

revenue base, the status quo will not likely achieve meaningful improvements to the funding situation

for parks and recreation assets.

B. Addition of City-managed Parks and Rec Fund (through earmarked general fund assets,

together with ongoing property, sales or excise taxes)

Cost = Neutral


Funding Sources = Positive

Complexity of Implementation = Negative

This option is a continuation of the status quo in having the City manage Parks and recreation, but

would add another funding vehicle. Under this option, the City would establish a dedicated fund (or

funds) to be managed and administered by the City for all of parks and recreation, or could be dedicated

to specific assets such as Howelsen Hill, or the Tennis Center, for example. This fund or funds could be

funded through contributions from the general fund, and through dedicated property or sales or excise

tax revenue, which can help reduce the funding gap discussed above and to allow the City to better

maintain its parks and recreation facilities and assets, and to potentially fund improvements. The cost

of implementing this model would include the cost of an election to seek any new taxes, as well as an

analysis and implementation of new user fees to seek reimbursement from user groups outside of the

City limits. The additional complexity results from the requirement of a new election related to new

taxes. While this option could help address the funding gap, it does not provide any enhancements to

management effectiveness and continuity of vision for parks and recreation.

Additionally, the addition of any City tax (property, sales or excise) would require the approval of voters

within the City of Steamboat Springs. This funding model would also not encompass important user


32/43

132005908330_1

groups that do not reside within the City limits, which would result in residents within the City limits

bearing a disproportionate burden of the costs of parks and recreation. This impact could be mitigated

through more complex fee structures that charge non-City residents more to use these amenities and

assets, but would increase the administration and complexity of collecting fees from such user groups

residing outside of the City taxing district (including Steamboat II and Heritage Park, as well as 2 nd

homeowners outside city limits).

C. Establishment of a Parks and Recreation District (P&R District)

Cost = Negative

Mgmt. Eff. = Positive



This option would result in the creation of a separate, stand-alone entity with its own governing, elected

Board, which would be focused entirely on parks and recreation within a boundary that may include the

City limits, the County, or some other appropriate geographical boundary. This would provide an

enhanced level of focus on funding and management of parks and recreation. For all the reasons

articulated in Section V(B), oversight of management and funding of parks and recreation by City Council

will not likely result in meaningful changes and will not address the identified funding gaps. The

creation of a stand-alone P&R District would provide enhanced focus on those assets and amenities and

enable a new governing body which is singularly focused on parks and recreation to develop a strategic

vision to help prioritize parks and recreation without regard to other competing services, such as fire

and safety, sewer and water, etc. In connection with implementing a P&R District, the management and

costs of the parks and recreation department and staff would be transferred to the P&R District.

Further, a dedicated P&R District would serve as the entity that manages funding exclusively for parks

and recreation. The P&R District would have available as funding vehicles property taxes (as approved

by voters) and user fees, but would not have authority to impose sales or excise taxes, as the City does.

A P&R District would require the approval of a “service plan” by either City Council, or Routt County

Commissioners (depending on the boundary). For practical purposes, the organization of a P&R District

would be initiated by a petition signed by 200 electors in the proposed district. Taxpaying electors

would include those within the district who own taxable real or personal property within the district.

Owners of Agricultural property exceeding 40 acres are permitted to opt out of a District. Generally the

P&R District would be governed by a 5-person Board elected by the residents of the District, subject to

the residents’ oversight and charged with fiduciary responsibility to the District and its residents.

There are certain challenges associated with implementing this structure, including resistance to the

creation of a new governmental entity and the perception of increased bureaucracy and the challenge

of obtaining the requisite voter approval within the taxing district to impose property taxes to fund the

P&R District. In order to offset such a proposed “tax increase”, the City may mitigate the impact by

reducing or eliminating certain regressive taxes such as the sales taxes on groceries and utilities. 3 The

other challenge is effectively transferring management / ownership of existing parks and recreation

staff, facilities and assets to the P&R District. The City would need to evaluate how to transfer the

3The Committee recognizes that any reduction in City sales tax could adversely impact the .5% sales tax for schools

and the .25% sales tax for air service fees (if renewed). Any potential sales tax adjustments as part of these

discussions should take into account these taxes to ensure that there is no unintended adverse impact.


