[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6539445,"mediaKeyId","3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054","parentId",3642920,"title","City and county outline potential November ballot items: school taxes, lumber‑yard financing, fire district and airport options","audioSeconds",787,"startMs",12149000,"endMs",12936000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054&start=12149&end=12936","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054/thumbnail_12149000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6539445/Pitkin-County/Colorado/City-and-county-outline-potential-November-ballot-items-school-taxes-lumberyard-financing-fire-district-and-airport-options","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6539445-903cc4fc753e6acaac7949c792c74cbd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138062&Signature=Fhc9F0wMt9LcsX2XMaWf4mPeAhjjK297pIxWjjNRm5k55Zc8kh1UnGGukanj9u-Tw7uYvSn-6M7~Rbbj-H6jf~9mlJYM0YFY~BkHZmEwQsgSTcBNHGm0pvzvPwHkm7E4KzUK33keXJQPs643XNygIJTlR5ACpBNEHMLo6VF0QoQC6s-a~AvgmIFpClvCpUPTS5MiLLcN--PM9I4gGNDRYp63Zeke~xTmVuPKM9ffF5eTT0UhGuJCTPJtL9suIBOVHBNn-nplgnrg6O0wsncIKBivHRTEMVM08qtsFcBH3PohcSud~dgG8VoEh78YskaMBRB~WSwEcfAx-4jHg3tZZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pitkin County","date","2025-06-03T17:47:38Z","article","City and county officials used the June 3 joint meeting to review potential local ballot measures for the coming months and to flag several questions that may land on fall ballots.

City of Aspen preview: the city said it may seek voter authorization for debt to support Lumber Yard redevelopment; the preliminary figure discussed was an authorization up to about $70 million, subject to refinement as design and financing evolve. The city also flagged a school‑district ballot question that could ask voters to continue a dedicated school sales tax (currently 0.3%) or to increase it, or to pursue a separate property‑tax approach as Snowmass Village has done in prior cycles. The city also mentioned a franchise renewal with Holy Cross Energy and a proposed charter clean‑up question.

Pitkin County preview: County staff reminded commissioners that the airport enterprise still requires voter action under the county’s Home Rule charter for either debt issuance or a charter amendment; staff said potential debt authorization could be in the roughly $100–150 million range depending on final cash‑flow and project estimates. Staff also noted a small general improvement district (20 Flats) that may have an upcoming request and the county‑sponsored childcare/early‑childhood coalition quarter‑cent sales tax proposal being considered regionally.

Other local taxing questions: officials said the Aspen Fire District is exploring possible sales‑tax options to increase revenues; other valley fire districts have been examining funding options, though none had firm ballot language at the time of the meeting. Commissioners and councilors discussed potential voter fatigue and the cumulative local tax burden — one participant noted that combined questions could push local sales tax levels above widely cited policy thresholds and affect lodging and business competitiveness.

Timing and coordination: staff and elected officials noted that many proposals remain in an exploratory phase and that final ballot language and timing would be set through each entity’s formal ordinance or resolution process. The county clerk notified boards there may be a statewide TABOR‑related question on the ballot that could affect local revenue limits; staff said they would continue coordinating with municipal and regional partners on proposal timing, public outreach and polling before final decisions are made.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","06/03/2025 OSTB and BOCC Joint Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","City and county officials used the June 3 joint meeting to review potential local ballot measures for the coming months and to flag several questions that may land on fall ballots.","taxTitle","Pitkin County, Colorado","taxId",27807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6539452,"Pitkin County and Aspen outline wildfire outlook, evacuation tools and mutual‑aid structure; officials urge residents to prepare now",8616,3518000,12134000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054&start=3518&end=12134","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054/thumbnail_3518000.jpg","/articles/6539452/Pitkin-County/Colorado/Pitkin-County-and-Aspen-outline-wildfire-outlook-evacuation-tools-and-mutualaid-structure-officials-urge-residents-to-prepare-now","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6539452-bfceff4022614d243d6aa4a42d9d3807/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138062&Signature=h3BGKpFArSYKvTZB-ad3StcZqWqREvNtkZMaOtIfMCP5Ru2G3CWYRSkznJm2cC7z5hmzEmd0Qf1JMftaYECBPJdHLC7gLGk7DuagBL-oFuodWb-VhzlLxnHXYyWMXwoD3sO-KyuoStQ4Vr6NMuY3RNPGiPQSNrg9CVRLGjp77-X6v-j4HfJXouIDRlJbUOW~EcPn1G1LlEbchHdteFacjQj7WK3O0xqKthoCQUSavM5paqZ9RfI5alpulce1wgXoJ5nNdaNgG2mRP0-J0xt2JDQb95D6R2bCJllOK2xOVYo5dpMbcMyoPq6pwZLqM~OCa4Pc3WSIuBDQFzY-H5KYEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pitkin County emergency management, fire and sheriff’s officials and a National Weather Service forecaster briefed city councilors and county commissioners June 3 on the wildfire outlook, evacuation planning and response structure for the Upper Roaring Fork Valley.

