I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you I'm going to do it. you you you you Yeah, he said yeah, okay. Well in that case, let's go ahead and start this show. I'd like to call the order of the Stomach Village Town Council for April 7, 2014. First item we have is roll call please Ronda. Here. Butler. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Very good. At this point, item number two is for public non-agenda items. If there's anybody, please stand up. It's each name for the record. Not seeing any hands rising or jumping up. So I guess we'll move on to item three. Council updates. Jason, nothing for me thank you. Markey. Nothing of a particular note other than DAV occurred last week and it was a fabulous success. Thank you to everyone within the community who helped with the event. And there were a lot of folks from the community in volunteers that came in to helping that thing. So thank you. Have a raft of meeting next week. Going to that. Other than that. That's a Thursday, right? It's a Thursday. Yeah, I'll try to make it. Okay. Chris, just briefly sticking on continuing a theme the Aspen Jr. hockey group held the first spring faceoff we've always had a fall faceoff which is a big tournament has three weekends and like 32 teams and they now added a spring version of that and I just keep mentioning it because I think it relates to some of the economic drivers that we have in our community and things that are popular that are drawing a lot of kids and families to the Roryfork to spend money and have fun. That's all. Mr. Rainer? Mr. Cooker? Nothing. Okay. Moving on. Number four. Public hearing, resolution 23, series 2014, special review application for the Sprint and 10 Upgrades Western Hotel. I will go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. And if there's anyone that would like to make a comment this moment, please raise your hand, recognize you, or listen and we'll, before we close it, we'll give you another opportunity at that point. Mr. Campi, I have your name attached to this agenda. Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of council. If you may recall this You've seen this application before a few months ago. It was appealed and based on insubstantial evidence you the council granted the appeal and based on insubstantial evidence, you, the council granted the appeal and remanded the application back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission received the remanded application with new evidence showing the antenna outside of a view easement owned by the Sun and Blick. And carefully reviewed it and made their recommendations to you today. And today the new evidence is present. The antennas have been moved outside of the view easement. And at the conclusion of this public hearing, you may act upon it. And the applicant is also here, Aaron Atelman, from SMJ International, representing sprint spectrum LP, who is on the lease for the antennas atop the Weston hotel. He is here today to answer any questions, and I believe he has a couple of things he wants to say. Hi, thanks for your time. Again, I'm Aaron Atelman of SMJ, I'm behalf of Sprint. Got a picture up here. This is the existing Intent installation as exists. I mean, obviously wasn't taken today, but this is as it exists today You can see the other antennas on the other side You can barely see them. Yeah, they're not raised up because like six nine inches over the As you as Yeah, they're not raised up because like six, nine inches over the yeah, right there. Okay. Okay. As you as a Sloan said, there was the issue of the view easement. We had a survey done to see exactly where that boundary lies. We've incorporated on our drawings. You can see here the this is the view easement boundary. Right now we have that one antenna in. So which way is the boundary up the north of it? This is inside the view easement. Gotcha. So this one right now is violating that. So as you can see, this is the interim plan where we will move that one antenna down here to the end of that elevator shaft so that there's nothing inside that view easement. Very good. That pretty much covers it. Okay. So apparently we have the planning commission has looked at this. They have. They've given us a recommendation. They have. And that recommendation is to support this. That recommendation is now that there is, they find that there is substantial evidence to approve the special review after it was appeal. Okay. Jason Hayber. Just curious if we had any further communication with the appellant on the latest proposal and findings around. The appellant was notified during the public noticing process. We here at Townstaff have not received any comments or anything regarding this. It was noticed for 15 days posted, published in a newspaper of local circulation and melt. So all the official notifications have been taken care of? Yes, as well as we also notice the appellance attorneys of the Yes, we did. Okay I'd like to go ahead and take the second to introduce Julie Woods, our new community development director in the case of me doesn't know Julie sitting here next to Sloan Julie anything that we else should be thinking about talking about or just going ahead and approving this. Yeah, she'll get used to. I think that the staff has covered all the issue areas adequately and the applicant doesn't appear to have any other issues that they report. Hearing that is I will now take any further public comment for I close the public comment period. I will go ahead and close the public comment period and I will go ahead and close the public comment period. And I guess I'm looking for a motion. So moved. That's a motion by Markey for resolution 23. Second by Fred. Further discussion? All those favourable of resolution 23, please signify to say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. And I