I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next slide. And Phil, who loves numbers. Thank you, Phil. He's the chair of our FAB. He is here to talk about the budget. I don't know if I love that numbers that much, but But you know how to read them. Yes Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started. It's a budget session And then we'll talk about workforce housing requirements, and then I sent out a note To my colleagues last night about sister cities and we'll talk briefly about sister. Citties. And we should finish by six, right? Easy. I mean, yeah, all that for the budget discussion, I'll just jump into it. Phil is here tonight for the FAB to kind of go over their report. We were going to hope as staff, we were hoping to kind of touch on just a couple big picture issues today. Knowing that we've got four hours scheduled on Friday to get it into the weeds. Before we got into the weeds, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't any global issues after Phil's done talking that you didn't want to touch. So the budget tonight is really going to be driven by you all. Make sure you got a level of comfort. And then after that, we'll get into the housing regulations and see how it looks like. Sounds very fair. With that said, Phil, you're up or Mary Ann, who ever wants to start? I will start. Okay, FAB did review the budget. As usual, the Mary Ann and her staff is very thorough and what they do with this budget. We understand that and we endorse the budget as it was presented. So from that standpoint, we're happy with it. Now just going over a couple things that happened at our last meeting, we did. Sarah Kurtz from- How do you pronounce it? ID Bailey? ID Bailey. ID Bailey. Did the audit for last year, 2016, year ending. And you got the best opinion you can get from them. They didn't really find anything that was really out of the ordinary, a couple of little issues. They're minor, so from that standpoint, good audit, that's all done. So, continue on with that. Couple other things. If you look at the budget when you guys review it, you're going to see that it projects 30 million in total revenues and 31,860 in total expenses, which means you're generating a million, $691,000 deficit. I'm kind of rounding off here. That sounds, that deficit will reduce the overall fund balance in all your funds. It should be noted that basically what the town's doing is, it's basically spending on capital projects. So just from an overall budget point of view, it's going to show a million six ninety one deficit, but it's really not a deficit. I mean, you're operating budgets are fine. It just capables, expenses are being spent on stuff that you guys have scheduled to be spent on capillardums. And those show as expenses in this budget, so. So you would put it as investing in the future? Yes. So one part of that, Phil. And I don't know if you looked at that as the FAB looked at that. But you know, year to year, whatever capital projects are not finished, those dollars get in the past have always gotten approved in like a reconciliation resolution in January. They do and then get rolled over into that. They get rolled over. Okay. So on the other hand, what happens is the dollars that aren't spent get put back into the reserve accounts. Am I right? About that, Mary Ann? Into the fund balances. So, to me, we're kind of double dipping. We're taking money that has been approved but has not been spent. Okay, capital, capital project money. Right. It has not been spent. We re-approved it to the following year, but at the same time, we put it back into the fund balance. Well, it has to stay in the fund balance, you've got to go somewhere. Okay. So if you haven't spent the money, they re-approved for next year, maybe that capital gets rolled into the next year and tell me where I'm wrong. Well, it has to stay in the fund balance. There's nowhere else to put it. Yeah, I get that. No, I get that. But it's re-approved for a following year. Because we've already closed out the prior year. So that budget is all closed out. I understand. I'm going to propose that because the biggest problem in my mind at the present time is the money that's been budgeted for the housing project because it's $2.5 million. Okay, I'm gonna propose that we only, we do one of two things. Either we approve the 2018 budget of 550,000 and not approve the reconciliation, the resolution to bring forward the $2.5 million that wasn't spent last year. Right. Because the 550 is all that we intend or expect to spend in 2018. Right? So that's one option. That's not. So there's health issues going on in the Jura Willa, but that issue aside, that's not correct. The 500,000 is the, in addition to the 2.5 for a total of $3 million when we put the budget together, we had hoped to spend in 2018. So how much are we going to spend next year in 2018? If you ask me this second to decide, we'd aim to spend in 2018. So how much are we gonna spend next year? In 2018. If you asked me this second to decide, we'd aim to spend the $3 million. We would have construction underway. We'd have it contracted in underway to go to spend the entire thing next year. So the 550 is in addition to the two and a half that we approved in 2017. I think it's 4.50. We're using very, yeah, we're using very round numbers, but yes. And you wouldn't have to decide on that carryover until we close out 2007. No, no, that I realized that I realize that I realized. So, so, you know, I looked at it. You know, I looked at it. I thought that either could essentially say, if they're a year behind on everything, I guess you could say that the $2.5 million, which is already in the 2018 budget, you could say that the 500 could be put in the 2019. Good thing, but let's use real numbers for a second. It was $2.8 million. When we did this budget, when we put this together two months ago, we anticipated having spent $350,000 this year. $2 million 850. And then we expected to spend $300. So then we were going to carry over $2 million in my 50. And then we're budgeting $450,000 in the 18 budget for total of a $3 million construction project next year. Did we spend the $350? If you have not yet, but that's an issue that gets a little deeper as to our ability to get this project done. And that's the discussion that I owe you guys that I haven't made a decision on that, honestly. We've got some personnel issues, so we're not sure that we're gonna be able to deliver on some of these larger projects, and directly affects housing. And so I've kept it as is, I've kept it status quo, but I very well might come back to you to Mary Ann's point in February and say, you know what, we've got the bomb these back a year. But that's not a budgeting issue. I mean, that's going to be an actually delivery issue. Well, it is a budgeting issue, Clint, because we have to bump it back a year. We shouldn't be budgeting for it in 2018. But we don't know the reality of the situation that's going on in the housing department. And I- No, I do understand. Well, we understand it, but you carry with the, as far as I'm concerned, you carry forward with the budget, assuming all good things happen. What's the answer part of your question? What's going to happen if they leave both items in there because they've got the 450 plus the other two, two and a half call it. Two and a half call it. If you pull that into 2018, if you don't spend any of that, it still gets rolled over into the next year. The question is, is it really going to be spent next year? Probably not. But it doesn't really change things because you see what's happening. It's the same thing as using some of those capital funds that are in reserve. If you start, they budget to use them. You're gonna bring your fund balance down. If you don't use them, it just gets rolled at the next year like anything else. It's just that they, maybe they're anticipating too much to do next year, but. Well, the FAB, did we have this discussion? And you guys correct me. The way we described it is we wanted to make sure we had the total amount of dollars in the budget for any year we go under contract. I mean, for legal reasons and financing reasons that we weren't just parsing out, you know, if it's a $3 million project expected to take three years, the way we budget for that is we have $3 million available on day one before we go under contract for that or before we anticipate that project. And what the FAB's concern was almost the opposite of years, what they didn't want to see was us guessing that those extra $2 million are going to show up at some point across our fingers. They wanted to make sure that we had the dollars in hand before we went under contract to start the work. And that's the way we do it. So they looked at it. I don't want to say 180 from the way you're looking at it, but they looked at it differently than the way you're looking. Well, I mean, the reason, the real reason, and I'm bringing even bringing all this up is because we say one of our principles, one of our budget philosophies is to do a balanced budget. Well, we haven't had a balanced budget. We didn't do one in 2017. We're not proposing one in 2018. And the reason that they don't look balanced is because of the amount of capital improvement that's in these budgets. Well, there are balance from an operating standpoint for their general operations, but the way you do these public budgets is you've got capital set aside. And whether you have a set aside or not, when you spend that capital, it shows up as an expense. Right. You already had the funds sitting in a bucket on the side. So until you've spent, and I can't remember how much excess funds we have, four and a half, four million or so, until you've spent those funds down to zero, then you really truly aren't having deficits spending because some of that spending that you're doing every year that's capital shows up as expenses. So on paper, it looks like you're having a deficit, but the reality of it is you aren't because you're pulling money out of these funds that were set aside. This is a piece of paper. You got it in your workbook when you picked up your paper about it. And this is something, this is kind of the answer to the FAB, the way this is kind of what they asked for. And it's, we'll go over it more in detail. We can do it right now. We're on Friday. But it talks about what we think we're going to spend and what actually ends up happening. We can show you then how that fund bounds grows. But the way we try to get it done is to make sure that we don't spend the dollars before we had the dollars in hand. And then if you include capital, I like Markies to an investment, then yeah, because we've saved so much, we've got a savings account saved up and we make those investments, we spend more than we bring in, only because we have had those savings accounts in the first place. We're not borrowing money to make the budget happen. So we really have two things going on in health care is totally different than town. So you have your operating budget with its revenue. You want to be very clear that that is producing a positive bottom line as an income. Then you want to have your capital budget and you have all these reserves. So what I hear you saying is you've got, we have a pretty darn large capital reserve that we have built up over the last few years, from where we didn't have any. And so what we're doing is looking at those funds and saying, okay, a capital budget is different than an operating budget. And your capital has excess resources in it now to help invest for the future and viability of the town. Yes. Just as any 501 C3 or any company would do, be the investment in the town. Yes. Just as any 501-C3 or any company would do, be the investment in the future. If you didn't have the dollars, you wouldn't do the projects. Now, I will tell you, I've argued against myself on this issue as a while look at the town budget, because one thing I hate to see in print, and it was in print last week, a snowmass looks like another deficit budget. I don't remember all the words, but it looked like we didn't know what the heck we were doing. I don't know if it was you, Erica. But quite frankly, what the newspapers or what the audience and I did receive a few emails about it, the few phone calls, was trying to explain the difference between an operating budget and a capital budget in the purpose of the capital is to