33/43

142005908330_1

current parks and recreation department funding from the City General Fund to the P&R District. The

City would also need to evaluate whether to affect an outright transfer of assets or enter into long term

leases with the P&R District. The City may also evaluate management agreements with the P&R District

to ensure prudent operation and maintenance of leased assets by the P&R District. Further, in order to

make the new entity more efficient, the P&R District may seek to enter into agreements with the City to

provide certain services, including human resources, finance and accounting, potential fleetmaintenance, and other services. There is a level of complexity in these transactions that would need to

be worked through.

Another potential challenge of this structure is the possibility of ineffective leadership or management

by a newly-elected board of directors, causing further management and financial strain on an already

strained system.

D. Establishment of a General Improvement District (GID) or Public Improvement District (PID)

Cost = Negative




This option would result in the creation of a distinct district that would be formed either by the City (in

the case of a GID) or County (in the case of a PID), and managed by the City or County, as the case may

be. The option of a GID would create a district with property within the City limits, and may also include

property in unincorporated areas if County Commissioners consent. The option of a PID would create a

district with property within the county (excluding the City), but may also include property within the

City if City Council consents. The GID or PID would achieve focused and targeted funding for parks and

recreation that is currently lacking within the City [and/or County]. In the City, the General Fund is

currently used to fund all City operations, including parks and recreation. The County currently provides

no funding for parks and recreation and has not evidenced any intent or desire to undertake

management or funding of those services.

While the funding from a GID or PID would be dedicated to parks and recreation, the City or County

Commissioners, as the case may be, would manage the overall funding of parks and recreation,

including funding from their respective general funds, which could be changed at any time . The

structure of a GID would still place the management of parks and recreation under the purview of City

Council, which has indicated that these are not a priority on a relative basis compared to other core

services. As noted in Section V(A) above, this lack of priority and focus is an overall disadvantage.

Similarly, a PID would be governed by the County Commissioners, but we think it is unlikely that the City

would agree to have the County oversee the management or funding of the City’s parks and recreation

assets, or that the County would consent to such a structure. Therefore we do not believe the

formation of a PID is realistic.

Both a GID and PID would have property, sales and excise taxes (as approved by voters) and user fees,

potentially available to fund these districts. For practical purposes, a GID or PID would be initiated by a

petition signed by 200 electors in the proposed districts, respectively. Taxpaying electors would include

those within the district who own taxable real or personal property within the district. For certain

40 acre or Agricultural property, consent of such owners may be required. (Agricultural property can

also opt out of the GID or PID, meaning those properties would not be subject to district taxes.)


34/43

152005908330_1

There are certain challenges associated with implementing a GID or PID, including reluctance of the

County Commissioners to become the managers of a PID responsible for oversight of Steamboat’s parks

and recreation amenities, reluctance of the City Council to serve as the managers of a GID, and obtaining

the requisite voter approval within the taxing district to impose taxes to fund the GID or PID,

respectively. In the case of a GID, the City may mitigate the impact of additional taxes for a GID by

reducing or eliminating certain regressive taxes such as the sales taxes on groceries and utilities, whileensuring that there is no impact to the .5% sales tax for schools, as well as the .25% sales tax for air

service fees (if applicable). Assuming that a GID or a PID would incorporate more than just parks and

recreation assets wholly inside or outside the City limits, the other challenge is having the funding for

County and or City-owned parks and recreation assets managed exclusively by the City or County, as the

case may be. The City and County may need to enter into an agreement, such as an MOU, or other long

term agreements relating to parks and recreation funding and assets.

E. Establishment of a Parks and Recreation Foundation (P&R Foundation)

Cost = Neutral

Mgmt. Eff. = Positive

Funding Sources = PositiveComplexity of Implementation = Positive

This option would result in the creation of a distinct philanthropic nonprofit foundation, the purpose of

which is to provide funding for parks and recreation assets, amenities and projects. It would be

governed by a separate board of directors. This foundation would seek funding from third parties,

including grants from other foundations, endowments, state and federal governments, and individuals.

