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 do it. 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 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 you you The penultimate swans. you 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 you you I'm going to do it. you 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 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 you 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 Okay, it's after four. Start the show. Let's come in and make sure my GID thing is in here. Okay, well, Ronda. You don't happen to have the GID agenda in front of you do you? I had one right here and of course I turned it off. The Stomach Village General Improvement District number one for October 6, 2014. First item we have is roll call please Ronda. Here. Lotler, here. Cooker. Here. Haver. Here. Jacobson. Here. Very good. I have number two. Discussion Resolution Number One, Series 2014. Consideration of a resolution, amending the 2014 budget for the Stomach Village, General Improvement District number one of the town of Stomach Village. Mary Ann. For items number one and number two, both the resolutions in your packet pages five and six, page five has the budget for the GID. For 2014, the only things I want to point out are the snow melting cost. We're up over budget by 15,000 that was for utilities and for facility maintenance labor. And then under capital we added $11,150 for the replacement of the windows that the GID board approved for the SkyCab. For 2015, the only major change here is an increase in the SkyCab operating costs. We're budgeting for running the SkyCab the same hours as we did last year. But there's a 4% increase in here for the estimated Eston's key company, hourly rate that they charge us. Okay, and that's a normal standard part of the contract. The reasoning again for why we think the power, I mean the energy costs were? We had a heavier winter, and then we also spent more time a facility maintenance labor on the boilers Okay Questions regarding the amended budget for 2014 Move to approve motion by mr. Haibar second by Markey Butler for the discussion All those in favor please signify saying aye aye any opposed by Mark Butler for the discussion. All those in favor, please signify saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving on, item number three, discussion resolution number two, series 2014, consideration of a resolution summarizing revenues and expenditures for the Stomass Village General improvement district number one of the townest of us village Colorado and adopting a budget and appropriating sums of money for the calendar year beginning on the first day of January 2015 and ending on the last day of December 2015. Mary Ann, you again? Nothing more to add. Okay. Questions about the Council may have on the 2015 budget presentation. Who for approval? Second. Motion for approval by Mr. Cooker, second by Mr. Jacobson. Further discussion? All those in favor please signify saying aye. Aye. In the opposed. It also passes unanimously. Item number four is for approval of the GID meeting minutes for August 18th, 2014. Is there a motion for approval? Mr. Haver? Second by Mr. Cooker. Other comments, alterations, edits, all those in favor please signify saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Moving on, we have the last item, which is an adjournment. Is there a motion for adjournment of the GID? So I'm going to move to district. That's motion by Mr. Jacobson, second by Mr. Cooker. All those in favor? Hi. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Very good. Now I'm just going going into this one. Look at the right way. Now I'd like to call to order the Simmons Village Town Council meeting, regular meeting for October 6th 2014. First item we have is roll call please Ronda. Mayorneau. Here. Butler, Ear, Cooker. Ear. Aver. Here. Jacobson. Here. Very good. Item number two is for public non-agenda items. If there's anyone like to stand up for the public, please step forward to the microphone. And if you've got one first, Mr. we're just fighting the seat. Okay, Mr. Rose now. Mr. Smith, we're just fighting the seat. Say, Mr. Rosenow. Everybody knows me. I go by the name of Mr. Trouble, you know. And it's very important to me that everybody stay healthy. And so I just wanted to tell you, I remember to go for my flu shot this morning. And I hope all of you get your flu shot and don't forget about it, because the health of everybody in the community is extremely important to me. We'll see about that later. Thank you, McGarry. Just a... Markey? Thank you, Gary. Rhonda, what's the date the community health services is going to be providing free flow shots for our community? They're not free, Markey. Oh, that's right. No, if your Medicare will pay for them. Well, yeah. October 30th, here in the town council chambers from 330 to 630, okay, and $20 for the shot, and $30 for the mist. Okay, that's pretty reasonable compared to what they're costing this year. So that's good because we're seeing a lot of flu in our valley. Very good. So thank you. Jeff. My name is Jeff Head. I'm with the conical next door. I'd like to ask Council to kind of slow this round about and everything down. I think things are being fast-tracked too quick, trying to push it through too quick. There's a lot of design errors in this. It ought to be looked at and thought over. There's a lot of people in the community that we've talked to that don't feel that they're roundabouts necessary at this point. There's a lot of people in the community that we've talked to that don't feel that they're around about necessary at this point. There's different concerns from people that their children get an off-school bus out in front of the station. I don't know if you've all received that email today or not. We feel very strongly about the access. Things have got to be to our liking on this, to where we're feeling comfortable to continue to operate. And I feel that some of the council members are no longer going to be here. So at this point in time, I'm having a hard time thinking that this is the council that needs to make this decision until after changes happen here in the next couple months. Okay. There's not much we'll respond back to that, Jeff, other than we'll take your considerations. And we, as you know, we've all been looking at trying to make sure that the concerns of the conical are addressed. I think staff been working pretty hard. Yes, we got some information in, I think from the developers last week, but I believe that the staff is really been given the direction to make sure that we are able to get you access in and out. I'm not going to tell you we're going to slow this thing down, because it's part of a larger discussion. It may not be today is necessary but something in the future and this is part of the larger discussion but it is something that I can assure you that this council whether it's us sitting here or a new one is going to be a well aware of. And I still feel that it's a community meeting out of, you know, we ought to have a major community meeting on this before anything's improved also. Well, it'll take a little while before it gets started, you know, because I think the plan is as we have discussed so far as to have this start, hopefully, at least at this point, June 1st of 2014, 2015. So we would have already started it. But the idea is that we have for a lot of time and it has been something that is fairly important for the future and I Think there will be a couple more meetings Clint can you Give any other other assurances or any other mr. Aaron think you hit involved with the application or the 90% Drines were submitted last Wednesday. I know the Public Works Department's got them now. We'll be sending them out to respected review agencies. We've talked to the property owners of course and said we'll be including them in those reviews and making sure that they're aware of what's going on. There are a number of opportunities that they've asked for that we investigate and we're doing that and make sure to keep them appraised to what's going on. Jason. Make sure to keep them appraised to what's going on. Jason? Jeff, I just want to mention that the roundabout is an integral part of a discussion we're going to be having about an item on the agenda later, which will include a public hearing and opportunity for you to get input on this matter further as it relates to that item on the agenda. So I just encourage you to stick around and get your comments on the record for that. Okay, thank you. Marking. Just a clarification and clamped. In terms of that review process, you said 90% of the plan was submitted last week on October 1st. By October 1st, yeah. Yeah. So what is the process in terms of additional review, comment, and how do we include the community? Is it a 45 day process or what is it? As I understand it, the code doesn't actually have a time frame. And at this point, it's submitted to staff. It's at 90%. Our engineering firm, public works, departments within the city, and then outside agencies will review it. There's not actually an algorithm to defer to this address for a second, but there's not a formal review process because it's a construction project. If you all wanted something, we could certainly create it. I mean, I would see it far more productive to have some kind of open house and review details than to actually have some kind of public hearing on the issue. But we're familiar with the conicals issues. We've met on sight with them. And I think at this point what we're trying to do is incorporate as many as their suggestions as possible and still maintain the safety that's required to make that roundabout work well in the future. And so it's kind of a technical discussion at this point. With any luck, we'll be able to work that out and not have to bring it back to a hearing. But if you all said you wanted that final approval, I'm sure we could create something for that. I know it's a subject for later in our conversations here, so perhaps we can revisit. And to Jeff's comment, I mean, I think we are slowing down. We are trying to make sure that what's what now we actually have documents that can be reviewed and commented on. Before we was kind of objective or we didn't have the finals now we've got that that design that we can actually sit down and physically discuss and try to figure out how best we accommodate all the different interests. Just one other question and then it's back to the community needs to let the boys be heard. I know we saw a design several weeks ago here at Council. And my understanding is there have been quite a few changes from that original design. Is that? That's not my understanding. I didn't actually see the packet after a similar nine Wednesday, but I think it was largely the same. And we've been sure the conical owners, we said this we're gonna keep at large with the same, so we all know what we're commenting on And then in this point on we can certainly make some changes But I think that and I'm going to defer to Ann but largely what you all saw in that meeting two weeks ago is what was submitted on the By the deadline It depends on your use of original Talking about the preliminary plan, from the whole floor. No, I'm talked. Most recent plan we saw. The recent plan we saw. From two weeks ago to the original. I try to clarify what she means by original. So thank you, John. You understand it. Thank you. I got some hands up in the back there. Paul and then Bobby. My name is Paul Fee, a 19 year resident of Snowmass Village. There's a lot going on here and here are some of these comments I kind of echo what Jeff talked about. There seems to be a fatal complete sense about what's going on here. And given some historical background, which I don't think Chris was even here then, and I'm not sure whether Jason was involved or not, but about 10 years ago, there was a discussion involving this gas station, which was far more critical from the town standpoint. And that was designed around moving the gas station from where current location down to the rodeo grounds. And there was a council meeting in the old chamber, which at that time, and I think it would still hold true, had the largest attendance of any council session in the history of Snowmass Village. There were about 125 or 30 people sitting in the aisle standing Snowmass Village. There were about 125 or 30 people sitting in the aisle standing around the room. And at that meeting, there was a unanimous, full-throated nod to the notion that that gas station needed to stay where it was. And that brought consideration of the rodeo grounds to an end, the gas station stayed where it is. That meeting pointed out the absolute dispensable nature of this station to the community here both in terms of the full-time residents, but more importantly to the tourists. And they cited, you know, when you think about it, there are a couple of entities in this town, perhaps only two others would share that degree of importance one being the post office and the other being the market When a restaurant goes out, it's difficult for the person who has to fold up and move someplace else Same is true with almost any other retail establishment in town The gas station in its form now, where it can provide not a full, absolutely full service line of services, but most of the things that tourists and the residents here need. Now, with that kind of a background, fast forward, which seems to be happening now. Back then, the roundabout that is more or less being discussed now with 90% drawings moving ahead, assumed that the gas station wasn't even going to be there. Now you've got a situation where the conoco is having to live with the situation, and I'll phrase this delicately. They're trying to cram 10 pounds of sand into a 5-pound bag, and the station is being made to suffer for it. I really think that I don't know whether the two chefs are fighting the roundabout. I don't think that they are. I think they're fighting the critical issue to their long-term viability here, and that's access, convenient access in and out of the station. And it seems to me that there are two places. Oh, let me say something about this safety issue. These absolutes that seem to be created about roundabouts, simply don't exist. You can find that roundabout into Aspen, there are four exits and entrances to that thing, and they're all basically cited on about half of the circle. The one in basalt, if you're not familiar with that, and you go to the post office down there, and you want to get back on 92, if you're not in the left lane, you've got about 15 feet to get over to do it. I was down renewing my driver's license today, and I didn't drive down there for this reason. But there are two roundabouts in West Glenwood, which are absolutely the most confusing thing. Exits coming in and out, separations between them about this wide. So, you know, I'm sure there are some, there are some important issues, but a roundabout seems to me to be determined by the space that you're putting it in. And I got a little bit concerned about this because the safety issue is not what it's pointed out to be. I encourage any of you to place a call to Brian Olson, our new police chief, and ask him how many vehicular or pedestrian problems they've had down there. Right now, with nothing, no stop signs, no nothing in the last five years, he'll tell you they're so inconsequential he can't even remember how many there are. So I'm saying, given that kind of a background, this rushed adjudgment about the access and egress. I'm not talking about the roundabout concept. It's a real mistake. I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me, and I just looked at it again. If you had the opportunity when you left after they do all the re-engineering and excavation and everything, when you left the station to go to Upper Kerns Road, if you could make either a left or a right hand turn that would solve one of the problems, but the more significant issue is as you come out of the roundabout, you've got to figure out a way to let someone leaving the village make a careful left hand turn into the filling station. And don't tell me that that's going to create insurmountable traffic problems or safety problems. Signage can help. And I guess what I'm saying is no one can say how much business the conical station is going to lose. But given certainly the age of big Jeff and all that, they're not going to sit around and try and save a failing business. And I don't think it's worth the risk. And I don't know what they would say what percentage of business they're going to lose. That's a judgment issue. But it's certainly clear that they're going to lose some business. And if I were sitting in your shoes, I would want to err on the side of caution, as opposed to rushing out. And I'm hearing this gentleman over here talk about this. And if I remember seeing Mary Ann here, she can correct me. In her previous article, I didn't know this till I read the article. But is the total cost of this project is in the $3.5 million range I understand? No. Isn't that right? No, it's about five. Okay. But is the figure of 800,000 that the town is contributing accurate? Total of $2 million a town. We have two million weeks. We've already done 1.2. Okay. So we have a considerable interest and investment in this. And it seems to me that the town you folks up here don't need to be steamrolled into the conglomerate of related, the C.Snomass water in sand, all these independent agencies who I see were consulted even prior to the conical people. It's a long way around this, but I think this, I share the concern that people did 10 years ago. And I have the feeling now that this is being stampeded for two reasons. You've got a council change coming up and you've got this vesting issue. Paul, let me back a bit. We're almost out of time for you. You've been five minutes. But, you know, it has been something we've discussed for lots of years. It is something that we are looking at with staff and to make sure that we hopefully get everything taken care of as cleanly as possible so that we can continue a business functioning as well as they are today. But it's also something that has been, you know, supposedly started, was going to be started, hasn't been. And it is a dangerous area. It's a large piece of asphalt that a lot of people in the wintertime get more confused at. So at least to my, I'll only speak to myself, then my desire to move forward because we've got things in the ground right now, water and sand's gotten in, a few things that have to be taken care of before too many more winners happen. And yes, maybe we could say to the folks at base village, let's hold off on this, but as we start holding off and backing off, it does more compounds, more issues later on. I'm not saying holding off. I'm saying give them the easements in and out that they want. That's what we're looking at. And override these judgmental concerns about safety and other things. Well, safety and the gas be concerned. But yeah, I appreciate your comment and we will continue to look at that. Bobby. And then his one question, Mr. Mayor. Sure. Clint went and just wondering, in terms of doing the review and figuring out how this will be designed and built, do we have an idea where in that schedule we're going to put the actual negotiation around the land as it's not currently owned by the applicant and the roundabout at least as I understand it. The designs we've seen so far and the desire for the town to have the bus stop, requires a substantive exchange of value. Do we have a sense of when that discussions? The short answer is no. It's about 7,000 square feet. I believe is what they'll be looking to take to use of town property for the project. I think it probably, and our best interest to have a design approved. So we know what that negotiation would look like afterwards. But I think the design needs to come before that kind of discussion. So that's what we're trying to do. Into the previous point I might say all those issues are median lengths and whatever. Those are exactly the types of things we're looking at right now. So I think I'm not promising one way or the other. There's safety, there's a lot of engineering that needs to happen. But those issues brought up previously are exactly the types of things we're investigating right now. I'm not disagreeing with you, but it does seem somewhat a little backwards to me in that to design something not knowing whether the entities that want to build it actually have control of the property, it seems like a big issue to be addressed at some point. Yeah, I think there's some risk probably, I mean, but did it get 7,000 feet and only need five? Or I think we're just kind of making the assumption. Let's get the design that works for the most people and then come back and figure out how best to execute. Very good. My name is Bobby Carson. I live in Snowmass. I guess I just want to be real clear that the council and these people here are on record for saying that once designs have been basically focused in on and this is what you feel you want to move forward with, that there will definitely be some type of open viewing, open hearing, where the public has a chance to continue to make some kind of inputs that a design will not be approved by the council without everybody in the community having a chance to see the plans that are the plans that are being proposed, not sort of being proposed, but are being proposed and have the opportunity to look at them and have the opportunity to have input as a community. I can safely say that that will be a direction. I think we'll get some, you know, if there are three of us at least to say, let's do that and it sounds like we have had those comments that we will have more of comment and looking at in the details. I just want to make sure that that's in the minutes. We need you guys to be able to say, you know, this is a okay thing we can deal with this or, no, this doesn't cut it. And we, you know, we need to look at it again closer. Thank look at it again closer. Thank you. Whoever next, Tom Yolkman? Hi, my name's Tom Yolkman. I'm a member of below 32, an organization with Jack Rafferty myself that have been putting the Iceman Con for the last five years. And I'd like to introduce you to Chuck Bonn back here, who's been funding this little project for some time and I think we owe him a great deal of thanks for his hard work and efforts in doing it and with that I'll give him the floor. Hi I'm Chuck Bond. I live here in Snowmass. As Tom said we've supported the ice rink for the last five years. I think we can outnumber 125 people and up 200 people come here and say they want the ice rink. Town has been my preacher, acquire I know it's changing, but we're still looking for support. Last year there was somebody allocated. I think total dollars spent was less than $10,000 dollars per town. So we're either looking for direction or clarity of what you're going to let us do this year. Some rumor has been the town doesn't want anything done there. Some rumor is it's a three to five year plan. Some rumor is we're going to spend more money on putting a bike path out there that six people use. So my concern is we need direction if we're going to order a Schiller, Schiller and refrigeration system, because it's more guaranteed ice, extends the season for another two months. And approximately over 200 people, Oakley residents used it here last year. And I'll gladly have the Stomass newspaper gather those names or I'll bring them all in here next time but I think it's one of those amenities with the town needs the town uses is also additional revenue they can be brought in with tournaments and outside people using it I know the town or ski co has attempted to put a rink up near the top of the mountain, but the usage there was quite minimal, so I understand. And the quality of ice there was horrific. For us to continue to improve each year, we need to spend more money, which I'm okay with. Tom has offered two different resolutions to everybody. One, continue the same way we have. The town helped with clearance of the snow and with the leveling of the dirt at the rodeo. And you lease us the space, obviously, for a dollar or a free or however it's done. We also need the town to take over the insurance, which you did that last year. So offer one is basically do minimally what you did last year. You had 25,000 I think in the budget. You spent less than 10. Option number two is is I fund the chiller and the refrigeration system. It's sort of a five year payback to me, interest free. And the town gets to enjoy it for the next five years. The bonus on that is as I throw in the boards, the umbony, the nets and everything else that over $100,000 has been spent for the town and the community, as well as a lot of visitors use it. So it's worked out great. I'd like to continue to do it in town and the rest of the group who do all the work, or most of the want to continue to do it, we just need direction. We need to assume because the timing of what it takes to bring the chiller and bring the rest of the apparatus. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. I have to say that one of the things Chuck and Tom we've been looking for was something written and it sounds like you have provided us some written documentation that we can look at and deal with. Part of the problem in the last couple years has been, you know, one person says one thing and that doesn't follow through. So it sounds like you guys have done the first step is to, hey, here's our proposal and have council sit down and look at it and decide which way they want to go. Because I think it is a fantastic asset you personally have provided this town and it's been a benefit, but at the same time, you know, a few years ago it sounded like the deal was, hey, you would support this thing and get it going and then it came back next year. Well, now, you know, rightly so probably you wanted to pay back and so it had changed more of the little bit from what I had heard a few years ago. So I'm really appreciative that you've got this and written down and we can deal with it and move forward. And I think within hopefully in next meeting we can sit down and have you had that on the agenda. We'd like to have it on the agenda. We'll come with some proposals and some staff report and options and let you guys have. Because I think it's great that there are people in this community that are willing to invest their hard earned money to make something better. You know, it is a concern though. Hey, Chuck. Chris, and then thanks for all the work and contributions in the past. Just because we have you here, I just wanted to check, and especially as we start to look towards the entryway planning and consider what we're doing there, There was a discussion before perhaps just one of those loose discussions around time that you might be willing to take on a larger project in terms of building the ice rink. And I'm not putting you on the spot. You don't have, I'm just, I want to clarify because it always comes out in the background. We do these little projects. But can we actually get to that $2, 3, $5 million facility that might be the greatest opportunity, especially in terms of revenue driver? And I just wondered if you wanted to comment on that. You know, us too, me and you had sort of talked about it in the park, I don't know who was eating pizza or not. But, you know, what that discussion was, it was I had offered at the ARC, was about a million $200,000 to increase that facility to have a third sheet, which is needed. It brings, again, more tournaments, brings more people, puts more beds, people filling beds, and food, and we actually did a whole P&L. The city of Aspen, unfortunately, was, well, we need a three to five year study, we need a traffic study, we need this study, we need a three to five year study. We need a traffic study. We need a this study. We need a that study. Unfortunately, people like me, the word patience, doesn't exist. So it's like, can we do this or not? So yes, I'd gladly offer the same thing to this town. But it's more like, let's just do it. I mean, it doesn't take a year to do a traffic study, a year to do some other study. And I understand that's all important, but I'll be a little arrogant to say, here's the gift to us. Right, let's just do it or not. Well, that's what I wanted to take the opportunity. As I recall, and we can flesh out more, there was an idea, maybe similar to your current funding option where ultimate amount would be 2.4, 1.2 was returned at a four year period. I don't know if we discussed interest. And I thought that was a huge and generous contribution potentially to the town to get us there. And so I'm glad we're discussing it. And because I think that there may be similar people like yourself who maybe can't contribute as generously, but would get on board with that if we were doing a substantial project that as you said, as revenue brings people here, we all know as hockey parents that, I mean, our kids probably will never skate there, but we know after all the money we're spending in the other towns, that it's a real economic driver to a large degree. Yeah, and we've seen it. I mean, even the other night when the arc was filled with the wings, they had a full capacity house. Hockey is still something that's bigger. Colorado's proving that it's bigger. The negative here in the mountains is that mother nature tends to put out a little bit too much sun. So the chiller or a roof or a cover or something is in fact needed to, to, to make it work. But the shorter the time span, the better. And I know we'll need matching brick if there's a building and I know we need matching windows that birds won't fly into and all that other real important stuff. But for me, it's how do you just proceed on? And most importantly, it's how do you improve it each year? So we're looking this year to hopefully put heaters down there. Last year we had rental units that the town operated. We just want to move forward, keep our kids the hell out of the house, and just keep everybody busy and active. And it's worked out great because of the light system there. It's been conversation and moving it to other areas, or in ski co, or in the golf course. But then to provide lighting after four o'clock a night becomes the big issue. So I just believe it's been a welcome thing to the community. Didn't know why I wasn't here before, but there's a lot of usage every night and even the, you know, more locals and there's a lot of people that have never skated that all all of a sudden put on a pair of skates and say, let me give it a try. We haven't charged anything. It's been free, Tommy and Jack have done. The yeoman's work in regards to getting it all done. And, you know, Jason's been seeing there a little bit. Others have been seeing it a little bit. And it's worked out great. So we're just looking for feedback to say, how do we proceed on this year? Is it coming upon us? And just how do we get going? Thank you, Dan. Mark? Just a quick clarification, Chuck. And I echo Chris's appreciation for everything that you've done. But in terms of the chiller, I know it's only a agenda for two weeks from now, which I thank you very much for getting it on the agenda. And thank you for the proposal that was submitted to Clint on Friday. What's the drop dead date to get the chiller? We haven't bought from this company. Even though they may say it's a six week ship, could turn in an eight or a 10 week ship. The difficulty is, again, as Mother Nature can decide when that ground is frozen, and when we can implement that system. We can already get ahead of it a little bit by having the electrical hook up prior, but whatever has to go on the ground, in the ground leveling and all that, all obviously has to be done well before everything freezes. So it's about a six week lead time. We're trying to obviously get going for Thanksgiving then. Moving on, but having a chiller system allows you to even start before Thanksgiving, it allows you to go all the way through March and even in April, no matter what the weather's like. So it's one of the things that have research to reach on the microphone. Microphone, please. One of the things I had to research recently is the fact that three phase electricity is available down there, which is a big hurdle that we had to get over. So that availability is there so we could fast track it. And the other thing about it, we're using roll using roll up mats and if we do it by the chiller that will work with a full size of the rank then later when we're going to use smaller mats for the 180 or the 130 by 80 the rank that we have now and then we will be able to increase that with with no further cost. So just rolls up and so if we were to use it and a potential multi-purpose facility, it would still, okay, thank you. That was my next question. But we'll have more questions in a couple weeks when we, I, does have a larger deal. So after we can go, because the eight weeks is, if you back it up, six, eight weeks to, right. We're getting into serious weather issues. Jason? I just want to ask staff for when we do come back with that discussion since we are finalizing our budget discussions and this proposal would have some implications around that. If we could map what a scenario like paying back this investment would look like and how we might budget for that at this time. And then also look at some projections around the utility hookup equipment and the annual utilities obligation that might go with that. That's the way I prepared to make a decision. Thanks. Is there anyone else? Richard? And then there was another hand up the back of the matter. Okay, well. I'm Richard Goodwin. I live on Fairway Drive and also on my own, of a property and capital peak. So I'm going to begin with the capital peak comments that we, we owners of capital peak Peak field where treated like stepchildren by this community. We were misled into buying units there because of this metro district which you all know about which really wasn't crystallized until 2008 and never informed until we went the closings. I think it's important that a condition of any approvals you might give would be that the metro district be paid off by related. In Richard, this is on the agenda as an issue. Well, we can't hear you. No know you can't go any further with the you don't want we've already got this on the agenda and this is for things I want to apologize you for something I have written letters to you about this over the last three or four months and you don't answer letters do you no I don't no you don't you're manager told me you don't answer letters. Richard, if I answered 800 letters, I would be sitting in the hall of the house. I know let's talk about this vested interest extension that you people are thinking about. Richard, you have to cut off now because we are discussing that. Is that on your agenda? Yes, George. All right, then here's, I want to make a comment. Big party agenda, Richard. The in interest is no more best in interest discussion period. Until that agenda item is before us. I'm sorry, I have a hearing problem. The point is we have this discussion as item number nine. Well, item number 9. And you need to stay and wait till that point to have that part of that discussion. So you're telling it non-agenda. Okay, so you're telling it this is not the time that discusses. Yes. Or a real later. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I hope I didn't offend you. No, no, no. You can deal with those ones. Who else might want to come up? Madeline and Pike. Good afternoon. When it's going to invite everybody, remind everybody that next Thursday, October 16, 530, we're going to have a forum for the candidates. Aspen journalism is sponsoring. We have several other media partners who are going to help out. Snowmass Sun, Aspen Daily News, and Aspen Public Radio is going to do a one hour program the following night. But we still want everybody to come because we're going to have great food and a lot of fun. 530, it'll be here in town council chambers. It's going to follow the EOTC meeting. No, it's not going to work. No, you're right. It doesn't mind I don't know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. I just want to know. name is Pike Peterson, I'm the resident of Sumas Village. And I really echo what Paul Fee said. I was at that meeting 10 years ago, and I feel very strongly about the issues in which he brought up. The only thing I would like to add is that the challenges and the opportunities that this council faces in the next council faces, all of us in this community are looking forward to making progress on many of those projects. And I recognize that you can't do all these projects in the same time. And I would submit from a value standpoint, we did get on with some of the building projects because that's going to protect jobs and give the abilities to build more jobs and increase the value of our village. Thank you. Thank you. Any other non agenda? Item. Moving on then. We're moving on to council updates. Mr. Cooker. Nothing. Mr. Cooker. Nothing. Mr. Jacobson. I just wanted to know, I don't know if anyone in the public was counting on it. I know that in the last meeting we twice said that we'd start a public hearing for the application review at four o'clock. And hopefully the other items will go quickly. And so I hope that the people in the community and the public that want to communicate about that will stay here so we can have a good discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Last week it was brought to my attention and I observed that we had a couple of folks standing out by the corner of wood road and brush creek looking for gas and I had people asking is that appropriate and that kind of stuff. Are there any ordinances that would prevent someone from panhandling on our streets? At the point I said no I didn't think so but I would bring it up as a council question and see if there was things that could happen to prevent that or to understand what we're dealing with. So at some point, if we could have a little discussion of council so chooses, if they're appointed myself, it would like that conversation. Markies? I want to expound on that at that point, not only for snowmass village, but we know down on 82 in Burst Creek. I know that's Picking County, not on Highway 82. It's getting to the point where we see two panhandlers out of that intersection. It's really, I get calls all the time since I I drive make that turn every day to head towards basalt so I hopefully might be able to work with our colleagues in Picking County in Highway 82. Is there another person would like to have that conversation? Fred? Okay. Fred Somebody After meeting this week on Thursday and neither I will no mark you'll be there There's another council member would like to go. It'll be in carbon-dale starting at 30 till about 11, 30, 12. Marky, anything for you? Oh, no, I think I've made my points on other agenda items. OK. Jason? Nothing. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's move on. We have item five, an election update. Mayor Boyno, I received a phone call from Janice. And she said she's sorry that she's not able to be here today. She'll give you an update on October 20th. OK. Questions, Ronda, I've had today, and actually this week, you might be able to help us with. The ballots, this is a mail-in ballot program. And it sounds like you can also come and vote here on the election day. Yes. So you'll have an opportunity to do both? Yes, bring your ballot. Bring your ballot with you, because you'll get these in the mail starting the 13th of October. Well, the 13th is actually holiday, so they'll go in the mail on the 14th. OK, good. They'll be at the post office of 13th and mailed on the 14th. Very good. So we'll see what happens up there. Jason, sorry, something did come to mind. I had a conversation with Residus Nomass Village resident who had some concern and wanted me to raise the issue of the park area behind the rodeo grounds has been co-opted to some degree by the town for storage of park's vehicles and equipment. It looks like kind of encroaching into that park area. And I think there was some concern that that was kind of overtaking that park and not really providing a nice usable space down there for the community if we could look into that and maybe relocate some of that equipment to a more appropriate site on town facilities as opposed to putting that out in the park, I think that would be it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Marky. And sorry, I mean is there consensus on the council? Is that a reasonable request? And I think we're a bad staff looking at that. Yeah. Rhonda, there's a lot of confusion in the a reasonable request and I would care about staff will come to here. Rhonda there's a lot of confusion in the community about last day to register to vote in the citizen requirements for residency here in snowmass village. We have a lot of calls this weekend on that issue since it looks a little confusing on the Pick and County website. I think today's the last day to be able to register to vote October 6th. And there's also a confusion about absentee ballots. There's no such thing as an absentee ballot. You go on to pickengov.org and you put in your, I think you have to put your last four digits, your security number along with your name. PIC and votes.org I think is where I went your last four digits security number along with your name. Pick and vote, Stoddorg, I think. Where I want to. There's not what I said. Pick and vote, Stoddorg. That's where I want to date. Yeah. And you pull it up and you change your address. So there's no absentee ballot. You just change your address to where you're going to be when the ballots are sent out on October 14th. Okay. Okay, and then you can change it back if you're for next year or the next year. So no absentee ballots. Early voting will be at Pickin County. The Friday, I think the Wednesday before the election, I don't have my election calendar. I'm sorry. It's on Pickinvotes.com, but our dot org. But I think it's the Wednesday before the election. You can start voting in Picken County. But not here in Snowmass. No, you can only vote in Snowmass on election day. Oh, actually good. And my understanding is that you can go online and do voter registration. Anybody can, is that correct? Well, yes. Today. Till today, you can only vote. I'll vote today, but the night. OK. Yes. Yes. So how does that know that you actually have residency here? We used to have to take a utility payment and all that stuff over to register. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. I'll question for the county clerk. Okay. Okay. I'll call tomorrow. Okay. That case. Thank you, Ronda. But then it would be too late to register to vote tomorrow. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So then we'll move on. If that's okay. Any other council comments? Blessing update questions. Not seeing any. Moving on to item number six, public hearing, 2015 road mill heavy fund and Martins. Good evening. You have in front of you a memo to talks about what we are participating as our overlay project for 2015. This is part of the process that's identified in the code that we do a public hearing prior to adoption of the budget. And as you see on your attachment, we have several areas, and I included a map this year because they're kind of scattered throughout the community. It's kind of a catch up year for us to do some of the smaller projects. But just to go through those, we're looking at overlaying, Berlin game lane, wood road. That's from Stanton lane to Bridge lane, Vildrun circle, Dear Ridge lane, Bridal Path lane, Creek lane, and then two creeks drive from all Creek road to Blue Spruce lane. And so the process is, is that we go through, and then two creeks drive from all creek road to Blue Spruce Lane. And so the process is that we go through, we look at the conditions after snowmails, and we verify that these roads are still our recommended roads to do a mill and overlay depending if they need milling or not, if that's where there's concrete we do the milling. And then we establish a bid package, and we send that out to bid for contractors, and then we start construction typically try to do that The end of May June depending on the asphalt plans and trying to get the work done prior to Too busy in the summer season. So basically And the other item to talk about is the financial implications. This is the improvements that are funded through the road Mill levy and the anticipated budget is 250,000, and that is included in the budget discussion that we talk about tonight. I have a question for you. Sure. On dear Ridge Lane, we just went through a lot of stuff up there. Yeah. On your Ridge, it looks like it's totally redone. Yep. So if you look at that map, you'll see that I identified the sections after they did the waterline improvements. And so that's the other thing that we worked on was making sure that we talked to the other utility companies, make sure they have no improvement projects in those areas and that we're not tearing up road. And then they're tearing up the next year later, so we try to coordinate those efforts. So it's the balance of dear ridges from the whole new section? Correct, it's from where that terminates up to the call to staff. Okay. from where that terminates up to the call to staff. Any other questions? You need to open the public hearing. Thank you, Ronda. I'd like to then open the public hearing for the road mill levy discussion. This is for the received public comment to review the road mill levy projects for the year 2015. If there's anyone in the public would like to make comment about that please raise your hands step forward to the mic Seeing none I'll go ahead and close the public hearing And That's Thank you, Bert. Yeah, just basically the public hearing there's no action required by council So just one keep everybody up to date what's going on. Thank you very much. Thank you, Bert. Yeah, just basically the public hearing. There's no action required by council. So just one, keep everybody up to date. What's going on? Thank you very much. Thank you. Moving on to item number seven, public hearing resolution 30, series 2014, approving the 2015 budget. We spent, I'll just say council, we had spent a half day during the work session to go over this and look at this in much more detail than we did at the last meeting. Last meeting we went over this and looked at the budgets and today is the second set of discussions. Mary Ann. I just wanted to let Council know that the changes that we discussed at the September budget meeting are incorporated into the 2014 revised budget. The major changes were moving the railway 3 trail to the 2015 budget because we could not get it completed in 2014. The other major change is the Meta Road bus stop. Is some of the work was completed like design work this year, but the majority of the work will happen in 2015. OK. Questions from Council? Sir Marion, would you recap for us with all the folks in the audience. What are annual expenditures for the town are in all the funds you have it so that we have an understanding. For all of the funds, the total expenditures are 26 million dollars and that does not include the transfers. 