invest in the future of an organization or a town. So if you think that way and I hear Bob, we don't know what's going to happen even tomorrow. We don't even know what's going to happen five years from now or two years from now or next month. And I'll speak to that in a minute. So, yeah. Into the future. And so, thinking about that, it's probably better to go ahead and budget for your capital projects now than tomorrow. Correct. Put it in simple terms. When you look at, because I do have these things in different buckets, each fund, if you look at the one that's got all the housing, the housing fund. Yeah. Essentially, they're making money, that makes money every year because the town owns those buildings. They're running out and it's bringing in that income every year. Well, so in the budget, you see that income coming in, but they're saving that money and not spending a lot of it into that mountain view, like I remember the name of the, we should put in the bottom of it. How does it amount to one? You should have a whole lot of it. But so if you pull all that money together and it's sitting there growing, then they last year you spent, I can't remember what we spent on the building. Seemed like a $3 million. Yeah, about $3 million. Well, that money came out of those funds that were saved. So, from a budget, when you look at that budget from last year, you're showing you spent more money, but you essentially spent the money that you saved in that fund. So, if you can understand it that way, that's not worse. So if you can understand it that way, that's how it works. And the one thing we've done the last couple years, if there's a level in nervousness, is we've increased, we call on reserves, we have different kinds of reserves, but we have an emergency reserve that we've increased from 16 or 17 percent to 25 percent. And so that's a reserve that we don't intend to touch unless something catastrophic happens. Then we've got other reserve set aside and then on top of all that we've got inner reserve that basically it's funds available. And that's the money that Phil's talking about. Those are the dollars that we spend. We don't spend into those reserves. And so it's money over and above all the reserve limits that we put into the capital and that's where we get comfortable saying, okay, yeah, this is the right money to be investing in that. But there are some of the reserves that we do have to use because they're there for that purpose, like the boilers. Right. Coming out of the SGM building capital maintenance reserve, because that's what it's budgeted for. Now, just so you know, FAB did look at, they look five years into the future on their budget's about through 2022. And if you look at those speaking to this, you'll see that the funds available in this general fund will go from like 2.7 million in 2018, all the way down to a deficit of 582,000 in 2022. Now, on paper, that looks real alarming too. And every time we look at it, we go, what, why is this happening? Basically, what they're doing is putting all the cards on the table for all the capital projects. They've put, and I presume, pretty every conceivable capital project you have, you've put into this budget, and then they run that on the future, and it does show a deficit, but they look every year at what they need to spend. And they're actually pretty conservative doing it that way, at least we know from looking at it that they've got all the projects on the table. It doesn't mean that they're going to spend them all. Yeah, but I mean, it's not part of these numbers here that has to do with the expenditures over the revenues, which is the chart that we have to go over to council. So- I mean, what happens is every- if you remember last year, and we put this in the cover letter, you guys. We said in 2018, when we put the 2018 budget together, we identified and I'm going up my memory, but $180,000 debt was needed to be rectified. And we committed to you when you adopted the 2017 budget that we would rectify that in 2018. And we have. And we've done it through decreasing some expenses. And luckily we had some increases in revenues. And more than we anticipated. So we balanced that. So to Phil's point, what we kind of show is kind of a worst case scenario going forward, and that's why we showed that surplus going down and down and down. But every year as staff, we've committed to the council, you're gonna get a balanced budget. And that, when we fixed the year we're in, that makes going forward better. And that's what we talked about last week, with, I mean, I use the term sandbagging. You can call it that or you can call it, I like to feel, we put everything on the table. We say, this is the worst it can be, and we're gonna make sure that every year that you adopt it, it's actually better than this, because we're gonna make sure it's balanced, and we make those appropriate changes in that. So this assume is basically a 3% increase in terms of revenue across the board. Are you, a cumulative? I was trying to do the math. Yeah, probably roughly, yeah. Yeah, about 3%. It's not, it's crystal ball stuff. It's not fancy predictions or anything. We're just trying to say what's a reasonable revenue increase. And that's, and that's why I'm an honestly, I think those future years, I mean, it's an indication, but it's the current year budget that we spend all our time on. That's where that's the one that we make sure is about. Because no one can predict the future. I've said on council six years before this and every year. It's hard to have for some 14 months. Because right now we're trying to project for 14 months right now. That's hard enough. Yeah, 12 on top of that, it obviously gets less and less. And that's why we're just focused on our next year. What do we think is realistic? We're already a little bit ahead of revenues, because when we do our revenue projections for last year, we start those projections in the middle of the summer, and we're tracking a little ahead in 17, so we're actually a little ahead already, which is great news. But we do that on purpose to make sure we can deliver at the end of the year. And that helps build the fund balance because the revenues come a little higher than the expenses. And the department director's credit, they don't try and spend every diamond's earmarked or allocated to them. And so between a little higher revenue than expected and a little lower expense than expected, that helps contribute to that fund. But I have another question that's totally unrelated to this fund balance issue. And that is reading the tea leaves of what's going to be coming out of Washington as it impacts some of the grants that we receive for transportation. Or any other funds that are grant dollars. Are those at risk? Are they at risk? Absolutely. But we kept them steady. What did we. So what we budgeted for was steady state and that the grant dollars over there. Having done this for a while, transportation grants have been at risk for years and it's not by administration or anything. Those are an easy grant for people that at federal level to kind of point fingers at. And so if it happens we're going to have to change course. We're going to have to change the way point fingers at. And so if it happens, we're going to have to change course. We're going to have to change the way we do business. And not the biggest winners for our capital grants for buses. Those are significant. And then we get some grants for operating as well. But you've got a pretty new fleet because of the grants. But to the extent that those grants go away, I would presume you're going to keep the buses longer. We would do that. I mean, it would be an exceptionally big deal. It would affect, I would gotta assume every change because I know the flat grants are gone and some of those are gone, but it's gonna be tough for them to be crunchy. But do you answer your question? We've projected flat on those reds, or status quo. Okay, moving to 15 minute headways is going to have a budget impact for snowmast, right? I mean, Raft is not going to pick up 100%. That's that 294,000 and no, they are. We're asking the EOTC because we consider this a regional route. They're asking the EOTC to pick it up as part of the regional service. But we have it budgeted for as well. Because we got the revenues and the expenses but we expected to be off set, so it'll be neutral for the firm. In the spring and the fall the town picks up that service. We actually contract with Rafted to provide that service. And so we've budgeted to make sure we've got the personnel and the buses available but we have revenue offset from Rafted to make sure we've got the person on the bus is available, but we'd have to have an EVANU offset from from RAPTA to make that happen. And when we get to the transportation budget, I have something I want to throw out on the table just an I do. But do we want to have a whole lot of help? I keep interrupting Phil, but then goes through his magic case. I think you're doing a great job. Okay. Good. So does that make sense? That's how I finally got my arms wrapped around this budget in terms of operations. Yeah, no. Being balanced and blah, blah, blah, and then capital budget totally separate. Correct. Okay. Thank you. You're on the right track. Thank you. Speaking of emergency reserve funds and that sort of thing. Marketing group sales, you'll notice this year that they increase their reserves from 15 to 25 percent and that's of their total operating revenues. So that essentially, I think that was a little bit of a bone and contention with marketing because they want, because you're basically taking some of the money that they're going to spend away because you're putting in a reserve But I'll be it it goes back to what we talked about before they're being pretty conservative with their funds to Set aside more money and reserve in case you have a downfall in the economy something happens At least they've got the money set aside to spend because they'll need to spend it more than when you have a downturn and you do now So that is in there So when you have a downturn and you do now. So that is in there. So when you guys go through the budget, you'll see that. One thing we did talk about, and this is just really for the town to be cognizant of increasing property tax burden on basically all the owners in this valley or in snow mass. Some of those mill levies have been reduced because of some bonds fell off. Yeah, the drosity. Is it the drosity that fell off? Well, we did the refinancing and the recreation center bonds. Okay. And that's it. Well, some fell off last year, but. We have some the housing bonds Definitely have been bought out as well, but that doesn't affect on property taxes But just be as an FAB board and many of his own homes here too But I mean just as to look at it for property taxes if you ever think of increasing a mill ever anything Just be aware we just had aspen School District mill ever get added on. We had the stone mass water and sanitation deal get added on. And the water. And then we had the water, well that's water and fire department. And the fire department got added on. So those three things are actually going to increase. I believe it's going to be a net increase in your property tax bill even though they the state reduced It came down, but it's going to go at 7.92 to 7.2 Water and sand and fire hit in 2017 bill Yeah, which we haven't got yet. No for this year No, it's So I have to be yes, it was not my bill. Yeah, have to be, yes. It was not my bill. Yeah, they went because the total for the village went from 44.247 mills to 49.244. We haven't received that. That's the 2007 receiving bill that we don't pay. That was for collections. That was for this year's collections. Okay, we haven't received. We haven't got, see, the 2017 bill is actually, we pay it in February or April. So we don't actually have it on our bills. So people are gonna see this on their bills now. It's gonna make a difference. But just, we just wanted to bring it up as just being cognizant of the fact that you've, we've added on these mill levers for these projects are gonna be on our bills for what? Those bonds are 20-year bonds or something? I don't know what the... I can't remember what the fire... They're probably 20-year bonds. The fire or the same. I think they're good 20 years, if they're not 25-year. They're a long time. Right. So those are going to be on those tax bills People voted it, but they're in there and they've got all this nice new stuff, but you've got to pay for it. The bad news is we're all going to get phone calls as soon as everybody gets their tax bill. Right. So that was just a no. Another thing you want to be aware of that we went through in this budget is the defined contribution plans that was all increased I think Yes, one one from 78 and they're from eight to nine So those of increase and we discussed this increase in conjunction with the discussion on year-end bonuses versus base salary increases We don't have any recommendation to change anything you're doing year end bonuses versus base salary increases. We don't have any recommendation to change anything you're doing. This is another kind of, hey, we suggest that you guys be aware that some of this stuff will limit you're being able to change things later on if you have a deficit years going on. Because again, we aren't saying you'd change anything, but we looked at, okay, you've added 1% to define contribution plans. So that's fine. You had the money to do it. Of course, it's later on, as we all know, it's harder to take the 1% away later on. So that's been done. In addition, we talked about bonuses versus salary increases. Obviously, if you were on the track of giving more bonuses versus salary increases, you have a lot better leeway in lean years to adjust for that. So it's just something we're bringing up. Did you all look at the CPI? Bob was Bob Circus was sharing with us last week that the CPI was less than 2%. 