The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
“I’m shocked and disappointed…”
The Foothills of Crested Butte annexation proposal hit a few snags on the shortest day of the year. The developers requested and were granted a three-month timeout to give them a chance to conduct a site characterization study of the old community dump that sits under part of the proposed development.
And one of the annexation’s most persistent critics, David Leinsdorf, informed the town Planning Commission on Monday, December 21 that the developers owed the town tens of thousands of dollars. The Planning Commission, which is made up of members of the town council, was not pleased with that information.
The Foothills annexation proposal has been in the town pipeline for about a year and a half. It currently calls for about 160 houses on 44 acres just north of the current town boundary.
At the urging of the town, the proponents plan to conduct a so-called “site characterization study” on the area of the old dump. That study, along with compilation of results, is expected to take at least until spring to be completed.
“We’ll come back to you when we have good results from the dump site,” explained Foothills attorney Aaron Huckstep. “We don’t know the timing of the characterization study so our clients would like you to close the public hearing and table the annexation.”
Huckstep told the commission that the dump issue was the last significant hurdle between the proponents of the Foothills and the town. “The testing will tell us what the testing will tell us,” he surmised.
Both sides agreed that the public would have further chances to comment on the Foothills annexation proposal after the site characterization is complete.
But Leinsdorf unveiled another hurdle.
“The town has billed the developers more than $180,000 in staff time under the reimbursement agreement between the proponents and the town,” Leinsdorf said. “Under that agreement, [the developers] are $96,000 in default. They don’t even have a subdivision planner; they are using your town planner for that. Your planner is their planner.
For nine months the town has been carrying the project because they haven’t paid up, and that is inappropriate,” Leinsdorf stated.
Town records show that Crested Butte Town Planner John Hess billed the developers for 108 hours in October. Over the course of the project, he has worked 653 hours on the Foothills project, or about 81 days. The town has billed the developers a total of $181,332 for planning, attorney and other staff hours. The developers have paid the town $85,332 so far. On December 4 they were billed a total of $95,999, which included some billing from the summer. The entire $96,000 is due January 4, 2010.
“Because they are in default, I suggest you turn this proposal down now,” suggested Leinsdorf. “They have shown bad faith. Just deny it and put us out of this misery.”
Town Manager Susan Parker confirmed that the developers were behind in payments to the town. She said they are not in default but are in arrears, and they are being charged interest. “We have sent them a second notice about it this last week and if we don’t get a satisfactory response we will pursue legal action,” she explained.
When asked about the ramifications of simply turning down the proposal, Parker said the developers would then be under no obligation to pursue a characterization study.
Councilperson Dan Escalante said he agreed with most of Leinsdorf’s statements. “Is this situation typical?” he asked.
“You don’t need to have any more meetings with them and we won’t spend any more staff time on this until they are paid up,” said Parker. “I’m not as worried as David about collecting the fees. We’ll pursue them. It’s similar to a business being behind on paying their sales tax.”
After the meeting, both Huckstep and Parker admitted there had been a glitch in the billing process this fall. After project representative Cliff Goss left the venture, the town was still sending bills to his Gunnison office. Goss had been forwarding the statements to Dallas but after he left the valley, the bills were not being forwarded.
Huckstep said the developers received the December billing about two weeks ago and are in the process of reviewing the invoice. He said they have every intention of paying the money owed to the town.
“I am shocked and disappointed the proponents are so far behind in payments,” said Councilperson Jim Schmidt at the meeting.
Mayor Leah Williams agreed. “The town Planning Commission has worked in good faith with the proponent and to find out they are $96,000 in arrears is beyond the pale.”
Updated numbers will be provided to the council for their regular January 4 meeting. The council agreed to table all further discussions with the proponents until the bills are all paid and the site characterization study results are completed.
In a related matter, the Town Council approved an ordinance on Monday, December 7 adjusting its annexation procedure and annexation submittal standards. The move essentially loosens up the town ordinance dealing with annexations.
During the 15-month Foothills discussion, it was discovered that certain issues were not negotiable, including setbacks for wetlands. This would eliminate a park negotiated by the town but located within 100 feet of wetlands in the Foothills subdivision.
Town attorney John Belkin explained to the council that when the town revised its annexation regulations three or four years ago, it included “hard requirements” that the Planning Commission couldn’t review. It took away some of their negotiating power.
Foothills critic David Leinsdorf asked why the council was making the move now.
“We want the flexibility,” said Mayor Leah Williams.
“It doesn’t allow the Planning Commission to do its job in an annexation process,” added Belkin.
Leinsdorf argued that making the change to the annexation procedure should warrant the Foothills developers to “start all over from square one with the town.”
Williams said the town was entitled to change its ordinances.
Arguing that Foothills annexation negotiations weren’t conducted under the town ordinance, Leinsdorf suggested that “the whole 15 months sounds illegal.”
“It is a housekeeping issue,” responded Councilperson Dan Escalante. “We were in error but we are correcting it.”
“The council has the right to do this,” stated Williams.
Councilperson Roland Mason said he wanted the change to give the town bargaining chips. “It is detrimental to us if we don’t have the flexibility,” he said.
The council unanimously agreed to the changes.
The commission/council is made up four new members, so a January 11 work session was scheduled to bring them up to speed on the annexation proposal.
