CB and Mt. CB fine tuning concerns with Brush Creek

Joint council meeting now set for early December

By Mark Reaman and Katherine Nettles

The Town Councils of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte still have some work to do to come up with a letter to the county concerning what it would take for the two government entities to get behind a proposal by Gatesco Inc. to develop an affordable housing project at the corner of Brush Creek Road and Highway 135.

A joint meeting scheduled to discuss the issue was cancelled and rescheduled for early December, when all the council members will be in town to attend.

Crested Butte mayor Jim Schmidt said he talked to his Mt. Crested Butte counterpart, Todd Barnes, and some areas of concern in the eight-point letter drafted by town manager Dara MacDonald need to be settled.

The area of most concern appeared to be the call for an outside management agency over the development. MacDonald said that perhaps the wording in the draft was not reflective of the intent, which was to give tenants some recourse if they felt the landlord was treating them unfairly.

“The intent is not to manage the project but have a tenant-landlord oversight committee in case of disputes,” MacDonald explained. “We didn’t wordsmith that very well.”

Councilman Jackson Petito originally suggested the idea and said because the project is not in a municipality and the county commissioners likely would not choose to get involved in disputes, he wanted some protective recourse for tenants. He was hoping for some sort of third party that could mediate disputes, given the trajectory where one landlord would be overseeing approximately 400 tenants.

“Would the next step be civil court?” asked councilman Kent Cowherd.

“Probably,” responded Petito. “But if you live in affordable housing you likely can’t afford an attorney. It’s just that when there is one landlord for hundreds of people, it’s ripe for abuse. The housing authority might be a good resource on how to set this up. It could be like a homeowners association but made up of renters.”

“In this hypothetical world, what would be the power of this board to Gatesco?” asked councilman Will Dujardin. “What are we really trying to do? I have some issues with this potential condition.”

Councilman Chris Haver suggested the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority could come in and be an advisor.

“It seems biased to me against Gatesco,” said Dujardin.

“I would want this, no matter who the landlord is,” responded Petito.

“I see it as a trust but verify situation,” added Cowherd.

“I haven’t thought through all the details but think it can protect both parties,” said Petito.

“I just disagree. I’m not arguing with the intent of what it is trying to do but I’m not sure this is the correct place to be talking about it,” suggested Dujardin.

“I think this is our time at the plate to raise such issues,” countered Cowherd.

“I’ve said it before, but the situation is different because this is public property,” said Schmidt, “and we have a responsibility to protect that.”

MacDonald said she would rework the wording to more clearly define the intention of the condition so further discussion can take place between the councils.

The Mt. Crested Butte Town Council received a brief recap on the issue as well from its own council member, Lauren Daniel, who attended the Crested Butte meeting as a member of the public. Daniel clarified that the controversial concept of an outside management agency was a way to avoid tenant abuse by creating “a renters’ HOA” of sorts.

Regarding other points included in the draft letter, the Crested Butte council generally agreed that while having some for-sale units would be a good addition, council would not press the issue and let it be a deal-breaker. They felt the towns were proceeding with many deed-restricted units for sale to help fill that gap in the community. Dujardin saw the project as a place where people on the low end of the income scale might be able to afford purchasing a home.

On this matter as well, Daniel reported back to the Mt. Crested Butte council that several members of the Crested Butte council are willing to concede on ownership there and not require for-sale units.

Crested Butte councilman Chris Haver suggested that the final letter to the county contain not just concerns and conditions but also reasons for the concerns and a hoped-for outcome to the issues. He drafted a preliminary document to that effect for discussion.

Haver suggested that the two councils meet again and go a bit deeper into the issues and then invite the developer, the housing authority and Crested Butte Mountain Resort to weigh in. Schmidt said he thought it a good idea to get the ski resort’s representative included in discussions since CBMR is one of the four partners, along with the towns and county, that control the property.

Cowherd suggested the public be asked to weigh in as well.

Dujardin voiced support to see if there was a way for Gatesco to continue with 180 units even if five acres of the 14-acre parcel were set aside for parking and public uses.

MacDonald said the staff would continue to develop the draft letter based on council comments.

Mt. Crested Butte has made plans to hold similar discussions to iron out the issues.

Daniel, Barnes and council member Nicholas Kempin pushed for the Mt. Crested Butte council to meet in a private work session one more time before the joint council session.

Barnes said he has been impatient with the process of including the concerns of both councils in making a decision for either of them, but said he does value the potential for a consensus.

“This is a precursor to the potential of allowing the applicant to move … starting with the first of the year. We’ve been waiting and jockeying with what to do and what not to do. And I think it’s time to get our thoughts together. If we are going to collectively come together with or without Crested Butte as a partner… if we could have a work session to determine who is where, and what we can agree on … and allow the applicant to proceed based on the conditions set forth, potentially with more from us, or less … that’s what the work session is for,” said Barnes.

Kempin said he had benefitted from the joint work sessions, and wished they could have had all these discussions earlier in the process. “I think that’s just the way this project has come to us, sort of in a reverse order. I feel like those talks have helped me, and I think they are important, so if there’s any way that we could meet again I think we should do that,” he said.

“That’s what I’m after,” agreed Barnes.

Daniel emphasized that it seems they all would like to reach consensus between their council and Crested Butte.

“If it takes another month to do that, that would be time well spent,” said Kempin.

David Leinsdorf, representing the Friends of Brush Creek, also spoke to the Mt. Crested Butte coucil when invited. “I have attended all of the meetings that you are referring to. I thought it was encouraging that the two councils seemed to form a consensus on the important points. First, five acres for parking; second, two parking spaces per unit; and third, up to 15 units per acre on the remainder,” he said.

“Let’s remember that the town of Crested Butte is going to bear the brunt of the impacts. And so I would hope that the two councils could really make an effort to reach a consensus in the unified position for the upper valley,” continued Leinsdorf.

“Let’s see, could we get along and get along a little bit faster,” concluded Barnes. “To get together amongst ourselves and have a stance. We need to say we’ve sat down and this is where we’re at.”

That Mt. Crested Butte work session is scheduled for December 3 at 5 p.m.

“The idea is that when we meet with the other council, we need to come in with our official stance. I think it’s time to do that,” said Daniel.

Both councils are working on a majority consensus and then bringing those points together with all four involved parties and Gatesco Inc.