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 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. you I'm going to do it. you 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 do it. First, and then... 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 you you I'm going to do it. Very good. We'd like to call to order these stillness village general improvement district number Order the Stolman's Village General Improvement District. Number one, for August 18, 2014. First item we have is roll call, please, Rhonda. Mayor Boynell? Here? Are we brought to court? Right, cooker? Here? Is Jason Hayesley? Here. First Jacob's. Here. Very good. Item number two is called SkyCab Maintenance Request, Funding Request. Mr. Souter. Thank you members of the board since you're sitting as a board and you'll be a council in a few minutes. This is a follow up to the manager's report item from our last regular council meeting regarding offseason maintenance of the sky cabins. So we needed a motion from council to authorize an amount not to exceed $11,150 to come from the general improvement district unappropriated Reserve for replacing the windows on the SkyCab or the Skittles lift and some exterior upkeep of those cabins. This is basically an authorization from the Board. The formal action will occur during the budget process later in the year where you'd actually appropriate these funds. And I believe we had about a half million dollars in fund balance. So should not be a material deign to that fund balance. Very good. Motion to approve. Motion. Who? Vice Jason Hayber. Second by Chris Jacobson. Very good. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Vice-Jace and Hayber second by Chris Jacobson. Further discussion. You know, these are things that we worry about from time to time. Over a year and making sure that balance, that balance, budget and stuff. But it sounds like this is definitely a necessary item. Are we going to have, do you think, Gary, future capital replacement things like this is definitely a necessary item. Are we gonna have, do you think Gary, future capital replacement things like this, probably in a schedule or something, or is this gonna be a continual when it comes up? Probably a question best asked of a ski co-person, ski co-person L. Steve Sewell, and his maintenance personnel that maintain the item, the equipment, I do know they said they wanted to check the linkage on the doors, so they'll be doing some preventative maintenance. And I don't know. I don't know if they have a capital replacement plan. I'm sure all these moving parts have life spans bill. Yeah. I'm not up to speed on what the maintenance schedule is. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we've got a motion in a second on the floor to approve the request. Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. I. Aye. That's, um, very good. Passes unanimously. Thank you. I'll notify Mr. Sewell and we'll get that going. Item number three is for approval of meeting minutes for December 9, 2013. Motion to approve. Mr. Cooker. I'll second it. Discussion? Can it be seen again? All those in favor please signify the same eye. Aye. Any opposed? They also pass unanimously. We're going to now adjourn. Is there a motion for adjournment? Some of. Mr. Hayber, seconded by Mr. Jacobson. All those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned from the GID Improvement District number one. by Mr. Jacobson, Olives and Favor. Aye. Aye. We are adjourned from the GID Improvement District number one. Now let's go into the regular meeting. I'd like to call the order. Stomach spillage from Council for August 18, 2014. First item was roll call. Please Ronda Here Here Here here very good Item number two is for public non-agenda items if there's anyone in the public would like to make a comment for the record Please step forward to microphone state your name for the record say what boards you are or are not on, and go from there. Don Schuster from the Aspen Scheme Company. I'm on several boards, but none here. But I just wanted to let everyone know that as of about a half an hour ago, Aspen Scheme Company and Related have entered into an agreement signed by all parties for us to participate back in base village with the line light hotel and the buildings and building four that we had previously been under review with, with that, just a little bit of different twist to this by the terms of that agreement. Coming forward, related will be the applicant as opposed to the Asmons Gain Company and assuming it moves forward from the perspective of this minor PUD amendment that you're reviewing at this point and related with submit a major PUD application honor before October 15th that the line light hotel and associated buildings along with that would be part of that major PUD amendment coming forward. It also means that I'll resurrect the Fannie Hill townhomes and Nassamist game company will separately and distinct bring forward a PUD amendment for the approval of the delinking of Fannie Hill townhomes or at least allow those to move forward sort of concurrent with whatever happens in lot to and base village as part of that. So just wanted to make that announcement and we had hope that it would have happened earlier today but as we all know last minute glitches in an agreement but at both parties were signed about a half an hour ago. So I'm happy to answer any questions if anybody's got anything right off the top of but I'm sure we'll be back in front of you. Mr. Cooker's hands up. I just want to say I couldn't be more delighted. I was very upset when the deal fell through last time. I think the limelight is an absolutely perfect project to kickstart base village. It's been a huge success in town. I think it'll be a huge success here. And I'm delighted you guys got back together. And I'll just make this comment, I think that from our perspective and entering to this agreement, we think that we're aligned with what the town needs and wants from the approval process coming forward. And both lot, two, three, and other components of base villages, I move forward. and looking forward to being part of the process with related. Very good. Thank you, Don. Thank you. Everybody for making it sounds like that could be a good thing. Any other public money agenda? Seeing none, I will close the public agenda section, moving on to council updates Mr. Haver Enjoyed seeing the bikes come through town today and some of the footage on TV look great It's a nice things to say about Our town and ski resort so did you see that otherwise nothing for me very good likewise we had those folks in for about oh five days a week or so a number of people so it's been kind of interesting and diving around bicycles in the road but that's been a okay thing they'll take off tomorrow so we shouldn't have the headaches of road and traffic we had today. But it sounds like they're looking at trying to come back next year. So I think it's one more year of this would be an exciting time to see what happens. Other than that, nothing else for. Mr. Jacobson. It just wanted to take a minute or two and notice and celebrate the 11th R.D. American Renewable Energy Day happened last week. And I was very surprised and delighted by how compelling it was, how professional it was, and the type of talent it brought in. As probably most of you know, the former President Jimmy Carter was here, United States Senator Michael Bennett was here, former Governor Ben Ritter was here, billionaire Tom Steyer was here, there were innumerable inventors, investors, politicians, policy makers. A number of our local notables that helped out Peter McBride's presentations on the health of rivers. If you have not seen them, our amazing, his talk was amazing. John McBride, senior and Kate McBride were also there. Mona Newton from core, Scadron, our mayor and John McBride, senior and K. McBride were also there. Mona Newton from Corps, Scadron, Armea, and Aspen was on a panel mic, Marol, Christina Wiley of the Wiley family, Amory Lovens, which you would expect. Many others, Book of Van, David Hornbacher from the city of Aspen, Steve Child from Pick and County, and Snowmass Notables. Richard Goodwin had a panel and spoke and I wanted to thank him for his promotion of Snowmass Village and his ideas about Snowmass Village. And then there was a person who I had never met before whose name is Albert Slap, I think and I guess he's an environmental lawyer and he made mention that he lives in Snowmass too. So I wanted to recognize everyone. I thought that the whole profile of the event was really looking at all the different avenues for solving, I think, the most pressing issues of the day, whether it was climate, energy, security, policy making, politics, et cetera. And as I guess silly season is starting here, I just remind everybody get active, come out and vote, ask of your candidates what they believe in and what they think, and it is clear from being at our day as it is with everything that if you want to get stuff done and you want certain values expressed, then you got to have the people in office that are going to do that. Thank you all. Mr. Cooker. Nothing. Thank you. Mark, can you shut up? Mark, do you have anything for a council update? Let me just center myself for a few seconds after sitting in traffic for a while and eight and two. What an event, apparently. No, I'm going to hold a few things for Council comments or town council comments towards the end. I have a few questions. But nothing else really pressing right now. Just while you've been absent the C company report that they had signed to deal with, whatever they did just to move forward with the live. Well good news. Good news. Okay then moving on to item number four. This is resolution number 26 series of 2014 resolution appointing an ex officio member to the marketing group sales and special events board. This was a item we had last one but, Ronda, do you want to? We do have the applicant in the room so you can ask questions but basically we have a next official position open on the marketing group sales and special events board. And she did apply so I'm here. Thank you very much. Mr, I'm just here. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. I needed to take a bullet here and say that I was the one that messed up the scheduling last meeting. So, both Latisha and Steve did say they were going to be out on the fourth and we left it, inadvertently, left it scheduled in the last meeting so so anyway I just want to let you guys up the hook let you know it wasn't your fault I'm sure they appreciate that Gary yeah hello we'll teach you hi welcome and tell us a little bit about yourself well I originally came to Aspen in 2002 I have an older sister that lives in the Valley, came for the weekend, fell in love, started working with Starwood Hotels on a fractional project at the St. Regis in Aspen, got moved around with my company in New York City, again, to Scottsdale, Arizona, and then came back to the Valley in 2009. So I've been in Aspen, snowmaster about nine years now, collectively. Very good. And you are currently it says in the marketing, yeah, that's your job position working with it right now. I'm currently the director of marketing for related. And my roles in the last 14 years have all been in sales and marketing. Very good. Any questions from the board? Marky. So I've always interested in job descriptions. So if you had to define your job at elevator speech, what would you say marketing is all about for related? I think marketing is about being creative and thinking outside of the box and doing things differently. I know one of our common goals that we share with the town is increasing vitality. So I played a huge role, for example, in programming and events for base village. And I think we've done a great job in the last two years. And a big part of that has been in collaborating with the town and working together to do bigger and better things. So was it your brainchild to do bigger and better things. So was it your brainchild to do the Sunday market? It was definitely an idea of mine, yes. That's what I was going to bring up. I'll tell you, that is just tremendous. I was over there yesterday, and even though the volume of people was down, talking to various vendors, they do enjoy it, and got to talk to the voice of the Pro-Challenge while I was on Down there yesterday. So I think that's just fantastic, and I encourage you to go out and support our local market. So that's great. So you've seen our challenges here in terms of vitality, particularly during the summer. And I give a lot of credit to our tourism, marketing and tourism group, who's worked really, really hard. To what extent do you work real closely with Brodsky and that whole team now? I work with them often. I, in fact, already set on the advisory board to the marketing board. And then I would say I have a very great relationship with Bath, Patsy, Pope, Joy, Fred, Browsky, Dave, Alkin and we talk probably on a weekly basis. Yeah. I was asking them the same question so the admiration is mutually shared. Okay. Very good. Motion for approval. Motion for approval by Markey. Second. Second, Mr. Cooker. Any other questions anybody has? And you, do you have any questions before you join into this? Nope, I'm excited. Wonderful group. In that case, is there approval of resolution, all those in favor of resolution 26 please. Signify the saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. You should welcome Okay moving on item number five. This is a public hearing application by Stomach acquisition company for a minor PUD amendment to the base field's PUD in order to modify Invested property rights and the terms of the vested property rights, including changes to development agreement, funny agreement and subdivision improvement agreements. I'm going to open the public hearing at this time and we will close it later on to give everybody opportunity once we get through a little presentation and discussion. Julie, want to start off. Julie, once you start off. Bill, can I just interrupt one second? Sure, Don. That was my cap with it called. He wanted to pass on his apologies. He wanted to be here to make the announcement that I made. But for some reason, the bike race took a little longer than expected, and he's giving their awards out. Very good. Well, tell him you got your job done. Thank you. Hello, Julian. Hello. This is a public hearing for an application by the Snowmass acquisition company for a minor PUD amendment for the base village PUD in order to modify the vest of property rights and the terms of those vest of property rights, including changes to three agreements, including the development agreement, the funding agreement, and the subdivisions improvement agreement. We are in receipt of the affidavit of posting and mailing, so Council does have jurisdiction for this public hearing. The applicant is represented by Wayne Romero, Craig Monzio, and maybe not Mr. Crebunque. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for us to hear a presentation by the applicant to review the proposal against the review standards of the Minor PUD amendments which are pretty limited because we don't have physical changes to the PUD. We have also included a recommended ordinance for council's consideration, which is based on the planning commission's recommendation from their meeting August 6. By way of background, you may recall back in May and June we had a series of pre-sketch meetings that were held with town council of the planning commission and the applicant. and the idea was to be able to talk about how we get the project back on track. At that last meeting, SNMS acquisition did present a framework to be able to put forward an idea in terms of a series of milestones in order for them to be able to achieve an extension of their resting. And the general consensus at that meeting was that, indeed, they should go ahead and submit a PUD application to allow for that. As I mentioned, the minor PUD application does not change any physical aspects, size, scale, phasing, any of the details related to the PUD. What it does change is three agreements that currently exist under the current PUD. So that's what the main focus of tonight's meeting will be. And when they initially proposed their application, they had 13 milestones, I believe it was, that they proposed. Staff spent quite a bit of time getting feedback from a lot of different staff members regarding those milestones. And we came back and said if we're going to take this approach, we want to see more of an incentive based approach. And so we set up a whole series of additional milestones to ensure that we got some financial sureties to ensure that we got construction drawings to make sure there were baby steps being taken for us to be able to make progress with this. And so there are now 22 milestones as part of this suggested amendment to the development agreement. I should mention that part of this discussion also involved the possibility that if they got an extension and as long as they had met milestones, that they would get an automatic extension out to the fifth year. So in our table one, which you have in your packet in a couple different places because it was attached to the planning commissions resolution as well as to your packet, there's a whole, in that table is where the applicant first started in terms of what they were proposing. The staff came back with a counter, then there was some negotiation back and forth. The very last column in that table one is what you should focus on as it relates to the Page 26. So that last column was after the two meetings that the Planning Commission had, that was where they ended up with their recommendations. So that is what was put forward as an attachment to their resolution. So just to quickly summarize, the applicant originally was asking for five years to extend the vesting to November of 2019. And then they would get the secondary resting period out to 2024. They came up with a series of milestones. Most of them we ended up negotiating with, but just to give you an idea of where we ended up landing on the larger milestones, there's public improvements and then there's private related improvements. So the public improvements, the roundabout under this proposal, would begin construction next summer, June 1st, with substantial completion in November of next year. The upper would-road improvements would begin in the spring of 2017, and would be completed by November of 2017, substantially completed at that point. And then the last public, the last public of the community facility, AKA the aquatic center, which would be completed by November 1st of 2018. The private investments are also some set of milestones in the agreement. And those include the snow melt improvements at the building seven in the parking garage that would occur in 2017. The completion of the vice-roy is slated to begin next summer, July 1, 2015, with completion eight months later at the end of December of 2016. Lot two, which has been announced for, is the lot that the proposed limelight would be located on. The completion date of that would be 2019, and I sure hope that that happens sooner than later. And then lot 3 would be three would have a completion date, substantial completion November 1st of 18. So what you see is there is a whole series of milestones that would be completed in the first three to four years under this festine proposal. You can refer to Exhibit F. That's a good overview of the map of the base village. I only provided that for you for information purposes. So when you refer into the various lots and bill, that you know what those are. Likewise, we just discussed table one would be the, one table that we'll be spending probably the most time on in discussion. Currently, the zoning is mixed use 2 and it does include a final base village PUD guide overlay on that subject property. It remains vested until November 3rd of 2014. That's the current status of the property. Now if the city council does not extend the besting, the besting extension is denied, what that means to the applicant is that they would be subject to any new regulations that have gone into effect since the PUD was approved in 2004. So in this case, they would be subject to say new employee housing standards. In terms of the vested property rights, which is the main topic of tonight's discussion, Town Council has complete discretion over the vested property rights. The Planning Commission reviewed it because it was a PUD application amendment, so they did have to go through and make sure that they felt comfortable with making sure that that made standards for review, but for the most part their recommendation was related to the proposed vesting. And their proposed recommendation on that was to allow for the vesting extension to be four years as opposed to the five years that the applicant was adjusting with one year being automatically renewed provided that they met the the milestones that were put forth In your packet under exhibit D or a whole series of Staff referrals. I just wanted to note the Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District did provide some background in an email and also included a photo that shows how they are challenged when they have emergencies from the Steats ski hill. And part of their discussion at Planning Commission and in that was to try and move up the clinic because the concern was that the clinic has been without a permanent home for over eight years now. So and the applicant I think that they're