2%? I don't know. I don't know. Well, that was the year before I got here. I think it was 2.779. I think it was 2.779. And this year right now for their projecting around 3%. Yeah, I increase. Because I have to use the upper property. right now for their projecting around 3%. Yeah, I increase. Because I have to use that for my property. It was one point nine from August 1st at July 31st. Not this past year. Yeah, it depends, well, I think it was this past year. If you use all cities, it depends on which index you're using. Yeah, I'm using the Boulder Denver. Yeah, the Boulder Denver. Yeah, well cities in the other Boulder down right that we have to use for our property tax calculations we use Boulder Denver. Denver Boulder. Yep. Which is girl and that's the one that yeah is projected it's a 3% right now as of the September. Because there's there's two numbers that come out one from the Department of Budgeting and one from the Division of Planning. And so what I do is I add those up and average them. Why do we use bolder Denver? Is it? Because it's required under taper. Hmm. I guess one that's closest to this area. They don't have. You have certain cities. There's I don't know how many city ones are. The variance that table requires Denver Boulder CPI. Everything's based on that. Yeah, no, it's okay. Except governmental reimbursement for health care is not it? But anyways. Okay. And Rudy Bruce, so you know, make your argument that way too. That's fine. So that's just something we brought up just so you guys are aware of that. We don't specifically look at salaries or any of that. We don't see that. So. What's the current, what's the town currently do? So, we have ranges for every position. Minimum hiring range at a top-down range. And you work through that range, through different, depending on how you review those primarily. So it's pay for performance. If the ranks are, there's names for those ranks, but basically one through four. I believe 70% of the staff gets, we call it a successful ranking. And that the last couple years that's been a 4% increase. This year we didn't change the scale, the scale, so people, so you went through the scale. Last year because we were a little behind in some of the salaries, we actually changed the scale. And then, so that means you actually went less through the scale. Something off the top of my head, 30%, 27% of our staff is topped out. So that means 27% of the staff only gets bonuses. They don't get a paying piece. So it depends on where you are on the scale, Councillor Circus, I mean how that works. If you're just starting off, you can get those raises for a number of years. If you've been here for a while, unless the scale changes, you're going to get it all in bonus. Okay. Very similar to other industry. And we have that discussion once a year, timing how much do we change the scales? And this year for 17 we didn't change them at all. So everybody went through. And you know internally we have discussions about G's. Should we be different for different kinds of jobs, for different kinds of departments, or if you're starting off should you go through a little quicker and kind of maybe top that a little fast. We've had all sorts of discussions, but the range, depending on the positions, either 30% or 40%, the more professional with the position, the wider the range. And so it depends on how quickly, that factors in how quickly you can top out. Okay Phil. The only other point we had is we're willing to look at any topic you want us to get. We only have one or two more. Yeah, you have the comp plan you wanted to look at. You have the poster plan you wanted to look at and then building six. Right, well that's the big one we brought up that we would like to, that we brought up that we, you haven't recommended us that we'd like to look at is building six. That was supposed to be leased to Asa's I guess, and that deal fell through. So now you have a building that you've had the developer build for you. And it's gonna cost money to run, and we just wanna look at that and make sure everybody understands the impact that that's gonna have on the town. Yeah, you know we have an RFP out. Yes. Yes, you're probably familiar with that. And that's due on November 1st. But you're looking at either nonprofits, private, whoever. We're looking at anything. Even it was discussed last week and it'll be a topic for discussion on November 6th. Is perhaps even listing the property for sale. Okay. And I know there's still some thoughts about the Discovery Center slash aces. thoughts about the Discovery Center slash Aces. But the point is, I haven't yet to see a plan on how that's going to ever be funded if that were the notion of the council in our town. Right. So, whatever happens, it has to go through FAB as far as I'm concerned. I think it has to. I agree, I agree completely. Yeah, because you don't, I don't think the town wants to have another building as we talk that's gonna run a deficit to run. Can't if it's not the purpose. We're not in the business to run deficits on having a building. The nice part of it is you don't have a bond on it. Because it was, I assume that was built, the people of paper, the developer page of the whole building, or is paying for the building. Yes. It's being built right now. It's under construction. I need to go walk over there and look at that. There's a lot going on over there. It's good stuff, but this creates somewhat of a challenge at best. So if you have a great idea, send it forward. Okay, I don't have to be right now, but I'll think about it. Okay, so that was basically what we looked at, what we talked about. I think everything looks great. The town is pretty conservative with the dollars that are coming in. Again, I don't have a problem personally seeing funds sitting aside waiting to be spent later on for capital projects. So you don't get yourself in a situation where some of these rental buildings that you've been running for years need to be redone, and they aren't redone, and you don't have the money for it. These guys are setting the money aside to do it. So. So let me throw out something I was thinking about. And this ties back to a raft of discussion, the upper mobility study, all this stuff we're doing at raft of spending millions of dollars on more studies than that tend not to go very far. Okay. I'm trying to be kind in my words. So one of the issues that we talked about, I think it was two years ago or one year ago here, was expanding the WEE cycle program. And we all know that we're challenged at best for these elevation gains and what have you. And we all know we had the e-bike conversation what was at, what, a month or two months ago, and we've had the same discussion at RAPTO. We also have out there on the table this whole headway issue. So I've been talking to a few people about recycle and the availability of e-bikes through we cycle in order that people could pick up a we cycle and climb up this hill or all the way out of the intercept lot. That technology and that program is available now in we cycle. That's the rental bikes like they have an aspirin and basalt. Okay. So my thinking would be, and this is on the agenda for EOTC. Is perhaps we in Snowmass somewhat, we became the center of innovation. Aspen wants to do their mobility lab that I still don't understand whatever that Aspen think tank thing is. But I'm thinking in terms of a center of innovation, if we could work with Wecycle and perhaps look at that as a technology in a public private partnership that would ease some of our transportation issues, not only now, but going into the future. That'll help in the summer time. It'll help us, it won't happen the winter, but- It's an issue. Yeah, but I'm just saying that anything we can do to get buses or more cars if you will offer brush creek, then we won't have the pressure to eventually, particularly during the summertime, which so many people come here. It's a great idea because the e-bikes for people who aren't willing to go, hook it up the hill, they're pretty cool in that regard. I'm just saying, I think we ought to talk about it through this budget process and perhaps it's not 2018 but maybe it's 2019 but I'm thinking we ought to, that's me saying that. Using a recycle program essentially outside of EOTC. Yes. Just a snowmiss village. We cycle program. And it's part of wrapped in a recycle is so Maybe we sit down with murder. Yeah, and ask and it began to explore What an e cycle program might look like and how it might work with it might go from Here to butter milk or here to the inner stuff lot either way Either way or here to the end of the supply. Either way. Either way. Or here to ask them. Yeah. Well, there's a path all the way down. You can basically take the path all the way. For people who want to get in a ride. Plus, if you're going to get people on e-bikes, you wouldn't want them on the road anyways. Because a lot of people would do that. Don't ride very well well so you don't want them on a road. I'm saying that's true. I don't know why it's acting. Well, you're talking to a pro right there. But the first step is to make sure we have the right of ways, right? And we're going through that process already so if we can... If we are even in a position to allow e-b, I'm thinking like the paved services, brush creek trail. I mean, it's perfect for an ebike. But some of those are on, not brush creek going down. Is it? Yes, it is. Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. Okay. Honestly, that's one of those that we think ebikes won't be allowed on. Oh, sure. One brush creek because of the, because of the I haven't seen the details of it yet but I know that's one that was pointed out that these means that doesn't allow you to put an e-bike on it but motorized bike on let's consider it on a right bike there is an issue with that a little bit on the bike path because when I ride down to Aspen on even on Alcreeca I don't get on the bike path because I'm going too fast. You'd kill somebody on the bike path so I go on the road. Just because. Because you're an excellent right now too. No, but I mean if you can't really ride fast on a bike path and the problem with the bike is that if you're going, you can, those things will go fast. Well, she said I'm at the class one or two at 14. 