would also just like to point out that the community development department is right at now processing two more special review applications atop the western hotel in regards to new cellular antennas or antenna upgrades right now. Those are currently in the pipeline, and I just wanted to make you aware of that. They are separate applications. Very good, Robert. Thank you very much. Then we'll move on to item number five, the discussion of time manager executive search process. So, we're moving on to item number five now. As the community is aware, we've been in the midst of dealing with our town manager issue. And we've had a number of different things happening over the last number of months. And I think we put together some discussion for today. I'm going to read a statement that a couple, three of us have put together and we'll have some other points at that point we'll have some discussion among council. So could I just jump in for a quick second? Sure, Jay. I'm concerned about this item a little bit and that we know the past has been contentious around this process. There's some disagreement about how that process went. And I think that's to some degree led to a current state of discontent in a way that I don't think is in the town's interest necessarily and doesn't make us the most functional of words. And I feel like we're heading in a direction where we could certainly go ahead and revisit the past and come up with points of agreement or disagreement around that but I'm concerned that that won't be all that particularly constructive or Forward moving for this group. I prefer to Avoid having that conversation devolve into a contentious match, if you will, of our versions of that process. And I wonder, you know, if it might be more constructive in a way to think about, you know, moving forward and how we might do that constructively, agree to a process for moving forward that acknowledges all of the different perspectives on the issue and respects those. It would give us the potential to move forward keeping Gary as an interim under the current terms opening the search to find a consensus candidate for the town manager appointment and committing at this for to wrap that up in a timely manner. Do that by the middle of summer early July. I think we have the opportunity to handle some of the frank and open discussion in an executive session so that we can get those issues on the table from moving forward. I think it would allow us to stop the cycle of motions about dismissal and restarting this for every meeting and move forward more constructively. So, I think I'm looking for a way to improve that council dynamic without having to delve back into the past and bring up points of discontent and disagreement and just start the conversation there with the opportunity to move forward in a more constructive way as opposed to perhaps laying out your version of the events and others laying out theirs. I appreciate that Jason and I do like the tone and the comments you've made. My main issue with your comment here Jason is that you would like to go back through the process again. And I think that's why some of us believe that the process is not necessary to go through again. And if you were going to make a motion that we accept Gary for interim town manager instead of a three month period, maybe until March of next year, I think that would be something that we could possibly move forward today and give a chance to Gary and the community to get work done and not have this continuous back and forth but honestly shy of understanding or making their motion and I would hope it would come from you or Chris to support that so you can work with us. I don't think that we're gonna be able to not have this discussion in public. I think some of these things need to happen. I think it's necessary so that the community can understand how the comments came and that we did have good debate. And that's where I'm hoping I really do applaud your comment come forward but that's where I would like to move forward if you guys can say like I suggested to move forward with as an interim I I think we could shy away from this further discussion today, Marky. I get, can I just, sure answer that really good. I get, I guess for me, I'm not prepared to make that motion. I don't think continuing in any long term scenario with an interim manager without moving towards a more permanent solution for filling that seat is in the town's best interest and doesn't really contribute to the functionality of this board. So I'm not going to make that motion, but I would make a motion at some point along the lines of what I did suggest. A more short term version to maintain Gary and the role under the current terms as an interim town manager with the idea that we re-engage the search firm on an expedited process and have that wrapped up over the next three months and finalized with a consensus appointment to the position. Is there a second of that motion? Where did that not motion? I thought he did say that was a, you make that motion. Sure, I'll make that motion. Is there a second of that motion? Where'd he, that's not a motion? I thought he did say that was a, you'd make that motion. Sure, I'll make that motion. Is there a second of that motion? Oh, sorry, I need a reinstated. Because originally you said you'd make a motion to that effect at some time. So I guess if you think I could back over it. OK, so let me clarify it a little bit. I mean, I'm happy to have the discussion if that's where you want to go with this. I think my intent was one that would, you know, buy you time, buy the majority time with Gary to be in place over the next few months under continuation of his current contract with the idea that as a body we work together over the next few months to find a consensus candidate by re-engaging the search firm