important to note and I'll just try and summarize those. The Planning Commission is asking Council to consider in the October 15th, 2014 PUD amendment application presuming that comes forward whether the Aqua Center was primarily a community purpose facility or a base village and amenity, from whether the future program definition and uses as well as the timing of the construction of that facility should be addressed to the town's satisfaction. They're also recommending that town council consider options for financial security to ensure completion of the private buildings. And they're also hoping that town council would entertain and consider the proposed amendment that comes forward in a very expeditious manner as possible pursuant to the code. So those were some additional comments that came forward from the planning commissions meeting. I would also note and you should have now, there were several emails and letters that had been forwarded by community members. Those included comments from Mr. Mike Surrah, who is a business owner, Alex Führer, who is a resident here in town, David Winch, who is a part-time homeowner, Patricia Jane Keifer, also a part-time homeowner, Patricia Jane Keifer, also a part-time homeowner in Capitol Peak, Bruce Smith, a part-time base village homeowner, and James Harrell who is a resident. So these have been included in our case file. So in summary, staff finds, as the planning commission that the application meets the applicable review standards that it is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan and Staff supports the extension of the vested rights provided the milestones can be achieved Again, the planning commission is recommending a four-year extension to November 3rd 2018 the proposed language and the ordinance which is attached to your packet does reflect this four-year Any commission is recommending a four year extension to November 3, 2018. The proposed language and the ordinance, which is attached to your packet, does reflect this four year timeframe with the one year additional renewal provided that they meet the milestones. So that would conclude staff's presentation. Thank you very much, Julie. I've seen a couple hands up over here. So let's, Jason and Marky. I'm just looking for a clarification on what you think the processes and the course of action for tonight. It's not listed as a first reading on the agenda, but a couple places in the packet and in the draft ordinance. It refers to a first reading tonight and a possible second reading at our next. I'm confused about what's expected. That's that's the same question I have so I apologize for the confusion. We were moving forward with the expectation that it would be first reading tonight. However, after chatting with the town manager and kind of seeing where the all the pieces and parts and we thought it would make the most sense that at this hearing that basically you would get a presentation. And the ordinance is attached if you wanted to consider it for first reading, but it has been noticed for a first reading, if that was the action that you wanted to take, but we think it would probably be appropriate for you to hear the presentation, take public testimony, but the first reading could be then scheduled for September 8th if you weren't comfortable proceeding with that tonight. This was something that Gary did talk to me about in the past. I said, well, yeah, I'd rather not push it, but if Chancellor felt comfortable in hearing what they had heard tonight, I thought it would be appropriate to have that in there for continuing moving forward and you know reviewing what we have written down that might take some you know working at night. I did have a subsequent question after the announcement with line light. Does that change any you've talked about it not being completed until what 2018 19 Is that is that Probably I'm out of sequence here, but I was going to ask that in terms of sequencing of these dates on here in completion dates Marky what they had said at the beginning meeting was that the ski company will be deferring to related to be that the beginning of the meeting was that the ski company will be deferring to related to the principal mover once we go through the next generation of discussions by October 15th, really part of the major beauty discussion. That's why that's sort of in that position as it is. Mr. Cooker. I would strongly object to this being the first reading. And we'll get that opportunity as we go through it. I would strongly object to this being a first reading. Well, get that opportunity as we go through it. Because we'll have to make a motion to approve it as a first reading. But it was just wanted to have the opportunity if the council felt comfortable or not. OK. Mr. Romero and Craig, welcome. Thank you. Let's go through the process and see what you have. Okay. Sounds good. For the record, Duane Romero with Stomach acquisition company as well as Craig Monzeo here at the table. Appreciate Julianne's overview. Agree with the description and the detail that she provided. We have about 12 slides that will provide additional overview. Perhaps we'll help guide a discussion, going to save as much time we can for quality, you know, Q&A at the tail end. Here's our agenda. Four items that we'll talk through. Some level of additional detail here. Next slide. Our goal. A lot of folks have been asking straight up after the sketch plan work efforts that we had in May and June. My staff referred. Yes. It was why you know why go for the best thing right here right now as opposed to keeping it attached to a major application that we anticipate later in the year. Why don't you just make it part of that? Julianne just described one aspect of it in terms of the November 4th is gonna go hard and fast date. But just putting the technical aspects aside and just looking at it from a practical perspective, which is feel that this is kind of a variable that's been hanging out there. That is one of the key drivers towards the ambiguity of the project. That is, absence it being nailed down, it becomes somewhat cloudy as to whether or not the project will be held to a certain additional new standards or not. I'm not here to opine as to whether or not it's good or held to a certain additional new standards or not. I'm not here to opine as to whether or not it's good or bad. I just simply say that that's a huge part of ambiguity. So we just try and to take some variability off of the table. We think by doing that, we are clearly responding to the funding sources that potentially would be investing in parts and pieces of base villages we move forward. That's a reference to debt and equity partners. Secondly, it's essential for new partners and new uses to consider coming in. That is, the greater the ambiguity, the greater the risk, the greater the risk, the more unlikely a use or potential partner might be willing to come in. We also think clearing some level of ambiguity here even right now by giving the opportunity for the best to be nailed down in exchange for a series of what we believe to be pretty strong recourse and controls back to the town council. Even doing that yet this fall, we find that to be helpful for economic recovery here, just in a macro sense, just confidence boost. So that's our opinion there. Minor PED amendment, as Julie ended a great job of referring back to the table in the exhibit that illustrates where we are. So this framework that we're going to walk through replicates that. It's just a little bit of nomenclature here, the items that we're proposing as milestones appear on the left in the table. And then what appears on the right column is the consensus view. That is consensus between the applicant and staff as well as planning commission now. We've worked through the process with both parties negotiated and even expanded the list as Julianne referred. The list being now there's 22 milestones with strength teaching every one of them. The Vesting Property Rights itself, as you guys can understand, it's November 3rd, 2014, and the outside date is actually the November 3rd, 24 date. So on the initial Vesting, as you heard, we got a 4-1 structure, four years, and then four continued good performance in automatic one year. But in the midst of those four years, there's literally 21 of the 22 milestones organized. And I will say two things. One, the pace of the milestones out of the gate is pretty quick. There are several important ones right out. So we have to pick up the velocity of deliverables. And two, a lot of the public improvements are front and loaded. Again, making some sense. But there's a couple of key private improvements that everyone's focused upon that they also have milestones created around them. So four years plus the one year, and then you see there at the bottom, we have a hard and fast date that we're committing to of October 15th to submit a PUD amendment. Mark, you were referring to this. You mentioned the ski company, obviously appreciate, we just literally signed that deal today with them. And yes, they will be one of the key uses, one of the key uses that will be described in that PUD amendment. Most notably, it will be an alignment, a hotel application that will land onto the lot to site buildings 4 and 5. And we'll also in short order be able to share with the public the use for lot 3. And remember, in the work sessions we talked about the ideas of possibly a vacation club. We also talked about the opportunity for a fractional club. So here within the next few weeks we hope to get to the point where we can also publicly announce those uses for that application and for that site. So October 15th. But importantly, the last item on this table, guys, and the action date. We hope that we can partner together with the community to get to a point where that application can have some action on it. Which in a kind of a roundabout way says that we are asking for the talent council to work together as well with us as well as the planning commission in order to get through that process of that PUD amendment. Probably mean we're going to have to prioritize our work schedules and the public noticing schedules. We're not asking anyone to break the law, but we are saying it's going to require some, you know, heightened priority. A kin to where the application was with, like two, with the ski company, The application was with, like, two with the ski company earlier this year, if you recall, just the PNZ was able to really reach in deep and they were meeting, frankly, on a weekly basis. So the May 31, 2015 date might be a real tall and tough stretch goal, but we're putting it out there for everyone to focus on in order to get some action occurring next summer. So that's, by the way, that's the genesis behind that action date. That's fine. This PUD amendment then steps into a series of public development requirements. So there are milestones organized around the roundabout. As you see and illustrated here. We got a submission of construction documents. Then we have to provide financial security. Frankly, 30 days after this, after you make your action on this minor, we're committing to putting financial security in place for all of the public improvements. Again, that was negotiated both with staff as well as planning and zoning. Another milestone commencing, another milestone substantial, another milestone for final completions. I'd like to note that clearly those terms would have different definitions and we're not saying that it'll be our definitions. Obviously we have to work with your legal counsel and work with your staff to come up with mutually acceptable definitions on all of that. And we'll be comfortable doing so. Next batch of public development conditions as was mentioned by Julianne, the upper road improvements. Again negotiated with staff on these dates. Going in the financial, then the commencement and then the substantial. Furthering on, snowmelt system, Ditto. Again we negotiated this well with staff planning and zoning, discussed a great bit of detail around the timing of the snow melt and that's the entry and if I may, I'm going to use this red pin rendez-point at the static board. For your recollection, the entry to the parking garage is in a partially complete condition. It's asphalt, but eventually on its final improvements will be a snow-mounted concrete pathway into the parking garage, which will definitely provide a safer and more effective entry. So that's timed with the construction improvements of the buildings to the left and to the right, 7 and 8, which is effectively, that is, it is lot three. Then the community facility conditions. We've, that's, you know, that's obviously referring to the improvements on lot four. Again, I'm going to point at the static board, lot four, has the community facility defined as the Aqua Center. And so the milestones also acknowledge that there's got to be a submission of construction documents and then a completion of those improvements coordinated and synchronized frankly with the balance of the other improvements in an adjacent fashion. Then the private development conditions, they too, there's several milestones attached to the probably the most notable. We have 13B, a commencement of July of next year. So that's a hard and fast commitment, as well as the completion of the work. And you see there, that's roughly about a 18-month delivery sequence to get that construction work completed. Then we have substantial completions for lots three at 2018 and a lot two at 2019. I'm gonna stop right here. Those dates in these concepts received a lot of airtime obviously with the staff and most notably with planning and zoning. There's a lot of discussion about, well those are real far away. You know, I don't understand. That's not really given us much. And you know, why is it that you will only commit to starting these, excuse me, you know, completing these lots, why can't you also commit to starting those lots. And we had a lot of discussion around just the development sequence itself, a typical development schedule and what that might look like. And we'll go to that in a minute here. But we also try to ensure that these are outside dates. I mean, these are the absolute outside dates for those two sites. And the October 15th submission will provide a great more detail for each one of these lots. And I wish that I could even submit that lot, you know, at PD application today. But we are in the midst of putting it together. And if you recall, when we went into the community pre-sketch meetings, the work sessions, even starting in the middle of May, if you recall someone asked, I think Fred had asked a couple times, where are you with the ski company? And at that time, our answer was, well, that was a deal that was then and it is not now and it doesn't exist. And here we are today, late, three or four months later, and we're back in a deal with the ski company. What I'm trying to illustrate is that it's fairly fluid. It's fairly mobile. And by the time we get to October 15th, we know that we're going to have a land use application, a set of uses that will include the ski company. And it will most definitely illustrate for lots two and for lot three, sequence of timing and deliveries of these individual buildings that will obviously coordinate and comply with this 2018 and 2019. But perhaps your intuition, to your intuition market where you were going at the outset, they'll be building deliveries and building commitments earlier than these particular dates. So this is a framework, this provides outside structure and puts everyone on notice that this is the window, but it also requires us to perform to stay alive within this window. And the first performance deliverable is October 15. So our view of substantial completion for Lot 3 and Lot 2 has that big picture description to it? And then- Sorry, would you go back a minute? Sure. Yeah. I don't remember seeing anything of the documents saying that all milestones to be extended by one year. Where is that? It's definitely in the draft ordinance. And we discuss this as well with both staff, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission. And the condition is, yeah, the condition is, it's actually tied back to Fred, that date of May 31st, 2015. And it's probably worth a bit of a discussion here. That's not a sort of trap door. That's an acknowledgement of two things. One, as I described, the PUD amendment submission of October 15th and the six month hopeful and expected window that we can get through that is a fairly aggressive goal. It's key to nailing down an approval such that it could support a construction start into the spring, summer, fall of 2015. If it gets out too far beyond that date, Fred, then the outside milestones or deliveries, excluding the community facility and last two and three, would need to slide to acknowledge that we can't get those buildings started at the time frame that we'd like to. And that's just a practical construction sequence play there. It's not a, like I said, it's not a trap door. And we did have, if I may, we did have initially in a structure of earlier, like May 1st for the delivery of the PUD action date, and we worked with staff and even had a little bit of discourse with staff about maybe a day-for-day extension out to May 31st. And ultimately we just agreed to go out to May 31st, but then also agreed to have this kind of structured extension for several milestones. But again, excluding several of the key ones. Is that help? Who's that? How does that relate to the public and for the looks around about? They would slide. Again, they are construction. They are construction driven. Those actions don't want to be trying to start, for example, Jason, let's say that the PUD action date slides all the way out to August 31st. And we're working in good faith together and we don't get to a decision in an action until August 31st. That would, so you would say, okay, wait a minute. It's, now it's September 1st, where's my roundabout? We'd say, wait a minute, we can't start the roundabout right now. It's a construction window that makes more sense working with staff and frankly the practical application to try to do the roundabout into the fall into the winter doesn't make sense. So it would slide to the following spring. So it's not meant to do, cute or artsy play. It's literally just to take into account construction in a mountain marketplace, in a mountain community. So that's it. Market. Yeah, you made a comment, Dwayne. It's a clarification question, if you will. On the May 31 date, you had that established earlier than May 31 and you thought I heard you state that established earlier than May 31 and you, I thought I heard you say that working with staff, you landed on the May 31 and was that because of just looking at meeting schedules and the approval process and it's quite all detailed out with Julian and her staff? Speaking for our side, obviously, it was, yes, it was looking at just the practical realities and trying to find a structure that's a fairly decent compromise between the two positions. So would you say that's aggressive or conservative or probably the most practical? It's probably in the latter, that last camp, the most practical, right? probably in the latter that last camp the most practical. Okay. So it can't be accelerated. Well it I mean it's a no later than data obviously on the action date. If you guys you know press it hard. That's okay. So if you press it hard and get to an action. It gets into that ordering window of steel and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, no, trust me. We would, to the extent we can lean into your land use code for public noticing without obviously breaking the law. But to the extent we can lean into that and facilitate an effective review that has some pacing to it and some velocity. That's helpful. It is, it's helpful. I think you are mentioning that the idea was that because we had done such a quick and good job, I think previously, we're hoping to do the same process where planning commissions were. We're on the off-wits. Not weekly, maybe, but you know. Right, and remember they had gotten to the point where they were prepared to issue a resolution on their preliminary review step, and that was coming up to council. Well, just so if we have a May 31 date up there, how on the heck are you going to start around about on June 1? Well the dates clearly would be we'd have we'd have some indication of where we're struck where we're standing we'd have to start to take in the political tea leaves. That's bet on the concrete. My understanding is that the PD application itself obviously would have some elements of preliminary, would have a preliminary and they'd have a final. So we'd have some indication where you guys are standing. Mr. Cooker. So just so I understand it, if you get the PUD enacted by May 31st, then there's no extension of any milestones. That's correct, correct. Yes, sir. It's only if we had no actions taken. That's right. By May 31st. That action is being approved by Laura Denial. Correct. Right. In fact, Julie, I did a great job of making you sure we were correct with our nomenclature. Yes, sir. OK? And I might just stand from our perspective. It's an aggressive schedule. Okay, so but I think that we, from a practical standpoint, we think we can accomplish it as long as we're staying on task. Okay, thank you. Continue on Mr. Romero. This schedule, is it in, this is just a quick illustration of a typical development cycle that just is described by staff. It starts off with the item of entitlements and it takes a lot three as its point of example and it then walks through the design work that would be required for those improvements and then the permitting process, that is typical for submission for a building permit, and the associated permits from the other referral agencies. And then a typical window of construction for the amount of improvements anticipated for lot three. And the point of this slide, and we had a good bit of discussion with planning and zoning, and I think in a healthy discourse to to try to understand, is Julianne just described. Seven months is aggressive in her view. Yep, that's what we're illustrating here as the window of time for entitlements. And then you see 11 months for what's called design. And I need to take a second here. Design is those, the action steps require to take a designed document that could be in conceptual or in the term of art, design development stage and take it all the way to construction documents. That's typically done by a host of architects, engineers and other consultants to complete the packet and get it detailed and get it priced and get it ready for a permit, a building permit submission. It's a great deal of work. And frankly, it's a great deal of expense associated with those 11 months. But the point here is about the time. And then we typically see a period of months for the permit review. Given the body of work associated with a period of months for the permit review. Given the body of work associated with a lot of construction, we, I think, aggressively modeled four months. And then there is a pawn in assuming an approval. There's a good 27 months of construction for again, going back to the static board here. Lot three, for the example here is buildings eight, which includes the clinic, seven, which includes the arrival, six, which is the end board building here, those three buildings. And across the three by the PUD approvals, there are 44 residences in there and approximately 90 to a hundred thousand square feet of gross building construction to perform on a couple of years so if you modeled all that out and You can you know you could probably critique this any which way you want But if you modeled all that out, it's good, it's going to put you somewhere in the year 2018. And again, not everything comes online here at the tail end of the construction window. Clearly, there will be deliveries here. But for the purposes of the delivery dates for completion in this suggested proposed vesting schedule. We were trying to be conservative and not to be too cheeky, but try to ensure that we don't come back here again asking for yet another extension or delay. Does that make sense? Marky? Just a clarification on the blue box. The 11 ones. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So I just want to probe this with you just a little bit. Sure. And this comes with the word assumptions. Yes, ma'am. So we all know clarification and assumptions. My assumption would be that the assumption that the assumption So we all know clarification and assumptions. My assumption would be that we saw some preliminary, more than preliminary, of the limelight earlier. So to an extent, we're not talking another 11 months. Correct. Okay, so what we could be talking about is build the other private leoing building. Okay. That's right. That's what we're talking about. So the only thing would be the ski clinic, wasn't? That's it. That's it. It's a building eight. So when would we begin to have that conversation and community improvements? That improvement is part of Building 8 and Building 8 will be a component of the PUD application in October 15th so you can see all of that in its detail. Okay. In fact I met with Elaine Gerson today at the Aspen Valley Hospital and she did confirm that she has extended her lease of the hill and she also confirmed that she has extended her lease of the hill and she also confirmed that she is still they are still keen on having the ultimate location there in the building eight and she is keen on working you know together as a stakeholder and we are as well yeah I'm not gonna make any you know right so back to the blue box so when this chart was put together, it assumed that the limelight was not in the deal. A lot of three is not in that group, right? That's right. A lot of three is not in the deal, but in two. Oh, this is a lot of three. Again, back up here. Seven, eight. Okay. You were looking at limelights application to ski coast credit. Two comments need to be made here. One, they were willing to commit to a super hyper aggressive schedule of design development. And, trying secondly, trying to anticipate what the land use process was going to, what that, what that landscape looks like and then try to make business decisions, trying to, you know, cost benefit decisions as to whether or not to proceed and spend certain dollars and the feedback that they were getting from the process was positive, which helped them to mitigate some of their risk and they were able to then proceed. So that signaling is important. And that signaling will be, whether or not you're intending to make it or not, obviously the community at large and the applicant in specific will be reading that and trying to make business decisions, cost-benefit decisions, off of what the signaling and the climate in the context is. Clearly, without giving away your decision, that's yours and you own that. But we have to make business decisions. If there's an interpretation that looks pretty good, there might be some risk is taken on and some expenditures made in order to advance that design development. That's classic. I'm not describing anything unique to related or development. That's classic. I'm not describing anything unique to related or otherwise. That's classic. That's institutional. And I would suggest that doesn't just apply to real estate development. I would suggest that that applies to anyone that's dealing with a jurisdiction or dealing with the governmental regulation, in which is, by the way, most businesses. You've got to be able to understand the rules and the framework that you're dealing with in. And where there's ambiguity, you end up having to make, kind of, you know, read the T-leaves and try to make business decisions based on mitigating risk. So, to, again, to their credit, they were in a position to lean forward based on the data and the evidence that they were reading. Okay, that's very helpful. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Jason, just to clarify on Mark's question about this lot, the clinic under this vesting proposal or central approval, we might not see a permanent clinic until the end of 2018. And that's the window of time for Lot 3. That's correct. Okay. And again, you will see on October 15th, the detail within each one of those lots, as well as Lot 4, frankly, and frankly, a statement across the balance of the project. Right? And I've been consistent here, and I'll say it again, though, just for the record, for the balance of the improvements. Again, I'm gonna go back to the board, the static board, for the balance of the improvements, which frankly are the lots that stand both figuratively and literally on the other side of the vesting milestone. You know, lots six and seven and it's actually five, six and seven. Yeah, five, six and seven. Those lots, we have no new plans for them, so you're going to see a repeat, you're going to see us affirming today that, or even in October 15th, that that's still our plan. Now obviously we have the right out there in the future, we want to make changes to those, we can come back and submit that. You don't have to approve that, that's your right, right? I understand. But that's going to be in our land use application those five six and seven those lots I mean not a lot to talk about unless you do well and perform on the lots that have the priority which is lots two three four and lot eight which is the second vice-wife is Got it. Okay, so nice graphic here, kind of summarized the net impacts of what this investing framework results in. This is a simple little illustration of what the current PUD has. 2004, out to 2024 for the besting window, has approved at that time. With one initial or if you will, interim besting window, it pegged at 2014. The requirement in order to spring yourself into the final 10 years from 2014 to 2024 was the completion of phase 2b, which meant that you had to have all the previous phases completed in a bunch of public improvements. What we're putting on the table is this. This actually is only 19 of the 22 milestones, Milestones, but these are the commitments that the applicant now has worked through with the community through the work sessions with the staff upon our submission of our package to the staff, then also with the planning and zoning. And what we have here is a portfolio and array of agreed up at least from a recommendation perspective we have consensus with those bodies and we're looking candidly at some point through this process with you to hopefully gain your consensus as well and obviously we understand we've got to have some good discussion here. Final slide I wanted to show you. Just to illustrate to you the amount of, if anyone you know questions whether or not a developer can shake and bake a land use application in you know in a few days time well this slide is just trying to illustrate, this is a good many of the consulting bodies, the stakeholders. There are engineers here, there are landowners here, there are referral agencies here, there's town staff here, there are outside experts, BBC, Felsberg, all of these entities are engaged in some form. Either directly as a consulting assignment or perhaps as a collaborator in adjacent property owner like Jeff and Jeff, they're at the conoco. All of these entities are engaged and it is our intent. And our laser focus obviously for the first milestone of October 15th, takes some of the ambiguity out and begins a process of recovery here. With that, that's my presentation and we're open for additional questions. Very good. I just just one question Dwayne. I really appreciate all the work that your staff and our town all the time in the community is two questions quite frankly. One of which is we don't see New York here tonight. You'll be here tomorrow. Oh, okay. But the balance of the week. Okay. One of the questions that, well, several people within our community have asked me, we've heard about this investing, the four plus one, and our newspapers have covered that pretty darn well. And the documents that have been presented tonight are extremely helpful to all of us to take something very complicated and try to make it pretty simple, which is not. During this process, what happens if related gets sold? The company related? Yeah. It's no missing. Acquisition. And you mean the property? Yeah. The property. Uh-huh. Well, the property. This probably is just really a question that comes forth. My personal view is that it'd be highly unlikely that anyone's willing to pay related what it has in terms of skin and pound of flesh into it. That's a first comment. Second comment is there obviously is there are controls built into the PUD for lots, for lots, individual lots, not the overall project. And I would also say this, that amount of conditioned requirements with the ability to lose the best thing really keeps us in the saddle. I don't, you know, if I'm on the outside looking at that property as a potential prospect to purchase, I would look at all of the incumbenances that are being placed on it, obviously with a bit of negativity. So I do know this related purchased a great many properties. That's an obvious fact. And just like a many good real estate development firms, that of that time and of that era, everyone went long. It was a period of time where doctors and dentists were also, you know, in the world of development. And there was a period of time where subcontractors had contracts to purchase sub, I mean, you know, plumber or the drywall orer was also buying a residence on one of the buildings that they were working on. It was just kind of a crazy, crazy time of speculation. And here it is today, 2014. Related to put most of those properties on the contract in 2006 and then closed on the good many of them in 2007. So they went a couple of hundred million long. And yet, through all of that grief and all that financial recession, plenty of private equity partners, plenty of debt partners all fell to the wayside. And yes, related got its own nicks and bruises, it did. And clearly breached certain agreements and obligations. And yet through the course of all of that turmoil stayed together. We're still here. And we're still plotting through and trying to work through recovery. Obviously we have no intention of putting the properties up for sale. And that's best I can give you. And perhaps over the next coming weeks, if you wanted to have that conversation again, I'm sure that we'll be able to have that conversation again. Thank you. The way that we'll go to the floor here in a second. One question along the same area here. If you can express to me what you at this room council, what is the worst case scenario for you? Specifically if you don't reach one of the, what, what mile marker will you guys be in violation at the earliest date? So if something doesn't happen by a certain point, tell me what you, what you're feeling is a knowledge of what is the potential for the downside for related if they don't perform. Are you, is your question with the assumption in mind that the worst case scenario that, you know, things aren't going forward, you guys are deciding you can't make something happen. What point does the community get the ability to sit back and say things aren't working and we need to make a change? How might that? I was going to say this, is your question under the assumption that the best thing extension has been approved? Yes. Is it moving forward? Yes. Well, I treat every one of the milestones, I'm kind of a ground-true kind of guy, so I look at it from a tactical perspective. The next milestone happens to be the one that is the most important one. And then once it's accomplished, the next milestone, that's the good thing about the calendar. It moves in kind of sequential form. It's not a parallel document. So the next milestone after we get the October 15th submitted, the next one is May 31st, 2015. That's the next most important. And guess what? It's going to be really the most important for the rest of our right. Financial partners and our community partners are use partners. Things like our folks like the ski company. But the first one October 16th we wake up and we missed October 15th. We're going to be in a bad way. That's how I see it. Is that help? No, I appreciate that because that's sort of the way I was seeing it. I wanted to make sure we were really at the same table. Yeah. Yeah. Don't forget I filled it first. No. Yeah. So mission. Thank you. Chris, I got Haybert over there covering my backside. There we go. All right. First. So mission of the construction document. You're the best. Now let's go to the floor to the community and have a pleased I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a lawyer, I'm not going to be a actually, I guess I did file today my candidate's application for mayor or affidavit for mayor. So, that may color what some of you may see as my views and comments here, although I don't think it should. I spent most of today reading the material that was presented to you. And I'm surprised that nobody has raised this. You haven't the slightest idea what it is is going on. You don't have the material. For example, which one of the amended applications are you going to be voting for if you were to vote? What do they contain? Do you know what a condition subsequent is versus a condition preceded? And one of the issues, Mr. Mayor, that you asked, and that Mr. Romero avoided really, was, well, what happens if you don't do this? Well Well what happens is you, the town council, have to do something. They don't have to. They just sit back because it's a condition subsequent. Not a condition preceding. And that's what the documents say. Did you know you were going to vote on it? Or that that was being presented to you? Do you know what it means? I'm saying that we don't have our town attorney here today and who has not reviewed a lot of the material that was presented to you because even in that material which he reviewed in his email of July, he pointed out many of these issues. You know, as Jack's mom said, when he came home very proud that the cow had been sold. You mean you sold the cow for a handful of beans? I would suggest to you that you're being asked to sell the vesting for a handful of smoke. Let me give you a direct example. Everybody is excited by the fact that they have to provide an application for a PUD amendment by October. What did it have to say? An amendment for what? You have a chart that was supplied by staff that just says they have to provide an amendment Doesn't say what it has to a man. It doesn't say what types of material or what type of Project they're going to amend Do you realize That if they provide an amendment of the PUD application asking for the construction or Amending the PUD application asking for permission to build a nuclear waste facility That satisfies that condition is gone Is that what you'd like to see happen? Is that what you think that people in this community are entitled to? I don't think so. We're not really talking about should this counsel, and I'm surprised by the way the planning commission didn't pick some of this stuff up. They put some stuff in there, in their resolution. They're like, you ought to take a look at this, and you ought to take a look at that. But the idea of planning commission was to point out to you specifics. They're the ones that's supposed to get down in the nitty-gritty and push things around and point out specifics that you want to look at. the other thing that happened today, which was pretty good. We all thought was the announcement by SkiCo that they're back in the game. You know when SkiCo came in with their project I suggested, I think at that time when I spoke about that and suggested to them, yeah we can push it on through you council has the right to wave a bunch of these requirements and get it done fast and council did and the planning commission did and all of a sudden oh well we don't agree with our partners love that they don't even have a partner now at least you don't know if they have a partner. And they're not going to tell you, because I specifically asked, what the terms of that deal is. And I suggested to somebody from SkiCo today, see, it sounds like somebody's putting a gun to our heads. Because if you don't grant the extension, if you don't grant the continuance, so to speak, well then you don't get the limelight. But you don't know what that deal is. So I would suggest to you, Marky and Fred, before you ask for another glass of cool cool aid that you find out really what the terms are Because it's a very serious issue to have related Make the application as opposed to ski co What about the Fanny Hill cabins? Have you just go to abandon that issue now? because you know that ski co will not build the limelight and I was told that specifically today I will relate it to you. They will not build the limelight unless they can build the Fannie Hill Cabins. And I asked well how's that going to work? I mean, you're going to have a separate application. So if you don't grant that application, you don't get the Fannie Hill cabins, which everybody says, or excuse me, you don't get the line line which everybody in this entire community wants to see happen. You haven't, I would submit, lady and gentlemen, enough information, enough specifics to even begin to deal with this resolution in two weeks, which is when your next meeting is. You have a lot, a lot of work. I am not speaking out against granting a continuation of the vesting rights. What I am speaking for is number one that if you're going to hold a meeting that says you're going to vote on something, you'll publish it that way. Not in the little piece of paper. We stick up on the board downstairs across from the real estate office. But you let people know. This is a very, very, very important issue for this community. And number two, that you delve into very carefully, how you can accomplish what they want, with what you want. Two comments about that. Staff has suggested the initial proposal that I made and that was to sort of suspend things. You couldn't do that because there's nothing in the code that says you can do that. Well, I would submit frankly that there's nothing in the code that you can't do it either. But, let's not clubble about that. That's not the issue. The issue really is, are you getting what you think you're getting? And the way you find that out is you say, okay, related Mr. Romero, snow ass acquisitions, I don't care what it is, you're going to call these myriad of companies. You say here, we'll give you this. We'll give you a one-year extension. We'll see what it is you apply for and we'll give you automatic extensions on up to whatever you want because we don't want to see out of the game. We'll do all of that with you and we'll make him conditions precedent. Your town attorney will explain the difference. It's significant. I understand the tour party. I's significant. I understand the tour party. I'm sorry. I understand the term. I know you do. Thank you. Absolutely. I'm surprised