14 or 21, whatever it is but that you know you know you could do 20 miles an hour people do 20 miles an hour on the bike path. How he flies. Well the time and yeah yes and I'm total agreement you we don't you and I don't ride on a bike path going down Al Creek No because you're going too fast. Yeah. Yeah. Well, do we not even look at it? Yeah, I ride it going up. Yeah. Honestly, it's safer to ride going up. It is. I mean, you should, again, because of the speed that we go, it's safe to ride going up. Yeah. I mean, if you're not going 15 miles an hour, you should be on the bike path. I mean, that's what they're there for. But as a speed increases, like going down brush creek road, is, you know, we call the bike path the roller coaster. I mean, if you're going fast down brush creek road, it's pretty entertaining. But it's not very entertaining when you come upon someone walking a dog on a leash. Yeah. Right. Yeah, no, that would be an issue with the bike. But as far as in cities and around towns or neat because you're getting people off the streets, driving cars around if you can get on the bike and zip three blocks and go somewhere. In around town and here it'd be great. I realize there is the issue going longer distances whether you can put on a bike path or not. But just because they go faster doesn't mean, you necessarily have to limit them. I mean, a Lamborghini can drive on the roads, and still has to go to the speed limit. So that becomes the argument that we need to have. That's the lawyer talking over there. Speed limits on the bike path. It's just something I think that we, I personally am thinking we need to explore every option possible to protect our valley and you know, RAPDA next year is going to be going out for property tax in 2018. Yes, ma'am. And, uh, yeah, wrapped up. Because to fund ebuses and, uh, yeah, expansions of services. All first there during that study, which is ridiculous. But anyway, it was actually very interesting. Very interesting, but how much money we spent on person so we're three million books Yeah, but we learned we need 50 electric buses from that three million dollars Bottom half So I'm just throwing this out here. I think we can have more discussion later and there there's a, I mean, just, there's $100,000 in the draft EOTC budget for lease cycle from EOTC to lease cycle in addition to whatever else they received from organizations. So that might be a good time to bring that up too and say, that was included in the EOTC budget last year. There was a discussion that Snowmass Bill is just receiving that service right now. The answer was, well you get at the end of the line, just not the beginning of the line. Which there's truth to for sure, but I think that might be a time to say, okay, it's been a year now, how do we get some of that service? I think we have to. I think we have to really start working on how do we get some of the benefits of being part of EOTC. The problem with snowmouse, I can see the e-bex because the problem here is the hills. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes available through their company. And. The two locations we think would come to the front for the we cycle, not necessarily e-bike is club comments to town park center. That's about how long that is. But that seems that's flat. And the other one is from Mountain View over the mall. That's not flat but it's not. It's not that hard. It's not tremendous. And so those are the ones that we started talking about trying to figure through. E-bikes could expand those ranges for sure. But those are the two sets of locations we started talking about. Yeah, let's just go ahead. What about the mall to the snowmess center? I mean, people could use e-bikes instead of walking. I remember it was in the on-clay proposal. Their own e-bikes. It is in the on-clay proposal. To the mayor's point, we weren't thinking e-bikes. We were trying to think flat. If e-bikes were in the mix, that could change the dynamics. I'm for sure. I think a conversation with murder at some point in time would be very, very helpful. But I'm just throwing it out there as a potential budget placeholder or consider. No, it's an idea to get people to use that instead of driving cars around. Sure. I guess, especially people up on our hill, most people won't ride up the hill. I've tried it, it doesn't work for me, I can ride down. So I need if I can get up that hill. That's exactly right. You can take it up. me I can write down. So I can get up that hill. That's exactly right. Okay. Let's go on through the very, did you have anything on health care, anything else? There's nothing else we looked at. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. let's. Thank you. So welcome. I'm Friday. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. You guys stick around. I'll stick around with you. I'm just kidding. I'll stick around for people. I'm not going to be talking. You never have to do that. Sorry, let me get my wrist pointed. So what's next? Mary, interview. Honestly, the only thing I also want to touch on the day was just to make sure that as we saw with this discussion we can get into the weed really quick about the difference between where the funds are, how the fund balances work, you know, how we transfer from the general fund to the CIP. That's all the kind of stuff that we'll be getting into on Friday with you and we'll have all the charts. And it's a PowerPoint presentation that's similar to what you saw last year. It gets very much into the detail. Before we did that, I wanted to spend a few minutes to make sure that we've had a chance to kind of go over the letter. In that letter that Mary Ann and I wrote to you dated October 2nd, we really did try to hit the big points without the detail on purpose just to make sure that if there was something policy wise that you thought we should be touching on more aggressively or something that was making you nervous for whatever reason. I just wanted to kind of get a feel for that tonight and if everything kind of seems to be in the right spots and the proportions seem to be reasonable, I think we're set to get in the weeds. But I didn't want to lose the big picture before we jumped into a lot of the detail on Friday. I wanted to make sure you had that chance to talk about the big picture this evening. And if everything's kind of lined up okay, then that makes Friday's discussion a little bit easier. If we're dead wrong, there's no reason to get into that detail, and we can make those corrections. Well, I did have a question over on page 14 under land and land improvements, but I'll hold that to Friday. It gets into the relocation of the ice rink. So, I'll tell 110,000. Yeah, yeah. I think the biggest question that I have is we're setting aside a lot of money for these clip projects. And I think that it's important that we are on task to get them done. And that's why I think you have outlined in there that we're looking at bringing somebody on to to spearhead those projects. Yes. Because I think it's great. I mean, I'm still a fan of the connectivity plan and I hope once we get through the comp plan we can adopt it but projects that are in there like the crosswalk down at town park that we've kind of has been pushed down the road. I want to make sure that those projects are coming online. And we've seen that as an issue that needs to be addressed and that's why you see it in here. We've realized that we need to have a person focused on getting these list of projects achieved. And luckily, or I'll give credit what credit's due between Mary and Ann, they identified a position that was not being utilized. Instead of adding a new position, we reconfigured it. And took those expenses that weren't being spent and put it towards a new, we had to add some to make it work right. But I think, I mean, that's a good example of, we saw something that we weren't utilizing and we just reconfigured it to meet the school because we've all identified an aggressive CIP on numbers when you're not making the construction happens not not that useful and so we need to make it happen. Good. Good stuff. Thank you very much, Philly. You're welcome to stay for the housing discussion. I'm going to leave. Is that worth it? Thank you very much. Thanks Phil. Appreciate it. Thanks Phil. So on Friday, if we're done with this, we'll start with the, I'll call it the traditional PowerPoint. PowerPoint. PowerPoint. And you will kind of go through it. We've got some of the new charts that the FAB asked for last time on how carry forward work will see some of the projects and get into kind of any details. And the idea of being on Friday will present a ton of detail. You've got it all, but we'll talk it through a little bit. And then if there's hard questions that we don't know the answer to, we've got several meetings lined up afterwards that we can get those detailed questions answered. My guess is we'll be able to answer 90, 1.5% of them, but if you stump us. When do you want to talk about the benefit report? Except you guys. We can do it Friday. Or just again, I'm sort of throwing this out, but would it be valuable to us, for us, to have Kathy at that during the time we talk about this? You know, I mean, some of this is obviously financial, Marianne, but others is not. Others, other parts of it are more, human resource-related, generally think. Yeah, no. And the big picture is what we've tried to do is kind of bend that cost curve. But we've set how much money we're going to spend next year, rather than having it dictated us. Here's what the insurance costs. We've budgeted, OK, here's how much we're willing to spend, and we'll go shop with those dollars. But we can certainly, I can have Kathy be here on Friday. If we want to start, I can ask her to be here at 830 and kind of start with that discussion. I'm sorry, 930 and then jump in the PowerPoint from there. Okay. I think that's a good idea. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks Mary. It's job right now. Okay. I'll hit boxes the next time. I need a kitty, yeah. Are you offering? No. I need a kitty and a roll. So we have 930 to 130. Okay, I'll have30 to 130. Okay housing Come on up Terry. How are you? Thank you for all your hard work these days So this is something the kind of a generic topic at this point, but the council asked maybe a month or so back to, I guess, review housing regulations and well, housing regulations. So we went ahead and provided you two sets. We've got our regulations which are a little bit more detailed than we provide in the code language that's in there. They overlap a lot when you read through it, but those are the two sets of regulations that we use for enforcement, either both are mostly the sale and rental. So I really kind of leave it up to you guys. The one point that I will point before we get into the deep discussion is that we do all believe the staff that these regulations need to be updated. Back to the budget discussion, we put dollars in the budget next year, $50,000 in the budget next year for two purposes, one, to help increase enforcement and two, to help get these regulations updated. And in all honesty, that's kind of a wag. Number, if you need to know a wag is, I'll tell you after the meeting. But we all know. Yeah, that was kind of a joke. It's hard to make budget interesting. That's a lot. Anyhow, so we don't know. We just, we did that. We put the number of the budget with the understanding that we know that we need to make some adjustments, that we know that there needs to be some addition resources put towards some enforcement actions, and we put those dollars in there to make those happen in 2018. So what would be the skill set of this individual? Which individual? This $50,000 a year employee? It's not an employee. It's a one time dollar. And so the two projects we aim to get for is one for the updates, what I would propose today, and this is up for discussion, is that you let us go ahead and drop up from proposed changes and have them reviewed by you all for adoption. Basically a staff driven, here's how we see it, here's some adjustments we think you need to be made from suggestions, and then let you guys chew on it. So. And then the other expense is that is sometimes we have to hire outside counsel to help with when we go through the enforcement of the regulations and those dollars have been spent this year and we would anticipate spending more dollars next year. So I have a question on a footnote page 413. Which was a second document that's a regulations. No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, it's- No, that's under the table the occupancy table. Yeah, you had an occupancy table, but you have a footnote right above it. Right. Tell me the right number you're looking at. I'm looking at page four of 13. Oh, the maximum income limit. Page read 35. I got that. Uh-huh. So I go through the chart and it talks about assets blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay? That's on page three of 13 and then I go to page four of 13. But footnote number two says max income is limited to an amount not greater than $40,000. Plus an amount that is calculated as the annual amount necessary to amortize 80% to the purchase price over 30 years at 7 and 1.5% very outdated divided by 24% to a max of 170,000. So can someone explain how that works? How that works? Yeah. Prince thinking. I'm just trying I was listening. I was trying to find where you read them. Sorry. It's on page 413 on the second document and all the packet just 35. It's just above 17.3.3. Above the first priority occupancy table. Above that 17.3 and then it's right above that. They're small. You don't have to tell and stay off to configure this out. How the hell do you do it? Sorry. You see where I'm talking about? Yeah and I just you read in the footnote and I'd have to go back and read where the footnote is. Page 413 above 17.3. I see that I actually know where the footnote's commented on back here. It's actually not. I don't think it is commented. No, I'm just asking. We didn't see where the footnote came from. From, yeah. But it refers back to a footnote. To the chart that's on the previous page. And then I have a question about that page. This whole table, max income and net worth. When you get, when you find what you're looking for. Mark, you have that on, you have to find out for me. Unless you can do it, let's tap your head. I think that's when they first established the full guidelines on that way back in 2002, was it before that, John? 2000, 2000, before me. But I think what it is, it's a number that's, I don't want to say, it's estimated with various bankers on the housing committee at that point, and it carried number to carry an mortgage. So it's a number that allows you to carry a mortgage of the maximum of 80 percent. And that's how they get to that. How it exactly works. And we've never updated it. And that had to be closer. And I think what John said was right. That's the logic and that's explaining the logic. And then that equates to this column that talks about the actual income for the home price. That footnote drives for lack of a better term column number two. So if someone would say how did you get these incomes, that's the answer. It's 40% plus the carrying cost of that mortgage payment, and that creates call number two. So if you're buying a $100,000 house, your maximum income is $91,000. Does that make sense? Yeah, I get all of that, okay. Now here's a question that I can't answer when I sometimes ask about our housing program. So let's say, let's say I have a property over one of the islands. An island? An island. So not within the drainage? Uh-huh, not within the drainage area. Or I have an offshore company. Or I have various trust vehicles. You shouldn't be in the boy island. I'm sorry, Rhonda. Would you pull your mic up and repeat that? So I'm just asking because somehow I'm somewhat knowledgeable about some people that may be in employee housing that have various instruments where their money is not, yeah? I understand that that worth is a calculation that's performed at qualification. So if I have an offshore company, and I get income from them, and it's not included in your net worth, your committing fraud. And you never know. Well, some of those people may have purchased those after they qualified and got into. I don't know. Yeah, but my point is that that is a qualification. So it's a snapshot when you apply to buy affordable. OK. Now, if you hit the power ball ball the day after you move in It's not a factor. It's not a continuing qualifying The continuing qualifications are and I might miss one, but it is that you work Your employee in the village pulling the county afterwards $14 a hundred a year you reside in the house and there's a few other ones like you, you don't have to register vote but you must be eligible to register to vote, which is a residency. You must be eligible but you don't have to have a Colorado driver's license. There's a couple of other I might be missed. You know, I noticed that and I actually picked up on that when I was reading through these rights and it occurred to me, it occurred to me if we require someone to re-qualify every year before they buy something or before, why don't we require someone to qualify with all the same criteria, the income criteria and that income criteria, all those criteria every two years when they have to, when they have to qualify. The honest answer is, I mean if somebody is successful, this program's not designed to keep people from going up in their professional levels. If they get a big raise, if they qualify for unit number A, and they get a big raise because they promote up, the system's not designed to say, you're now out of your unit. It's like John said, you qualify for your unit the day you move in, and then there's other thing that you need to continually qualify for. You need to continually work, you need to continually live in your house for eight months a year and you need to continually not own property in the drainage. So I think those are the three of them. I think those are three of them. I forgot one. So I see an inherent problem with the housing program and not just this one, most housing programs. And that is that as long as people qualify with employment and generally employment, okay, they stay in their homes, they age. More, presuming the economy of the town expands and grows. More people work in town, more people therefore are qualified. And the only way to maintain certain, you know, some level of workforce housing is to continually build more workforce housing. Because older people aren't moving out. There's, and the way we have structured it, once you qualify to get in, you're in for life. That one unit, not the system, but yeah. Yeah. You're in, you're in for life. That one unit, not the system, but yeah. Yeah, you're in for life. As long as you work, as long as you have a job, you're in for life. The growth of the town requires additional employees which need additional housing. need additional housing and you just you know it's just continues to require more and more housing and it comes it kind of piggybacks on the problem that we have that we recognize with aging in place and that's just another part of the same issue. People age in place, they don't want to leave. They're taking up a unit that's bigger than, perhaps bigger than what they need. And it requires the municipality just to continue to build more and more units. And it just spirals, It just continues to grow. And I mean, I see that as a really a long-term problem. It's a short-term problem today for snowmast village, but it's a long-term problem, really, because you can't get it. This system doesn't provide a turnover, if you will, in units. Very, very little turnover in units. And let's clarify that you're talking about the restricted units, not rally units. Yes. I'm talking about the issue. Yeah, it's the throughput issue. And there is very apparent lack of political will to address the throughput issue. I wouldn't say so by this council, but I would put forth for for roaring fork, contiguous municipalities and or counties. And everyone has identified it as an issue, but no one wants to step forward and really lead that cause. I'll be the first to admit. I'm all over this. When you say throughput, you mean what? throughput. There is no place to go. Eagle County went out on the limb and opened a CCRC. Their demographic is 10 years less in terms of need for aging in place than what, roaring fork, valley is. And what happens? We talk about it, we talk about it, we talk about it. And workforce housing is an issue in Aspen. It's an issue for snow mass village that's basically going to be built out before long. Yes, we have a workforce housing project. Looks like it's going to happen down out before long. Yes, we have a workforce housing project. Looks like it's going to happen down in the salt and one down, as you know, in El Jabel. We've got to have some political will to address the entire housing issue. From when you get that first studio, to if you will, get into a deed restricted home or property. And on that back end there is no policy. Well and we've done numbers. I mean so speak to speaking about this is I'm going to blend a little bit between ownership and rental but when we've crunched numbers for the comp plan, depending on the assumptions you want to make, over, I believe it's 20 years, we believe there's a demand, need, pick your adjective for between two to four hundred more units. I mean, I could say that that work can go up easily if you, you know, expanded who you wanted to put in there and all that kind of stuff. But if you're willing to accept between two to four, you've just settled for the lowest, 200. I mean, then it kind of comes to that policy question of, is our policy still to try to aim to house 60% of the, I'm going to screw it up, but 60% of the employees that work in town. That's the goal we're aiming for. And that number, depending on how you want to crunch your numbers, demands two to 400 more units than we've got right now. And that's what we're working towards. Slowly, albeit exceptionally slowly. But I think what we're trying to do is put together ideas and coalitions of folks that want to help address that different organizations. And I think that's going to be, I think I've told the council, that that's going to be one of the bigger issues this comp plan is going to likely address is, is that too much? Can we fit them here? How would we fit them where would they go? Is that something we want to be aiming for? That's a big issue. And, you know, I see some colleagues from the Aspen School District here, but I'll address the other side of that equation and that's picking county employees. I personally am very aware of what it's like to hire an employee in the rowing fork valley. There is no affordable housing at all. You're limited on this stock that you have for whether it's rental and snowmass village or picking county, you can't get in. And all of a sudden, you're going to make $60,000 or $70,000 a year if you're lucky as a teacher or as a nurse or a paramedic or what have you. And there's no place to live. And at this point, we're doing stuff like bonuses, huge bonuses to get people to come and work for us. But on the back end, there is no housing. So they're living way in rifle, trying to catch a bus, to try to get up here, and it becomes a dissatisfier to want to work in the community because there's no place to go. At the same time, we don't want to deal with the aging and place issue. So, tell you the truth, I think we need to, I don't wanna do the regional thing that's been proposed with Myler, that's more Garfield focus. But we need to sit down and talk about what is a real need for our valley, not only snowmass, but aspen, pick and county, and really look at strategy on housing. Because this issue's gonna, whether it's a regulation about you can only make X number of dollars, that's all window, it's not window dressing, it's the detail, but it's a policy issue of what we want to do. The big issue is do you want more? I mean, and we think we've crunched numbers that can show two to four hundred more units are needed. And where are we going to put them? I think there's ways to do it, but I think that's the stuff it's paying for and it's the big question is are we going to be willing to accept it? I mean, there's a 30-something units down in rodeo, that's 20, I'm sorry, 20 something. That's a drop in the bucket. There could be units back behind town hall, which could be much higher density and there's other locations that we could certainly. And last time we looked at that location up here and ran the budget, it was ungodly. Yeah, no there's no doubt. And I'm talking numbers of units, not numbers of dollars. But if there's a commitment to say yes, let's make that happen, which is, the council's goal is along the lines as strategically make it happen, which I interpret as don't be stupid, but try and do the best you can. That's what we're trying to do. And you know, Phil brought up the point, the FAB looked at this, and so I'm pretty comfortable saying that the numbers pretty right. We net about a million dollars a year right now because we paid off the housing bonds. We're netting about a million dollars