14.6 approximately are the general fund that's the major fund of the town of Snowmass, the real estate transfer tax is 1.4 that does not include transfers that are already included in the 14 million for the general fund the road mill lovey fund is 1.2 million the marketing is 4.2 Group sales is 1.7 and then there's probably about two and a half million for the housing funds You're good Okay So is there, this is public hearing, I like to open the public hearing for the 2015 budget, public hearing resolution number 30. Is there anyone in the public would like to make a comment about the 2015 budget? Seeing none at this time, I will close the public hearing and is there a motion to approve resolution 30? So moved. Mr. Cooker. Second. Second by Mr. Haver. I have a question. Mark, you have a question. I think there's one issue, there's two issues that I'd like to make sure that we have considered. Several months ago we happened to have received a salary survey for all positions within the town. We saw within that salary survey, there were some positions of count employees that clearly need to be brought up to where market is. So second, the question relative to that is has that been incorporated? That was incorporated? He read that that while he was here. Okay. Now the other part of that I never received information back on and I asked the consultant We have women in certain jobs. We have men in similar classifications of jobs I asked is the compensation equitable Between genders for same or like positions. Have we really researched that yet? I was not aware that that was a question that was about the problem with him on that. I'd really like to make sure that we're equitable throughout our entire town when it comes to compensation and benefits. In the last question, Maryanne, I know we had this conversation back when we did the salary survey, not the salary survey, but reviewed the budget in September. Could you identify the funds that you are concerned about as well as the FAB in terms of fund balances that are challenging it best for everyone? the fund balances that are challenging it best for everyone. That would be the RET fund and the road fund. And the RET fund, the expenditures continued to exceed the revenues for 2015, the budget that you have before you and includes the transfer from the housing fund to the general fund, which offsets the subsidy for parts trails and recreation. For the road fund, we are at the 16% of operating revenues is actually being funded out of the general fund right now. And it was my understanding and police correct me and other people who've asked a few questions about these funds. Are we going to be seeing some recommendations coming from the FAB regarding these funds? You did receive those as part of the Financial Advisory Board recommendations. They were part of the September budget packet. And at that time, they had some long-term recommendations as far as continuing with that $500,000 subsidy for those bonds that were paid off. But Clint wanted to have the opportunity being new to take a look at all of the funds and do an evaluation on his own and come back with a staff recommendation. That's wonderful. Thank you. That's what I had hoped in terms of clarification. Thank you. Welcome. I'm ready for the question. OK. Any others? If that case, there's a motion second for resolution number 30. All is in favor of resolution number 30. For the 2015 budget, please signify saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimously. Thank you, Marianne. Okay. Moving on. First reading of ordinance number two, moving on. First reading of ordinance number two, series 2014, amending the 2014 budget. It's an ordinance amending the 24th, the new budget for all funds for the town of SMS Village. Is there a motion to approve? No. That's Fred, second by, as motion by Mr. Cooker second by Markey Mary Ann. No additional comments. Okay. Then any comments from the council? All those in favor of the ordinance? Please signify saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously also. Thank you very much. Let's take five minute break before we move on to the next item, which is item number nine. Public hearing, second reading, but ordinance number three. The rest of it comes back and... This is for you. Any of those of you in the public that haven't signed? you you you I'm going to start with the Second reading of ordinance number three, series 2014. In ordinance regarding a minor PUD amendment to the base village. Involving requested bested rights, extension and completion of certain public improvements and time frame for completion of certain private improvements. Julianne. Good evening. The applicant is no mass acquisition company on this application and the first order of business would be for City Council to consider whether or not to accept the final revised version of the agreements in connection with this application that were submitted by no mass acquisition company on September 22, 2014. Would you like to open the public meeting there? by SNOMS acquisition company on September 22, 2014. Would you like to open the public meeting, Mayor? Sure. Let's go ahead and we will, at this time, open the public hearing and state we will come back to the public here in a minute. And as Julianne states, we should consider the first request of accepting the application. The amendment to the application. And it stated that we have a couple options. I would make the motion that we should accept the application at this time without further process sending it back to planning commission at this table. Second. Second, Mr. Cooker. Further conversation for discussion? Chris. I just going to explain the public and the applicant that why I'm probably in support of this amendment at this time and as I will explain later in the meeting I am going to vote against it at this time. Okay. Anyone else? In that case, all those in favor of accepting this as written please signify the saying aye aye Any opposed aye opposed two three to pose the application being amended Next you said that in the opposite way of what you meant, but Okay, so Three supported moving forward with the amendment as as produced written and Reviewed to or against I just trying to be helpful I just was trying to be helpful. Did you lean? All right, Mr. Mayor and City Council, staff and the applicant have spent numerous hours going through these agreements in detail reviewing the particular drafts that were submitted on 922. And we took the applicant's draft that was submitted and subsequently staff made additional changes that were put forth in your packet as essentially what we think is in the best interest of the town. Those were attached as items 2A and 3A, which is the development agreement and the subdivision improvements agreement. The applicant did at town council's recommendation move the items from the funding agreement into the development agreement and the subdivision improvement agreement. So what remains is the attachment three is unchanged and that is because we find it acceptable in terms of the language that's in that funding agreement. So we understand as staff that there may be some items that council does not agree with and may want to suggest changes to the agreements is drafted and we also understand that the applicant is in intends to put forward some counters if you will to what the staff has proposed. We just thought it would be best to move it forward with what we thought was in the best interest of the town and to see what changes if any should be made at this meeting. So we also have put forward in the ordinance the suggestion that two items be further new conditions. One was that we get the tool from the developer that sets forth the timeline flow chart matrix that will help us keep on task with the PUD based on the whole series of milestones. And secondarily that the applicant provide for a letter of green to the ongoing maintenance at the garage entry until that snow melt system can be put into place. I would also note that we received a letter today from Torrey Tret, Tret, and that should have been distributed to you tonight regarding their concerns related to the vesting extension. So that would conclude staff's presentation at this time. Thank you. So it sounds like we do have a couple of things and probably more that Council may come forward on. Dwayne, on the couple items that Julianne has spoke to, tools for timeline and letter of agreement to maintain the area in question. How do you respond to those concerns? We agree with both. That is to provide the separate letter for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the entry that was previously discussed with staff and the work sessions. We agree. Also to provide a kind of a tracking mechanism for lack of a better term on milestones, road map, and kind of a logic diagram as has been recommended by staff. We agree with that as well. I think it's going to be a helpful additional tool for everyone to kind of keep track. So yes and yes. Marky. Just a clarification question, Dwayne. I like that notion of a tracking tool because needless to say this is all kinds of dates and milestones and what have you. Do you have a sense of when that will be submitted or what date can we all expect that? We could probably turn that here within the next week or two, if we wanted to make that component of the second milestone, which is the October 15th, we can make that a component of. We'll probably work candidly, we'll probably work with staff in an iterative process to get out kind of a consensus around the draft and get it formalized and then get it back to you. I'd be appreciated by the 15. Greg? Again, just a housekeeping matter. You've got two different cure periods in the agreements and what is 15 and what is 60 and I would suggest that they make a uniform at 15. Good. Yes, indeed. As response, the 15-day is a shortened window for Cure that came out of our conversations here through the minor. And the 60-day is literally the original approved window that is born within the Subhibition Improvements Agreement. And we agree on the record that will have them both be 15 days so there's no ambiguity. Thank you. And to staff's credit they too had identified that early on through the course of our our work effort. Okay. Juliann, other issues we want to report? Mr. Mayor, I think it will be appropriate for the applicant to proceed with their presentation and point out the issues that they still have some concerns regarding the agreements. Okay. Move forward with the applicant. Wayne? Great. So my apologies for for Du Dwayne Romero, snowman's acquisition company related Colorado, together with me, Jill Kraybacher, our Lannys Council, and Craig Monzeo, also with SAC and related Colorado. What you have in front of you, there's a, we've given a hard copy to all of you. It represents these three or four slides that will walk through. I believe there's a few extra copies for the public. This is a similar and should be recognizable construct. So we organized this matrix review. It's the first focus on the development agreement and to identify those items that have been further, if you will, red line or responded to by staff. A summary description of the staff's physician there in the center and in the far right column is our revised proposal and or response. This page here you'll notice we're in alignment, frankly, with all but two of the items that we think that we have to have some discussion. We do have some suggested language, so it might be beneficial for me just to kind of walk through this and then we'll circle back to the Disagrees. You see the definition of denial, we're in agreement. The event of force, the force, the war, the town made a minor amendment, we agree to that as well. The definition of mobilization, we agree with the construct that has been proposed. We just tried to attempt some additional word Smith and a little bit of cleanup. So what was originally proposed had some circular reference to the mobilization definition. And it also had kind of an ambiguous terminology of quote unquote, which everyone can readily recognize. We know that in the agreements, we all look to the building, the chief building official is going to the agent responsible for making those judgments. And so we just tried to kind of clean up the language in this particular provision. You see it there together with the visible commencement of actual operations on the ground. The previous language had the words erection of the building. But there's mobilization above and beyond just items for the buildings. There's some horizontal improvements that are included for this mobilization definition. So actual operations on the ground we think is kind of cleaner. And then we also think it's cleaner to include the words which is readily recognizable by the town's chief building official. We hope that that's not offensive to anyone here for, again, for clarity. I'm going to bounce down to the next agreed and suggest. As a termination of vested property rights that's borne in the agreement, it's section 1.3.4 of the development agreement draft. staff is proposing to terminate or if you will delete the quote and our subject determination replaced with but will automatically terminate. We agree with their construct and we're just simply saying that the might be cleaner that the word default should be a quote material default since that is already a defined term back in section 2.1 of that same agreement. So it's just a little bit of efforts for cleanup. Carrying on. I mean, let's, I tell you what, why don't we deal with these and see if, you know, staff agrees and we can, you know, sure, instead of bouncing them now, let's go back to the whole page and. Yep. So let's go back up to the mobilization probably is where you're pulling. Mobilization to conversation. Mayor, can you move your microphone? Thank you, Ronda. So the idea is that we want to make sure that we are in agreement as we move through this instead of waiting to the whole page is over. You know, yeah, like we'd done before. Okay. So, staff, the applicant has agreed in suggesting other language. Is that doable, workable, acceptable for the staff's needs on the first mobilization, definition of mobilization? Mr. Dessert. Staff didn't feel like the original definition of mobilization was truly indicative of we're mobilizing to build this building. It was limited to transportation of the contractors personnel. Someone nebulous who knows equipment and operating supplies to the site. We saw for years when there was equipment and operating supplies stored on the sites. The staffs went at temporary facilities for the contractor's operations. We thought this to mean a trailer, headquarters kind of thing on the site and erection of any fencing for the site. That was the extent of what they called mobilization. Now back in the definition of commencement of the construction, the third prong of that was mobilization of the general contractor pursuant to the construction contract as determined by the town's chief building official. Staff didn't feel like there was a standard by which the chief building official could evaluate whether it was truly mobilization. So we took a piece of the language out of the mechanics lean statute that we thought would make council feel most comfortable. And it says, it's those three things that they had already talked about transportation of the personnel, equipment, and facilities and the fence. Well, we didn't think that was truly an indication that the building was going to go up. I mean, it's like, okay, we're going to get ready, but it could sit there for a period of time. A period of time. So we took this language out of the mechanics lane and it may be a little out of context as how it applies in that statute. But we thought the language would give the chief building official a standard that he could look at. And it says together with the visible commencement of actual operations on the ground for the erection of the building, which everyone can readily recognize as commencement of a building, and which is done with the intention to continue the work until the building is completed. And we thought that was a much better definition for standard for the chief building official determine whether there was really mobilization, which is the third point of commencement of construction, which is a milestone which is referred to in the agreement elsewhere. Okay, Marky. I just have a question for you, John. The term everyone, who's everyone? Well, I think if you see a building get it going up, you're pretty clear that it's going up. That's the erection of a building. If you just see activity on the site, doesn't necessarily mean that there's commencement of construction, which is where the mobilization is one of the prongs in commencement of construction. Okay, here's the challenge. Okay, let's say you were talking about the fencing, just as an example. The fencing goes up and me, Markey Public, wants to, can't really see the construction site. So therefore, it may not be visible until you see the two or three floors go off. So what, to me, that's still confusing. Is it, we can have people. You don't get to judge and say, hey, the building's going up or not. That is decided by the chief building official. He has the ability to get on the site, and he's the one that determines commencement of construction. The definition of mobilization is just one part of that. And staff thought at Apropos to give him a standard to apply to determine mobilization. That would be a good. Well, would you solve the problem if you simply say instead of putting everyone in our definition, say in which the town manager can readily recognize. So you've set up the objective standards for an individual to make whether there's actual construction and no offense to Clint, but I think he would probably defer to the chief building official as well. That's what he said. The town's chief building official, which is the language they're proposing. I'm sorry, I beg your pardon. I didn't mean that. I beg your pardon. But to the applicant's point, I don't think they're asking for that change. I think that are comfortable with what we got to. I think there's adding something extra. And I think staff's position is what we've got, we think protects the town the most, gives us the most latitude to make that decision. What they're asking for, and I'm gonna put words in the mouth for just a second, is maybe some flexibility on there and for some determination. What we think we put in there is to our defense, our position is the greatest and that's why we got it. I agree and I agree with you. I agree with the language you've got and the only thing rather than leaving it sort of vague is to anyone have it objective that the building town, the town's chief building official can recognize as commencement of a building. That is in the definition of commencement of construction. It's a definition that's back a page on the agreement and it says mobilization of the general contractor pursuant to construction as determined by the town's chief building official. Okay. So we're all agreed with that point that we're fine moving forward. We're just not clear. We think the word everyone is a little ambiguous and understand the back story as where it came from the mechanics. We also think the erection of building that standard, the erection of a building, actually doesn't apply for your public improvements. Right. Which also have to adhere to this commencement of construction standard, you know, public improvements, there's no vertical building, but you could add, you know, for the erection of the building and or the commencement of horizontal construction activities. So we were just trying to agree with the construct and the concept. The words felt a little awkward and we were just trying to clean it up. So everyone is readily ambiguous. Jay, could you just clarify the agreed and suggested language? Where are you suggesting to insert that and what are you suggesting to replace with that? The whole added section would be replaced with the proposed together and within with the words building official. Sorry, but where it just goes tax on to the end? Yes, it would, it's, it's, it's, it's, track this, this piece is extracted out of, as, uh, described here, out of the document itself, but, so, it's just lived in replace. Okay. Chris, you have more? It, it seems to me apparent that with all of the discussion that we've had about the perhaps a potential for misinterpretation around the commencement of construction because of the integrated nature of the substructure of the buildings, that this comment about erection, whether it's everyone or not, and the recognition that a building is being built seems part and parcel to the discussion and the concerns of the community, and it sounds like, and the concerns or aims of an objective that you have mentioned. So perhaps you want to elude today, but I can't understand why we wouldn't have that additional clarification that could be ultimately interpreted by the chief building official. That of buildings actually going up in the air as opposed to we're just doing HVAC work down the basement. Not trying to remove the chief building officials' judgment in review and his expertise. Nor am I trying to lower the standard. We're just actually trying to clean up some of the language, which I think has already been pointed out here, is on its face is somewhat confusing. And the erection of the bill being, quote unquote, does not apply to public improvements. Those are horizontal improvements. Example, your wood road overlay construction and all that work associated with it. Well, I understand and I'll follow and agree and express my opinion that if we were to adjust this, I would go with your proposal that there be some sort of a conditioning for the public improvements as opposed to the building erection. So staff are we comfortable with their agreed and suggested language? No. No. No. It's very different than what we've suggested. It doesn't talk about the erection of a building. Now you could also talk about the construction of an improvement, but there's a key, which is done with the intention to continue the work, is missing from what they're talking about. How would we know? All their suggestion says is actual operations on the ground. And to John's point, we'll accept, keeping those words, with the intention to continue the work. And I think it's appropriate for both of us to include some sort of additional language for the commencement of the improvements, in addition to the erection of the building, so that we're covering both private improvements, vertical nature, as well as public improvements horizontal nature, right? And if you would be willing to consider which everyone can readily recognize I don't know if that's necessary here Which is recognized which which is readily recognizable? It still goes back it doesn't what everyone can readily recognize because It still goes back, it doesn't what everyone can readily recognize because it still goes back to the discretion of the chief building, in actual regardless, under the definition of commencement of construction. But if you take the language on the left, and you go commencement of operations on the ground, actual operations on the ground for the election of the building, or the construction of a public improvement Which can readily be wrecked which which is readily recognizable as commencement of a building or a public improvement and which is done with the intention to continue the work until the building or Improvement is completed I think they're saying they're I think they're a big sense. You can good. Can I just ask just a question in terms of the mechanism or the understanding of intention to continue with work until the building is completed. How would that I mean in the course of reality how would that determine? Here's how it works if you go with the old definition, and there's a trailer there, there's a guy coming to the site each day, and there's a fence around it, that meets mobilization to them. If that's all that's happening, you have to question whether there's an intention to build a four or five story building, okay? And that's where the chief building official gets to make that call. Now this is not going to have me understand this is not going to happen. It's not a snapshot of one day. You can't tell the first day. But over time, then there's the ability to say this is an event of non-performance because you have not commenced. It's not going to happen over is an event at non-performance because you have not commenced. It's not going to happen over a day or a week. You're not going to know that. But you could come and drop a trailer, put a person in that trailer, and fence it off, and say, oh, we've begun, and nothing happens for a month or two, then the intention clearly isn't there. Without it, you don't have that protection. Aren't these definitions tied to specific performance on specific dates, and therefore we need to be able to say yes or no, this has occurred by that certain day? But the ability to declare a default isn't tied to a certain day. Okay. But if we are going to declare a default, it's going to be based on the fact of whether or not Okay. But if we are going to declare a default, it's going to be based on the fact of whether or not this action has taken place by a certain date. Yes. It seems to me the language. Then go back to the other language. I have no vested interest. I'm giving you advice. I'm just questioning the general structure of tying these dates to these types of actions when there is ambiguity in the definition and in our ability to perfect any of those triggers. How would you call ambiguity? I'd call discretion. I mean, it's the same type of thing. And yeah, there's some of this stuff that we can't get absolutely black and white. And you're going to see this time and time again, where they can't always agree and we can't always agree. I mean, it was a negotiation back and forth. And so I would not argue one lick. There's a lot of discretion in this and that's why this terminology was put in here trying to have that discretion fall on the town side. I mean, I think the applicant's, their position is, as a fair position, they should get credit for the public improvements. And if that's council direction to allow for public improvements to show mobilization and I'm kind of summarizing the point. I don't know that any of us would disagree that's shown that public improvements are part of mobilization. But I think this language that Mr. Drescher put in here is to our benefit. We did it on purpose. So you guys can agree with what the language was that John's book to. As just amended, yes, sir. We've got that set then. Good. Okay? Yes, so moving on. Let's, before we move on, can you agree for in the other agreement as well? Yes, we can skip it then. That's right. Okay. For the SIA, this will come again. Thank you. Amen. Next item. First Next item. First, section 1.1A, vested property rights. Staff has proposed to delete this section that starts with the word unless and ends with the words the vested property rights. This body of language comes from the original development agreement. We had never proposed to modify or amend it. It was simply moved from one section to another section as part of the amendment amended and restated exercise. We've gone through our position here is that this should not be deleted, that indeed this language should stay and should be a component as the final element of section 1.1A. If you read it, the essence of this is that from time to time, this modification and amendments occur to the original ordinance, Defined Term Capital O. That's the original ordinance of approval for the entire thing called base fillage. It essentially says that from time to time as amendments and modifications are made, they become part of the record and they become part of the kind of the vesting property rights body. Which again, it's original construct. It's born there and we don't agree with it being deleted now. So. It's born there and we don't agree with it being deleted now. Okay. Why did John, why did we, what was our concern here? I understand that the original vesting rights were granted in two phases. And