you didn't mention it, but maybe you didn't think it was important. I just want to be mentioning some things, Arnie. Great. Great. Excellent. But I would suggest to you that that's what you do, and you granted that way, as opposed to the way it has been presented. One last comment. It was suggested to you this evening, I don't remember, Mark, if you were the one that asked for Jason, not clear. Well, why do you need to have this vestigation? What does it mean to you? Why do you need to have this vestigation extension? And one of the things Mr. Romero alluded to was, and specifically said, was, well, you know, you got to have all the financing in place, you investors, lenders, want to know things for sure. I would remind you, I guess I have a weird memory, I remember a lot of things. I would remind you of a comment that was made when this whole investing issue came before you in the pre-sketch. A gentleman from Related New York stood up and said all of the financing is in place. Well, which is it? Thank you. Go ahead, Chris. Arnie, thanks for your comments. You asked a question rhetorical as it may be, but I want to answer it. I have read every single page of the application, and I think I understand it pretty well. And I think it's important for us to hear from the public first. And I hope that my colleagues will take your advice to go down into the weeds and to understand the application. My name is Richard Goodwin. I live on Fairway Drive and own several properties in this wonderful community. I have two letters I'm going to read to you and give you copies of and give people and the audience copies who may want it also. To the town of St. Amazio Council whether you decide this SAC application is valid or not, the facts on the ground are clear that the PUD provisions required certain performance by specific dates which have not been met. The failure of the related mothership, meaning New York City, to support their previous subsidiary shell that could have prevented a foreclosure as evidence of their business plan. When the growing gets tough, it's tough to take a hike. Attached as a legal opinion that the PUD has died by a lack of council approval of the change of ownership. While there never was a bankruptcy of the previous related shell, base village owners associates, they lost their assets in the foreclosure and really have no standing in the town of Snowmass Village. Related of Colorado employees should not be managing the base village homeowner's association. The base village HOA was abandoned in the foreclosure. The new shell, SAC owns the land and two several incompletive buildings, but really has no rights under the PUD. Maybe the town of some last village once to play another shell game. We don't want to go at Burn Twice. The stoppage of construction in 2008 could have been avoided if the mother ship in New York had provided money, or at least completed the two buildings and some promised improvements. But no, the new shell did nothing when they acquired the land and assumed old applications. Fulmy1's is your fault only twice. It's mine. Let's not be fools. That's the first letter. And I'm happy to give related copies of all this. This is to the SNOMAS Council. Isn't it interesting that this key code has decided to put its nose in the debate of related SAC application? Now we heard today it's a lot more than that. There's some sort of an agreement between the two. Because my experience as a real estate developer and builder, five thousand residents, 15,000 lots, I see a conspiracy between related and the ski co. The town of Snowmass Village tongue is hanging out for a hotel and based on why not. But it's also obvious that the ski co wants to see another 400 condominiums for its business there. The ski co bailed six months ago in a hotel and this talk is now in my opinion to help relate it. This is the same ski co that just before the vote in 2004 said we are going to build base village to completion over and over again. That deception got my vote because the crowns are billionaires and only 20% of general dynamics. They could not sell without the town of Silmezville's approval and which would cause another vote. Well, that requirement seems to have fallen through the cracks at town hall. How could the council let the ski co and enter west, whatever their partnership was, sell to a shell related to the city area without due diligence. Look what happened. Don't tell me the foreclosure and incomplete buildings were because of the recession. Many financially solid companies like the Crowns completed projects during the recession. Related New York City could have saved the project when sales fell off, but they chose to let it, to let hypobank foreclose and pay, they paid millions of dollars of related steps on these two buildings. So I have a closing remark, Council. What an ugly we, what an ugly web we weave when we toil to deceive. Can we trust the ski co? I'm not sure. Now I'm going to, may I deliver this to everybody personally? If you just hand it to the clerk here, we'll get him. But your five minutes is about up Richard. Almost. Who just said I'm not the clerk. Ronda. Anyone else? Please raise your hand. Step forward to the microphone. Seeing no one will maintain the public hearing open for a bit. Mr. Cooker. Contrary to popular belief, I too have read all the documents. I too understand conditions precedent, conditions subsequent. And I'm a little myth that I am accused of not doing my job. Dwayne, I'm going to start, I've been thinking about this quite a while and I'm going to ask everybody's indulgence. I'm going to say you a lot from here on out and I want you to understand it's not you Duane Romero, it's related. Nobody put a gun to relate its head to re-acquire this property. You did it for good and sufficient business reasons. And shortly after you re-acquired it, you and I and Jeff Blow had lunch. And at that lunch, I said to you, you are returning to this town with an incredible amount of baggage. Nobody around here trusts you. And I said, the best thing you could do to start regaining trust is to tell us what you're going to do when you're going to do it and do it as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, over the last year and a half, you told us very little and that which you told us you were going to do you didn't do. We were supposed to have plans before us six months ago. This is the first time anything concrete has been presented to us. So you haven't really regained any trust. And then you have sat here for the last half hour or so and tell us all the things you're required to do and all the things you have to do and if you don't do each of those things You lose your vesting rights But what you don't tell us is a little clause in the agreement 1.3.4. Force measure events. I want to read this to everybody and I want to do a little explaining if you don't understand it. Force measure events. If the developer's performance of the work is un reasonably delayed, disrupted or interfered with, due to labor dispute, fire, unusual delay in delivery, adverse weather conditions not reasonably anticipated, unavoidable casualties, or any other causes reasonably beyond the developer's control, parentheses and event of force measure. The milestones effective will be extended for a period of time equal to the duration of the event of force measure. In effect what you've done is or claim you done is give us a kill switch and take it away because you will never be in default. If you miss a milestone, you will come to us and say, we didn't reasonably anticipate this, or we didn't reasonably anticipate that. So we're not in default and we have a good period of time to cure. And all we can do is say we disagree with you. And all that does is bias a lawsuit. And I'm not in the position of, let me finish this is my party now. I am number one, not position of I law suit. I am also under no circumstances going to permit any contract to be signed that has a force measure clause. I want you to have the absolute and unconditional obligation to meet those milestones. And if you don't, I'll give you a cure period. I won't give you the 60 days you're asking for. I'll give you the 15 days that's in the resolution. And if you don't cure in those 15 days, your vestigrets are gone. Having said that, I'm still left with the problem or the dilemma that I know I've got to have security for the public improvements because you've said you're going to bond those, but I don't have any tangible security to be sure that the private improvements that you say you're going to build you'll do. Now I know there's been a lot of suggestions about performance bonds and some sort of monetary guarantees that you will do that. And I'm satisfied that building a private building, private property, we don't have any kind of insurable interest. And we can't ask you for that. But there is a legal principle that we can work with, if you will. And that legal principle is called liquid damages. And for those of you who don't know what liquid damages are, it is very common in a performance agreement that when a party is obligated to do something by a certain period of time and they fail to do it, that party starts paying money damages. And they pay those money damages until whatever they were supposed to do is done. Those damages are determined at the outset when you sign the contract. They are not determined or they don't come up for proof once the default exists. They're in existence when the contracts start. Therefore, they're liquidated. Thus, the phrase liquidated damages. So here's what I'm going to propose to you, Wayne. I am proposed that if you miss a milestone, you have 15 days to cure. If you don't cure within those 15 days, your vested rights are gone. And you start paying liquid-data damages of $2,500 a day until you cure. Now, if you cure, and if you pay the liquidated damages, you get your besting rights back. Now, if you think about it, if you accept my premise that I will not agree to any agreement that has a force in sure so that if you miss your besting rights are gone, I've just given you a pretty good political carrot. You know that if you perform ultimately perform and cure and if you pay the liquid data damages you will get Vestig rights. You will always be secure the fact that you know you can get them. That's a pretty good political carrot, it seems to me. We, on the other hand, have the economics stick, if you will, to encourage you to cure as rapidly as possible. The only other thing I would add to that is that, this gentleman was saying, I don't know who or what SAC is. I mean I assume it's a wholly unsub related but I don't know if it has any assets, I don't know why I mean I know it has assets at property but I don't know if you can answer money damages. I don't know if you can have liquid assets. Now if you can prove to me and you can prove to Mary Annakowski that you can answer in money damages I'll'll say fine, if you can't, I want Related Guarantee. Because if you can't answer in money damages and those damages start to pile up, what you'll do is file for bankruptcy. And that will put us at exactly the same position we were two and a half years ago with a project half done and at a standstill. And I don't want that. So I think I've made you given the fact that trust run here is virtually non-existence. I've given you, I think, a very fair deal. The force measure is in the original application for the PUD minor amendment. We had good discussion debate with both staff and planning commission. The draft ordinance is recommending it's denial and omission. So you're obviously seeing this original submission 30. We're not, I'm not trying to, not trying to protect it. We understand that it needs to be gone. In fact, to your point, to support your position, it's not a construct in any of the development agreements that were based back in 2000. Right, there's no force-pensure clause in any of the original development agreements. That's right. However, forced measure, based on, I know, your real estate experience, your career's worth of work, that is a commonly used construct. A lot of it developed, if I may, to frankly to protect both parties and it also has a runway of additional notices and acceptances associated with. I'm not here to debate it. I clearly we've got the message both from staff as well as from planning commission. The force measure looks like it's going to be dying a very quick death. The proposal that you're putting on the table regarding liquidated damages associated with the delivery, there's crickets in here. Unless I throw a bad joke, bad crickets. To your point about liquidated damages, I appreciate you acknowledging about the private property and the insurable interests. I trust that several of the folks in the public also appreciate that as well. I appreciate you referring to that. I see how you have gotten to that, as you said, a carrot and the corresponding stick. I understand that. And I'm here trying to listen and trying to incorporate and try to get to the best spot for the community. So- Well, I- I'll- We will listen. This is a new proposal, obviously. This is the first time you've heard it. This is the first time my colleagues have heard it. And it is that's why I didn't want this to be a first reading. And your comment about forced measure, I would agree, except it generally happens when both parties trust each other. Right. Yeah, understand. Yeah, understand. So the idea that you put on the table, you're right, we need some time to digest it as well. I appreciate that. Okay. You know, I believe that a lot of people in the community are very concerned, Dwayne, and you have expressed a lot of areas, and I think our planning commission and our planning directors have put a lot of points together. And I think it's an appropriate discussion. I think when I hear Mr. Mordkin bring forward that we're potentially not understanding what we're looking at, I think it's wrong. I think we all understand what we're looking at. I think we're all very aware of this is base village, it's not a nuclear site. But you know, there are some words to be concerned of. But I have to state that to me it appears that this community needs to in most folks, a lot of folks are wanting to move forward and wanting to get this thing going. If we continue the way I see it down the path of we're not going to be willing to step out of this boundary, no one's getting anywhere. It's going to hurt the whole community, whether you guys decide you can't move forward. I believe this is a good process that the planning group has worked out, planning commission. I think it's something that we do need to look at in a constructive process. You as a developer are taking risks. We as a community are taking risks. But I believe with the broader discussion that will happen in the next six months, it will give this community the assurances that you know you can and we can all together move forward to continue this process. I think it's appropriate to possibly deal with some of the questions that have been raised by other folks. I think tonight's a good time to look at some of these things, whether it be our recommending or our other bodies that have written letters and concerns. And I think it's the council's ability to move forward or stop at that point. But I think there are a number of things that we need to deal with. Let's see, where should I start on this? Yeah, I happened to miss the race today, because I was studying at home also. Going through all this, as we can. Marking? Yeah, it's a, I agree with Arnie. It's unfortunate but clearly understood why our town attorney is not here this evening. His document suggested that there was some additional work that needed to be done, which was in our packet that we all read. And I would propose that as soon as he is back that be completed to his satisfaction and the satisfaction of our planning department. There were also submittals. I know that need yet to be worked on which are not totally complete yet. And I think Julianne's done a wonderful job kind of summarizing what some metals. I don't, is SGM here this evening? I'm in the same team. I don't have my glasses on. It would be interested in him, if I are just all the traffic counts, all of those types of issues. And I don't know exactly where we are. And relative to the amendments that need to be, that we're talking about that Arnie spoke of. I know what they are, but I don't know if my fellow colleagues know what all three of those are and maybe Julian can quickly summarize or she can get that out to all of us as well. So those are just some thoughts that I had. And thank you Fred on the forced measure. I had that one highlighted as one of the key areas as well. Wasn't that partially in our exhibit B of our draft ordinance? Yup, yup, yup. That was language that said that would be removed. It was one of the conditions. Or B acceptable to the entire term. Because it was a condition. So yes. And I'm not ready yet to, we could look at, if you want to go aligned by line, but not line by line, but points within the resolution. I really think John has got some major work to do personally. And I don't remember when he returns to you. Well, we've been from today. I think that really begs the question of whether September 8 is viable for the next touchpoint on this. You know, if he's identified real deficiencies in the materials that have been submitted in the application and what we're really considering, I think he's going to need time to get those, you know, up to speed and have a chance to review those adequately and provide feedback, you know, inform and substance relative to those. I think it would really be beneficial to this process. So I have concern about that September 8th. Do we have any communication with John as to when he might be able to complete that? His email, his email, I'd identify and outlining those because I think Jason Rees is a very good point. I would just like to point out that John has had the information since the application came in July 1st. And so he has done an initial review. He's seen the materials that you have in your packet. And we did get that response from him. Clearly there's more work that has to be done. And the intention was to try and get through the concepts related to the agreements and then be able to get it drafted once we get an indication if you will of where everything was going to fall out. Roger. I'll see you. I just want to remind you guys that your meeting isn't until September 8th and your packet of missions not due to the second of September. So he'll have a full week when he gets back to be able to do anything with the future. If he's able to complete that net week. Jason? Well, but the one week in his notes reference that the exhibits to some of the agreements were not provided and the agreements as proposed to be amended maybe weren't reviewed sufficiently by this point. And so I question whether or not for his time to get a full review on that. But I think it'd be great if we could touch base with him to find out if I would really- I'll send him an email. Yeah, I'd like to really keep this thing moving forward. And I agree, Barkey. I think it's not going into Wayne's camp because I do want to see this project move forward. And I do want to see it move on the time schedule that he's got because he's got an awful lot of work to do to meet these milestones. And I don't want to delay him one minute, and I don't want to delay that May 31st, eight one minute either. So if we have to work a little harder, let's work a little harder. But we need to understand what we're doing. But I do think it's important for this project to move forward. Was there another hand up in the audience out there? No. Okay. Somebody just said there could be a hand up. Chris. There's a lot of pages so I could probably talk for a long time if anybody wants to leave now but I'll try to keep it focused. First of all, I want to applaud the work that's been done lately. I want to applaud the farmers market. I want to applaud the new grocery store. And I want to applaud some of those things that have been going on. And I think our building and improving the community. To echo what Fred said, I too, I ran on an idea of collaborative process with our developers to achieve smart growth. And following on Fred's point too, I feel that in the two years coming on two years that I'm sitting here, we haven't gotten our deal points like that. So we keep hearing your deal points and we keep asking for parking studies and we ask for this and we ask for that and we're told about plans and we race and rush and we get 13 be done and everything changes. Okay, everybody knows that. But really what I'm troubled by right now has nothing to do with you guys until our, until our degree. In that, and I know Kraybocker's not here, and I know dresser's not here, and I know I'm not an attorney. So, but I'll go through my understanding of some of the big issues as we've been discussing. First of all, I do not understand, and so, Julie, if you'd like to explain it, the recommendation that the review procedures are not applicable because there are no changes. I don't understand it. I don't get it. Could because you have incorporated into the agreement the definition of approving the PUD. We know that the changes are here. We have Mr. Schuster presenting changes to us too. So to me while it's maybe the letter of law it's or presenting changes to us too. So to me, while it's maybe the letter of law, it's illogical and somewhat incomprehensible for me to follow