Weather and water outlook: a National Weather Service forecaster said spring snowpack melted earlier than normal and SNOTEL sites for the Roaring Fork were low; the short‑term outlook at the time of the meeting showed a regional period of above‑normal precipitation for June, but seasonal monsoon forecasts had shifted and the longer‑term outlook was closer to “near‑normal” for Western Colorado. Officials cautioned that lightning‑ignited fires remain a key risk if dry, hot weather returns.

Evacuation mapping and alerts: county emergency manager Chris Brightbeck said the county recently implemented a new mapping and decision tool supplied by Genesys that pre‑draws operational evacuation zones and provides a visual interface first responders can use during an incident. Brightbeck urged residents to register for the county alert system (Pitkin County alert / ReachAlert/Community Connect) and to prepare household “go‑kits” and meeting plans — because officials said waiting for an evacuation order can be too late in fast‑moving fires.

Response structure and mutual aid: fire and law enforcement leaders described the response ladder. Local first responders execute initial suppression and life‑safety activities; automatic mutual‑aid agreements among valley fire districts bring nearby engines and crews; the Mountain Area Mutual Aid (MAMA) pool provides a further regional layer; and the state‑run Colorado Mutual Aid System (CMAS) brings far‑reaching resources and aviation assets when local and regional resources are exceeded. Pitkin County also maintains incident management teams (IMTs) — including a county team and a Northwest all‑hazards IMT — that can provide unified management for complex, multi‑day incidents.

Special concerns: engineers and wildlife groups are coordinating trail and highway projects with safe‑passage objectives. Officials also stressed the problem of limited forest service staffing and the knock‑on effects on early detection and prescribed burn capacity. Several councilors and commissioners asked that officials amplify advocacy on federal and state funding and staffing for wildfire management.

Access, equity and functional needs: officials discussed the county’s “Community Connect” and other registries to identify residents who need evacuation assistance, and they said they are coordinating with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) and local private fleets to plan bus resources and pickup points for car‑less visitors and residents. Public information officers will finalize a toolkit of materials for lodging operators, short‑term rentals and workforce housing managers so visitors receive clear instructions during restrictions or incidents.

Exercises and training: staff said exercises are being scheduled through the summer and fall to test communication procedures, emergency operations center activation and the role of elected officials (policy group) in making executive, strategic decisions during prolonged incidents. Officials asked elected leaders to complete briefings so they understand the “unity of message” protocols and avoid mixed public statements during a response.

What residents should do now: officials urged residents to enroll in the county alert system, prepare a go‑kit and an evacuation plan, consider property mitigation actions recommended by local fire districts, and use the Community Connect tools to flag households with mobility or health needs. Officials said they will bring more public outreach and community‑scale exercises in the months ahead.","At a joint meeting June 3 the county and city reviewed wildfire outlooks, mutual‑aid response structures (MAMA, CMAS), new mapping tools and public alerting. Emergency managers urged residents to prepare go‑kits, register with county alerting tools and use Community Connect to flag access/functional‑needs households.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6539455,"Pitkin County says deed‑restriction employee housing program is in demand; staff will ask for $900,000 supplemental",2079,6753000,8832000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054&start=6753&end=8832","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054/thumbnail_6753000.jpg","/articles/6539455/Pitkin-County/Colorado/Pitkin-County-says-deedrestriction-employee-housing-program-is-in-demand-staff-will-ask-for-900000-supplemental","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6539455-adbd31009b32b5fa7fbc46bab3fa5afe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138062&Signature=bXSuhVuprpNNpU26K1tcIioTYosFtEn1u7Oc30zCtIYfmwa30MUJK-fWdys~H8YkzevJHE-Ix3xFT6ZYdTZB9AOTJb1Wh7HTH~Ke4hgicJY8TQ3yirQsLmAbyN~hSa7bFFT0XG5tnh-r8SzuYcWxeJoidyGKoF9YZysk~x0p5yx40f1IWxKQi1oXHWhY~etzwCaQBme6qIH7sLNr2y6pWRD1MaCVjO757qZ3bidM9Y9nlYM5xtOh3Vi3eD4tHtnSwmIloBXAZB1gxyKtzUGurYaz1csb~TR1XKiHqFU9QKrlISvKzNv7Dn7VsRbptAV6JqnT5o8Y4N~R9MN6772D0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pitkin County housing staff told the county commissioners at a June 3 work session that demand for the county’s employee deed‑restriction program has risen sharply in 2025 and the county has already earmarked its full $800,000 annual budget for the year.