a year that we could apply towards new projects. It sounds like a lot, and it's something we can start tackling towards. And that's the budget priority, when we're back to the budget discussion, how much do we want to put forward a tackling it? And when we talked about the comp plan, I think there was significant concern that when we showed where these units could fit, the pushback or the discussion was, is that just big enough or is that too big? And I think that's that policy, the stuff that you all need to weigh in on. If there's a throughput issue, let's say, yeah, we're going to make it happen, let's go. If there's concerns about paving paradise, which is a legitimate concern, we gotta find that sweet spot. And then of course the dollars to make it happen. But I think we're on the same page. So what I hear you saying, there's really not any way to, I guess there's always a way to gain the system. But we have the ability at the very beginning to make sure we get all the appropriate tax documents, whether it's all the schedules of various partnerships and yet again and right. I mean I don't want to be for Terry when they're qualifying but I'm just not very good for that. I mean how big is a stack for when we just have unit up in the crossings this last week. I mean the stack of information is considerable and then some of it's black and white and Terry can say yes or no. Sometimes John gets needs to get called into review how trust worker, how we review other kinds of data. But it's people's financials. And so yeah, you can make it as complicated as you want. But we try our best to make sure we're sticking to this. And this is the stuff that we think we need to look at. In addition to other, I mean, there might be, you guys might say, you know what, we need to strengthen it up. And, you know, right now, the restriction so you can't have a second home in the drainage and the Colorado crystal and somebody else. Basically, maybe we need to say, you know what, maybe that needs to be a little broader. Maybe those are the kind of things that we could certainly work with, you know, those are ideas that what are we trying to achieve. And that's what I'm saying. We know that these need to be updated. There's no doubt that we've got ideas when we're reviewing it, things that, you know, how do you qualify, where does that job count, how do we measure income? Those are all things that we know can be updated. That's what we're suggesting. And Terry, do you have a sense of people that you feel like are taking advantage of the system? You think it's 10% or? I could answer that at all. As far, when I send out the affidavit and they all come back, they all say that they, you know. Need to continue in your application. Oppositions, so, and they x the wrong box, I'll call them. I said, did you say you own property within the Roinford Valley and they go, no, it should have been a no. I do not own. But as far as I know on that, and the only other way for enforcement is, you know, a complaint basis. I mean, someone would complain on it and put it in writing and then we follow it up like that. But it's really challenging to get somebody out of their home, right? Yeah. It depends on the qualification that's assumed that to be hit. Right. Right. We have someone owns a home in the drainage. It's pretty easy to show. Here's the deed. Here's your name. Tell us why that how you can continue to go to that detail. We have. Certainly, yeah. Since I've been here, certainly. If you get a complaint, then you'll look and see if they own. Yeah, investigate. Right. But you say they send in an affidavit sign their name, but there's no supporting documentation accordingly. It's just at this time we do not shoot a paper that. They affirm how to do the penalties of perjury. But you do nothing to check on them. No, just no. I mean, if somebody wants to cheat, they'll figure out how to cheat in those signs and a piece of paper unless somebody yells on them is what I hear. Right. Yep. And that's the revenue back to the budget. Yeah. When we get those complaints, we want to make sure that we've got dollars in the budget to look into those issues. Not that we haven't been, but I think we're going to put a higher emphasis on looking into it and asking people to affirm. No, this is accurate. This is how I'm doing it. One of the principles we have, it's even part of our town council rules and what have you is honesty yeah it's what you're asking is trust and honesty honest based system yeah so Terry what do you see some of the biggest challenges you have in your job applying these regs town manager no no no no no no no no no I'm having a turn. No, I mean- Council's third on that. I think- It else you got, it's like that. No, I think determining the home office business that can be the biggest challenge of what I'm seeing right now, self-employment. That is very, a very big challenge for me this time. You have to work the 1,400 hours and if someone's looking out of their house does that qualify to the to the end need Of the those are with the way the economy is changing that happens more and more than it used to and it's getting tougher and tougher to Identify that and of those 1400 hours 80% of your revenue has to be generated in snowmass, right? Correct Qualification at initial qualification. Right. Oh, it initial qualification. That's to give the snowmass building priority I'm employing snowmass vision as a priority for people employed in the village over county boys who can still apply village over county. So it can still apply. But then after you've qualified, your income has to come from Bickham County. So you have to be employed in Bickham County and your employee. It doesn't, it's not, anyway. But that's a tougher one. It's getting greater. And that's the one we know we got a kind of straight up a little bit so we can explain it as clear as black and why as we can. Because should the taxpayers and the citizens of Snowman's village subsidize someone who does their work in their unit that's subsidizing, but all their work is benefiting another geographic location. And it's a big thing. There's a lot of people, I mean, anyone, there's a consultant or right, but those are things that need to be updated with the changes in the global economy. And those are going to be policy questions going to land right on your desk because you can argue it both ways. There's pros and cons on both sides. But those are the kind of things that we hope to identify and say here's, you know, however many issues. And then you got to get some tough decisions. So working out of your home is one, and I can see that. We all know some people that are doing consultant and you fall for a variety of businesses, working out of their home. Incomes earned outside of Snowmass Village. They may have one or two clients within the town, but that's pretty rare What's the second taking county next to county? Yeah Other things that you see Terry as far as qualifying yeah Changing changes in family status So we have a qualification for a minimum occupancy. And when the status changes occupancy can change whereby the program is not housing at the that it was designed for. Oh. Well, that comes along to the aging in place. Conversation. That's part of it. That is part of it. And I don't really, that, you might not have thought about that as meaning. I've thought about it. To me, that's a different thing than what I was trying to out. Yeah, I thought. Okay, because we'll have a family that is four people and they're in a four bedroom place and there's a change in the marital status and there's one person living in that same place. And they can rent that unit. Some places, no. Some places can rent a bedroom, but it's no more than a bedroom anywhere right and they have to live there a certain amount of time. The person that owns it has to live there like it was like. What was it? It hurts. Something like that. Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of peer mutations you can get in. Oh yeah. Terry, I don't know how you do your job. What am I most? I mean, Terry and Joe beat it in the me since my first day. It's people's homes and that's what makes it tough. I mean, there's a lot of regulations, there's a lot of black and white, but when it comes down to it, it's someone's home. And that's where we try and find the compassion and we try and find the regulation and it's sometimes we hit it and sometimes we read it a little one way or the other. I mean my the biggest thing I noticed recently and especially in the one issue we have is you know one of the people that was going through the Pills process it didn't seem to me that the Pills process was very clear. Like there's one paragraph on it and it's sort of just open-ended. I think there needs to be more of a defined process because it seems that we might be getting into more of this given what we just talked about. And the process doesn't really seem that developed to me. And maybe that's the way it is, but I don't know. I mean if I was going through an appeal process like I would want to be able to look at a manual and know what the different requirements are going to be and deadlines. Like you know how many days from the initial notification to the time that you have to respond, how many days of the town have respond back to you. I mean I know that there's extenuating circumstances and there might be different things going on. But I think there needs to be more of a detailed process in my opinion. I couldn't agree with you more. And this is the first one. Right. In the past, there's probably been, in my years, I'm going to say somewhere between 7 and 12. I'm confronted with the results of the investigation, though they voluntarily really increase the units. It's different now. That's why the item is in your budget and that's why we're asking you to work it. We have, I guess we've come to the end of the useful life of this set of regulations. So we need policy decisions and the regulatory scheme that you're referring to is an absolute. Right. I mean, it just, I don't know. I think that there needs to be more of a process. And that's one of the things if we're going to spend the time doing it, that one of the things I think we should focus on. I mean, the other one is this idea of, I mean, I realize that Picking County employees are on the tier, but they're on the last tier. And there are certain essential services that are provided to this community. We do not have a school in this community. Our school happens to have the 8161 zip code. And we don't have our hospital employees. Right, and I mean, that's just, I mean, Snowmass can't house a school and house a hospital. And so that's what we use. And to not give those people greater priority and our housing lottery to me doesn't seem right. And that's the kind of policy stuff that's gonna come before you. And just so you don't get surprised, then that's gonna take that two to 400 number and increase it. And that's when you're going to the complaint and you get pushed back on, oh my gosh, we're building too many houses here. How are we ever going to do this, which we've heard loud and clear from some folks? And I'm not saying the majority. But that's just some stuff that needs to be considered in total. And I'm all for it. I mean, there's people in this town that feel we should not add one more employee housing unit. Yes. And that's the political stuff that's why you guys get elected. And those are just some of the outcomes if we change that. But I think there's more people in this town that say we need more employee housing. I totally agree with you, but there's a strong growing contingent. Right, especially because the gap between free market and and de-districted housing is just getting greater. It's bigger and bigger and bigger and we all need employees. And I mean, when you're talking about schools and you're talking about teachers and you wanna retain them, I mean, you don't want them coming here for a year or two and leaving. I mean, you want them to stay and you wanna provide good public education. You can't do that if we don't offer. I can echo that. I can echo that. And the same, you know, in Marquis Field. Yeah, but two year turnover. That's it. They're out of here. And not to get the leads on it. But I mean, we've talked with the school district. I mean, if that were to change, I mean, they've, we could combine resources