that line of thinking. That's one of my issues. I think that there's been a lot of vague and misleading information in and around this process. And I'm not pointing blame, and maybe I'm mistaken. There's stuff in the newspaper for example about the code stating we need to have a three-year extension. It's not by any of the attorneys that I've spoken with the facts or an accurate representation. It might be an interpretation, so maybe it's accurate in that sense, but it does not preclude that., I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I paragraph 4 on page 6. You go through some comments about how there are no design and physical changes and in the same paragraph you then go 180 degrees in the other direction and say but we're going to get a PUD which we're going to get a while ago and we get it it's going to have changes in it. So I have trouble understanding how it's in the best interest for me as a council person in protecting the town. As you have noted, the Allen council has complete discretion on the vested rights matter and the extension thereof. We have the ability to work with you as a partner. We have the ability to have Frank and a reasonable discussion. I have not found it Frank and reasonable so far, which usually means to me, maybe I don't understand or there's something missing. I'm just putting that out there. So for me, as the council person, the fact that the, I'm glad we're not voting, I thought it was misleading again. The way the agenda item was written to give you some feedback as a council person to staff. I'm not directing you. I'm not micromanaging you. But to have the implication that we might vote on this as a first reading this whatever it is 138 pages that I got on Thursday afternoon And I have spent 40 plus hours looking at, I thought was misleading. That's just how I saw it, and I didn't think it was helpful. And I think that it also says the town council shall consider the needs of the town, and I want to do that, and I want to have time to do that. And Gary, going to your point and jumping around a little bit here, if you have advocated for anything since you've been here, and as I've said many times, I like you, I know you're an intelligent experienced person, and I agree with you. You said, don't go half-baked. Don't react to implied pressure. Don't put the card before the horse. And the amount of detail that's missing from this document is just, it's an invitation to work through it. And so the timeframe, I don't know if that's at all reasonable what we're discussing. I can't see how it is. There are definitions that are not defined. There is a reference to an AIA definition of substantial completion. As I read your document, none of the milestones relative to substantial completion are triggering your expiration potential. Based on, I think it's 1.3.2. It says that the only time the expiration will happen is when you don't commence something. Not when you don't complete it. The last sentence of that section. I don't mind being proven wrong. Prove me wrong. Tell me I'm wrong. I'm not attorney. So I'm just, like you said, we're going through the big concepts. So I say to you, Julie, I want to ask a question. I have a couple of them, but I will ask one. What is commence? What does that mean? Again, as alluded to by the applicant, we still have to resolve definitions related to this so that we're all clear on it. But generally speaking, commenced means that they have a permit in their hands, that they've paid for their permit, they're ready to go, and they start construction on whatever the commencement of the item is. Okay. Could I just put something up to you? 1.3.2 says the vial still isestone Section 1.3.1, card condition, substance to the continued existence of vested rights. And the failure of developer to satisfy a Milestone will result in the exploration of vested rights created under this agreement. That was expected any buildings for which no construction has begun. So if he doesn't meet the miles which any building that no construction has begun. Right. Does not say he has to get anything done, he just has to begin it. And you know what? I commend. I commend related and I commend Julie in all the work. Because you know what? A lot of work has been done and the development is difficult and it has a centralized power plant. It has foundations built and if I were a lawyer and I got in a detail with them I would say I have commenced all of that. I've commenced it. It's not defined. It's not clear and yet the town's on the hook It's very clear when we're on the hook a year here got to do this got to do that. That's clear to me Let me ask a similar question. I'll put this to you, Duane, or an exit. I'm going to put to you, Julie. Let's say they bring a PUD in and we think it's stick. Snakes, it's Arnie's nuclear power plant. What is the process following that? We don't approve that PUD in the timeline by May 31st. in the timeline by May 31st. You know I'm going to have a hard time answering that question. Well you're going to be the person that's going to have to answer it and be clear on it, right? I understand, but in terms of the process itself, the first thing that we will do when we get an application is we have 30 days to look at it and review it for completion. And so in completion we would evaluate it to make sure that they've met what the intent of say the comprehensive plan or what have you. So I'm going to say that we kind of dismiss the nuclear power plant because we don't have anything for instance in our code that would allow something along that line. So what we would normally do is then sit down with the applicant and say, is this really what you want to proceed with because it's going to be challenging for you to get an approval in our community given this proposal. That's normally how we do give and take as planners working with an applicant. Right. Of course, they can proceed and we can take it through the planning commission. Presumably, we would be making a recommendation of denial. Fine. And it would make it a pretty short process presumably. But you're just talking about the first phase. Let's say we're working on it. New councils in here. We're going on for weeks and months discussing it, can't seem to get on the same page. What happens? Well, we... You know what? I have to... So you're saying not this nuclear power plant proposal, you're saying... Yeah, I'm saying... A proposal of some sort. We're finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding that we can. We're not finding out all our review notions based on the fact that there's no changes while we know we're talking about and working on substantial changes, even considering the relationship to the comp plan, because even a approval or rejection of just vesting could affect our community, our community character, how we feel and think, whether we're at peace in our community together with each other. And which is something I put out, you know, to you doing. I've really been trying to think about this a lot. I have been saying to myself, what, what, like, how do we do this? As a peaceful thing, how do we get started? How do we get inspired, right? How do we make this peaceful? And it seems like every time we come back to this place where there's just not enough information, there's no details, the stories change, and it's not peaceful, right? It's like the gods is stripped instead of being like, let's just build a couple buildings and get it going. But anyway, sorry, that was inside. So, I'm still not clear. So council... I'd say we follow the code and the agreements developed by the policymakers by you guys. We're not going to be driving anything. So when you're asking what's happening Chris, it's a rhetorical question. No, no, no, it's not a rhetorical question. As I understand it, or correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. Julianne as our town staff has been negotiating on the terms. And what I see the terms are now, I can't imagine ever being in a business deal, which is I'm going to sign over four years of obligation and I'm not going to be told any details. I'm not going to get anything and even wait till October 31st. So there's other options and so I don't know why we have this option. And that's what I'm trying to understand. And if you don't understand the details of the contract, who's going to interpret Mr. Dresser who didn't write it? If you don't understand how we're going to apply these things, if you don't understand as the planner, the definitions and the relationships to code and they aren't in the document, how are we to feel secure as a council sitting here making a decision for the best interest of the town if we don't have any of that information? If we don't know comments, because I'll give you a comment. You got power plant, you got foundation, you're done. Substance completion is not identified as a trigger. So there are no triggers in this document. We are being asked to approve something that the applicant has said they will not do. Repeatedly, we are not going to do this. We can't do it. The market segmentation isn't right. We have all these different reasons, right? So to split the legal hair and say by the letter of the law, there's no substantial changes. There's nothing happening. And all we're doing is vesting, right? I find a little bit hard to stomach, but I think there's still other good options. So, as I said, I want to touch on a couple other things too. If I can, Mr. Mayor, just one more minute or two, and then I'll stop. I could go on for a long time. The, similarly, there has been this impression that the community is absolutely interested in this happening, that this is a majority issue. And I'm just, it's part of the discussion, right? Part of, we're gonna get, we're gonna get to the positive place I think I think we're gonna get there but like maybe one of those truth and you know fact-finding commissions we're gonna go through the dirt first we have 10 emails as you referenced 100% of them do not support the project you not I should say do not support approving fascinating rights there's not even one not even one. Don Schuster could have sent me one, but he did. So we have 10. So I'm just noting that. The community survey was presented at the sketch meetings. And I'm not a statistician. I'm not a lawyer. So like I said, correct me. Come back to me. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying let's have a discussion about it. I'm saying I'm right, I'm saying let's have a discussion about it. The posters from, the posters made at the sketch percent and there's been, you know, talk about it in the paper, our community survey and how it represents the town. The only question, there might be one other. The only question in all of the community survey, which is not statistically driven, in other words, doesn't have a rating, one to five or something like that, is the question that is often touted as supporting the process of base village. It's an open-ended question. And the question actually isn't about should we do base village? It's like, what are the best opportunities in order of priority for the community? And you know, statistics, surveys, they can be interpreted all different ways. First of all, I say, I don't put that much weight on the survey, but it's come up a lot. So I think we should talk about it and use it as a tool of analysis, right? The only question that we have that's it's open that in a few words what you believe are the two biggest areas of opportunity in order of priority for the town of Snowmass Village. Out of the full-time residents okay we stand it out to 40 200 people, 4, 300 and 2 people. And our response rate on the opportunity question, because some people answered it, and some people don't complete all the way, was 573 or 13% of the people responding, or originally getting the survey. And out of those 573, by my reading, all of the, it has the answers, you can read them, they're kind of cool. Some of them aren't that nice to you guys, some of them are, you know, it's fun. Anyway, you go through them, and 115 were 20% of the respondents had base villages their main priority. That's one fifth of the population of only the 573 people who responded. And if you identified face villages one, the rate for full time residence was about 18.9%. Okay? Or 54 people. 54 people. So I like the whole process, but I'm not going to get too revved up because 54 people, you know, want to do it. If you take the 54 people and you use a baseline of 2800 people in our town, you're talking about 1.9 percent felt that this is the biggest propriety priority in the town that we got a race and rush and we got to get there and it's got to happen. And so I don't want to be in the position of feeling like I'm not having the time to do the job that we're supposed to do with staff as elected officials. Having complete concise material that I am clear that you know Gary or whoever's in his air and you and and and our attorney and I don't know who else understand and our and our in our population right like when we move forward I want the town to understand what we're doing also and be clear. I could get way down in the weeds on a lot of different things, but again as Arnie brought up some of the basic concepts in the way that it's structured, we're always on the back end. In my understanding, we're always playing catch-up. We are the ones. For example, why would I want a mediation clause? Why do we have a mediation clause in there? Out of curiosity. I can't address that question. I don't understand. Because a lot of the questions, a lot of the language and the agreements are information that is intended for us to negotiate with one another. And quite honestly, I was hoping I was going to have more feedback from the town attorney on this matter. And other than what you saw, the one page of comments, I didn't get anything to help with setting that direction. So the presumption was we're waiting to hear from council to see where you wanted to go so that we can then finalize the agreements accordingly. So that was our assumption. to me, even if it's totally the attorney's fault, and he has been, I'm just saying, even if I didn't say you said that, I'm saying it. Even if he's been remiss on vacation, recalcitrant sick, I don't know, we lost the attorney, I don't know. We need to feel comfortable as counsel that we understand the specificity of this document, that we understand the agreement that we're making that's tying the talent's obligation for four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years depending on how it goes. We need to be clear why we have a mediation clause. We need to be clear what the actions would be when things don't go the way. And partially because we've experienced it, right? We've experienced it, right? We've experienced it. We need to be clear on David Peckler's recommendations and Anne Martin's recommendations. And I think I saw Mr. Mellies issues with location. We need to be clear on those things. We need to take the time to be exactly clear. I don't think they're resolved yet. I don't know how we could even vote anything. Mostly from parking to everything else. And I'm not saying we need to study everything to death. I'm saying that we need to be clear on the way the agreement works and what it works to. As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, but all we're doing, all this PUD is doing is amending three agreements. It's not doing anything with respect to any construction, which is why you made the comments that you've made, and why you've drawn the conclusions that you've done. So, Chris, I don't know why you're so hung up about construction when we're not there yet. Because, let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. We're not there yet. We're not there to worry about a construction. When they come in with their October 15th PUD, then we start worrying about construction. All this is doing is setting up financing and funding to be sure that there is bonds for the public improvements and setting up terms for keeping, extending, and or terminating, besting rights. That's all that these agreements are doing. So I just don't understand why we should even be thinking about construction now when that's not what any of these documents deal with. Other than setting up the milestones. The related threat. The start can be linked. Let me talk for a second. They're related to construction. They're related to the PUD. The PUD is incorporated in it with the implication almost, almost that we have to approve something or we begin to extend the vesting rights and they move forward. There is, there are, and I look, if I were the only person saying this I would go you know what Fred you're probably right this is your business but I'm not like and that's what I'm hearing for I've heard it from a judge who lives on my street I've heard it from three or four attorneys I've heard it somewhat from our own attorney in quick discussion about the basic dynamics and even before we got the application just listening to the newspaper I kept saying I was like this is really weird we are being asked to extend rights on the project we know that will not be done why can't we have some information first why can't we go in a different direction why in this are there no other partners that actually own operator or do things except for ski co? And where they're going to show up in two months As I said during my public comments section We hope to have that revealed the lot three participants in short order by the way ski co is taking buildings four and five in the nine a B and see site. You know that. Is this a good spot for me to try to provide some response to you? I have one more question. I'll go back to you. Julie. The planning commission suggested that one of the main reasons to do this, which I still think is like a bizarre contraption at best. The reason to do this is to not do things piecemeal. And yet again, in the documents, we're not getting a whole PUD, we're not getting a PUD for all lots, all-base village. By October 15th. Yeah, we're not. You get to listen to that. Now what it says in the documents, what lots? 4, 5, 6, and not 7. It says you're required to give lots 2 to 4. The recommendation says it's comprehensive. It is, right. You are only required by the language in the document to give us, I believe, two through four. That's the only thing required. But your staff's recommendation, and the way the ordinance is organized, is requiring a comprehensive, complete look of the project, the entire PUD to use your terms. And I let you earlier know, in my comments, that's gonna be, that's five to be not five six and seven we don't have any master new plans think think about where we are right now to your own description of the two years so understand that we're focusing on the priorities will provide a complete update of what those sites are approved for and our intended approach for them today that's's what we'll do. I don't have a shaken baked plan for sight that includes building 12, by the way, don't have that. We're focusing on the buildings that the community wants the focus on and, frankly, where we need to be focused upon. That's not, that's not, by the way, Chris, in all due respect, that's not a show of weakness. That's not a lack of depth of the application. It's trying to respond to the priority where we all collectively have consensus where the emphasis should be put and where the priority should be laid. I agree. But I think it's important for the community to understand when we say we're going to see the whole picture. Well, you already have a picture. You already have the approved site, the approved project. And now we're focusing on those areas that need to be completed. And we've gone through a public process. If I may, put some pushback. You describe the community survey. You didn't mention anything about the community work sessions, which technically were pre-scatch applications. Because that's the way your land use code endeavors to have a work session where people can have kind of a bit more of an informal opportunity to discuss concepts ideas and proposals. We did not want not to we did three of the course of a couple of months. Why do we do it? We tried to gain input and ultimately build consensus on a particular direction that we thought we should go. And frankly, we've evolved and are, I think everyone has evolved from going into that set of meanings to where we are today. I think everyone's position is somewhat evolved. There's been some learnings, discoveries, confirmations, and dare I say consensus. So to your point about 10 negative emails, I appreciate that. And all the statistics you described in the community survey, by the way, still is my view one of the key tools that a jurisdiction, that a public body, a community can engage to bind feedbacks. We've been to surveys, you do work sessions, you do these public meetings, you do these public noticing. You have the debate meetings, you do these public noticing. You have the debate and the discourse in the public setting. Those that wish to attend, those that wish to engage do so. They do so. And you know what? Just because you're seeing 54. By the way, 54 last time I did the math is 5x on your 10 negative emails, but that's just maybe my simple mind doing some simple math. But to your, to the big concepts that we heard from the public tonight, as well as from the table, one of the big concepts is the lack in your view, the lack of definition and detail. Ours is not the intent to be overly ambiguous there. If