typically, there was, I don't know how to say this other than there was, the original ordinance was incomplete. It was understand that there would be and amendments. And staff felt that as we go forward, perhaps council would want to weigh in on vested rights on each and every proposal. That's why we took it out. Markey. Good. John, in terms of what I could a paraphrase, what I thought I heard you say, and please help me here. Back in the original agreement, 1.3, what we're suggesting is perhaps in today's world, we need to improve upon the language. And as we move forward that vested right here under automatically upon approval can be modified in the future? That's not what we were trying to get. We were trying to get the ability for council to say if example, building 10 came in and it was a project that you wanted to approve, but you didn't want to vest it until 2024 that you would have the ability to put a different vesting period on that individual component. Okay, so now you're clarifying what I call the notion of flexibility with potential future buildings above and beyond what we're talking about in terms of four comes in. It looks like a good application. We can modify investing into the future associated with that particular parcel. That provides a great deal of flexibility to me. Fred? We know that there's going to be an amendment coming in October 15th. No, we don't. No. Well, there's a requirement. Oh, there is. There's a milestone. There's proposed milestone. Okay, there's a proposed milestone. John, could you clarify why you're making that distinction, proposed milestone? Because we have it a proofy ordinance, yes. Because this application is pending. Okay. So, we have a proposed milestone that there's going to be a PUD coming in on October 15th. Are you suggesting that we would have the right to change the vesting rights with respect to that amendment? if this article holds, what I'm suggesting is that you can have the discussion. All right. You can always turn down the application. I've got a real problem with that. I'll tell you why. Because it doesn't give either this developer or any other developer any assurance that they're going to have vested rights. If we can say to them on October, we pass this resolution and we put the, and we don't have this language in the agreement. We can say to them on October 16th, you know, we're really not happy. And or on May 20th, we're not happy. And not over and we're not going to grant you investing rights. I can't see how they or any other developer who might be involved in baseball is can live with that. Then put the language back in. Joe. Oh yeah, Joe Kraybacher for the applicant. So this particular language, you've been discussing was in the original ordinance, actually in the original development agreement. And the concept is, if the town approves something, then it's part of our investing. We want to be in a situation where, we've approved, we've approved building five, for example, going forward. It should become part of our investing going forward. Now the language does give the town, in the second column, says unless expressly provided to the conferee therein, everything gets at it. So the town still has the flexibility when we get to that point when you're looking at it. And you could say, well, we don't think you should get vesting extension on this one. We can have that discussion. It gives you the right because it says in the first clause, unless expressly provided to the contrary therein. So you have the control in terms of granting the approval whether you condition it or not we can have that discussion at that point but you know going forward we'd like to have this in the in the in the development agreement a because it's in the original and b because we need to have some reliance that when we get an approval that it becomes part of the vesting on the project. But that approval say you come in in with the amendment, say you do come in with the amendment on October 15th, and we review and grant an approval eventually on that proposed amendment. We, by virtue of that first line, unless expressly provided to the contrary, have the ability to approve that amendment without being protected under the extended resting rights that we're being asked to consider today. I think that's correct based on the language that's there. And then we have also the opportunity to decide, well, we don't like that, so we're not going to proceed forward either. So it's really a two-way street. And I think the town's completely protected leaving this language in, but it's just helpful for our partners to know that unless you guys do something different, when we get an approval, it's going to be part of our investing and we can rely on it going forward. That seems fair. I'd put the language back in. That's a suggestion by afraid to put the language back in. That's a suggestion by a friend to put the language back in. I think I'll concur. Marky. Just clarification. I thought that what we're talking about is future. What we don't know after 2019 where this might apply. Well I would submit that this applies to anything. Okay well I'm not. Any modifications of approvals and so on that the town approves you know obviously we have to have an approval. Yes if you ever go. Before it gets added to the stack of the vested rights. Mm-hmm. Again, it's subject to all the car vows, like rules of general applicability, codes and things like that that don't become part of the vested. So basically, this is the old bait and switch game that even though we give you an approval, all of a sudden we decide, well, we're just going to, we don't like it, we're going to pull the vesting rights. Versus saying look, we have approved it, therefore you have your vesting rights. So I concur with Billy and with Fred. Let's put the other language back in. And just for a quick, it's not hate to switch again. I mean, this is kind of the whole process that we went through, is trying to put as many protections in this possible that we saw at Stakas protections. If you don't agree with them, that's certainly your prerogative. But I would disagree with the bait and switch. I think what we're trying to do is give us the town council as much flexibility going forward to evaluate these proposals. No, we appreciate that. Jason and then Chris? I guess just for clarification, if as proposed, the vesting is extended on the time frames that are contemplated under these agreements, that basically extends the vesting on the plan that was originally approved. So under this language, if I'm reading it correctly in the second column, any proposed amendment to that original approval would be subject to new application of investing or determination of investing by the town by virtue of that opportunity to expressly provide to the contrary. If the town so chose to take that approach, I would agree. But what we do have, if the town doesn't agree, and wants to impose some sort of different investing, is we still have our original approach, which are still vested. And we could decide, okay, we're gonna go forward with that. So, I guess could staff clarify on whether there is a certain protection or concern that we are giving up as the town if we allow that language back in. Given that there is the opportunity to extend or not extend the thing on that. Whatever the new on that. Whatever the new amendments are. John, can you tell me? No, I have no idea what he said. If you want any phrase, I'll try. I want to understand, well, it's staff's recommendation that we delete that section of language in the second column under that section. And I'm questioning because there is the provision that we have the opportunity on any future amendment to not extend investing or modify investing related to that future amendment, what are we giving up by keeping that language? Do you have that right? Well, here- If you're in a development agreement and they've met every milestone and you want to be building to be finished in a shorter time frame than 2024, and they've met every agreement, every provision in the development agreement, but you still want it to be in a shorter time frame, do you have the right to modify it or is it the vesting that you already agreed to? I agree too. That's kind of the question I'm trying to ask, I guess, because there is this language that says unless expressly provided to the contrary, it seems like that opens the door for us to be allowed to expressly provide that to the contrary. So Joe or staff or John? I don't think that unless it's especially provided to the country therein applies to a future approval. I think it applies to the ordinance and the old agreement. Okay. Unless it's first thing. Interesting. Is there... So you don't... Just right. So you don't think the word therein relates to the application that would be before us at the time. No? Why? Because the prior paragraph says that the town and the developer agree that all rights will develop or granted recognize and confirmed in the ordinance and this agreement doesn't say a future amendment. I believe what the intention of this was for them to be able to bring forward all of the subsequent, for instance, administrative modifications that have taken place, you know, subsequent to that 2004 ordinance. I think that's what is I read this, that's what the intent was. In other words, you're recognizing everything that's happened to date. Right. If I could. Joe? So I don't read it that way. I read the word therein to mean and refer to future modifications and amendments to the ordinance, agreements, and so on. So if that's a concern, we can certainly modify the word therein to make it clear that that's what we're talking about. It's my understanding that the way this would work would be, let's say we come forward, and we are coming forward by the way, but whatever, I guess you won't know that until next week, but trust me, we wouldn't burn in the midnight oil. So the, let's say the town says, we're not gonna approve building five unless we have, let's say we're gonna give you three years of vesting. Okay. And instead you have four years left. Okay. The town could, in my understanding the way that I read, if the town could impose that condition. And then we could react accordingly, whether we agree or we don't agree or whatever. But that's what I understand this language to be. So I agree, I guess, with Jason's interpretation that on a future application that comes through, this language would allow the town to provide to the contrary in that approval. Okay, we just say, can't you just say, unless expressly, provided to the contrary in that approval. Okay, we just say, can't you just say, unless expressly provided to the contrary in any future application that comes before the town? Any future approval. Doesn't that take care of the problem? Take care of the problem from my perspective. Thank you. Okay, provides the contrary in any approval. Feature approval by the town. Okay. Chris, are you continuing on this discussion? Yeah. I just wanted to ask a question, so I'm clear. When I read it, and we're weighed out in the sand here, it seems to imply that any modifications or amendments to the ordinance, any other approval agreements or material related to the development of the property. So we've come part of the vested rights. And it continues and then it's the last draw of the terms of the vested property rights. And so I have a question, I know there are a lot of these side agreements that relate to things, let's say like the transfer of the point lot and some of the conditions around that, using that as an example, is this implying that any date in which an agreement or, yeah, in which an agreement or a contract between the town or between the developer would also roll to the end of the vesting date. So let's say there was something that was going to expire on either side that those dates would be pushed out to the end of the vesting date. Am I making sense there? I'm looking at you, Dresser, even though I don't have my glasses on, it looked like you didn't understand what I said. So if there's an agreement that let's say is going to expire in 2014, and the proposal is approved to 2018. And this side long agreement, whether it's a certain amount of cash, whether it's a certain value, does that go out now to 2018? No, okay. Okay. So we... We come full. We'll have more. That's Fred's. We'll be right ahead. Joey, you're comfortable with, say, inserting the language. No. Yeah, it's sweet. I'm not explicitly provided to the contrary in the approval of any new subsequent approval. So that he's subsequent approval? That work? Because Ecclars, up to whatever the their job does the thing. Heron means subsequent approvals. You think it does. Right. And we're asking as I said before, does it keep the original language in there? Okay. So if they're in equal subsequent approvals, let's just put it in there so there's no confusion. I'm going to point when we're in when we're, this is a negotiation. We're doing this back and forth with them. There are some things that we could agree on. There are some things we couldn't, this is our staff's draft, so they have every right to put these things forward. But when we're going back and forth, they're kind of getting renegotiated. The point earlier that the council of Cookre made with the 15 days, there's the 60 days. That was something we agreed to disagree on. We put it in there, and now it's back to 15. So when we're renegotiating again, as long as you all understand, what we're putting in the staff is what we think is the safest when you're asking us, well, what do we think? What's all these gonna be less safe? We just think that's what we think. So, and you want to be asking the applicant, is this a deal breaker for them too? I think we were very close on many of these issues. And so I understand our need to negotiate and have these kind of discussions back and forth because it continues to do that. But we might want to be asking them on some of these issues as well. Is it a deal breaker for you? Is it for us? Because it's a back and forth negotiation still. It's a good question. What aspect of deleting that paragraph is critical to the applicant? I mean, it's that's recommendation to air on the side of caution for the community. What is it about that language that is essential to your position? It's an entire statement, by the way. There's no certain piece or part. It stands completely on its own. It basically gives some level of comfort and assurance that as we move through this process, and from time to time, modifications and amendments that ultimately are approved by this town council, then they become part of the vesting record. That's what that construct essentially is getting at. That gives some level of the reliance. And yeah, there's the opening kind of, you know, the disclaimer length, we understand that, but that's always been there. We're just simply asking that this not be deleted out. It was never part of a negotiation. It was never part of the review of the, we understand that that's what staff's request is, but we're not getting it. And we think this is actually fundamentally beneficial for both parties. Presumably if we review an amendment at some future date, we review and improve some of the minute, whatever gets agreed to within that amendment is part of the record for. It becomes part of the process with this one who was getting it unless you know stated to the contrary otherwise And that's gonna have it's gonna have to probably have some level of some real bonafide material reasons or rationale It's not just so simply you know, you shouldn't be some sort of you know capricious play that oh, yes Why we just don't want to do it. Well, that's a that's a concern to ain't I think that you know I'll say at least I over the weekend was when I was reading this going, you know, if What prevents us from coming back to where we've been these last five years? Is there a mechanism that we can say? Look, if you as a developer or you're you know, if you sell us to somebody type thing and flip it They're concerned about and you guys stop doing any construction for period of time. Is there a way that the community has a condition that says, look, you guys apparently aren't willing to move forward? What is the key that we can do versus sitting on our hands for the next X amount of years with all these approvals we've given you with, you know, that you've come in and asked for? But if you guys after the second year said, right now we're not selling, it's not moving, we're just going to stop. Is there an opportunity for the community to come in and say, guys? Yes, but guess what? That's actually responded to with this 22 milestone construct, by the way, it's down to 21, because the first submission, the October first submission, which is not even in effect, but we submitted the 90% construction documentation package for your roundabout. Right. But the point I'm getting at is, that's what this is. To your point, your example, if we stop, guess what? We'll get a stumble across a milestone that we fail. We fail to cure. Best things come on. The project, we still have an entitlement to 2024. We're not going to give that up. I'm not giving that up. And I don't even understand how you could ask that. It's kind of a... Well, because I guess I've seen the last few years, we've had a period of time that the world has changed. And I don't want to put us in the same position as we have been waiting for this time today to come before November 4th of 2014. And I think it bothers you and it bothers us. And is there some mechanism because we speak to everything up to 2019 and then we have an open window from 19 to 24. We know and really knows of what the future is, right, at this point. It's the other four buildings that are already approved. They're part of the entitlement. We're going to discuss all that between now and we shouldn't be touching those until we get the rest of the half finished stuff completed. The milestone not only handles phasing, which that will we just describe, but it handles pace. So the hypothetical that you're lying out there, you're throwing out there is actually, it's already accounted for with a series of 22 milestones with recourse attached. I've got investment. Yeah, but waiting to go. I hear you. Yeah, no, that's that's a good thing. Fred, I'm going to say something that I was actually going to That's a good thing, right? I'm going to say something that I was actually going to save until the end of this discussion. Well, until we got into the, to the vesting. But I think we're missing the force for the trees here. Think about what's going to happen. Think about what we're dealing with. We're dealing roughly with the next three or four years of construction. And over the next three or four years of construction. And over the next three or four years of construction, the only thing that related is going to be doing is the public improvements and the vice-right too. And we are protected with respect to all of those, with respect to the public improvements, we've got a bond. We've got some sort of security. With respect to the private improvements, we have liquidated damages. Now, let me say something that I feel very strongly about. We are not entitled to those liquidated damages. No other developer in the world would give them to us. The only reason related has given them to us is because they know there's a tremendous lack of trust. But they're not obligated to give them to us is because they know there's a tremendous lack of trust. But they're not obligated to give them to us. It's just something they have done to try to buy back some trust. And so I think we ought to put this in some context. So with respect to everything that the latest is going to do, we're protected. Now, let's talk about something that we haven't talked about before. And that is the ski co and which with the The dancing bear We haven't talked about them before because They're not before us. This is not their application But if we're to believe what we've read of the papers and what we've heard from related, they will be coming forward at some time to do two projects. The limelight and a time share of the dancing bear. And that's again over the course of the next three or four years. Now, we're talking about related and related v investing rights, but I can assure you that there's nobody more concerned about related investing rights than the ski co and dancing bear. And the reason they are concerned about them is because their investing rights run with the land, which means that any subsequent developer that comes in and acquires a piece of property and base village has those vested rights attached to it. And it is incredibly important from their standpoint that those vesting rights are there. Now if you believe that the vast majority of development over the next three or four years, a private development, which is the economic driver of base village, is not going to be done by related, but it's going to be done by the ski co and dancing there, you have to save yourself, put yourself in their shoes. I've been on that side of the table for a bunch of my life. And I know that good developers are risk takers, but they're not fools. And the ski company and the dancing bear would be absolutely foolish to acquire a piece of property and base billage that didn't have those vesting rights attached to it so that they could endure to their benefit and they would be protected. So we're all sitting around here ranting and raving about related and how we could be protected from them and they could be protected from us when in the scheme of things we're protected already given given the agreements that we've got and we could we could work Smith here till three in the morning But I mean I think we're protected the people who we ought to be concerned about giving some assurances to are the ski co and dancing bear So I I I I want us to consider the big picture here because if we want base village and we want there to be an economic, a private development economic driver up there, it's those two entities that are going to do it. It's not going to be related. At least over the course of the next three or four years. So I think we all need to bear that in mind when we're, you know, wordsmithing over a vestib rice with related because they're not the real party in interest. over a vested rights with related because they're not the real party in interest. Yet they are looking at doing the 13B, right? Right there, but the 13B, not the major development. That's not going to be a major economic driver. It's going to be the line light and it's going to be the dancing bear. Thank you. Back to you. Yep. So, um... It kind of brings more. It sounds like we want to... Have some testimony from Dancing Bear and... Just keep company so that you can consider it. But John, I think it's just important that people understand what the big picture is here. And if we want basic knowledge to go forward, and at least my belief is that both of the people in this commuter, and he wanted to go forward, those are the kind of things we have to consider. But I would remind you that you're in the quasi-judicial hearing and that without absent any testimony regarding ski company or dancing bear, I don't know how you can consider that in your decision. Right, I mean, John's right, that's not part of our decision tonight. Jason? It goes for me to the decision of whether or not to accept the amendment at all and the standard that we have to review this by as whether it changes the nature of the original approval. And to my thinking, the original approval, the nature of the original approval was that you have some assurance to the community of what the plan is going to be going forward. And on the backside of that, you grant some assurance to the developer or the applicant on a time frame for within which they have built that. Nature of this request is that you provide all of the assurance to the applicant on the front end with total uncertainty being provided with respect to the community. And that's a major really problematic. And we can make assumptions based on the PR that's been out in the papers about dancing bear and limelight. But none of that is in the record of this consideration and shouldn't at all be part of our decision-making process for what's going before us today. OK. Chris, did you have anything else? Not at the moment, Mr. Mayor. So, gentlemen, you know, we want to move along with the language that we have that was suggested to be deleted but by staff, but you want to keep it all in there just as it was. With the change of... What did you want to add? Like an there just as it was. With the change of substantially. Like an additional modifier around the word therein. No, I know I bought a delete the word therein and let's provide it to the contrary in any subsequent application. Because that's what you said this relates to. Right, going forward. And Mr. Mayor, I'd suggest we take a straw vote on. OK. Amendment. Those that would like to make the modification. Please. I'm going to pose. Hi. Hi. Those are opposed. Opposed. Opposed. Are you sure you want to use the word application? Or do you want to use the word application. Do you want to use the word approval? I agree. Okay. We move forward to the next one. Next one. Paragraph 1.3.4. Termination of V property rights. Staff has proposed to delete a few sections and also added the words or any event of default. We're okay with this cleanup language for this particular paragraph. Our only suggestion here is that we use the term material default, recognizing that that's a construct. It's previously defined in the draft development agreement, and it also appears 2.1. Under the default article, which is Article 2. It also is defined, that is, material default. It's also defined back in paragraph 1.2 sub-paragraph B. So we're just trying to be internally consistent with the document for this suggestion clean up. Thoughts about this? Material default is defined and then it's referred to in 2.1 Default by developer. And the problem, you know, besides any event of default is I guess the key year. Just changing to material default. Where's, but give me the paragraph for material defaults to find? 2.1. 