and do projects. And that's the idea that we've talked about. And I'm not sure it's been bought off on an ISO system behind me. But I mean, we could keep the regulations for the exact set we've got now. And as we grow the pie, as we grow more units, then those are the units that we could potentially have different regulations on and say, hey, let's share these costs. Let's get these things happen. If we're going to build more, let's put these new regulations on these new units. There's a lot of things that we could talk about, but we need to have these regulations updated first. And another one we've talked about, I know in this room, is when you're moving from a larger unit, a five bedroom house or four bedroom house, kids move out, do we change this prioritization to say it's not just years worked, but if you're going from a four bedroom to a two bedroom, and you're going to free up your four, should that get a higher priority in a duplex rather than in complex? There's a lot of these ideas that have been kicked around. Not only should the priority change, but should the net income and net worth change, because now you've got a person who's 65 years old, who's had a whole lifetime to build up some net worth. And you can't tell him that, I'm sorry, you want to go into a smaller unit, but you've got too much net worth. That doesn't make sense. Yeah, no, they're going to stay in the big unit. Yes, boy. They will. Doh. And those are the things. If the goal is to free up the big unit, then how do we And those are really good examples of things that we think need to be addressed with this. Right. So. But you can also go back to the very beginning of Bob Rotto. Growth drives the need. Yep. You shut off the growth. Maybe you can get to satisfy your need. Well, sorry. That's way up there. And I know it's not going to fly. But you have to throw it out there. It's part of the equation. It is part of the problem. I'm not going to say it's part of the problem because... Well, because it is a solution. I get it. Part of the equation. I didn't say solution or. OK. But even a total build out, I mean, we're still going to have a need for employee housing. There's still going to have a need for employee housing. There's always going to be a need. There will be if we don't do something on the other end of the spectrum. Yeah, we don't. Well, right. But just for the sake of argument, then you're just shifting one person from one. There is a piece of property that is available that maybe we, a snowman's village, need to go purchase. And it's outside the urban boundary for Picking County. And it's on a bus route. Raptor doesn't really stop there, but there is a piece of property that has some significant land. Just saying guys. The town owned land that doesn't exactly meet that but very close So on the far side of Wildcat. There's an employee part. That's very true So and the town also enjoys the power of eminent domain But the fair market value score is scary away every time. So, I mean, if I'm hearing it right, I mean, the goal is when we go through this is to make sure that, well, we'll bring forward a number of proposals, ideas, concepts. You'll see the pros and cons. And it's meeting that council goal that you guys said a year ago, or, you know, nine months ago Whatever was the strategically enhanced the number of units and they keep taking those steps The one we've got lined up now is is rodeo. We think we can get that up and going It's a drop in the bucket. I agree But at least gets the momentum in the right direction and then there's a number of other regulations that we think we can address to hopefully Make some improvements. And I'm going to ask you, Clint, what's it going to take to bring the city of Aspen elected officials in Pick and County to the table to talk about aging in place? I would defer to the elected officials to tell me that answer. I don't know. I can tell you the asphalt price of asphalt, I can tell you the cost per square foot is something. I can answer the math. You're, that is a political one that I don't know that answer to that. I don't. So we have elected transportation. Why can't we have elected housing? I think that's what myler's advocating. Well, more so for Garfield County, but. I think so. I think so. I think it's to be multi-jurisdictional and I think that the city absent has already said no. That's very true. They've already said no. And I don't know what your final decision was than you heard the proposal and we haven't brought it. We said we said no. We would be willing to participate in some discussions, but not at the table. I mean, should we also be exploring incentives to encourage people to move out of employee housing? I mean, if some people are looking for a bridge, you know, to leave. Maybe they need that cash? Yeah, or whatever it is. Buy them out. Make me an offer. Right. What would be that dollar? I mean, it could be. Without knowing what that looks like, I mean, I think that's, the regulations are, I mean, there's concern that the regulations are preventing something wise from happening. We want to make sure their regulations aren't preventing something wise. If there's something creative, then we can plug that into. I don't know what you're, I can't visualize what that incentive would be to get out. But if there's something that's great, let's talk about it. This is that chance to make those things happen. Well, how do we do just on your point? Way back when we were buying people out that where we had mixed housing complexes down it. And we still do that. We did this last year. I mean, we buy people out. Right. So we buy, we buy, when the unit goes up, the deed restriction comes up to town, rather than put it in the lottery, we buy it. And then we own three of those units now. And so we actually have town employees in those units, but at some point, we would anticipate taking the deed restriction off those because of the way they operate and then sell them. Okay. And we don't want to lose the units. This is my own opinion. And that's once we have a project to replace them with, that's the time to sell them. But in the meantime, we're continuing operating. That is your opinion. That is my opinion. That's your opinion. That's my managerial opinion. That my legal opinion. I will confer the legal opinion over there. That's my managerial opinion. There's legal opinion. I don't want to say diametrically opposed, but certainly isn't in line with that. Or neither was previous counsel. So, the previous counsel was that way too, but this counsel chose the method of retaining ownership. membership. Clint. So we have this project in rodeo place. It's in the hopper. It's in the hopper. It's in the stream. If in fact we are going to do a revision of regulations, shouldn't we have them wouldn't it be advantageous to have that revision done before we start before we start offering these units in rodeo. So can we expect that the timeline will work so that we'll have a chance to do these before we really get into the rodeo place. Yes. Pray our, that's our goal. Okay. Second part of that question. We had a task force that worked on these rugs. Six right years ago. That's going to say that Rick Griffin. We're at Hawk Committee. At Hawk, that years ago. That's going to say that we're griffin. We're at heart committee. At heart, that's right. Yeah. I'll ask you was that helpful or not helpful? I wasn't there. You were there. Yes, I was there. Yeah, it came up with the different tiers on the lottery system. And there were some results out of that that. Can I be honest? I've been told it's very, it made its staff work a lot. It made it very difficult because we're managing the committee at that point. If we could come up with some proposals, then I think we can put that out and let everybody weigh in on them. But they worked through the committee process to come up with their proposals. That was tough. It was, it was, it was very tough. It was very lengthy. It was somewhat productive and unproductive and we're all challenging and gray hairs right and certainly self-serving very true So I don't I don't want to preclude any kind of input on it But I think if we can come up with some proposals then it gives folks a chance for something to comment on rather than developing the proposals and then commenting later on. So if we're gonna, if you're comfortable, our goal would be to say, let's start here, see what we can come up with, and then if other people have other ideas, then we can incorporate them or not, and put that, give you guys something to think about at that point. But we'd like to kind of give you a chance, give you something to think about rather than getting everybody lined up, getting a bunch of input, trying to get 10 people to work together to agree on the input, and then get it to you to get more input. We'd like to give you a proposal to get input on. That would make sense. And within that proposal, I see school board people, the hospital's not here and other people. And I think we have to listen. There's a lot of opportunities. And I will take it upon myself to explore that other issue I keep bringing up. Okay. There's that. And what is our time frame on rodeo place? issue I keep bringing up. Okay. And what is our time frame on rodeo place? You know, I can't say to her and tell you that. I mean, three months, two months ago, the goal was to have, you know, design drawings done by the end of the year. We've put out on RFP for architects. We've got finalists. And in all honesty, I haven't pulled a trigger on hiring a finalist to get the ball rolling. For some operations reasons, and so I can't tell you, it's my sort of answer. It's not as fast as I'd hoped, but I think we've got some legitimate reasons to kind of slow it down a little bit and make sure when we do it we do it right. So you don't anticipate these coming online this next summer. Constructions. Oh, now the early, I mean, if everything lined up perfectly, the earliest we do is start construction next summer. If everything had been operating and going as per plan construction would start in the summer of 18, that was the hope. That's what I'm not sure we can hit anymore. And honestly, I don't have a real great answer for you right now. There are some things I need some feedback on and we just haven't, I don't have a really great answer for you. Okay, anything else relative to housing? Terry, you're doing a fantastic job. I have a few. You're doing a fantastic job. I have to do it. Do people say thank you? I appreciate you saying thank you for the time I hear it. But no, what I do is when I talk to some of our employees that deal with the housing office say do praise the work that you and your staff do. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks for your support, too, because we all know it's very important housing for our workforce. For sure. That's very important. And the renovations that have taken place have been great. Has the feedback been positive? Very much. Very, very positive. Energy efficiency has been a really big plus on that too. So Susan Dwayne, I see in the back of the room. Did you have any comments? You're happy, you're just listening. We're so glad that you came. No, we're happy to hear that, you know, there's some ways maybe we can work together. OK, wonderful. Thank you very, very much for coming. And now we're going to turn our attention. Is everybody done with that? OK. So. Talk about system cities. Sister cities. As you know, this time last year, I had the opportunity to participate in our sister cities 50th anniversary trip over to Garmish, Parton, and Kierke. And then I'll go over to Shamini and for anyone's information, I paid the whole thing out of my pocket just to be clear because I've had that question asked. And it was a wonderful trip. And then as you know we had I think was Nancy and Wolf came into the presentation on Sister Cities. This has been an issue that has been discussed on and off town council for a period of time. To the point at one point we looked at doing our own sister city project ourselves. Back when John was on council, John W. John Dresser. John Wilkinson. Yes, and we chose not to move forward with doing that because Sister Citties is not just a nice thing to do in any community. It's a worldwide organization. Sister Citties is, you have to do an application to become a sister city. And it's a lot of red tape and it's an honor to be designated as a sister city. It's an honor to be designated as a sister city. As we all know, there was a death recently, or last year in January, for the person that was a chair of the board. And he has passed and there is now new leadership within the board for Aspen's sister cities. I have gone to several of their meetings. And tomorrow night they've asked us to come forward with what we would like to see in a relationship and vice versa about what we would be willing to support sister cities with. And we currently do a grant for sister cities. I don't remember what the amount is. 25 hundred. 