we need to add definition to the submission requirements, because by the way, last time I checked, related has it no new policy as well. So we're not going to be submitting some sort of bogus pitch-in, bogus pitch-in, that just to kind of nominally meet a October 15th PUD submission. That I can assure you. It's not a bogus play. Even this time last year we had some good discourse of debate around the Anderson Ranch model. That wasn't bogus, that wasn't a shrill sort of you know just lob fake. It was months of work with a community partner that ultimately didn't come together. And by the way that also is not a show of weakness or lack of commitment or of abandoning someone's promise. It was a good faith effort with a community partner that actually has carried the torch for this community. Has a lot of institutional value. We thought it was a really good use to land in the base fields. I know you're not critiquing that, but I think it's a fine example of work effort in this particular vein of trying to bring about an application that works. So, hey, listen, on the definitions and the details for the submission requirements, comfortable and happy to go to a further level of detail such that the public can get comfortable. There's no trick words there, Chris. Okay, good. Because when you say, and I get it, like, when you say you're trying to remove ambiguity, yes? You're trying to remove ambiguity. Yes. What I can see crystal clear is what related is going to gain in this deal. And I appreciate that because we got to be able to work together. I see crystal clear. Four years of investing and a lot of different ways to extend it. No problem. And what is really ambiguous, you want to talk about managing risk. And we're managing risk for the town And what is it is I got nothing I got nothing on that document that says anything except I'm gonna find out some stuff on October 15th a couple days before you guys would be done and if I'm wrong I see people nodding their head. I want to know why I'm wrong I would like someone to explain why that is not true I asked it in the public meetings, okay? Why is this good for the community? And I have never gotten a very detailed, substantive, rational, reasonable answer. And I figure I could make my own, but I didn't get one from anywhere else. I've heard all this other stuff, right? And so I'm just saying, when you talk about ambiguity, it's just tough for me. I'm trying to get there with you. I like, and the part of my getting there is being maybe a little argumentative or drilling down or spending my whole damn weekend reading this stuff. And it needs work and it needs help. And it needs a discussion, a community discussion that doesn't just assume that everybody wants to do this just because we make a poster of it. Cause that's not what it says. What does that mean? In terms of community surveys, when as I recall, and I had to go, I had my dad got sick, I was at a town. When we first did the public meetings, they were, as I recall, and I had to go, I had my dad got sick, I was at a town. Right, right. When we first did the public meetings, they were, they were, as I recall them, they were categorized as public meetings. And then all of a sudden somewhere in there, they became pre-schedged process. That's the technical term. You can get that from your community development director. That is the, within your own language, that is the methodology. We had to use that platform in order to engage with the broader committee. I don't, by the way, that's actually both in letter as in spirit consistent with your own land use code. It enables a conversation. That's what we had. We had several of them, Frank. And one of the things that came out of there was a consensus view that there should be forward progress. There should be an encouragement for the applicant to move forward land use planning and applications that enable forward progress. Those are the key words that keep coming out of that. Enabling forward progress and there was a great deal of skepticism. We don't trust. We need to see it in writing. We actually need a lot of control. We need a lot of levers. We need a short, short leash. I know, short leash, feet to the fire, all that. All that. Exactly. All that. We don't have any of it. We don't have any kill switches. We don't have any milestones that are actionable. We have to start a lawsuit to get anywhere. We have. There have been other suggestions, and I think the best one so far. Can you get comfortable? Can you get comfortable? we're able to work through the definition and the details on these key points and these key, you know, Lynch board. The best the best comfort zone suggestion that I have heard so far. Similar, I'm not spread said, I think already said a year or something. I had thought the best one I've heard so far. Like, like, like, lead you back up for say, well, anyway, no, the best one I've heard so far is that the town grants you an extension of vesting rights until your PUD is in, acted upon, and resolved. And then there can be triggers for an extension from that point. And then if you don't, if you bring us the nuclear power plant or the Chippo 2L rooms or whatever it is that people don't want, then you've had your time to work through that. You're right back where you would be November 15th or 4th or whatever it is. We are not putting our whole town on the hook and you guys get time to move through it. And I'm just saying, I think that's like a really reasonable thing. And you can still sell it. I mean, is it really going to make a break? I just got to ask this because I'm not a big developer at UR. And so is it really going to make a break a deal because there's a different housing mitigation rate? It's really going to break a deal. The guy is going to calculate his time frame and it's going to what is it extra a year for his rate return? Well if numbers are your bag I think the land is code today is a 60 percent I think the project approval was at 40 percent 45 thank you that expresses out to eight figures. Okay, so it is important. So, so, so, if you add, if you go from 45 to 60, the last time I checked on the map, that's a 33% increase on the on the baseline. It's, it's multiple millions, so it's, it is, I guess it's best to say it this way. It's significant. Right. Okay. And I'm not saying, I didn't say it's fatal, didn't say that, but it's best to say it this way. It's significant. Right. And I'm not saying, I didn't say, it's fatal. Didn't say that. But it's significant. And it's material. And at this point in the game, it becomes tough. It becomes tough. Well, it's like you guys have said a ton of times, and I agree with you, we're not in the same place. And what I am going to be, I guess, ornory about and try to make sure we don't do again is what we did in 2006 when I was probably right along the plot and with everybody else that we don't go too fast that we don't get too revved up that we don't imply the pressure and that we have, and maybe that old beauty is way too complicated, like, I mean, have you ever read that thing? It's worth digging. Yes. So, but how do we get to the simple places? So I think that's some arrangement like that. And I think it's a good one. And in some ways, I'm surprised our staff didn't bring it forth. But an idea that allows us to not commit ourselves completely and utterly with no information. And when there's no trick, when milestones are not triggered by substantial completion and only commencement, that's one. You've already commenced. Great. You've got four years. When there's a mediation clause and we can't, and I don't know what that means, and we can't immediately file suit and move forward or have liquidated damages, that's the problem. That's like a problem for the town. This stuff that's been committed to as Fred, you've said many times, is already stuff in the old project, which we're not doing anymore, right? And accelerating them, and I'm not trying to play, you know, it's really easy in these things to get skeptical and try to try to play like, you know, the secret agent or whatever. But when I look at it, I say to myself, all these improvements have to happen. They make the place more scalable. They get everything out of the way for the next guy who might buy it, and why not? And so does it really do anything for the town to accelerate them, especially when I don't know what's gonna happen. So now I got this roundabout that's supposed to serve us this thing that I don't even know about. Is it is it still appropriate? Is it still rational? Chris, I mean we go on and on and on about the potential I'm known. I just wanted to be honest. I'm trying to test whether or not you're interested in willing to move further along on that level of comfort by getting additional detail and definition to these triggers and to the concepts we've already discussed such that this possibly becomes a construct that you're willing to support. I do know this the last five, by the way, I started September 15, 2008 so I'm coming up to my six year mark and to Fred's comment earlier, I haven't done a lot of development. You're even said I'm a big developer. Right now, for the last six years, not so true. Okay, so I didn't mean it personally. I was just saying I haven't done much of the detail. Well, I didn't, I'm kind of a bit, you know, it's not a point of bragging, if you will. So what I'm getting at is there's not a lot that has happened. It's true. And there's been a lot of macro economic recovery across this good nation, as well as this good world. There has been. And it feels like we're literally lagging behind that recovery, even when we just test it against our own market partners, the other communities in the valley. Okay, now if we both shake it or head on that one, that's good. So the next step is to say this, okay, what is it that we can do collectively to maybe move some of that ambiguity away? And I'm not saying that the best thing platform itself is gonna remove all, but I am gonna say this, it helps to mitigate some of the ambiguity and some of the risk. that the best thing platform itself is going to remove all, but I am going to say this, it helps to mitigate some of the ambiguity and some of the risk. It helps to send the signal. I'm trying to make sure you understand this, that I'm not trying, that this is not supposed to be a one-sided agreement. So we're willing to listen to your improvements and threads improvements and the rest of council improvements to make it a more balanced in your view so that you can defend it when you are with your neighbors. But when we get to that point, we should be able to say we work together for forward progress and we started moving some those clouds away. The vesting itself is, again, it is going to help. It's not going to remove at all. But once we submit that application, it is going to help. It's not going to remove at all. But once we submit that application, that's going to help. And by the way, no nooks. It's going to be consistent with the uses and the allowed provisions within the PUD. You're going to, you've already seen and flavored what is going to be hotel, vacation club Hotel. Vacation club possibly. Fractional club possibly and I'm again I'm telling you those possibly because lot three still in play and I've given you several examples of how fluid the market in the marketplace is when you start talking about trying to get people excited about this we could do a great deal of good by signaling into the market that this is the right place this is the right time we're moving forward together. We could do a great deal of good by siddling into the market that this is the right place. This is the right time we're moving forward together. We could do a powerful and I'm not saying it's my language in the document or else. I'm not. Well, let's find that spot. Maybe I'm getting, I get a little emotional when I talk, you know, so do I. So do you. Yeah. And so the point, my main point is to flesh out some of the ideas my main point is to look at it and say with my limited knowledge The ambiguity is is being ramped up for the town while we're making a commitment We're committing ourselves. Let's work on that. Let's work on that right and and so I think that the as I said the only a few let's work on that right and and so I think that the as I said the suggestion that was made is an interesting one it's a creative one I think it warrants some consideration I've least to like to know why it doesn't work the the kind of the six month runway a little six month runway you have the amount of time needed right now if we do not approve vesting okay it expires nothing happens right nothing for a while nothing nothing look there's nothing in this document as I understand says anything's gonna happen okay there is nothing in here that says anything is wrong there because there are a number of places where it's commencement and final completion by dates on the on the panel. There's no penalty for not completing. There is no seven there for us. There is no. We are in the wrong relative to the commencement of building. You're just wrong and you've been yelling and screaming you're just wrong. Yeah. Because there are there are places in there. I said't know. Like I said, if wrong, then somebody explain it. I just explained it to you. Just to want to listen. No, I, you didn't, because it relates only to buildings for which no construction has commenced. Right. It has no language anywhere in this document in terms of expired expiration of vesting rights due to the precedent, reason. Wait a minute. You want them to finish a building that started for heaven's sake? I do. And they have no pressure to do that. Of course, nobody's going to play a stick. They're going to play liquid data damages until they do. They haven't said that. That's a new idea. And it's not in here. There's nothing in here. Hold on, guys. Hold on. They get easy. Come down. It will be. Well, it will be. Okay. We need to get through this. Mark. Yeah. I think that we've had quite a bit of a discussion tonight. It's eight o'clock and this was an hour meeting. We've spent a lot of time with a lot of feedback coming to the Wayne. Personally, I'm very clear on three amendments and what's being asked for. That's pretty clear. I'd like to have, you know, if we don't have that data in front of us, we know where to go find it. So I'm fine. We're here to look at the vest and rights. And Chris, I hear what you're saying, but they're it. I just disagree with a lot that you have said. And the statements that have been made, I'm very clear. I think Fred's been clear. I'm ready to move forward and move towards any other comments that need to be made. And to the next 30. Yeah, so the 8th. As far as next. But in the right during a period of time, we can seek some additional clarity. But right now, I don't. I think this is the time we ask for other clarity and make sure that we have comments back and forth. Have discussion and give related and ourselves opportunity to think about it. And just later Jason. Well I'll say I very much appreciate some of Fred's comments about adding security to the camp. I appreciate it, and I concur with a lot of Chris's comments about a lack of protection for the interests of the community, I think. I think what I've read here does appear to me very one side in terms of how it's written and what is actually in paper. And frankly, I have no idea how we could be ready to move forward on this right now, which you just said you were ready to move. No, I have no idea how we could be ready to move forward on this right now. Right, agree. What you just said you were ready to move forward. No, I'm ready to. Not ready to move forward with that. I didn't say that. That's hugely confusing to me. No, no, it's clearity. I'm very clear this evening where we are. I understand we are going to go back for clarification and some additional work. I didn't say I was ready to move forward in terms of the resolution this evening. I think that comes back on September the 8th with additional clarity. Okay. Issues. Like you said, you were clear and comfortable with what you're present. I am. Right now I'm very comfortable with what has been discussed and comfortable tonight. I don't have any other additional comments. I do like where Fred came from and I agreed with a force measure. We talked about that the other day, Fred and I. Okay. So for me, you know, I've been frustrated with this process, I think, from the beginning. And I think we did get the car before the horse. You know, when I look at the route, we had a conversation a year ago, I think, in this room, where I think Fred maybe, you know, was getting pretty hot about the idea about show us the plan and we'll show you the best thing and I think there was quite a bit of consensus around that idea and we come back into a process for whatever reason I don't know on whose idea who was advice but it's show me the best thing and we'll show you the plan and I find that very frustrating in terms of us being asked to release the one card that we hold relative to this process on a great deal of uncertainty right around what we're committing to. It's a five year commitment. I understand the value in that to you. I'm not sure that I understand the value of that to us. So that said, I think the approach we got backwards and I don't appreciate that very much. I wish we had greater clarity and it would be easy. You know come in and show us a great plan and we can talk about extending the investing. I think frankly related created a sense of urgency by delaying any submittal of any request and when you do come in and you just request for the besting extension because oh my god the besting expires in a couple months we better extend it and and then we'll show you the plan you know we're really backed up against the wall because of your urgency because of you know maybe a perception in the community that we want to continue this and see this thing built out so that's the approach I think we've got it wrong. I read through that ordinance and I think Chris made reference to it. But the findings all and the review standards all require these conclusions about how it serves the interest or meets the conditions of the comp plan and consistency there. It serves the interests of the community. And basically, it's written in that those can be ignored or not dealt with, or they're not applicable because we're not seeing proposals for physical changes in the plan. Frankly, I read every one of those findings, and I said, we know there's changes coming to the plan. You've said as much, it's written into the whole concept, how can we make any of those findings that were required to make based on the submittal and the proposal that's in front of us. So I don't know how we find consistency with any of those findings for the most part when I read through that. That said, I'm confounded by the recommendation for approval. So, there you go. The other thing I do see, and I think it's been characterized tonight, as an aggressive schedule for the town to perform on, given the October 15th to May review period. And I really question why the town would commit to, according to an aggressive schedule, and suffer the penalty of sliding milestones by a year based on what we already know and admit is going to be a difficult process first to get through in that timeline. So I'm not comfortable with the schedule for that necessarily given that it has penalty to the town attorney, relative to additional information that he would be provided and reviewed, as well as all of the referral agencies and comments that we got from staff. I think there's a lot of work to do on that. Some recommendations and I think Fred's concept of liquidated damages is something that I've raised before as well and have in my notes, but security on the private milestones. You know, honestly the private construction, the buildings are much more meaningful to me. I'm really not all that worried about getting around about or getting wood road finished as long as you continue to maintain or commit to maintaining that going forward and keep it temporary. But regardless, I think the community wants to see the private improvements finished and to stop looking like, you know, exposed rebar, cobblestone leek is whatever we got going on out there. So security around private completion is something I'm very interested in. And it's been suggested at the Planning Commission and it's been suggested here tonight, so I'm very much in line with that. Can I get a clarification on that? Sure. In terms of the Planning Commission and that recommendation, and unfortunately, John's not here. The legal interpretation, whether that is even plausible in terms of private. I could assure you it's not plausible. OK. So we've heard that before. And I'm not sure I want to ask staff, but is there any precedents where communities have been able to ask for coverage on you know on private parcels or it's only my understanding things that you can do on public infrastructure? As I mentioned to the Planning Commission, I am not aware of any situation where the aware of any situation where the sherdies are on a private development. It's not to say there aren't any, I'm just not aware of any. Well let's get clarification on that. That'd be great. And if you put the proposal forth and the developer agrees to it, then you can do it. That's where I've worked,, that's the possibility of happening. But I just have a few more points. Again, I guess it goes a little bit to the process in the car before the horse, but the