The foundation would likely maximize its effectiveness through coordination with the City and / or

County (depending on the organizational structure) in order to collaborate and prioritize funding

initiatives and projects. The foundation is not intended to be a standalone solution to address the

funding gaps discussed above. Instead, it is to be viewed as an adjunct to any of the possible structures

outlined above.

VI. Recommendation of Committee

A. Organizational Structure

Based on the Committee’s review and consideration of possible organizational structures for effectively

managing parks and recreation assets, it is initially recommending that a Parks & Recreation District

would provide the strongest organizational platform to enhance the management and strategic vision

for parks and recreational facilities and amenities in the City (and potential broader boundaries within

the County). Additionally, the establishment of a Parks & Recreation Foundation to supplement and

support the P&R District initiatives would enhance fundraising over time.

This single-purpose P&R District, together with a Foundation, would improve the immediate focus and

long-term strategic vision for parks and recreation and the effectiveness of management of those assets

and funding. In contrast to current City policy that parks and recreation are not a “core service,” a P&R

District would focus exclusively on parks and recreation, without the distraction of higher priority

competing projects and services. By creating a stand-alone P&R District, a focus on those assets and

amenities will enable an elected governing body with fiduciary responsibility to the P&R District and its

residents to develop and manage a strategic vision and to help prioritize parks and recreation without


35/43

162005908330_1

regard to other competing services, such as fire and safety, sewer and water, etc. This recommendation

would also free up City Council and the City’s General Fund to focus on higher priority services, without

the management distraction of prioritizing or addressing funding challenges associated with parks and

recreation assets.

A P&R District, unlike the other options, would be governed and managed by a Board of Directors that is

solely focused on parks and recreation. In all of the other organizational options, the structures offered

management and oversight by either the City or the County, which already have a very wide mandate

with many competing time and budget priorities. With the many priorities that City and County

governments are addressing, we do not believe that the focus on management and funding through the

other organizational structures would be as impactful as the standalone structure of a P&R District

charged with managing parks and recreation assets. While certain of the other options offered potential

for improved funding, we believed that a P&R District would still be better positioned to drive increased

funding, whether through taxes, user fees, or otherwise, because of the simplicity and focus of the

message and its mission - parks and recreation only.

As noted above, implementing this recommendation would be complex and require collaboration with

the City and/or the County to obtain approval and it would require separate court approval and

approval by residents of the proposed P&R District. If creation of a P&R District is viewed favorably, we

recommend additional analysis and public input into the appropriate district geographic boundaries.

The Committee has undertaken preliminary analysis on the issue, focusing on a district roughly the size

of the Steamboat Fire District or the Urban Growth Boundary as examples.

Formation of a P&R District would also require collaboration to establish how to affect either a transfer

of parks and recreation assets or a long-term lease/management agreement that contains basic

standards of maintenance and oversight to ensure that the parks and recreation assets are prudently

maintained and are not allowed to fall into disrepair. We also recommend that a P&R District work with

the City and/or County to evaluate efficiencies in certain areas through a services agreement whereby

the City and/or County would provide services such as human resources, finance and accounting,

potential fleet maintenance, and other services to the P&R District “at cost” or on a “cost-plus” basis.

These agreements will be important in helping to ensure a smooth transition of parks and recreation

staff and assets, as well as providing a level of comfort to the City and/or County that the assets are

being properly managed and maintained.

B. Funding Sources

Parks and recreation districts are funded principally through property taxes and user fees. We also

learned that there are a number of districts that have been successfully implemented in Colorado even

when there were fairly developed pre-existing parks and recreation assets and amenities. We

recommend that the P&R District should have as a base funding source a dedicated tax that is dedicatedsolely to the P&R District. If it is a property tax, we suggest the City evaluate offsetting this tax (at least

partially) by a reduction in City sales taxes. Through dedicated funding to a P&R District, eligible voters

would know exactly what their tax dollars will be paying for.

In addition to a District, we also recommend the establishment of a not-for-profit P&R Foundation that

would supplement the efforts of the P&R District. This is a fairly simple process to establish the P&R

Foundation, including the filing to achieve not-for-profit status to attract supporters with tax


36/43

172