2.1. And it's also referred to in 1.2 subparagraph B. Material fault. Shell mean a failure by developer to perform any of its obligations under any of the other agreements of the ordinance. So that refers to all the other agreements that are subsister or supporting agreements to the overall grand ordinance. And then again, Article 2 describes in detail default by developer. And it includes the material default as a defined term. We're just trying to be internally consistent here in the document. That's all that is. And we have a lot of discussion about this material definition. I thought, Fred, you had a lot of comments about how you did not want to be held to litigating around this matter. I think Mr. Dresser also had some comments about that. Am I confusing that with something else? There was some language in a draft a long time ago, and I mean, not a long time ago, but within this process where the applicant added the language or in any material respect and was with regard to alternative dispute resolution, the cure periods of forced major and consul didn't accept that. With regard to this, it should be clear when you read those two sections that Dwayne has cited to you, material default is applying only to the other agreements. Not this agreement. That's why it's simply a default of this agreement. The other agreements are identified in section 1.2A1, 2, 3, and 4, and they do not include the development agreement, which is why the default in this one is a default of this disagreement, which would include failure and event of non-performance, which would be non-performance of a milestone. I agree. I don't think the word material should be in there. It's really not defined. It's always defined in terms of other agreements, which is why I think that default should be the operative word here. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed? Sure. We have a definition of the non-performance and is that internally circular as well? turn we circular as well. It's fine. The fine? Yep. The next one. This is an agreement, frankly. 1.3.5 B. Rominet 1. Paragraph B. Delayed approval of the PUD amendment application. We agree with the deletion as proposed by the staff. There's no further comment here. Okay. 1.3.5 B, Rominet 3, the next item, 1.3.5, is the denial of the PUD amendment application. And our proposed language, which refers to the, for lack of a better term, the Buyback provision, which is the mechanism that I introduced on September 22nd. I gave you the back story as to why we thought the Buyback provision was helpful and essential for both parties. And again, it's under the hypothetical that we get to the review of a PUD application, and it's ultimately denied. That's step one. You can remember, step two, there's an automatic termination of the vesting, which we conceded four weeks ago. Right. I proposed two weeks ago a third step, which was to say, okay, in that particular hypothetical condition of both a denial and a termination, there's an opportunity to buy back the vesting for some period of time in exchange for accelerating on the three public improvement projects around about Wood Road, snow melt injury to the parking garage. As a way to provide a safe passage and, frankly, give the project the opportunity to reorganize and reassemble its submission and land use application. It's been struck. We don't even understand the back story, so we probably need to hear the rationale and reasoning from the town. Is there, you know, the concerns I think as we, well, I think I should let John. Concerns that Blaine has right now about the buyback,'ve been concerned about since they started something. Well they haven't started anything. The final application could spend denied and they want to perform the public improvements and gain the best feedback is provided in this agreement. I agree. And so automatically on a project that's been denied. Now, that application, the project that's been denied. This project will still have be standing on the original. But the original time I'm going to stand there, that application, and this hypothetical would have been, okay, it's a denied application. And yet the security for the public improvements are there the public improvements are standing there It's kind of a limbo status for the project Think about it you would not as we said before two weeks ago This application gets an either so there's no There's no limelight. There's no dancing bear I don't know you can't but that's a hype if that's of that. That's the that's the position that this would be in. And remember four weeks ago, when press we asked, town asked, can we just have the termination of the besting back to dresser, John, it's suggested that. I agree to that. I agree to that. Two weeks ago, I shared with you this next step. This third step, we think it's a mechanism that provides some sort of additional moving forward. So we don't get into further delay. You still have concrete and rebar under this hypothetical. The nine application, termination of testing, square one. Square one. So I think it gives you a good opportunity to delay and say we know we can buy it back if we decide we don't want to do it by then or we don't want to present an application that we think is going to get approved. We still have another second chance to come back and preserve this. Well that's, that is an interesting set of motivations that someone would have to hold in order to get to that level of just kind of throwing bogus things out there just for the purpose of burning some money. But perhaps you're perhaps observing the asset value. I mean, it's retaining the vesting without performing any of the progress. Well, that by the way, it's a good good point here. The recourse, the Quid Pro quo is, okay, we're accelerating, we're fast forwarding in all three of the public improvements, which are beneficial to the community, which are beneficial to the project, which help us to continue to move forward in the absence of anything else. We've got those secured. If you, you know, whether you have best of you know best thing The public improvements are secured right so it made me if we have to wait a while to get them done Well, wait a while to get them done, but I think we're protected there very enough So it sounds like council wants to keep the language as stated here at Deletia Opportunity Developer to buy back. If the developer wants to come in and start doing it, we're still covered because of the security. John? Covered for what? Covered specifically for the public improvements, as Fred just spoke to, that the public improvements, whether it sounds like Dwayne would just like to say, hey, we'll jump in here and get these public improvements done now and give us an opportunity to try to persuade you for the next 12 months or period of time to submit a new application. But let us start building around about in the ice area in Wood Road. Let us finish that. Let us do that our own without pulling the trigger on the bonding. Does that sound like something that is a reasonable to move forward with? Sounds like we, you know, Council wasn't real happy to move in that direction because we already covered Jason, can you state that again what you're... I'm just stating that I think that what Dwayne is trying to say here is that they will we would love to have the opportunity to come back and reapply, but let them get moving with the entryway on their own dime without pulling the bonds, calling the bonds new. But they always have the opportunity to come back in. I mean, if this PUD gets turned down, they could come back in two weeks later with a new PUD and try to convince us about that one. So it's not a question of them not being able to submit something. Isn't there a period of time where they can't submit something? Correct. One year? Two or a half. One year? Right. So that's the concern they have is they would rather not be waiting, having to wait for one year right so that's the concern they have is they would rather not be wait having to wait for one year they'd rather you know take a stab at it very soon if they can do that by saying hey we're gonna admit to doing all this work that you're asking for give us an opportunity to get that you know golden range to continue on without waiting for the year okay I didn't realize that do you have the way of year, doesn't the council have the discretion of whether or not to accept an application within that one-year timeframe? Or do we not know? There can be a showing to the satisfaction of the planning director, but the council doesn't have that discretion. I got Bob Circus's hand up. Bob, when you wanna come to the microphone, I'll state your name and who you are and what could Bob circus and now I'm speaking as the chair of the planning commission I would like to remind the council that there was specific reasons for the timeline for when the public Improvements were going to be made so that they were in conjunction with the construction projects particularly the snow melt by the garage. It was discussed at our meeting, and we agreed with the developer's timeline that that improvement should wait until the construction of 7 and 8 I think was underway and completed because there's a potential for a crane to be in that area that would kind of destroy the snow melt and it would have to be done again. So if you accept the concept of accelerating you might also be buying into the concept of having to redo certain areas of these public improvements. Thank you. Jason, I was just going to suggest I remember a few weeks ago we heard from the community that we The approach we took to the public hearing was problematic. We delayed it until the very end of the discussion. I've already seen one member of the public leave the room, and I'm just concerned that we might be diminishing the public comment that we get on this application by delaying that further in a request that we provide some opportunity for the public to speak before it gets too late in order that we don't discourage folks from sticking around and getting their comments on the record. Why don't we get to this page and then maybe I'll go to a comment from the public. Thank you. That sounds appropriate. So on this last item, where does the to want to go. It seems like, but even without the language in, there's still the opportunity to achieve what they're trying to achieve here. And it would just require another step of coming in and asking for it and a determination by the planning director that such amendments is compelling. So I think I'm fine with the staff recommendation to delete. Sorry, great time. Sounds good. We're moving towards where the staffs wanting to move forward with. All right, we're going to. Sounds like you want to break through. Yeah, why don't we take a break and listen to some public and. But you guys give it to that for a bit. Sorry we can move forward with that. I'd like to open the floor to the microphone to people who'd like to make a comment about this application and come forward with microphones, stay tuned for the record, and knowing that there'll be more afterwards. And you will have the opportunity at a later time if you so choose. Yes, sir. The microphone. Yeah, Arnie. I'm Arnie Wuerkin, citizen. Not often somebody says, sir to me so I did that. I didn't know you were talking to me. Let me just speak to this issue of the buyback. I think it's a very bad idea. You got something four weeks ago which you didn't have, and that was a termination of investing if you didn't get approval of the application. I don't know what caused the retrenchment, but it is the same issue that you've been facing all along. You get with one hand, but we want to take it back with another, and what we're going to offer you is that which we promise to do anyhow. We're just going to do it a little earlier. It's it's a slight of hand at at at its worst. So I would suggest that you adopt the proposal. But I also suggest, because sitting back here it seemed to me and I obviously don't have the ability to have the consensus that you are trying to put together. But it seemed to me that you were all missing the point with reference to the discussion about whether Mr. Kraybacher's interpretation or Mr. Dresser's interpretation was correct. It seems to me that what that clause was meant to do and I was one of the people that voted to put that clause in was that if council has activities with reference to base village that it approves some minor issues or could be even major issues but doesn't talk about whether it's part of the rights and it's we talk about vest thing but it's part of the rights, and we talk about vesting, but it's vested rights. Vesting is the period of time that we've been talking about, but it's the vested rights. What do they have? And all this language basically says is, okay, if you do that, unless you say something else in the approval, it just automatically becomes part of the vesting, and that's reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that. The difference is the interpretation and it seems to me that the posel that's now before you to modify the language to which Mr. Kraybacher is a great too is a reasonable proposal. It does both things and you can stop arguing over it and go on to something else. Thank you. So, we have some other things. Good evening. I'm Lisa Vogel, resident of the math village. As many of the people in this room know who I've had the pleasure of knowing for the last eight years I've been a full-time resident here. I was a part of the first phase of base village. Base villages, what brought me here. I was a part of the first phase of base village. Base village is what brought me here. Many great people involved in my life now that I would not have had had not been for the first part of a great of base village. I think as someone who's in the business, if I were a developer that if this weren't to move forward and someone coming into town whether it be related or someone else, I would I think that my partners would think I was crazy to come and try to work in the town if they go back and they look at these videos on Granicus and they read these minutes. They would be crazy to spend the time and effort to try and get something passed because people are in business to make money. This development is creating a fabric and a framework for businesses to move in and bring more business to the businesses that already exist. And it's just crazy to me that this wouldn't get passed and these vested rights wouldn't be extended because God knows how long it'll take. Before someone else would come in and take the time to do this, it could be years and years and years. And so I'd like to be able to tell my step kids and my step-grandkids when they come back to town one day, hey, not only was I a part of the first part of this, but look at how great it is, and it's here for all of us to enjoy. So I hope you will all see the way to approving the extended vesting rights for related. So I think it's important for this town and the future of this town. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Richard? Well, I had a lot of comments planned, but I'm going to put them aside because this is obviously a work and process. I don't see the urgency to do anything at this time. If I was on the council, I'd get rid of this headache pretty fast by giving them 60 days vested interest and buck it over to the next council and let them fret over this because there's a lot going on here, much more than meets the eye. And I want to make a suggestion. Besides me, there are other successful real estate developers that are retired in this community. You're the coal meeting of those people and let them help you, way through all these development details that most of us had to struggle with from the other side of the table. That's my advice today. And good luck folks. Thank you, Richard. Anyone else? Stan? All right. For the record, I'm Stan Klassen, 20 residents, 76 met o' Lane. And I'm also planning consultant. I have no relationship to this project, either financial or any other interest, except as a user of the facilities. And my wife and I have been delighted with the new facilities that have come forward and dismayed at the lack of progress in moving these facilities towards their completion. I believe that staff has been incredibly careful and conservative and working with the developers in trying to come to a resolution. And I feel that the council should take comfort in the work that staff has done and approve this extension of vested rights, do it tonight, do it quickly, and do everything they can to expedite the developers moving forward. I don't believe that there should be any further delays imposed on this project at all. By the way, I do agree with Ernie. There's a difference between Heron and Darian. And clearly, the 1.1A is talking about subsequent agreements that might take place because it doesn't refer to contrary Heron. But I think the fact that there is this discussion over, and wordsmithing going on, is indicative of the caution and care that staff has taken. And I think that it's time to trust them and trust their recommendation that this extension of the civil rights go forward. Thank you. Thank you, Stan. Anyone else at this time? We will continue on. Okay, Bianca. I had planned on speaking so I really don't have any notes. I'm Bianca Hooker. I along with one other person in this room, have been here since the very beginning. The day this community opened, we have struggled through for years and years and years, wondering how we can give an identity to our community. One of the assets that we have is the fact that we are a few miles down the road from Aspen. One of the detriment to our community is we are a few miles down the road from Aspen. One of the detriment to our community is we are a few miles down the road from Aspen. We have been trying to improve our life here, singularly, and in conjunction with Aspen. Both my husband and I sat at that table. Previous town councils have struggled with how to make our community something more than a stepchild to Aspen. My husband and I along with a lot of other people voted against base village. Base village was perceived at a time that the economy was not doing very well. Once it passed, I think it was twice. Base village was a given. Base village was going to go forward. As long as we have made the decision for base village to go forward, we have a developer who is seemingly very sincere about really wanting to get this off the ground. The other developments that Fred mentioned, which we're not supposed to talk about, but we sort of know are in the background. This is all finally, all these many, many years later. Finally, we are developing something. The past several years, we have had some new activity in the village, some new groups that have come in, some new identity has been formed for our village because we have taken this great turn. Seeing those buildings up there, sitting idle, this is the best chance we have for the next several years. Yes, we can wait. We can wait four more years if someone's going to come in and make a new proposal. But situations in the world will be different at that time. This is the way it is right now. This is the proposal that we have right now. This is the best thing that we can do right now. Having had this long history of wondering, what are we going to do with this community for almost 30 years of nothing really happening? I would encourage you to really seriously consider what they are offering, because I think it is going to be very good for our community. I'm sorry I was so. You're very well Bianca. I really feel very emotional about this. I didn't realize how emotional. Thank you, Bianca. Anyone else? All right, let um get back to our words nothing here Well, Dwayne so in the last item here you know, we're not in agreement It's dropping it but we understand the point perhaps it's productive to go to the next page Teen you on with this thing because we clearly have some other material items that we need to review. Yeah, sorry. Sorry. That's rare. That is extremely rare. I'll move on then to the next one. Come back to that. Thank you. Point. Next slide up at the top left. Again, section 1.3.6. It's the topic is liquidated damages. This relates to, as referred to at the council table, this refers to the performance of 13b, the construction and completion of 13b. The staff has struck the words and any other building for which commencement of construction has occurred after the date of this agreement. This is, if you see it in the context of the paragraph, talking about the denial of vested property rights will be terminated. Again, this is based on a failure to perform in the calling of the liquid data damages on 13B. However, there is a chance that the developer can be able to commence construction with other buildings and therefore have protected the vesting of those other buildings. And that's why we had the application and say, building form, building fiber, proceeding with the ski company, and we're also proceeding with 13B, but for whatever reason, we fail to deliver the 13B, which this liquidated damage is construct addresses. Those other two buildings would have been vested. They will be proceeding. They're not going to trust me. They're not going to play into it if they think or know, or anyone would, frankly, would be willing to invest in this thing. If they thought or knew that 13B failure to perform in the liquidated damages, recourse, all of a sudden sprung and meant that their construction start is now someone in jeopardy and investing is no longer achieved. So this paragraph, we actually think we disagree with the deletion of that term here. Just so I understand, if hypothetically the limelight or any building. Any building is started by another developer. And they basically have perfected their vesting rights. Have they not once they acquire the land and get a building permit? What are the triggers to perfect vesting rights? As long as they are still in existence for a subsequent developer? I think a building for issuing it to revoke a building based on loss of vests. No, no, what I'm saying is, another developer comes in there in two months. Acquire is the property and starts to build. Is there anything else that that developer has to do to perfect the vesting rights that are in existence then? Okay, and once they're perfect that they're in perpetuity, right? So if he, if related loses their vesting rights, a subsequent developer who has started also can lose their vested rights? Okay, well that's my question. So they are perfected and whether or not related defaults and loses their investing rights has no effect on a subsequent developer who has perfected, it's development rights. It's vested rights. has perfected, it's development rights. It's vested rights. You've got a lot of terms that I would need to find in your soliloquy before I could bring an answer on that. I am a subsequent developer. I have odd property from related. Okay. The related development rights, related vested rights are still valid at the time I buy the property. You actually buy those rights. So I've acquired them then. When I go into title, I acquire them. Right. Okay. So once I'm entitled, they're my rights and the fact that related defaults, it loses its festig rights has no effect on me. No, because yes, because the rights you get come through related. I understand that, and I'm positing a situation where the rights are in existence. They're not separated necessarily. Wait, wait, wait, wait, they're finished. The rights are in existence when I acquire the property. Right. Okay. The accrue to me at that point. They're assigned to you. The accrue to me. At that point, they're assigned to you. They're assigned to me. If related to faults and loses its festing rights, do I lose mine? Yes. And that's where, see Fred, I think you're on the same track as we are. Building, you don't. Well, that's what I asked you. I asked you, what do I need to perfect? That's what I said the first time. And Fred, if I may, we've used the term, we collectively have used the term and debated it in great length. The commencement of construction standard. So based on your argument, you've