idea that we should be committing to an extension of investing and committing to mitigation rates on the existing concept of the project. But knowing that that existing concept of the project, but knowing that that existing concept of the project is going to be revised, but not having the opportunity to evaluate whether new mitigation should apply or would be appropriate under the new circumstances. I'm just, I guess, asking the question, when we come in to review the major PUD process, we have the ability to request a new fiscal impact analysis, new traffic study, new impact assessment, right? And so the question of whether new mitigation should apply or shouldn't apply, given that we're here talking about this because everything has changed, right? Shouldn't everything have changed relative to mitigation as well? Shouldn't everything have changed relative to mitigation as well? Well, the only common out of McTevEdger was those housing numbers. We instituted when the community were seeing a lot larger return, developers were seeing a larger return. We were seeing more needs for employee housing. We were seeing more margins there. Times have changed since 04 when we were getting, we made some of those changes. So today with development scaled back and not, from what I see, not making the margins that they used to, maybe it doesn't be time to make a change. Yeah, that's backwards because we actually reduced the mitigation rate in order to approve this project, right? That's the 04 condition. Oh, no. By the way, reduce the mitigation rate. So on that logic, we should have jacked it up if those were the conditions. The PUD amendment requires all of those impacts studies. You know that. It's not it's not Ray Sands. We have to we have to submit it and the criteria by which they're going to be measured is what we're asking is protected to the best thing is just okay the 45% for the employee housing mitigation right but being asked be asking us to reevaluate the whole fundamental foundation of the project you know from the developments they have not asked me to change to generate how a commercial square foot in your land use code generates employee, you know, an employee generation unit in EGU. I'm not asking you to change that. We're talking about having the protection of the mitigation, but the actual analysis of how many employees does a house generate or how many employees is a restaurant generate. I'm not asking you to do those principles those are those are your own only what percentage of that number we actually have to mitigate and so you now with the benefit of time and hindsight has gotten better see what works in the project we should at the community should have equally the benefit of that hindsight to say what works and what didn't did we mitigate at the right rate or did we screw that up? And if we screwed it up, we should have the opportunity to correct that. Okay. Let's see. There you come in on that. So, you know, that said, I guess. I'm in agreement, I think, that the idea of extending through a review period makes sense. I'd be interested in understanding what that means to you guys in terms of risk or willingness to go forward in a process like that. But if there was an open-ended investing extension that went through a land use review process. At that point, rather than now granting investing on not only uncertainty about a project, I mean, a town grants investing. What a town's interest in granting investing is to secure some understanding of what's going to be built, right? So we're, however, being asked to grant investing with not only uncertainty about what's going to be built, but, but maybe some certainty that what we know now is not going to be built. So we're investing something we know is not going to be built. That's, to me, seems a little backwards. Okay? Maybe I'm thinking about that wrong, but regardless, that's it. So I like the idea of investing through a review process. It seems like that would of vesting through a review process. It seems like that would get us to a point where if you were lined up for an approval, there would be a further vesting extension, and we would actually be vesting a project that we want to secure for some longer term period. And if that wasn't the case and you were headed for a denial, then we wouldn't be locked into a vesting commitment that is extended on something that we really don't want. I guess at a certain time somewhere in the decision process you have to answer for yourself. What do you want? Do you want base-fillage finished? And does the community want the same? At some point you got to ask, what do we want? Because I'm hearing there's a lot of tactical things being focused upon. And we want, I think, the answer has been, again, through the various mechanisms and tools that we've used collectively, as well as the towns used independently, surveys or otherwise, to determine what the community wants today, not back in 04, not back in 08 today. They want completion, they want forward progress, they want to go, they want it completed. And so I'm trying to raise the the bar or at least put new bars potentially into play, putting it into play. I don't know from my humble view, I don't know how that achieves or supports our larger goal. If we do have to share a goal of completing baseball. I think to a large degree, regardless of what the community survey says or doesn't say, a large number of community wants to see this thing finished, wants to see it built. But I don't think they want to see it built at all costs. And I think because of the environment that we find ourselves in relative to trust, relative to track record, relative to history, it's got to be bullet proof to reduce the risk to the community and protect the interests of the community. So to that, I say there's more work to be done. Okay. So that's probably the same cataplegian. Not giving you five years, not giving you four plus one, but limiting you to a next step. And then once we have more understanding, more information, then we talk about moving forward again. That to me seems like. We may be pretty far apart, obviously. Right, and I do appreciate the process that we've had regardless of what your definition or your opinion is of a pre-scatch and a series of committee work sessions, those were effective tools for the committee to get engaged. And then we went through a minor PD submission with the Planning Commission and again several more points of the opportunity for the public to get engaged and there was no one saying you know just shut it down and let's just continue to stare at your words the rebar in the concrete and no one saying that and and so you know but you're putting it on us to say, what do we want? We need to figure out what we want. Well, I would put it back on you. You need to figure out what you want to do. And then come show us. That's the way the process works. That's what the entitlement process is designed for. You decide what you want to do. You come see if you can get it for you. Okay. I mean, the giveaway upfront, I think, is problematic from a fundamental standpoint. Mr. Jacobson. Yeah, thanks to Wayne, thanks Jason. I just, I spent a lot of time on the town surveys, so I'm just going to go back to it for a second, because I think it's important. Out of the people who answered the question, which was the only question that could be answered relative to base village, which was an open-ended question, what is the priority? What is the highest priority for you? One-thifth of the respondents, 20%. So I'm not saying there aren't a lot of vocal people here. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of business owners and part-time owners who want that completed. And I don't even say, I don't want it done. I had a great night at a record the other night. I love it out there. I think it's great. I said we're in the midst about base village as it's hard to get to except for the really bad cramp parking garage. It's one of the easiest but you drive in, you go upstairs, you get on the elevator and you're right there. But only 20% of those responded. If I calculate the number of people who want to focus on events, summer, building summer business, it's 31.7%. It's a pretty big spread, right? Like that's a pretty big spread. So there are other values, and I think this was trying to follow up on what Jason was saying, there are other values here that deserve to be part of the review processes as I understand it. And building a sense of community, developing affordable attractions for it for- This is this from the same story. This is sketch meeting. These are collections of ideas from the sketch meeting. So no one in here says just get it done. Improve parking, enhance your own economic vitality, build a sense of community. Okay, these are the things that came out of, that were gleaned out of those parts. And I think that they're valuable. Good. Mark you then Fred. Well, if we're good. I understand there were 10 people where we got emails from or letters from, okay? I don't have the number of people that were at those community forums held by related. So I think that was very valuable and consistently the message was get it done. That was very, very clear. So I couple that with some of the feedback that comes from the community survey. Second of which is this is a public hearing. I don't see anyone sitting here tonight. Mr. Goodwin made some comments as well as a letter. But I haven't heard anyone get up tonight and say don't do it. So I think it's extremely important. The purpose of this is minor changes to the minor PUD. And I think there will be helpful to have some clarity. I don't think there is clarity around what those amendments are. That would be helpful. We've had comments from conversations that Mr. Cooker has brought forth both you and Jason have come up and talked about it. I think some clarity would be helpful and I would suggest that we look forward to the September 8th meeting if we can make that time one. Okay. Mr. Booker? If we're going to look at big picture, I think there are three truisms with respect to base village. Number one, it has reduced property values all over this town. Okay. Number two, it has hurt this town economically. We're having a bang up summer. I guess as if you had a base village, it'd be a bigger bang. Number three, it's an eye sore. So for us to do the round and worry too much about too many details and not deal as we should be doing with the big picture. And yes, getting clarity on what they want to do and yes getting commitment that they'll do it and yes getting financial assurance that it will get done. That's what we ought to be concerning ourselves with and for the three truisms I think it's very important that the base village project move forward and move forward promptly. doing it sounds like you know if there's a poppice ability to move the vest any extension out because I guess you know that from what I understand the period of time that this potentially has something where council can make a change is the November 4th of 2014. If we don't say something after November 5th saying, we're going to hold the process to what we understood that we could do to say November 5th, potentially it's going to take the whole vesting and entitlements and put them in the can and move forward. Is there another way that we could say, Dwayne, give us the amount of time to move forward looking at the big picture, leaving the Vesting as it stands now. And if we don't for actively say they are entitlements are gone, can we still work forward for the time frame that sounds like a majority of council would like to hear the big story? And then after they've heard the, you know, what is the PUD now looking like to give you extensions at that point after we've spent the six months to a year looking at the master discussion. Because it sounds like six months is very short, some concern that maybe too short, versus saying let's spend this next year looking at the whole thing. And then after that point, you know, move forward with approval or denial of the project. Is that something that could be done? I'm not interested. Okay. That was a question really. Billy, that was a... I'm trying to follow that. I... my... our position, as it's been for the last several months, just working through this process and being malleable and working through the various inputs with staff and planning a zoning and the broader community work sessions, frankly, to help shape. We view having some extended vesting structure nailed down with the proper protections and securities, as has already been described. provides a partial improvement to an ambiguous super ambiguous situation. And we understand the need for definition and clarity and control as it relates to the submission of the October 15 PUD amendment. We understand the need there. We understand there's additional work to be done. We get that we'd like to work and endeavor with you and the council to achieve some consensus on that platform yeah such that we can move forward in a constructive way I mean it's it's positive signaling even if we as a as the applicant in the town council can build upon what the consensus and the momentum that's already been achieved, even that would be powerful for improvement and the true isms that has been described and starting to kind of combat and beat against that for a bit. Good. And improve. So, you know, is anything, are any of these items fatal? Of course not. You know, the world's going to continue to rotate, and we're going to kind of, we're both all by you a beer, and you'll end up by me a beer, and we'll let our emotions back down, and it'll all be cool. It'll be fine. But constructively, it feels like there's momentum and consensus has been built for the last several months and it feels like we're getting to that spot. And I also know and I understand, you know, show us the plan, we get that, I understand. What my greatest fear is, is that come, track out on that proposed schedule of milestones, go to June 1st, 2015. And there's a denial of an application and the vesting is also dead. Saddle up because it's going to look like it is right now. For an extended period of time. And Chris, to your point, maybe that's okay. And maybe some in the community that's okay. I happen to be, and we happen to be of the same mindset that there are some trueisms in play, as articulated by Fred. And we think the June 1st with a complete denial and no-vesting is just not pretty. And thank you for the opportunity to express some alternative platforms. I mean, we'll give you six months and we'll just get you out there until we understand. No one what we know now, I don't have a high level of confidence that we'll get to the yes together on June 1st, 2015. I want to try to craft a platform together. You're going to hear him up with such a great plan that we'd be fools not to say yes. Oh yes, Jason. What was the what was the public comment for me? Okay, so that's that is in a roundabout way is my response. Jack, to your question. So I think that our conversations tonight are on get ready closed public hearing. Is there any other comment? Before you close public hearing, I'm gonna recommend that you continue the public hearing to September 8th and through this entire process, date time specific. And I'll also would like to, I saw Council Member Jacobson raising his hand when you're done. And I'd like to try and summarize the information that we've got and then have Julian and the applicant chime in. And as well as Council to make sure we've got clarity on what our next charges are. Okay. Any other comments on another hour? No. Any other comments from the public at this point? Arnie? Just sitting back here listening, that there really is an ability to make this thing work. I think that a little time in some discussion and I want to have some with Dwayne. I think we could We could cobble something together that would make it work for everybody. I think a kernel has a risen and I just because I'm listening. And I would suggest after you get your summaries that you would join because we're all going to go to sleep here pretty soon. And let's sort of go back to the drawing boards a little bit, because I think it's here. I think you can do it. Thank you. Richard? I'd like to give my friend, William or me, some advice as long as the tooth developed. I have found that I've run into similar problems over the years. And I think this, you would be better off to let this PUD die. A natural death. There's a lot of baggage in it. And you've got to be careful what you ask for, because you're just a lot of it. The way to go in my opinion is building by building with a zoning variance. It's a very clean application. Whatever conditions the municipality may impose will come out by itself. You don't need to offer anything. Just like let's get by 4.2 started. Make an application for it as a singular building. I would forget this PUD. I think there's so much baggage to it and so much history to it that it's going to come back and support an expression to bite you in the butt. So that's my last comment. Thank you Richard Any other comments from the public now I'm a public then we're going to continue the public hearing and I'll do it Scott Scott Callahan a member of the community Remember the marketing tourism board and Business owner and I just went briefly echo some of the comments that I've heard. I think that, from Markies Point, there has not been a sentiment associated with just stop this thing entirely. And I want to speak to Chris's comment about the survey. I think you're parsing that to a degree that you're lessening the impact. If someone's asking to help build summer business, they're also asking to have better amenities, more complete facilities, and a better guest experience. And that's part of finishing base village. Because it is an eye sore. I live it every day. There are a lot of comments on it and it's it's it's to Fred's point we are we need forward progress. Not at the expense of just throwing our you know hats in and saying Dwayne do whatever you want to do but we do there is a substantial number of people in the community business owners, younger people who'd like to create live children's cells here who want to see forward progress in a measured, consistent manner with protecting the town's interest. So I just want to make sure that we don't get so wrapped up in an offering of, excuse me, an offering to have a dialogue about the proposals that are being put forward. And then Chris, I mean, you kind of take what has been thrown out as an opportunity for discussion and take it into a realm where it really sounds discouraging to the rest of the community. Like, we're just gonna crap all over this thing until it goes away. And I think, I don't think that you met that, but I think that that can be easily heard by the community when it's not an opportunity for constructed dialogue it becomes a shouting match. So just ask that we try to keep for progress in mind while we're debating the merits of each individual application. Thanks. Thank you. Red then Chris. Just to Richard's comment, I must say I find it rather ironical that all of us up here at least agree on one thing is that we want to see an overall plan and you stand up and say, oh no throw the overall plan out and let's just do a building by building. That's not what I wanted, base village, and I don't think that's what anybody up here wants. Thank you. Chris. Just to be clear, for the public and for you, Fred, I know Richard, but I've never talked to him about it. I constantly ask myself the exact same question. I say to myself, I say to people, I got to get to Wayne, I got to ask him, why? Why the PUD? Why not free market force? Why not sell the PUD? Why not free market force? Why not? Why not sell the piece? Figure out how to how to change the management of the heat and powerpan. Why do we keep going around this like shadow game around the PUD? So just to be clear, I have often thought this is long before this application that it was mystical to me why related Whoever owns it doesn't start moving forward in some sort of way that it was mystical to me why related, whoever owns it doesn't start moving forward in some sort of way, which you are actually, and then still ends up being piecemeal, but we keep having this legal wrangle about this overall thing. And Scott, I appreciate your comments, and what I wanna say about that is, I think I offered a pathway forward. I know I get a little intense to help my brain you know focus and and I I offered something that I think makes sense and other people brought to me. I am in a role of working with the community to try to understand it and it puts me in a very difficult position right as I don't always agree with the community I don't always agree with Mel or Arnie or anybody that hear or Gary, right? But this is a situation in which with my 10 emails, when I wanted to know the background on the survey, because I wanted to know why there was this overwhelming sense. Always put forth, you know, by so my colleagues, by the community that this needs to get done. And then at the same time, everybody on my street and the guys who call me on the phone and the people who write editorials are all saying don't go there. It doesn't guarantee progress. It doesn't guarantee action. And some of it's emotional. Some of it's just like let them pound salt screw those guys, kick out related. But some of it, this is for me, this is why I spent so much time in it. There's nothing in this document right now that makes me feel