25 hundred. We all know it's a great program and I'm going just to take some notes. It could go as far as a board. I've asked for a board seat before and that might be a possibility. Another would be the opportunity for them to change the name to Aspen's snow mask is not as simple as just asking in the board approving. It has to go to the bigot or nashed. Is there any interest of any relationship and how might we participate and provide more support or various experiences in snowmass? So I'm open. So the idea of trying to have a sister city from snowmass dedicated to snowmass would be difficult because snowmass would have to go through this process. Yes. Are there many people involved in the ask for assistance? Oh, yeah. There is. They've got there's no one on the board. Well, wait a minute. The ginsengs are very involved. OK. And as we know, Nancy and Wolf are the contact, the relationship with Garmish because of the years that Wolf lived in Garmish and was part of the ski patrol over there. And Nancy was in Garmish as an ambassador back during the war. Anyway, that's material. Well, it isn't, it isn't. It is. No other people, you know, people participate. They host families for the two weeks that the kids are here. And you know we've got, I think it's seven different sister cities. It could be eight, I lose count. So there's a bunch of them. There's a ton of them. I'm trying to think of Abitone. That's a bunch of them. There's a ton of them. I'm trying to think of Abatonny. That's a relatively new one. The Garmage Parti. Huh? Garmage. Veroloshie. Shamanie. Shamanie. Another one in France. Oh, what about the Japanese? Shamanikap. Shamanikap. Kupu. Kapu. There is one in France, no Switzerland, France, starts with a divorce. I think they let Davos go for- No, they still have it, they didn't totally let it go. They're not supporting it right now. Send the kids there. We have the one in Venezuela, and not Venezuela. Australia, how about, about Butler? Australia. And that is Australia. How about about Australia? I think those are the big ones. Oh, Queenstown, New Zealand. Yeah, Queenstown, New Zealand, not Australia. So any thoughts? Are there kids? I mean, they're high school kids. Yeah, but our kids from snowmass participate. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. And it's your daughter went to. She went to very low jet. Yeah. So did you have any thoughts, Rhonda, because you've been a participate? Well, I know that the sister cities, I mean, there's snowmass participates. And we had someone stay in our house. So it's not just a total aspect thing because our kids do go to school there So kids are placed in both snow mass and the past and we could We could probably do more in terms of that participation because probably no one I don't know how many of you knew that Garmish is coming in two weeks Yeah, but those kids are lined up through kids going there, right? Kids in the past have not, there's a whole story in terms of that relationship. All the towns are somewhat different. Our goal is to get kids to select which one of the communities they want to go to. Amber Lose has been pretty popular. And Garmish, this is the first time our kids have gone to Garmish for a number of years. Shalman, he was a little bit off. I don't want to say off and on, but here's the ask the kids went and they didn't come. And then here's the Shalman. He said, we can't host you after they've already booked, so they went't come. So, and then here's that so many said we can't host you after they've already booked so they went to Paris. But. Yeah, there's a whole, it really gets into the whole relationship with their sister city and who is the sponsor and who's leading it. Well, it is a year's go by too. On both sides. Yes. You know, I hate the demographics change and the interest change with the demographics. So. Well, the first is, are you a believer in the program? And I think it's a great idea for Ambassadorial relationships at a young age across. Well, it's another opportunity. I mean, obviously Rotary does a lot of and this is our own relationships and Somas Rotary and Aspen Rotary both do it. Right? Both directions. Somas Rotary has not hosted a student now on the exchange program which we're obligated to every other year. We haven't done one since I did my last one with with Joe I guess I understood in the last year or so you mean one of the last two that there was there was difficulty in finding I can't find host of families host families how long is for? That one's nine months. I was going to say the rotary ones more than longer than those. It's nine months. It's all during the school year. They come in August and they leave in basically June. That's two different programs. Two different programs. Rotary programs in exchange program. I personally hosted through that. Would you like to do it again? I loved it. I know you're it's a lot of fun But that's rotary but you're yeah, that this is it's three three months. Yeah, three three months pretty Yeah, that's yeah, that's a science story. Yeah, kid from India and a kid from Spain fantastic Family experience I can tell you it was awesome wouldn't give it up But the and then I've had a kid do Sister city and it's fantastic. I mean, the two weeks there, two weeks here, the exchange. It's not that big of a deal. It's very different, but you're asking about sister city, not rotary. Just this is sister city. It's probably the point. I do. It's confirming what I thought. Yeah, that's correct. It's another ambassadorial program. Yeah. So it worked. And's the town when so in 16 and reading my notes in 2016 the council just allocated 225 $2,500 to the program and The direction at that point was that sister cities needed applied through the grant through the our grant program in 17 and 17 They were awarded 25 hundred dollars and so we would give that same direction in 18 They were awarded $2,500 and so we would give that same direction in 18 That they need to apply to the grant program for those dollars. So I'm asking which we'd like to perhaps sit at the table Well, are they are they asking for some help? They're asking for ideas. How how would how would They once know man's to be as much a participant as we possibly desire to be. So I think the way you begin a relationship is, for example, if it's a rodeo night, we take the kids to the rodeo. Ski co does help in providing skis and some lift tickets and perhaps the town puts on a spaghetti dinner. I'm just, those types of things. The other thing that we might want to think about is inviting to a council meeting. When I was in garbage, we went to government meetings. It was kind of cool, a little reception, a little meeting stuff. That was really, really neat. And I'm thinking those types of things, so those doesn't cost us a lot as a town. Those kinds of things, right? Those are easy to do. Yes. And then we build that relationship. And you, right now I'd probably say we'd be an ex-official at the board table and 10, there are monthly meetings which are the second Tuesday of every month. But I'm not going to ask for something like that if you all don't want to be a part of it. And just leave it as is. I don't know. I'd love to be at the table. I think our town needs to be at the table. I just don't know enough. I just don't know enough about it to say whether we should be at the table or not at the table. But on the other hand, if we take a position, ex officioio and how you get to know more about what the organization does and if we can build more and if it becomes more public interest, we can do further. Yeah, the goal, the only way that this was my think, we build a relationship, our desire and our outreach to the board is our goal is to build a bridge of relationship with Asman's sister cities. No, I think it's an important program. I think we should be involved. We should have a seat at the table. And I mean, I would throw out that if we're ex officio that maybe a different one of us goes each month, just to go and listen and hear and meet the people. And, actually, we all get to have some kind of relationship instead of one person. Yeah, because I would not volunteer. I'd love to do it but it's not It's the time commitment to really do something and give it a hundred percent. I would see if you will a younger person How does me out? Well, lucky for you I'm a younger person I'm so glad our demographic's so close. But no, you know, I think we...it's just... I think it's great. It's so invaluable. It's such an invaluable experience. I mean, the fact that, I mean, we are sending kids from snowmast to these places and they're coming here and to be able to do some things simple, like have them here and have a little reception or I think it's great. I think so, you're in. I know Bob, you don't know as much, but Bill having kids in the school and gone through it and me about to, so, you know, and Clint's hosted, so. And Rhonda's gone through it? Rhonda's gone through it. Yeah, I mean, obviously just in this room, there are a number of people who have participated. I don't think we have anything to lose. We have nothing to lose. No. No. No. We're in. We're in. I'm in. OK. We're in. We're in. It's fantastic. I'm in. I can't make a vote. You're just taking direction from your film. I'm just asking. I like to see what it's called. It's fun to go to those meetings. I mean, just to your point, I think just being there, you can offer a different perspective. I mean, oftentimes my place on the Nordic Council, I mean, I'm just kind of there observing to what's going on, but when it comes to snow mass and the golf course, like this year, I think we have a really good plan going forward, and it's not that I brought the ideas, but at least I had a voice at the table. So, okay, I'll do that tomorrow evening and any other things for work session tonight, didn't have any other thing coming forward? I can hit your six o'clock goal. See you at night. I think that last week was a real doozy. Yeah, sure was. I missed you so much. Huh? Yeah. It was a long evening. I was the entire people around here. But we got it all done. Yes, we did. We can't don't have a delivery, doesn't it? No, by the way, thank you for a wonderful town dinner. Yeah, the Bords and Commission dinner was awesome. It was, sorry I missed it. There's a much smaller group this year, but sorry I missed it. It was good and thank you. I'm glad we did all the work. We all showed up. It's fun. It was a great time. So thank you. Thank you. And that's the budget. That's annual budget for next year. So we'll continue it forward. So we may need to figure out a better date or something. It seemed like a lot of people were out of town. Yeah. In your last year, we did it in a September. And we kind of got some pushback because it was against, I think, Bloon weekend and so we kind of pushed it back to October. I mean, we're always looking for that. We always kind of end of September beginning October and where that magic spot is. Sometimes it depends on what the mayor's around. So there's not a lot of magic to it. There's not a lot of science to it. That's guess. I think last year, off season, we had 55 this year, we had 48 or something like that. Oh, is that the only difference? I think last year, off season, remember we had 55 this year we had 48 or something like that. Oh, is that the only difference? Oh, I thought it was much bigger life. I don't think you're ever going to... I don't think it was a huge difference. It was top season. But it's enough that we try and find that week and I thought it was like we had 70 some last year. No, maybe the year before. I don't remember. Yeah, anyway try and find it so it makes everybody happy. Right. So, okay. All good stuff. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. A journey.