given additional evidence as to why the language, you should be perfectly comfortable with the language staying in and not being struck. Again, it clarifies that the commencement of construction is a trigger point which was just discussed. Building permit issuance, the movement, the mobilization which we spend a Donzium time frame on. Let me go back again. This goes back to a point you made a long time ago. You wanted it to not apply to buildings that had no action on them for a period of two years. Right. And you could make that argument that commencement had started. There was a day in here when Duane, in a offer said, we'll give up the terminated, we'll terminate the vestigin rights. And then he came back a few minutes later and said except for, and it's recognizing here building 7, 8, 13, B. But the way he also pointed out the platform and any building that might be built on that because that's already commencement of construction. We've asked staff has asked identify which areas of the PUD you believe commencement as construction has begun. That way we would have a specific understanding of what determination applied to because it clearly doesn't apply to building a standard 8 and 13 B here. And then it goes on to say in any other building for which commencement. Chris Jacobs, and positive, the idea that, because it's on a central boiler plant, that all the buildings have started, because there's been commencement of construction on that part of the building. That's why staff struck this language, because it's in specific as to what. Now, I agree that if a building starts from the point of this agreement forward, that that building would, the vesting would not terminate for that. Okay? That's a building that's commenced construction. But if you try and retroactively apply the definition of commencement of construction, you could find out that the entire thing. Project. Okay. And those are not affected. So the answer to my question is if the subsequent developer comes in, acquires the property, gets a building permit at commences construction and and the besting rights were valid were in effect when he acquired the property and and commenced construction They cannot be taken away from that's the bill for regardless of what happens to relate it. That's correct. Okay So this language red the first back to the defined term commencement of construction. So the notion that there was an opportunity for us to go back and look at stale or anything on the podium no longer would apply. The commencement of construction is defined. It's got the three-prong standard. Building permit construction has been issued by any construction contractors executed in the mobilization as we've previously agreed to in its definition. So this is just trying to protect a ski co or like you said it dancing there. Well let me ask you this plan. Do you consider the buildings that are half built sitting there for three years to have to have commenced construction? No we don't we're only we're only protected 7, 8 and 13 B as We have to have built that sitting there for three years to have commenced construction. No, we don't. We're only protected 7, 8, and 13b as just was referred to. Why does this say on any other building? First amendment of construction? It says here after the date of this agreement. It has occurred after the date of this agreement. We're not trying to reach back. Okay. Is that? I think that makes sense. So we're not talking, we're very clear. We're not talking about any building, any construction that's sitting out there now and has been untouched for three years. Correct. It's just protecting those buildings. Add to the data to the group. Yes sir. Okay. What happens in the case where you have a building permit issued in the future and then you let the building permit expire? Is that still protected basically under this? If you have achieved the commencement that- You failed. You failed in the commencement standard. We've achieved the commencement that you failed you failed in the commencement standard We've achieved the building permit You remember you're building part the building official his view and examination. There's three Commence and then you stall like building seven or eight or whatever you commence you get vertical You get stuff in the ground and then you stall and you let the building premier expire is the Vesting still in place and I think I think I just Grappin across some state law you know some state statute around the best thing because I guess which is why is this language Necessary if we get to that point and the Vesting stays in place regardless of whether That language is there you're giving away nothing by clarifying that, again, a building that you've approved, one, two, you've seen and approved the building permit, three, your building officials also measured all of that and it's moving forward, we don't want that particular building or buildings to fall into jeopardy for some sort of failure to perform on the second viestroy, which this particular paragraph addresses, and you have protections on that particular building, the liquidated damage, which has been referred to in the past, which is an unprecedented play, and you have that as well. So we feel that this sentence, the way it's qualified, is actually, is perfectly fine, and it gives signaling is actually is perfectly fine and it gives signaling to, frankly, to other investors and opportunities into the base village. You're not going to lose your investing in the middle of something for failure for a related. I agree. I agree. I agree. I think Jason's talking about construction and eruption. Yes, which is also addressed. Which we're going to get to in a minute. Yes, sir. Thanks. OK. The next one, 1.3.6, the liquidated damages. There's another, this one actually we've got. It's only relevant if, indeed, you agree to the buyback. So the staff's deletion here, I'd beg that we come back to those two here in a minute. The back of those two. 1.3.7 is the next item, construction interruptions. And as just described by John, here's the next point. The staff has added language. We agree to the added language. We're looking though for additional clarity to provide a maximum of $100,000 for the restoration and remediation plan that is contemplated in 1.3.7. So it's a value that we're asking for some sort of- You got to be quick. Mr. Mayor. Julian. This was original language with their suggesting. I didn't say maximum, but I said $100,000. And staff did have some discussion regarding that. And our concern was that we didn't know what the remediation plan was going to look like. And so that's why we said, well rather than putting a top set number, you know, up to $100,000, let's just say that the remediation is 120% of whatever that plan is requiring. So that was the logic on our end of that instead of setting up to $100,000. Mark, it's just a question for Duane. Where did the $100,000 come from? Is that a guesstimate? It's an internal guesstimate. There's no real high science behind it. But it's a recognition that perhaps some sort of stoppage of work would occur relatively soon, which unfortunately I have several examples. As you know, we're buildings came out of the ground, but shortly thereafter within a 60 to 90 day period, they were halted. Okay, so let's use that as the example, and look at past experience and what it tells us. So in terms of the little now, and when you reframed all of that and put the hearty board on, et cetera, what was the cost of that just to give me a general sense? I'm still trying to find that out. Again, we were, frankly, we weren't in control of the proper yet they tried. Truth be known. That was under the guidance and leadership of the receiver. Yeah. So the point was, the point where I was going with that, it would appear logical to me, illogical, that you could do that for 100,000. In terms of the magnitude of the efforts, both in terms of the arrival center, as well as a little now. Right. So I'm more supportive of the town's proposal, since we really don't know what that number would be. Okay. Understood. I would also agree that the 120 percent that works for me as well. Hopefully it takes us out of the concern of what it will take. Okay. Won't you look at it? All right. Okay. Yes't you look at it. All right. Okay. Yes, sir. Moving on. Yes. Next item. The default provision of Article 2. We've already discussed this. Let me see. Yeah. Applicant. This was the event of non-performance. But we kind of scraped across this already. the this was the event of non-performance but we kind of scraped across this already we did we look here at the second billy Yeah. Yeah, you get that. So on the definition of default, the only event of non-performance is a defined term. So we would suggest that in this section 2.2, the event of non-performance is just capitalized so it ties back into our definition. Okay. Okay. 4.7, the termination amendment, the waivers staff added the clause except as hearing above provided and we agree with that. Okay. That's enough of the development agreement. Correct. So should we go back to the... Let's keep going with the subdivision improvements agreement. Okay. Because this should be relatively... We should take five decisions. That's the fact. That's the fact. There is a desire to take a few minutes, take five. If you people are getting them to take rest and break, so let's do bladder break. Allow that to happen. This time for anybody who would like to make a comment, Mr. Jeff. I'm Jeff Chandigan, owner of the conny co-along with a little Jeff. I just want to bring it up. I go to bed at 8, so I can't stick around for this whole thing. So, you get up at 3, right? I just want to bring it up. I go to bed at 8 so I can't stick around for this whole thing. You like to get up at 3, right? So my question is basically to Duane. OK. It's a really good husband. Here you go. I'm putting you on the spot now. So you can. Are you willing to make a commitment to me, to make the accesses that I need and that they will have to be approved by me that I will work with you on this. Are you willing to make that commitment to the community and to me? Well Jeff, part of the thing, you know, it is something that the town's, I guess, you know, as a safety thing and as a discussion of the town,, I guess, you know, it's a safety thing and it's a discussion that the town Dwayne has turned something in. That's reasonable. Maybe that's reasonable that we both can You might be asking the town if there'll be anything that the town Because I think the council is willing to but I'm not sure Dwayne has the opportunity Or the authority to make that comment, but I'm sure I would hope that the plans you guys turned in addressed a number of the concerns that he's... What will you do? Well, as a one-to-one. Well, I'm going to forget all the lawyers and all the, just you and I, what would you, what would you willing to say? To continue as a fellow business owner, to continue to work with you and little Jeff to the extent that we can, recognizing that we don't own the asset, we have an obligation to deliver this improvement, but we're kind of the arm of execution. But we understand and empathize greatly with your business concerns. And we will continue to do what we can, obviously in coordination with the town as well, to hear your concerns and try to balance the needs of your enterprise against the public needs and try to come up with a graceful compromise that works for all parties. And I guess, in short, we'll continue to be there with you. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Okay. So where do we leave off? Mr. Dresser, go back. During the break the applicant requested that when we're talking about construction and interruptions when the security and the amount of 120% of the amount determined by the town, they ask that that be reasonably determined by the town. Does that seem very reasonable? Okay. Okay. Reasonable to add reasonably. It's what? I think we're a height of reasonable. Thank you. We haven't been known to be as reasonable sometimes. That's okay. Okay. So has other folks. Anyway, so where do we want to go here? Do I need to want to roll through the SIA now? Or do you want to go back to the finish up this section? We're probably going to have some efficiency here. Okay, go ahead. Let's go ahead is screaming. You know there's a lot of green. In fact, there's only one disagreements on the second page. First three recitals, you see, we agree with the changes as proposed. On recital I and J, added the words landscape improvements, we just suggest also in that body and that paragraph that the words public improvements be changed to improvements because of the fact that the improvements is defined and it's broader than just the public when you add the landscape improvements, just clean up language. I don't think it's harmful. Is that word John? Well, we worked pretty hard on this language and thought we had it pretty clear in that what were the public improvements and the landscape improvements. That's important because the obligation for security and the public improvements comes earlier and when we drafted the language with regards to when the landscape improvements would be when they pulled a building permit. So understand that these landscape improvements are kind of a strange, typically you would not require a developer to bond for. But the council that approved this in 2004 was very concerning that buildings would be finished. Landscaping wouldn't be done, and then the owners of the building would be responsible to do that when originally it should have been the developer. So in the original SIA there was a schedule of landscape improvements that were bonded and the language was at the time of building permit. So that's why we separated them out and then collectively they are the improvements and I think the clarity is there that that staff was trying to achieve I concur with staff. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. I appreciate that backstory next item We've already reviewed that previously as part of the development agreement. So those changes that we agreed to for the development agreement now apply here. Next item is the landing site construction. I'm going to turn it over to Joe as a couple of quick comments. So Joe Graybacher again. So this is on section 3D and there's language on page 208 of your packet. It's the carryover language at the top. It says in the second, actually the last sentence of that carryover paragraph, it says the conveyance. Such conveyance, this is the conveyance of the landing site, will be in form of a fee interest in the landing site and an easement that grants to the town certain rights. Well it would propose to change, it would be that such conveyance will be in the form of a fee interest or easement in the landing site and an easement that grants the town et cetera et cetera. And the concern there is if we give you a fee interest and we're just talking to John about it, it's not clear to me based on the approvals if we we give you a fee interest, and we're just talking to John about it, it's not clear to me based on the approvals, if we had to give a fee interest, we probably have to create a lot in order to be able to convey the fee interest. And then if we take that lot out of that site, it may impact our floor area ratio and cause a floor area ratio bust. So I'd like to at least have the right to do an easement, which would be essentially the equivalent of a fee that would get the town the rights to the landing site without having to contemplate doing a subdivision application or exemption and having a potential FAR bust. I guess I mean, if we want to get this done tonight, I'd say it's from petrol easement subject to approval by the town. I mean, you know what I mean if we want to get this done tonight I'd say it's from Pretty Leesman subject to approval by the town. I mean you know what I mean? Yeah like which like that would be fine. Okay. Okay. That's it. That's for me. And the next item is three. Yeah. It's nice. I'm wondering if Sam is putting in that. Here. Okay. Okay. So the next. Okay. Okay, so the next one, which is this snowmass water and sand improvements agreement. And under that, well, what we're proposing is that we simply deleted. I think there's just some confusion about what that agreement says. And maybe it's better not to try and modify that agreement in this agreement. It is a three party agreement between the town, the developer, and snowmesswater and sand district. And I think I understand what the town's staffs changes were to this. Where they took out the part, where the last sentence where it says upon posting of the performance security the compliance deadline under the improvements agreement is basically has been satisfied and recalling back to that minor PUD application and those deep utilities the agreement this SWSD improvements agreement provided that we were allowed to put in this substandard water line section, which was not deep enough. And that once we had the overlay from the roundabout on top of it, it would then be deep enough and snowmess water in sand would accept that water line. And what we were intending to do was basically reiterate what was in the improvements agreement that once we post the security under this improvements agreement for all the public improvements, including the roundabout, that we'd be deemed to have satisfied that provision in the deep utilities improvement agreement. And maybe it's just causing too much confusion or whatever. So it may be better to simply delete it. It wasn't our, my concern is the language proposed by staff would actually modify that agreement. And I don't think that's what was intended. But I don't know staff's full background on why they had that suggested change. Well, we changed it to the final completion of the roundabout. And we felt that if the security ended up being insufficient. In case the security was called and the thing never got done, security ended up being insufficient? In case security was called and the thing never got done, where does that leave us with the, I mean, we're fine with deleting it and leaving the terms of the water and sand, the three-party agreement stand. And we didn't like the obligation to be completely finished upon the posting of security because clearly it's not at that point. We're okay just deleting it if that makes more sense and let that agreement which is what it is, stand as it. with the footnote at the bottom of the page requiring the water and sand district to sign a jointer. We didn't have any evidence that they were interested in that and we thought final completion was the best trigger for the town but we're more than willing to live with the terms that are in that original agreement which was what about a year ago, 16, 17 months ago, whatever it is. So we don't really want to get involved in judging completion of the lines, somebody else's property. And so if you can fulfill that, we're fine. We're good, we're good deleting it. All right, understand what the tax concern is. Do you need it? And the footnote, which I assume. And the footnote. So then the next item is the item. It's a paragraph four. Landscape improvements. It's on page 208 of the council packet. There's two things going on here. The steps post-changed has added the schedule of improvements of landscape improvements into exhibithibit A, which appears back on page 217 of the packet. And they've also added language around the prior to the issuance of a building permit that the developer will post security. So we agree with staff's additions here. The only note we would prefer to establish a cost of the improvements, instead of picking up these numbers that were, you know, these $2.1 million, $1 million, $1 million, $1 million, $1 million, which are obviously fairly chunky numbers. On, back on page 217. The value for the security should be determined. We're asking that to be determined when the improvements are submitted for building permit, they'll be clearly defined in detail and will provide a cost estimate that can be reviewed and validated and frankly accepted or denied by staff, no different than what we do with around about wood road, snowmoutin entry. And that the security itself has been proposed, it would be posted up at the time of the building permit issuance. So our ask again is we agree with the construct as identified, but the values and the posting of the securities would be identified at the time of the building permit submission. Can we leave it as an or? Can we add an or to the end of the sentence? Or based on current cost estimates for the landscaping improvements. Yeah, you're right. You're not asking it to be posted right now. You're you are conceding that it'd be posted at the time of the issue as the building permit. If we fail to for whatever reason to give you that detail, so that's incumbent upon us to give that to you. So that's over the award. I think we're fine with that. Just to give council a little history, we've talked about this through a few meetings. Right. Zibade and then in the first proposal from there, there was Exhibit One. It didn't address these landscape improvements, and there were a couple other things that it didn't address that we have incorporated into that exhibit A. Now there's things that you won't see on the old exhibit A, but they are incorporated in new exhibit A's. Like trails are included in roadways and all those things. The cotton mall, there's two of the, don't quote me on the summer, but there were seven phases of landscape improvements in, according to the phases, but there were seven phases of landscape improvements in, according to the phases, and there's two of those that are finished. We deleted those, and the other five are in there with the exact numbers from the original PUD. And so, if the applicant at the time of building permit wants to provide a new estimate of what the, and we have the landscaping plan. So it's, if they want to provide a new estimate, perhaps they can get a better deal, whatever it is. By adding this language at the end of the sentence or based on current cost estimates for landscaping improvements, you'll be giving them the ability to use the old ones or the new ones, either way. And remember, this is, this was deemed a community interest for we didn't want empty buildings with no landscaping and that's why it was required in the original. So. That makes sense. Didn't happen enough times. Except for, yes, sir. Exceptable. Next item is on the last page of our slides. It's paragraph 7c. And 7c just refers to the security for public improvements, the release of security, the trigger point for the release of the security associated with the snowmelt system at the garage entry Our our disagreement here is probably a small D disagreement. It's just the Staff suggested changes that go from substantial to final when you look at the definition for final It's applicable to It's applicable to public improvements That are going to be ultimately conveyed back to the town. And this particular improvement, the snowmout system, it's not going to be conveyed. It's ultimately privately owned. So we're just trying to stay with the words of Stantle. There's no real high objection here. It's just hoping that for a little bit of clarity here. Again, the final completion definition doesn't quite fit. And it's not even what's that? My trusty helpers here. So it is a milestone. Who eventually owns the... Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, he's not defined as a final milestone. It's the deliverer, the milestone itself is a substantial completion milestone. And so for internal consistency, keeping it to the words substantial actually coordinates back with the actual definition of the milestone, it's a substantial completion milestone. I think if you look at back to the development agreement section, 1.3.5M. 1.35M. That was a proposed change by staff that the applicant did an objective. No. Missed that. Well that's upper wood road. That's upper wood road. That's upper wood road. Okay, you're right. Touch down. So thank you. Just help my argument. No. Yep, you're right. Roger that. There's just internal consistency. Yep. I know. I missed it. There was another reason for it. Who eventually owns the entry? Metro improvement district? It may be the master, but it's definitely not the town. I get it, but if it's the Metro improvement district, it's a public improvement. Maybe the master. Yeah, maybe a GCE for the master, but I can't confirm that here for you right now. Okay. So maybe we. What was that? Okay. He's the institutional memory bank. We know that. It's still problematic in that. You're going to build it. You're only going to secure it until it's substantial complete. And then, and the reason you're saying that is because you're then going to use it and potentially cause damage to it. And then the agreement provides it to town. Now, maybe not, you know, either way, it may, it really doesn't matter who owns it because the buses have to get through there. At the end of the day, it has to be in perfect condition. That's why we're proposing security until final completion. If you want to propose some other mechanism for remediation of and finality of the improvement and you know ownership and you can draw those lines but if Rathda tells us they can't get through there because you've snow melted it and it's become unusable, it's detrimental to both the base village PUD and the success of that based on all the transportation mitigation that was understood at the time of original approval. And it should not be, it should not preclude bus service through there. And that's what we're trying to prevent. So we need it yesterday. You're not doing it for a couple of years, and then you want your security back at substantial completion when building eight. I mean, you've represented to us that building eight's gonna have a, what do you call it, a crane on it? Well, that have a hand. And I guess if there's some separate agreement you want to propose, the town needs to know regardless of ownership that that's going to be a suitable thoroughfare for bus traffic. Let alone your own residents, customers, et cetera. How you want to accomplish that? That was staff's try. All right, so no argument about the reliance. Public transportation and the two in throw and the performance standard. Maybe the release is pegged to the completions of those buildings sitting to the left and to the right. We can concede this. Change substantial final? No? Well, what John put on the table is if you want to come up with a different mechanism. But I just thought figured for the night if you said let's deal with it. It's final. So it's a seven and eight. Two building seven eight. That's slot three substantial, which is about three. And that's 20 18. See you after. How do we without having the exact language here, John, but just begging you that release to the substantial completion of final completion of building seven and eight. That's fine. Actually, that's right. The miles, there is a existing milestone for lot three. I want to use that because that, the stands for completion of lot three includes building seven and eight. And that is a milestone. So perhaps that's the added language we would connect here just to- I don't want to tie it to anything that's substantially complete. I want to tie it to things that are final complete. And so that as the developers' obligations are finished, the town knows that the buses can always get through that. I would suggest for purposes of tonight that we leave it there and if you want to propose some sort of ancillary agreement that addresses it in some shape or form and I don't know what it is. Is it a bond from substantial completion of Lot 3? I don't know what it is but I think it's an overriding concern and I know Dave Pactler left but I think he be very concerned And I quite frankly I think You as the developer in the owner or your putative co-owners Need to absolutely have the best Transportation you can have to and from it your project and you can qualify as a public improvement but if the buses don't go there because they can't get through there your projects going to be less than desirable. Indeed. One of the things we'll accept staff's change. Okay. And appreciate the opportunity to perhaps further clarify as suggested. Item the next item the last item on the subdivision improvements agreement the agree to that is the accept as here and above provided which take about a 4.7 so that's that's it. The subdivision improvements agreement. Any comments from the public on this last section? Any comments from the public on this last section? Moving on, go back to the skipped. Yeah, I'm going to make a final appeal for the buyback provision, which is internally consistent with the reliance and I understand that the delivery of the public improvements is really just going to already incumbent upon the project. And we were looking at that situation where you have again the denial and then you have a termination of testing and you have just a continuation of what we got out there today. So we were looking for some mechanism that we could use as communicate to our partners and our investors on that provision. It is, that's the essence of it. And it's, you know, we were prepared to have a conversation around perhaps the duration or the trigger points on that. And we're hopeful to have that type of conversation with you, as opposed to just a flat, outright veto of it. How do you deal with Bob Circus is concerned that these public improvements were time to coordinate with the private improvements and to put the snow melt in before the private improvements are done, you run the risk of damaging them once they've been put in? I've already conceded, however, that the bonding and the security will stay in place for that particular improvement, the snowmout. Until we've actually finished building 7 and 8 so there's already a protection. So that bond that you're going to put up will stay until the ultimate improvement, the ultimate building. Those are completed. Okay, that answers. That take care of his concern. Not so much. Not so much. I think what we agreed was that language that staff had proposed from substantial to final completion on the snow melt would remain as final completion. So our security with respect to those snow melt improvements would remain in place. We have the final completion definition, you know, the town attorney feels that those are public improvements, so that definition would apply. So the security would stay in place until the town engineer accepts or the town manager accepts those improvements. I don't think we got into the warranty discussion because I think the warranty would run to the or the town manager accepts those improvements. I don't think we got into the warranty discussion because I think the warranty would run to the town as so I don't think it may be applied to a general common element or the metro district. Well, I believe the way the metro district works as the metro district also requires a warranty from the developer. Okay. But Fred brings up an important point here because if you're talking about completing the roundabout and it's not in conjunction with construction elsewhere. In the agreement, there's a provision that says the town acknowledges that the developer's construction traffic will accelerate the normal wear and tear of the town's roadways. The town acknowledges that any such accelerated wear and tear to the town roadways caused by normal construction will be repaired using town funds. So if you build it and it's not in conjunction and that wear and tear is longer than that, and then there's construction on top, I mean, there's regular wear and tear, then there's construction at a later time. The town's committed to preparing that. Well, I will agree with this that this evening at the outset, the guy was remiss to describe the fact that he very much would like to have some action from the Council this evening. Majority of the public comments can occur with that some level of completion and forward progress and get this important construct nailed down, proceed with actions that are called for it within it, frankly, less than two weeks away. You'll see the next submission. That's that submission and all of the land use work that will come between us. Now, that's a significant investment. And that's probably where I'm trying to provide some level of protection or comfort, that there's an assurance, at least there's some opportunity. But I would, in the interest of getting, in the interest of getting an action and hopefully a support of approval tonight. Yes. I would be willing to concede and to forego the buyback provision. If that helps, if that's helpful in the compromise and the actions of finding and agreement here together tonight, I'd let it go. I think I'll accept that and move forward and see where the vote does chime out, but I would appreciate that. Yes Okay, Julian I believe that if based on the changes that we saw tonight it would be appropriate for the Council to consider whether or not to approve the ordinance on second reading. Move approval of the ordinance. Is there a second? I have some questions but I can second it. Marky seconds with questions. What do you say? Can I begin to go ahead, Marky? I want to talk a little bit about ski coals, application, or I'm going to go ahead and use the term limelight and a notion that was put forth at the last meeting that we had in terms of the first reading. There was a series of questions that I ask of Don Schuster that deals with a potential acceleration of the ski co-property. I want to make sure— I see it in there. Yes, ma'am. Second part of that, though, was the goal of the limelight is to have a price point for a hotel that is somewhere south of what the vice-roy in western price point is. So a moderately priced hotel. That is not in this resolution and the question for you might be is there language that we could insert into the conditions that would put forth a moderately priced property? And, or, can we specifically put limelight, or also known as or similar to the limelight into this ordinance. I think that would be the subject of the review that the application that is by the disapproval to come to you on October 15th. And be reviewed between now and May. Well, I'll go back to that. What at whenever, here? Hi. Yeah. OK. One of the fundamental things that Duane brought up at the beginning is that to meet that May 31 deadline is going to take some effort on both sides, additional meetings, et cetera, et cetera. And you can approve this ordinance, but you can't commit for a future council to engage in those meetings. Okay, that's fair. Okay, that's fair. That's why there's all these provisions of what happens in the future. And that's it. Okay, that's it future. And that's it. Okay, that's understandable. You really can't get into price control when you're approving a product. And however you want to discuss that, it's really not appropriate for this because building five is not bound to be an application by the Aspen Schienkamp. Now they may have a contract that we don't know about, but it's referred to as building five-line light snowmasses, but it is under no guarantee that that's what the application will be. But what I'm going to understand that because you really shouldn't be considering that. Okay, but I want to be very clear though, John. We'll come back and time we will see that in terms of what SkiCO is proposing will be in the submission on October 15th and or at the time SKECO submits. I can't tell you SKECO is going to submit. I can tell you that the applicant before you, you will be suspended. There's a agreed to file a PUD amendment. Okay. It might and it might only be for building 13 B. Now I take that back. There's some stuff in here. There's other stuff. That's two, three and four. But yeah. Okay. It doesn't mean that ski co is going to propose limelight. So. Okay. So there's no safety net for us in that this application. But the operation is outside of the scope. Yep. But the conditional piece that you referred to earlier in this land use review process, wherein you did say that if the end statement, that is contemplated here, you've seen that now in your review. It's in your council packet page 195. To the extent there's a limelight and to the extent it is approved, that there's an acceleration of the vesting. That's, again, it's on page 195 right there in the center. Accelerated milestone deadlines for building five line lines still mass. It's a big if-then statement. So, okay. It's okay. And okay and the staff obviously we've all reviewed that together Okay accepted the sound starts with if yes, it's any of I Want to thank everybody I'm glad we went through a lot of those details and I Have some comments and I have some comments and I'll try not to make them too lengthy but I think that it's imperative that I bring forth my comments this evening as part of the public hearing and it's about four pages but I'll try to go quickly and maybe edit as I go. Some of this stuff's not going to be so pleasant so probably less pleasant for me but I'm going to get through it anyway. I'm of the opinion and I'm glad that we are moving forward, that we have a cultural problem, we have a culture problem on Council and Snowmass Village. Probably similar to a lot of places. We got the old self-entitled good old boys and girls, a disregard for process and procedure outside deals and a lack of truth. And just as begun to be revealed, I heard a lot about it with the Federal Reserve investigations right now. I think cultural problems are not something to be ignored because they can lead to waste and destruction. I think cultural problems can lead to a lack of real action because people don't take the time or lack the confidence or are just too busy or too lazy. I think cultural problems can lead to a lack of faith and trust, whether in big government or in small town politics. The last issue, a lack of trust, I think is extremely pertinent because as we just went into our strategic retreat, one of the priorities that we came up with as a council was to rebuild trust with our community. Some people say that one rebuilds trust by just playing dice or glossing over things and moving forward with vague platitudes about service and community, et cetera. I'm going to skip a paragraph. This will be on record with the clerk if you'd like to read it later. In my experience, making time to devote oneself to one's service and to one's work is a good thing. It's a valuable resource. It's a resource that allows one to find the truth in a matter. And for example, and I know Bob's here, I have absolutely no issues with you at all Bob, but I'm gonna just highlight one area. When Mr. Circus made a comment regarding the planning commission that a council person claimed that the planning commission did not do their job. I made the time available to watch the meeting three times on Granicus, and there is no such statement to my observation made by a council person. The only comments potentially fitting the description were made by Mr. Mordkin, and I think perhaps he was accurate in some of his questions. In fact, I took the time to transcribe his entire comments by hand owed to you Arnie because why? Why did I do that? And in saying ridiculous things because I wanted to understand what we were doing here and I wanted to really get down in the details. There has been a significant pattern or culture problem that I have observed in my timeline council and has been exhibited in during three particular situations. The resigning of the town manager and the behavior of council after that, the hiring of the new town manager and the fiasco around the Inverum Town Manager's appointment, and now the behaviors of council and the review process before us today and because of the chase I don't think it's appropriate to take a vote right now. This troubling pattern of willful disregard for the agreed upon process has led me led me to be a bit more skeptical a bit more cynical and to listen a bit more carefully. And something was said during our September 8th meeting that caught my ear, and I felt the responsibility to the town and the applicant to learn more. What I learned, some things are fact, some things are hearsay, confirm my suspicions. And who knows, I may be wrong. I may be shown to be wrong over time. But in my understanding, but I believe it is my responsibility to express what I know here today in the chambers of this council and in the process of this public hearing and I appreciate all of you allowing me the opportunity to complete my humble act and fulfill my responsibility to the integrity of the town. Let me note that I have given this a great deal of thought as to what I'm about to communicate into the underlying reasons for undertaking what may be an uncomfortable, lonely and for lack of too much gravitas solemn task. Let me first say that our task tonight in in per our land use code is easily readable. I think it's fairly easy to understand and explains the council's role in reviewing an application. So if anyone would like to read it, it's a pretty easy document to find. I'll also add that it is, and I hope it will continue to be a real honor to be on the town council and to serve the village. And I believe my comments today are considerate of the town's best interest and the developer's best interest. You might think I'm being funny or ironic, this is not the case. As has been said many times, I am in favor of the developer moving forward and want the process to be successful by the means of an appropriate, lawful, and perhaps prudent procedure. I must state, my observations are what caught my ear were purely mine, having absolutely nothing to do with staff. I want to be crystal clear about something. My initial awareness about what I am going to discuss came exclusively from my own perception. So what is it? There appears to have been significant exparte communication between the applicant and the members of the town council. On September 8th, if you allow me to continue, to 2014, after an impressive display of specific editing of agreements that some in the community appear to be a preordained and staged bit of theater. The applicant's attorney and no issues with you Joe asked if the council wish to have the documents restated or amended. Now I want to know for everybody and those listening or thinking about this later. This is a matter that the council had never discussed amongst itself or with the applicant. If you could show me, I'm happy to be corrected, but that has never been discussed in these chambers in a public hearing as to that process. After the applicant's attorney said that a single document would probably be good, which seemed like a good idea. Councilman Cooker added, and that was my thought, it was a quote, and that was my thought, wouldn't it? Because I thought that's what you sort of, what we sort of agreed to, that you were going to consolidate a couple of these documents. Agreed to? Who? Agreed. When did this happen? It certainly wasn't the town council while in these chambers and before the public who made an agreement, who is you? quote unquote, who is we? I don't know about all of you, but after watching the video again and again, I am of the opinion that Mr. Cooker was referring to an agreement he made between himself and the applicant and that you quote unquote refers to the applicant and that we refer to counsel and that we agree by remind you and if I'm incorrect I don't mind being corrected. That we didn't even discuss the matter. There are great many details to this story but let me highlight a few right now. Following this comment from Mr. Cooker which was also noticed by various members of the community. I asked the town attorney if he had noticed this comment. He expressed great relief that I had come to this realization by myself and not with his or anyone else's assistance. In this first conversation, we only conferred about the shared observation. However, later I learned that the town attorney had advised both Councilman Cooker and Mayor Bueno about the X partake communication and that it appeared that Mr. Cooker had engaged in substantive communications concerning a matter pending before the town with an applicant. And in this case outside of the proper arena of the open meeting. My understanding is that the mayor and councilman Cooker were informed that taking an official act could jeopardize the process and expose the town to litigation. In fact, our code pertains to this and in fact, we've already had several threats of litigation from the community. The story goes that Mr. Cooker defended himself by saying he did not talk to the applicant, but talked to Don Schuster. If this weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. But okay, so the communication was not directly with the applicant. And by splitting hairs and saying that instead of sending an email, he used a carrier pigeon to communicate. I mean, it's an equivalent of saying, I didn't send the communication my computer did. Well, a lot of this could fit under the he said, she said, rubric, one fact fact does not fit into the hearsay pile. The fact is that Mr. Cooker directed staff to delay or hold up the publishing of the council packet so that another round of amendments could be integrated into the packet. How, I ask you, could Mr. Cooker have known about the amendments and that they were so important as to require staff to halt their work and include the amendments for the next meeting without having engaged in substantive communication and having lost his sole discretion. As an aside, I'll skip the aside to save time. In the course of my investigation, I learned that Ms. Butler called our interim town manager to inform him that she had nothing to do with the reputed X partake communication. And almost as that was being stated, Mr. Cooker was defending himself by saying, Marky knows what's going on because she is negotiating the liquidated damages amounts with Don Schuster. And now it appears that there's a fascinating backstory and I won't spend too much time on that, but Marky did say we should get to the back stories around SkiCo and some housing credits relative to the point line. I don't have all the details on that yet. And while the mayor can act like he has no knowledge and did not engage in communication with the applicant, he was warned about the danger of not halting the process so that a council person would not take an official action, such as voting on the first reading, we're voting today. And by doing so exposed the town and the applicant to risk. The applicant you ask, yes, because if and when a 106 in courier or whatever it's formally called Is filed it may cause the applicant's process to be halted in the decisions of this body to be stayed for months Additionally, I've learned that after the amendment was inserted into the halted packet and after the mayor was informed the Councilman Cooker's action, the mayor was at the town hall first thing the next day to try to pry the amendment back out of the packet. But it has been published and the apparent infraction is now captured in the public record. So why talk about this? One, I want to protect the town from risk and future bad behavior. Two, I know it's ironic, but protect the applicant and future applicants from risk and delay. And perhaps probably the most important thing to begin to work on one of the priorities identified by council, to build trust with our community. I want the community to trust that this council is listening, and to trust that it is doing the work needed to try to understand and find the truth of the matter. And to trust that there is a disciplined approach to procedure and to trust that we all want our community partners to achieve success by the book to the benefit of all. I am optimistic, ultimately, that a community government can manage itself for the benefit of its constituents by being creative, diligent, and dedicated. And without relying on bullying, badgering, outside deals, and ex-partake communication. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Mr. Cooker. Mr. Cooker. Chris, I know you're not in favor of a base village, but the maligned majority of this council is absolutely unconscionable. I never had at substantive X-party communication with an applicant. Don Schuster is not an applicant. with an applicant. Don Schuster is not an applicant. Don Schuster told me after the first meeting where we had liquid data damages that they were going to incorporate that liquid data damage clause into their new proposal that would be forthcoming when it came two weeks ago, whatever it was. I came up here to take a look at the proposal and discovered that that clause wasn't in there. And I had told the applicant in public that if that clause wasn't in there, they would not have my vote. that if that clause wasn't in there, they would not have my vote. I called on Schuster and I said, Don, you told me that clause was going to be there. It is not there. And the applicant knows I am not going to vote for the application. I told the applicant that in public. I can then implement. My court, my communication with Mr. Schuster was, you tell me one thing and something else happens. I'm troubled by that. Probably an hour or two later, you call me back and he said, they're going to submit a new application with the liquid data damage clause in it. I came up to the council chambers and set the staff. I think there is a new application coming or an amendment to this application coming. I think it important that it be included in the proposal in the agenda item that would be coming out for all of us because I thought it was terribly important that we all had in front of us what was the applicant's ultimate proposal and that we'd not come in here and have reviewed a proposal that was going to be changed the minute the applicant walked in the room. So that is why I asked that for the benefit of council. That is why I asked that to hold up until the new amendment came in. I never had substantive communication, ex party communication with the applicant. The ski company is not the applicant. Don Schuster is not employed by related. In fact, my belief is that they have an arms-laid transaction for the development of the limelight. And they are two separate and distinct parties. And they are two separate and distinct parties. Marky. And I've Chris, I heard you say I was negotiating with the applicant. I had one conversation with Mr. Schuster the day after a council meeting. I don't remember his first resolution. I go back and look at my iPhone which I don't have with me but I'll be very clear with you. The conversation was I want to be I need some clarification on ski co. And the clarification comes from the fact that I want to understand if this is the limelight. Second of which is a question I'm going to put forth. I don't expect you to have an answer but I put it because I ask it in council meeting and did not get an adequate answer given the late hour of the evening. And that was, is it even plausible to accelerate the limelight past the completion date or the start date that we had on that timeline, whatever the 23 milestones was? And the reason why I put that forth was that we'd already looked and spent considerable time through the planning commission on the limelight and second of which is it had come into the council and got stalled at that point. So that was the question and that's the last conversation I did not negotiate nor did I think it even appropriate to bring up the whole issue around anything on the financial side on private improvements. That was a conversation that occurred at council. It was Mr. Cooker that brought that up. I am troubled by the fact that you're suggesting Mr. Cooker told somebody. Because that's hearsay. That is very troubling and I disagree and I never disagree more with that than what I am right now. more with that than what I am right now. Okay. Yeah, and I put my two cents in. Yes, we did have a meeting with Mr. Cooker, myself, Mr. Dresser, and it was explained what had happened and what my reading of the rules. It did not have the effect of substantial, substantive communication with the applicant and I am concerned It's not anything to be taken lightly at all these things have to be handled in this room in front of the public and that's where I believe it all has been There have been these you know back and forth tonight and These this is what happens at these meetings. And that should happen in this room, and I believe that's where it did happen. With that said, anything else, any comments from the public? Mr. Morgan. Mr. Mayor and members of council, again on mortal morgan. I think most of you know what my previous occupation was. I was the chief deputy district attorney of Picking County from 2008 until January of 2013. With the disclosure made today, I can't tell you whether Mr. Schuster would be considered an applicant or not. I do remember Mr. Schuster coming before this council very early in this process that you're voting on tonight and saying that ski co was going to allow had a contract with The developer that's before you To put the proposal for building five in the works, they're going to make that application. And I don't know whether that creates privity or not for a 106 proceeding. But I can tell you, it is a private attorney. If Mr. Cooker had asked me that he should make the statements, he did, I would have told him that you need to refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate your entire council. I am shocked and surprised. You cannot build trust in the community if you don't do things in public. I would harken only to an earlier event and it has to do with the employment of the new town manager. You will recall that emotion was made and seconded and passed to go back to the expert who was assisting in the project and ask him whether or not it was a good idea to either go back to the public in general or recall the applications that were obtained, etc. And the comment was made and we're going to have that person appear before the council and the public and it was going to be by Skype because he wasn't here. And then the next meeting that was that occurred, we in as a matter of the public were informed that you had met with that person by Skype, apparently, in executive session. And you came out with whatever the conclusion was and I don't recall. That doesn't get you public confidence. It does exactly the opposite. Thank you. Thank you. Jason? I would just like to take an opportunity to say thank you to Councilman Jacobson for bringing this to light. I would concur that there is a cultural problem on this council that repeated pattern of actions on behalf of the majority. Do set up a mistrust in the community relative to council. And it's a pattern of violating that trust. I think as Councilman Jacob Midson suggested, it's in the interest of this town and the interest of this council and in the interest of the applicant ultimately to take one of a few choices relative to a course of action. As I see it, I think we are compromised in terms of the validity of any action we take today and participation by those that these allegations and I believe these actions relate to. I've been an advocate for most of this process of the idea of a short term vesting extension to allow for submittal of an application and review and an application that said in this instance with these things coming to light. I think you know we it's incumbent on us in a way either a to accept recusals from council members that have violated that trust and violated due public process. Defer the decision to the next council as another option or to entertain a request from the applicant to table consideration of this so that any formal action that is taken relative to this proposal is not compromised and subject to the risk of litigation from the community and further at least well I guess that so I think you know we've created a dynamic here that creates a significant risk of litigation against any action that we take today and I'm not in favor of moving forward at this time and certainly not in favor of an approval with the full participation of this council. Okay. So we have a, I'll take more public comment at this time. Mr. Circus? Well, Circus has a citizen. This last discussion, smacks of politics, like it stinks of politics. You have Mr. Haber running for mayor and his sidekick, Mr. Jacobson, making accusations about the rest of the council. And this council has been a three-two majority for the last year or more. And the whole purpose, in my opinion, and by the way, you did include me in there, I appreciate that. The whole purpose of this was to find a reason to delay this vote and avoid the approval of this resolution which the town needs for its development and for its future. And I think you really showed bad taste in the fact that you brought this up at this meeting really in the middle of a campaign season where your colleagues, and I'll use that word loosely because I don't think you treat them as colleagues, but your colleagues are running for office. Thank you. Don? Don Schuster, Asmos King coming. And sitting here and listening to this, we'd face it. We're all in a small town. We are at different places and different times and so forth. There was a conversation that was brought up at the August meeting sometime about liquid damage, just that Fred brought up. And I can't remember where when I was at, at a function. And I mentioned to Fred, as I think related, it's going to potentially agree to some liquidated damages. And Fred did call me when it wasn't in something. There's no question about that. So I'll confirm that. I will also confirm, you know, Markey called me a long time ago, and by the way, when we withdrew our application a long time ago, I called every one of you, or my Kaplan called some of you, to talk about the fact that we withdrew our application because in the uncertainty of this thing coming forward. And when that happened, I was told by several council members and others in this community. If you're going to ever have the opportunity that this might happen, call me and let me know. So I did call council members and I talked to people and I called others in the community to tell them that we had entered an intern agreement was related to potentially bringing that back. And one of the things I specifically indicated at that time was if this were to come back related was the applicant and related we'd be bringing forward a major PUD amendment that would include the potential of whatever happened a lot to when we were there. One of the things Marky indicated she'd call me and ask me about what was going to happen. And her question was specifically, is there any way that Asmos King company, if approved, would be able to build this a year earlier than later? And in my conversation with Marke, I said, I don't think that can happen based upon what the land use code requirements are for a major PUD amendment and the time frames. And I said, you'd have to refer back to town staff to figure out what the land use code specifically indicated as far as the time frames. That could happen. And I said, I didn't think that there was any way that the limelight could be accelerated in a major PUD application that could be something that the discussion happened with staff End of conversation and reference to that. So I just wanted to let you know those are the conversations that I know occurred. Thank you Thank you, John Any more public comment before I close the public comment? I wouldn't close it. I wait till you've taken out your final action and then close it. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second on second floor to Ordinance the second reading of ordinance three And I'd like to call the question. No, I think you need to do some amendments You need to right motion on these amendments and I'll be happy to list them with Okay, you were Craig as amended right so mr. D, would you recap the amendments that we have addressed? In the base village development agreement, amended and restarted base village development agreement under the definition of mobilization that would be changed at the end to say, together with the visible commencement of actual operations on the ground for the erection of a building or construction of a public improvement, common comma, which is readily recognizable as commencement of a building or construction of a public improvement and which is done with the intention to continue the work until the building is completed. Okay. A great. And in section 1.1A, The second sentence, I'm sorry, it's a third sentence in that would be reinstated. It was deleted from the submission by the applicant was deleted in the attachment to the ordinance, and it will now read unless expressly provided to the contrary and any subsequent approval or amendment, all modifications and amendments, the ordinance or any other approval agreements or material related to the development of the property shall become part of the vested property rights recognized here under automatically upon approval or execution by the town. And such vesting shall last throughout the term of the vested property rights. Great. On 1.3.7 construction interruption, it will read the section I. A reasonable restoration and remediation contingency plan is required by section 16A-5-310. Parents nine of the town municipal code. Hold it. I got to pull this up because the amendment actually comes into the last part of that. So I want to get the proper sums. That was one. And then in section three, other security, which is reasonably acceptable to the town, the construction and derruption security in the amount of 120% of the amount come based on the scope of the restoration and remediation contingency plan as reasonably determined by the town. You agree? If you just go back to 1.36? Yes. You just didn't go that you were including the language that was originally struck in the first part that reads. Thank you. that reads. Any other buildings for which commencement of construction has occurred? Yeah. Sunpage 197. Oh, correct. I have the note okay to include. So we'll be reinserting the deleted line in 1.3.6 and any other building for which commencement of construction has occurred after the date of this agreement. Yep. Agreed. And that's it on the development agreement. Okay. On the subdivision improvements agreement, paragraph four, the landscape improvements. At the very end of that sentence, it would be or current cost estimates for the landscaping improvements. Good job. the good job did you agree to that either way for something going back before that. We'd skip the one there on the landing site. Okay. I guess I didn't write that one down. I thought such conveyance will be in the form of a fee interest in the landing site and an easement. Okay, fee interest or easement. Perpetual easement. Acceptable to the town. So fee easement, fee interest or perpetual easement and the rest of the language. Well, the perpetual easement needs to be acceptable to the town and then you go to and correct. And easement, the grants the town are operating. Right. So, what we were adding was after the fee interest or a perpetual easement acceptable or approved by the town. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And an easement. And Okay, and the landscape when you were okay with? Yes, and three F. Just wanted to say that we're striking now. We agreed to strike that. The tie-up. Oh, we're striking the whole paragraph. Yes, agreed. Those are the amendments, Mr. Professor. And then all care periods. We could pick in the day here. And the care periods in the subdivision improvements cream will go to 15 days. Agreed. Okay. So that was our amendments to ordinance 3 as discussed to the exhibits. The exhibits. So I guess we should first ask if we, because we've agreed on these, should we make a motion to approve the- Should the second for the amendments? Is there a motion? The second for the amendments, Mr. Drescher stated. That's Mr. Cooker. Second. Second by Markey. Further discussion? All in favor, the Mr. Chris? I just think it's- He told the question- No, no, no, Mr. Chris, Chris hold the hand up. I recognize him Fred. I think it's it's indicative and and shows the the brazen approach to the way these discussions have gone on. It's not about being unable to win or lose at a 3 2. It's okay. That's fine. But in a light of risk, cost, and waste, and damage to all participants, the so-called majority will move forward. Mr. Circus, to your point, you know, in the first few months of this council, and as I say, I said I didn't have an issue with you, and I'm glad that you're running. And I don't want to talk politics. And if you go back and watch the tape, you will come to the same conclusions that I will. And it was in fact you that wrote a letter regarding this matter. And I took a time to write one and I never responded to it because it wasn't appropriate because it should be in public. And that's why I'm doing this thing. inappropriate because it should be in public and that's why I'm doing this. In the first few months in terms of your comments around my colleagues, on council, I was repeatedly chastised and ridiculed for applying too significant amount of time to focusing on work of the council and was therefore doing too much work. I listened to the most absurd comments about whether I have a job, how much time I have on my hands, and other abusive things that are surprising, especially coming from a woman in the circumstances of equal rights and things like this. And the most abuse that I got in those first couple of months came as I recall predominantly for Markey and the mayor. So I take somewhat umbridge to your notion that I have not been collegial with my council members. And people will understand and they will analyze this decision and the circumstances over time. And they will see the evidence of the emails relative to Mr. Cookers halting the packet for an assertion of additional amendments. And as I said, as you mentioned, I think he said accusations. I don't believe I made any real accusations. What I did is inform the public of my understanding from reliable sources of the story and the facts and components around the circumstance. Thank you. All those in favor of, let's see, amendments. Please signify a saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Opposed. That's three to two. Moving on, we have a second motion and a second for the ordinance three as amended. Rhonda? Required to roll call vote. Yes, thank you. So at this point, let's do a roll call for the second reading. Mayor Boyna? Yes. Butler? Yes. Cooker. Yes. Aver? No. And Jacobson? No. Thankver. No. And Jacobson. No. Thank you very much. Three two. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Now you can close the public hearing. Close the public hearing. We'll move on to the manager's report. No, wait. John. We'll move on to the manager's report. I'm John Beamos. John. I'm John Beamos. I've lived here for a long time. I love this community. But I have heard tonight some of the most destructive accusations. I found it really disturbing and Mr. Jacobson said the so-called majority as far as I'm concerned it was the majority. Thank you very much. Okay moving on to the manager's report. There's just one item before you tonight, City Council. Our town council took to consider, and that's an opportunity to discuss regarding a new- You can hold off into the back room, please, and take it outside. Need to finish this tonight. If you consider a revised agenda format, and a draft format was put before you for consideration, there's really just a couple of major considerations that we're hoping to do, clean up some of the process. Primarily, we're asking that we start utilizing a consent agenda. Examples tonight, there's a number of examples tonight that we could use a consent agenda for. You'll receive the same staff reports, but hopefully they could all be considered underneath one item, say some time. And then the second thing they're asking for is to kind of formalize the public and council comment period so that there's one for agenda versus two and we can keep it organized that way. And then the public hearings are, we probably break down between quasi judicial and legislative. Before we went to that format, we wanted to make sure that you all were comfortable with it and to get any comments you might have. How was council's feelings with Clint's proposal? I did have a question. Okay. I have to. What page was that on again, Clint? Um, looking. 2.30. 2.30 is the draft. Okay. B-B-B-B. I love the American Pie when they said I don't like it. It was good. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. to what we do now. It's just kind of. And then the applicant and then public input. Before we go to counts, that's what it is. Where you have questions from Council, number six. So we would do applicant presentation, then public input. In an all-ons. Applicants responding to the public, is that your thought? That's kind of the drug drafts and what I need to confirm is with Mr. Dresser, the code actually lays out how the quasi-judicial procedure needs to happen. This is pretty close, but we would need to tweak it a little bit here in the middle. But it's fine to manually, would it? Yeah, I like the four matters, just that procedural issues I had questions on. Thank you. Okay, so otherwise we're comfortable Jason Chris Fred To proceed we'll get this going for the 20th. We'll shoot to have that for the first one and see how it works good. I think that works That case that's all for the So just regard my formatting on the next four agendas. Don't you worry around up figure you guys can work that up Okay Well look at the items and Don't you worry around up figure you guys can work that up Okay Look at the items and Will assign them to the consent or right probably input whatever and if wherever Miss judge and item and put on a consent because we think it's there's consensus and there's not there's always the opportunity to remove it consent put on a consideration, so okay very good That's the end of the mandatory port moving on agendas for the next council meetings better not consideration. So, okay. Very good. That's the end of the mandatory report moving on. Agendas for the next council meetings. We've got. I've had to put all the way through the end of the year just so you can see what's coming up. Good job, Ronda. Thank you. I have a quick question on December the 8th. That's a Monday evening. Must that, well, I guess, is the question. The question that I have, is that a 4 p.m. meeting? Yes. It's the special meeting we have every single year after we get the assessments from the county that Mary Ann has to have a meeting on. Okay. I have an event at 5.30 in Aspen. Okay. I just want to get clarification on the time the associate of that meeting. This is It's quick if I remember I just done we don't know what taxes are going to raise until we know the assessed value and we have to do by a certain date Yeah, I know we have we set she has to figure out the millevee she plugs it in okay, you approve it We certify it to the county. So the question then, can we agree that we don't, well, can't buy into new council. Not to add any other items on the December the 8th. There usually wasn't. Okay, there will be a DID for two minutes before because I have to do the mill of the time. They have to do the same thing. Oh, okay, that makes sense. Okay. But you'll have another chance. You'll have two more chances to comment on that particular. Thank you. That meeting. Okay. Anything else on the agendas? October 20th. We talked about discussing the ice rank. I think that should be out of the manager's report and move ahead of the budget discussion. We can do that. I mean, I don't know any new format. We'd call it administrative probably. I don't know if there's any public hearings that night. I can't recall at the read. But I would set it up under, we'd set it up as a staff report from Parks and Rec. Let Andy do a little of the background. So how we got here, the numbers, is running the issues and presented that way to you. And then if you want to open up the comment, you know, that'd be your call at that point. Okay. I probably would be a good comment, Barry. Okay. But I guess looking at that agenda, I mean, one thing we would do is we've got, I guess I'm looking right now, we have the Pick and County manager coming to talk about the airport. We have ski code coming on the 20th, right? Yeah. And so we put those two presentations first and then put the staff put their hockey after that. And that's the kind of stuff that we'll get a little rhythm going but we'll figure it out. And then the budget discussion would come after that. The budget as far as hockey we'd I think we'd roll that all into one discussion and make it all one item for you to act on so you're not jumping around the agenda. That's the budget in 2014 budget. It's not the 2015. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm talking about the budget implications. No, the John was right. It's mending the 14 budget. Yeah, this is just a mending the 14 budget, not we could stick down to 15. There was not a lot of discussion tonight. Right. That be a perfect consent item. The right. Let you guys look at that. I'll talk to the town attorney and make sure we break any rules. Make sure you guys are doing the right stuff. Okay. Anything else on the agendas? Moving on then to the minutes. We've got minutes from September 8th. Motion to approve by Jason. Second by Mr. Cooker. Any discussion? All. Alterations, all those in favor, please signify saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Then we look at the calendar. And any comments, concerns. The October, 20th, then November, we're canceling the November 3rd meeting. Election the next day, so it gives staff opportunity to deal with this room. There is a EOTC meeting on the 16th. The same day as the candidates form and there is a raft meeting again this Thursday at 9 a.m. and carbon-delf, anybody's available to sit in on that will be good. Other than that, we've got December meetings as we said. First eighth for short one in the 15th. That's it. Short ones on the eighth. Right. The 15th is a normal. The eighth is the uh, the levy discussion. I want to add October 30th for your flu shots. Very good. Okay. Rhonda, I'll be out of town from the 8th through the 15th of November. 8th through the 15th. Thank you. Okay. The 15th for the meeting. The 17th's the meeting. 17th's the meeting. I'll be back on the 15th of November. And the other thing related to the calendar, something we've done every year. And that is the community Thanksgiving potluck. Do we have a date for that yet? Oh, we did. Usually the Sunday before Thanksgiving. Yes, so it generally is a Sunday and with the change of... If anyone's doing that. The Weston. I'll contact the other way. Okay. It'd be helpful. We need to get it on the calendar if it's going to happen. If it's going to happen. Okay, then we have, is there anything else? Motion for adjournment? Actually, Council comments, commuter reports. Mr. Haver. I think thank you. Mr. Butler. Nothing. I have nothing. Mr. Jacobson. Nothing, sir. Mr. Butler? I have nothing. Mr. Jacobson? Mr. Cooker. In that case, is there a motion for adjournment? As Mr. Cooker, I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Hmm. you 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 you you I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. you you you you