confident, any more confident than before the application. And I wanna get there, I hope we can get there. I'd love to see the place built out, you know? But I don't have it in front of me right now. Okay. Don Schuster. Don Schuster, the Asmr-Scheng company. I wanted to answer, there was a couple questions that there, what differences it make if the best thing expires and are these things important. I'll just tell you, based upon the last month conversation with Wayne and so forth, certain aspects of these agreements that are being proposed to be modified here, it is very important for us, for us to go forward on that too. We talked specifically about the Polly Housing Mitigation requirements there. Without those employee housing mitigations that are in those agreements, you know, our lot too proposal would not work and go forward. So it is important from some perspectives. Why don't you bring forth something and we work through that detail. We work through that particular detail. We need to have some surety of this coming forward before going back into this process and spending, I mean, I don't want to tell you how much money we threw down and put in the garbage can already from our first go around with this whole thing. And you know, without some surety of this thing having had some of those vested rights continued, we probably aren't going to be there. I mean, that's just, I mean, it's worth that. We, nobody, you know, other than residents in this town, from a company's perspective, nobody wants to see base fillage completed and finished. More than we do. It's at the base of our largest business operation and we need this thing to be successful. But in order to do that, we also need some certainty of what's going to happen as well. That's one of the reasons we're back at the table with related. And I don't think our concerns don't really revolve around what's going to happen on the other side of the ski back trail. We're aligned with the town. We want to see what's going to happen in Building 7, Building 8, Building 6, and finishing the core there. If I was in Duane's position, I would not know what the next step is going to be as far as what was originally Building 10 and 11, the larger components of this. I don't think bringing forward a master plan and reference to those things to actually work. So what's entitled is entitled to do that. You know the town's going to get every aspect of the opportunity to review those as they come forward but what's the end goal? We got to finish this core of building 6, 7, and 8, and 4, and 5, and 9, and, you know, solve some of the issues. I agree with Richard. I mean, we're in this to try to help make our resort, not only our resort, but the communities resort work better. And that's why we're backing into this, and we're trying to get through the process. But I just want to re-emphasize that the vested rights and the agreements that are asked to be modified here to make those things go forward are important for us in moving forward. Thank you, Dr. Dundee. With that, I'd like to continue the public hearing till September 8th, starting somewhere after 4 o'clock on this issue and move on to our next item. Anything else to do in the key for clarification? I think we received some of the other things. Gary's going to do it. Gary, you're going to try that. I'll make this quick, and it was late. My biggest fear tonight was not having legal representation. And I appreciate the applicant not bringing their attorney kept the play and field level. Thank you. On purpose, thank you. So I wanted to acknowledge that. The intent was to take down all the legal questions. Thank you. On purpose. Yes. On purpose. Thank you. So I wanted to acknowledge that the intent was to take down all the legal questions that came up and most of the questions that came up had to do with the legal provisions in this document. So we're going to go through those real quick. Need answers on what happens if the property flips? And I have an opinion on that, but it's not a legal opinion. And usually these types of things run with the land. And there are zoning agreements that run with the land. But you'd want a legal opinion on that, so I understand that. What happens with the property flips? Force measure was raised as an issue. It sounds like we have some agreement on that as well. And there were discussions on that with the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Cooker talked about security, security, security, security, make sure there's something to sink your teeth into and he proposed liquidated damages and penalties per day and kind of the vesting rights going on and off and again that's a legal question I haven't seen that in my experience but I think it's worth posing the question and I appreciate where you're coming from. I did talk to John about that and he said if the applicant agrees with it that it will work. Yeah there you go. Concerns about the town attorney's comments and other staff comments, getting clarification on those amendments that he's referring to. So you're looking for clarification on the proposed amendments. Concern about the town attorney having more time to review these. So I'll shoot Mr. Dresser an email to find out how much time he feels he needs in order to provide you with a full review and clarification on these legal questions. Chris, I'll apologize in advance for making this so short, but what I picked up from you, I was concerned and I am concerned about what came across as kind of allegations of vague and misleading information kind of being put forth by staff and I just can't agree with that. I respectfully disagree. There's 120 pages of reading in the packet. Certainly, there's going to be some more questions to be asked and I really look to the council to bring up those details. I appreciate the work that Mr. Circus has done and the planning commission as well as staff but I were going to cover every nano detail. No but hopefully by the time we get to the council we cover those details and that seems to be the path that we're on. It will narrow and it will clarify as we move forward. More detail on definitions. And again, these are legal definitions. It's not something planners, they see these in documents, but they're usually things are usually negotiated between legal counsel, between the applicant and the municipality. Talk about commencement, substantial completion completion as a couple of examples. Exploration of vesting, what happens with the exploration of vesting. So you're looking for a specific answer on that and we've heard some different scenarios on that but again that kind of goes to the legal arena. Mediation clause, why do we have that? So again, another legal question. My philosophy is you know what to do agreements, whether it's a contractual agreement or for services or with a developer, trying to anticipate as many problems as you can and address those up front while we're all talking. So that if something does go awry, you have a solution and a remedy in the agreement. Mediation is just one of those remedies, whether you guys like it or not, is really up to you decide. Peace meal approach. Jason, you had mentioned this plan and then investing or Mediation is just one of those revenues whether you guys like it or not is really up to you decide piecemeal approach Jason you had mentioned this plan and then investing or investing and then plan that's really the threshold question here and You know the applicant comes forth they give us an application We're obligated to respond to that in accordance with the code. We did our best job to do that You guys may or may not agree with staff recommendation. I totally respect that. I mean, that's just how it works. So that's the threshold question that once we provide the detail, you guys are going to have to look at and decide, is the order right or is it backwards? And you can cast your votes accordingly. Concerns with the aggressive schedule. We shared our staff opinion on that, so we need to talk about that. Time to review staff comments and discuss. So yeah, we do need to go through it here from Mr. Peckler and here from Mr. Gordon and have that discussion as it relates to their staff comments. Security on private improvements, again, legal question. Bottom line is that's what I've gotten. I welcome if we missed anything major this is I think Jason talked about it's an exercise and risk analysis and that's what development is and that's what your decision will rotate around as well and so if you need more information you ask us for that information we'll give you that level information so you can best assess the risk and protect the community's interest which is your. So we'll do our job with staff and I'll look forward to you doing yours as council. That's what I've got. Thank you, Gary. Any other comments to Gary's summary? Great none. That's a good job. Thank you. Thank you, Duane. Thank you, Greg. Thank you, Duane.. Thank you, Greg. Thank you, Dwayne. Thanks, everyone. Thanks. Well, you won't hold you. We'll do it. We'll do it right at the same time. I like to sweat you. Move on now to the manager report. We're not going to eat dinner. I'm kidding. Just kidding. Remind us strategic planning session. I'm not really looking for information on council from council on my measures report. September 2nd, 1 to 6. I think do we have a location on that, Rhonda? I'm sorry. So we'll be at the back room, 1 to 6 dinner at the artisan. Very good. We'll be at the backroom one to sit dinner at the artisan. Okay, good. Tourism director search, we've invited council, the tourism board, and department heads in the media as well to an informal meet and greet here in the council chambers Wednesday at five o'clock, five to six thirty. And then I'll be we'll be taking out the candidates with I think Clint is going to be here the new town manager is going to be here at that time so it'll be a also a chance for the department has to come and meet Clint by the way he's going to be here a week from today get his kids enrolled in school so we have some time to share and I want to take him around town hall introducing the department heads and so forth so so that'll be good. Very good, thank you. Yeah, you bet. I've heard some concern in the community about having our interim town manager make the higher, make the final decision on the higher. Right. And I also recall maybe a year ago, we had, I don't remember what it was, but we had some pretty in depth conversations about the role of the marketing board versus the town manager in hiring, selecting, making that final decision on the tourism director position. And I thought we had language maybe in the cone about how that relationship is supposed to work. Maybe we didn't, but we just said the town manager should strongly consider input and feedback from the marketing board in making that final decision. I just want assurance. I'm happy to hear you say that Clint will have a chance to meet these candidates before a final decision is made. That's comforting. I think that's great. I want to make sure that the same can be said with marketing board. And that's the case. That's great. Yes. And we've had a subcommittee of four and they've been great. They were excellent through this whole process. And again, we will have them. I'm inviting them to dinner and not all of them can make it with with the candidates following the meet and greet reception. And also I talk with the chair John Borthwick this morning. And we're scheduling a debrief with the subcommittee on Friday morning. So I want to get their final input. I want this to be a shared decision with Clint. I want him to become. I think Jason- I don't want to saddle him with something and he goes, well, that wasn't my choice. No, but Jason, I think, you know, Jason raised a good point on the counter side of that. I do believe that Gary knows the community probably, at this point better than he could does, and might understand the that the kind of people we need here to function, they just want to take a little bit of time. He's in television, fellow, and I don't think it's too bad, but we also have had the marketing board, like Gary said, it's up to media involved, even though there were a few comments and concerns. So, yeah. I think so, I think we're set up. It's making good. Yeah, I think so too. We got some quality finalists and we had such a deep pool even if none of these work out or we pick someone we can't negotiate a deal. There's still a second tier that's very strong. I still have some favorite picks that are in my manager's report about this budget meeting. We had a great budget meeting in here with all the department heads. The goals were to improve the level of awareness and understanding about the town's overall budget. There was great cross pollination of who's doing what and why and improve the level of teamwork among the departments. Part of the goal is to break down some of the silo mentality of this is my department sort of thing. Not that there was a lot of that But I think it really helped bridge some of those gaps And we got a lot of creative ideas To some of the challenges that we face and then I put a pretty lengthy planning entryway planning update in there and There'll be more of that blasted out through Kelly's magic and all of her Media that she uses to communicate. So that's basically it. Any questions from Council? No, thank you for your energies there. Go ahead, Jason. Just maybe I haven't read it for like next step on it, is there, what it, it's a 10 or 11, another public meeting or council meeting. It's gonna be a public meeting and it'll be active and interactive and it will be fun. Okay, there it is right there. There's a September 11, 4 to 6 here at Town Hall. Thank you. It will be at Town Hall, Kelly. Okay, great. Yeah, thank you. September 11, 9-11, 4 to 6, Town Hall. Entryway planning meeting number two Very good Um moving on then item seven agendas for the next council meetings Okay, if you have them listed out here Comments concerns Lot rest on dresser Yes, it does Yeah, he knows that Yes, he comments or thoughts on the judges I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I I stretch it out to 90 minutes. Think it'd probably go two hours. Yeah, so let's add additional time. But it's not as good as it's going to be first reading, not necessarily. I'd like to get a read from council on that. I don't think we have enough time. This is my read. I do. I think there should be opportunity if we get through the questions. It could be a combination. And Mr. Dresser says, you know, here's your answers. But I would suggest that we, you know, try to shoot for a first reading at the next meeting if we can. Here's where I suggest is a straw vote. Give me direction on a straw vote. And if you're not ready, table it. Right. I mean, I ready, table it. Right. I mean, I think, go ahead. Sorry, a straw vote right now. Yeah, a straw vote right now, whether you want it on his first three or not. That way, I don't have to guess. Don't do the upset if we have on there. Or call Billy and go, what do you think, Billy? I'd rather just talk to you now while I've got you here. I think that should evolve on staff, you know, understanding of the situation. If you think you have adequate information and responses to all that list of questions that you think you got and you're ready to deal with that. That's fair. In a way that's satisfying. You think we'll satisfy those questions. Then we can go forward to that. If not, I think that's a judgment call from staff to whether that's really right. I think. Yeah. Yeah, I would assume the submittal process is well underway from like SGM and everyone that were satisfied with their documents going through the address as well, correct? A lot of those documents you saw tonight. Yes. Referral comments, yes. Referral comments? Yeah. That's what you're talking about. Yes, we have those there and they may have more as well. Sure. I was going to be some clarification to be asked. Yeah, I think that was in the packet, but I don't know that it was clear as to whether the specific points that were raised had been addressed. Right, right. That's right. And that would be like. Like SGM was one of them. SGM was one of the buyers cheese. Yeah. And Anne had some comments in there. She was real comfortable. Yeah. Very specific and intelligent. I thought, I don't know where it's going to go, but it seems that it warrants a real discussion about the location of the medical center. If, you know, from the photos that really gave us, that's like creating this other dangerous situation. And we're in this negotiation. It would seem to be a good time to talk about the best location and get that kind of feedback. I know I saw Mr. Mellie here earlier but he didn't come up and talk about it so I'm not clear whether that's been resolved, reviewed, reconsidered and the application it says that they'll consider things but they're not making again not making any commitments whatsoever to doing anything about it. Well this the question I was going to ask we went through this when we put it into building number eight what has changed in that period of time I mean Aspen Valley Hospital signed off on building eight at that time. So I mean it's a lot of those questions that I'm not clear on at this point. Yeah, it's it's it's it's a complicated issue. Yep. The other part of that is that the size may have deep. Well, look at the incident and talk about with the applicant in the room and I don't that the size may have deep. Those are the ones you need to talk about, but with the applicant in the room, and I don't think we need to be doing that right now. True. Okay. Good call, Mr. Attorney. Okay. But I understand the clinic is a complicated issue, and that we need the way out as well. And I think there are a number of complicated issues that we're throwing up there to see what's next. So when you do sort of get those clarification on those. Okay. So do I hear of the majority saying first reading or are you going to defer to staff? We're going to defer to staff, I think, and if you guys ready to go believe that it's appropriate with the clarification on those main major questions. We should know more by the end of next week to be sure. Thank you. All right. Let's help. Then again, back to the other agendas. Everybody's going to move forward as they're presented for some changes to add some more time to the 22nd meeting potentially to a couple hours. And maybe we can have these other folks come to the meeting specifically, you know, being Gordon John Million, and specifically make sure that their comments are heard and questioned and answered. Special meeting agenda for the 22nd also here. This is the budget discussion. Right? Okay. October 6th. And, okay. Moving on then, we have Council comments to meet reports calendars. Mr. Cooker. Nothing. Mr. Jacobson. I think I'm good. I do want to applaud as you did Marky before some of these developments in like the farmers market. There is a vitality emerging that I think is great. And I think that regarding real estate costs and other things, they might have done better but they have come back just like everywhere else. And so we don't want to get too fixated on what we can't control either. Okay. Raff we had a meeting last week. Things are fine. I brought up the question of should we be broadening our discussion with Raff about time service so that maybe the off-season schedules get changed a bit. We're looking at a number of things. We've written the paper staffing concerns they have with the additional routes and how we take care of it. So I also wanted to make sure that we really look at our seasonal cutbacks or do we even, can we even afford to do seasonal cutbacks anymore? Because I think we are seeing so much business. That BRT is busy. Yeah, it is. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. You remind me of your thing. I suggested it was made last night. Or actually, it was no today in a phone call I got. And I thought it was pretty interesting that we're trying to get the restaurants to stay open later. And some of them are open till two. And that maybe it's a good idea to have at least one shuttle that's a late night's shuttle. And I'm just, you know just someone just call me about that so I'm just passing it on to everybody Okay But I think yeah, then on the town side that's probably something else we need to look at and understand our scheduling And that's hopefully one of the things we can do during our strategic plan those other kind of things are waiting to go and have these more broad discussions Okay, anything else on our? Martin. No, not really. It's getting me. I'm sorry, but I'm sorry. Jason, I'll just make one mention this Thursday on the 21st, this Thursday. Colorado Legislatures Joint Water Resources Committee is holding a hearing in Glenwood Springs at the New Glenwood Springs Library on Athane Cooper to take testimony and discuss the state water plan that's currently being drafted. So if anybody has a particular interest, it's from 5 to 7. This Thursday, 5 to 7, 30 this Thursday, I'm going to try and schedule that in as a Rwapa Reddye Water Empower Authority has already submitted a letter with comments related to the Colorado Basin implementation. 5 to 730. Okay, and that's all. Thank you. There's night concerts over and the festival is over. I got one more rodeo. More rodeo. Get down there and enjoy it. Is there anything else? Is there a motion for adjournment? Mr. Cooker, second by Mr. Jacobson. All in favor? Aye. Or we are adjourned. you Thank you.