Program basics: the county’s employee deed‑restriction program was created in 2017 and moved onto the general fund in 2023. Under the program Pitkin County contributes up to 40% of a free‑market purchase price toward a participating employee’s home purchase but caps its contribution at $400,000 for homes purchased inside Pitkin County and $300,000 for homes purchased elsewhere within the Roaring Fork transit area. The deed restriction is a recorded instrument between the employee and Pitkin County and is conditional on the unit remaining the employee’s primary residence while employed; the county retains a right of first refusal on resale.

Use to date and recent trends: since 2017 the county has contributed about $5.5 million to buy or buy down 22 units (total free‑market transaction value roughly $13.3 million). Of those 22, 13 remain occupied by active employees, six were repurchased by the county and added to the county-managed rental inventory, one transferred between employees and two were sold on the open market. Most of the units bought through the program (19 of 22) were in Garfield County rather than inside Pitkin County.

Costs and averages: Pitkin County staff said the average county contribution per closed transaction is about $236,000 since the program began; that average rose above $250,000 since 2023 as market prices climbed. Staff also noted that the county has refunded housing impact dollars into the county capital fund when the county later buys back a unit and places it in the rental portfolio.

Budget request and rationale: housing staff proposed a $900,000 supplemental to refill the program’s funding bucket for the remainder of 2025 because a sharp uptick in interest produced multiple pending closings and earmarked conditional offer letters. Staff said the supplemental would keep the program operating at a pace that historically yields two‑to‑three purchases a year at the current maximum contribution levels. The county manager’s office said the supplemental would be drawn from the general fund; the county earlier moved this program off the housing impact fee specifically to preserve employee retention funding in the general fund.

Program mechanics and limits: staff reiterated program rules: applicants must qualify under county underwriting, the unit must be a permanently attached dwelling in the Roaring Fork transit area, the property cannot be an already‑restricted unit (for example another deed‑restricted development), participants must occupy the home as their primary residence and cannot own other residential property in the watershed. Staff also noted the program ties the contribution to household income and standard front‑end debt ratios; the contribution is whichever is less of 40% of purchase price or the program cap by geography.

Board questions and issues: commissioners asked about geographic equity — most of the program’s units have been purchased outside Pitkin County (Garfield County), which spurred questions about whether the county should prioritize acquisitions inside Pitkin County or otherwise align support to keep county employees living closer to their workplaces. Commissioners also asked how the program compares cost‑effectively with other housing strategies, how turnover has affected program inventory (six units have returned to county rental stock) and how the county might coordinate deed‑restriction buy‑downs with other regional programs.

Next steps: staff said they will bring the formal $900,000 supplemental request to next week’s supplemental appropriation process and asked the commissioners for direction about whether the county should treat the program as a flexible tool funded on demand (supplementals as needed) or as a higher annual appropriation going forward. Staff also offered to provide additional detail on the residence locations of employees who used the program, options to prioritize Pitkin County acquisitions, and coordination strategies with regional partners.","Pitkin County reported rising demand for its employee deed‑restriction program and told commissioners the county has already earmarked its 2025 appropriation. Staff will present a supplemental request to add $900,000 to the program fund so more employees can buy down free‑market homes and hold deed‑restricted units for workforce housing.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6539459,"Engineers: attaching trail to Highway 82 at Shale Bluffs is feasible only with high risk and cost; boards favor pausing work",3302,2959000,6261000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054&start=2959&end=6261","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3642920-d5844453360278fe578484fc8ee83054/thumbnail_2959000.jpg","/articles/6539459/Pitkin-County/Colorado/Engineers-attaching-trail-to-Highway-82-at-Shale-Bluffs-is-feasible-only-with-high-risk-and-cost-boards-favor-pausing-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6539459-fcb4ad18ccd4c75d65912fb25c96b363/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138062&Signature=EjM3IGBumHgIGvKe7BAazARN~HF-u8rJ8dgStPuY~XO~3cqMrRyb3R7JtFSVFcSO1x0JhvYCRN-sw8SnbBNlGgQUcZzxjyuMxEiUeUB9iBqmchWkuoEfn9Y7NUSCH3zR7ivojXks-2ZI7GAsC40FqplKrIVY-6-KI2nUB5gqn49ER8ORIn9GQQzuA6gB2jy4qZ6q8nU5HTfO2blGyGynENAsRYmJn4kbnYDYm-voBucBi-m5ruM~sKn9IoWokw3E4KXQHm19VMzIe8oAErn2Z-RlTzC7UPuszn1M7AJQGOX5Z4xbuTqZKFtKyavR7wz~YJ5W-c-l~nNkb4S5YBH1LA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An engineering feasibility review presented June 3 to a joint session of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and the Open Space & Trails Board found that directly attaching a trail to multiple Highway 82 bridges and retaining walls at Shale Bluffs is technically possible only with substantial additional investigation, very high construction risk and sharply higher costs.

SGM engineers said two reinforced concrete box culverts (the wildlife underpass and the Owl Creek culvert) could be extended to carry trail decking, and some bridge piers and abutments might accept independently framed attachments. But SGM cautioned that much of the 82 corridor there is lined by mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls and post-tensioned retaining structures whose facings and internal tendons cannot safely accept new loads without invasive work. Engineers described high-risk options that would require deep foundations, soil nails, specialty contractors and prolonged lane closures on Highway 82.

The firm estimated conceptual construction costs for the 1.3-mile 82 attachment alignment at roughly $20 million to $27 million, with an additional $150,000 to $250,000 needed immediately to complete the geotechnical and constructability investigations SGM judged essential before any design proceeds. SGM and county staff warned the $20–27 million figure could “balloon” as detailed subsurface and traffic constraints are resolved.

Why it matters: the attachment concept was proposed as a shorter, lower‑impact way to connect the Brush Creek Park‑and‑Ride and the Aspen Airport Business Center (ABC) with the Rio Grande/Stein trail corridor. SGM and county staff said that even if an attachment alignment could be built, it likely would not provide year‑round, safe separation from highway traffic; it would be costly to maintain and could reduce the effectiveness of an existing wildlife crossing unless specially upsized.

Board response and next steps: Open Space & Trails board members and several county commissioners told staff they no longer support further spending on the attachment-focused feasibility work. Several members said the attachment option has a “fatal flaw” because it fails to link the ABC to the Rio Grande Trail and would not realize the broader mobility benefits the community wants. Commissioners indicated they prefer staff and consultant time be redirected to the alternative “twin bridges” or single new bridge alignment options, to environmental analyses for bridge structures near the ABC, and to coordination with wildlife connectivity groups (Roaring Fork Safe Passages).

County staff said they will return in the fall with a full package of options — including the twin‑bridges alignment and on‑grade alternatives studied with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) — and that a broader public outreach process will occur then. Staff also noted that any work adjacent to CDOT structures will require CDOT review and permitting, and that trail structures built against 25‑plus‑year‑old highway infrastructure will complicate long‑term maintenance plans.

Discussion highlights: engineers emphasized restricted access at Shale Bluffs, steep unstable slopes, and the need for crane‑mounted geotechnical borings and significant lane closures to do detailed investigation or construction. Open Space & Trails Board members and commissioners repeatedly cited traffic impacts, wildlife connectivity concerns, constructability and the comparatively poor user experience of a trail immediately next to Highway 82 as decisive negatives.

What to expect: staff recommended pausing further spending on the attachment study pending the additional targeted investigations already under way at the ABC and urged a fuller public process this fall. The county will continue coordination with the City of Aspen, CDOT and the Roaring Fork Safe Passages program while refining costs and schedule for bridge‑based alternatives.

Closing: staff said the Brush Creek–ABC corridor remains a long‑term priority; the question for leaders is which alignment — if any — achieves valley‑scale connectivity, wildlife connectivity and feasible construction and maintenance costs.

","An SGM feasibility review found major engineering, traffic and environmental challenges to attaching a pedestrian/bike trail to existing Highway 82 structures at Shale Bluffs. County and Open Space & Trails board members said the attachment option should be shelved so funds and staff can focus on alternate alignments, including new bridges.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City and county outline potential November ballot items: school taxes, lumber‑yard financing, fire district and airport options

Pitkin County and Aspen outline wildfire outlook, evacuation tools and mutual‑aid structure; officials urge residents to prepare now

Pitkin County says deed‑restriction employee housing program is in demand; staff will ask for $900,000 supplemental

Engineers: attaching trail to Highway 82 at Shale Bluffs is feasible only with high risk and cost; boards favor pausing work