and that process with the commitment to wrapping that up in the month of July of this year. Okay, but if I you know so anyway yeah Jason I appreciate that but I can't second that motion so I'm sorry is that a motion on the floor or are we still just talking about the potential for motion you know I feel to some degree it's pointless to make that motion perhaps perhaps and so I just ask you for a question I was raising it more as a point of discussion firstly I really do want to thank Jason for bringing comment forward I really appreciate that I think many people came this evening to better understand our perspectives on the executive search process. I know there have been many articles in newspapers, a writer for wrong, whether we believe what our town papers say, whether it be the Aspen Times, Aspen Daily, Snowmass Sun. I think it's very important that we try to be very factual because our community has a right to know. We've taken conversations outside of the executive session of our council and so to that end I think it's important to be honest, transparent and forthcoming as to the chronology of how we got from point A to point A. Second of which is I also am extremely concerned this evening as we go into conversation that we do not have our town attorney here. I do want to caution all of us that we don't want to thread or tread on issues of employer, employee contract, contract legal issues. So I'm just putting that caution out there. I'm sure in the spirit of these conversations will be extremely cautious. The third issue as we go into these conversations, and I hear conversations about restarting a search process, I will ask all of my fellow council members as we go through this conversation this evening and with people within our town. I think we need data in terms of a variety of issues with a search consultant. So in the spirit of really putting our best foot forward, I think it's, I think the community is entitled to really know the facts as we see them. And hopefully we have captured them accurately. And I would ask my fellow colleagues to listen and to go through that chronology and then have further conversation. Fred, I agree with Markey. You know, this is a democracy and there was a three to vote and the majority favored Gary. Ever since that vote, the minority has been trying to disrupt the process. I think it's important that the community understand how this divisiveness arose and what we think we could do about it. Okay. That being said, there has been a great deal of discussion lately. Sorry, really quick one thing. Just as you say the three of you worked on this. No, you did say that, didn't you? Well, I said that there had been, we put, there's a three of us put this together. Right. It was written by Mr. Cooker mainly and a few comments after that period. So how could you communicate on that? You can do one-on-one communication. I see you passed it around in the circle. Sure we did. Okay. And it was reviewed by John Dresser for Accuracy. For accuracy or for a content form? For accuracy. For factual accuracy? Okay, so yes when we did not just question came like head up Had we violated sunshine law and we have the ability to talk one-on-one with each other But we cannot get together and we did not do phone conversations together. It was an individual email sent out and That's comments from that period on. There's been a great deal of discussion lately both in public and press about the divisiveness of this council. We should point out that on a great no you know great many issues this council speaks with one voice. The most recent example is when by a five-0 vote, we confirm the finding of the community development director that related recent PUD amendment was a major one. However, on one issue, the council is clearly divided. The recruitment and selection of our current town manager. We feel it important that the community fully understands how this process took place, how and when the divisiveness arose, and what we intend to do about it. When Russ Forest tendered his resignation last summer, the first order of business was to hire an interim town manager. That timeframe was May 31st, us had sent in his resignation. Applications were solicited and number were received after trying to find an interim town manager. After reviewing the applications and conducting a number of interviews, it was clear that Gary Souter was the most qualified candidate. He had previously been a town manager, understood the issues facing the town, and for the past 12 years acted as a consultant and interim town manager for municipalities throughout the state. Most importantly, he had experienced dealing with major developers, developments, the major issue facing this town. He was unanimously approved as interim town manager. The next order of business was to select a permanent town manager. We hired a recruiter and began that process. In one of our early meetings, we discussed the issue of whether the interim town manager should be allowed to apply for the position. The recruiter gave us the pros and cons of allowing an interim town allowed to apply for the position. The recruiter gave us the pros and cons of allowing an interim time manager to apply. After a thorough discussion we unanimously agreed that Gary could apply. The recruiter then solicited and received 150-152 or so applications for this position. To his credit Gary's application was the last. He wanted to be sure that no qualified candidate would be intimidated or put off and not apply because of his participation. The recruiter narrowed the list to nine in the council further narrowed it to seven. In mid-November, we interviewed all seven candidates for roughly an hour each. After the interviews, we ranked the candidates. Although each of us had a slightly different ranking order, all of us, we selected three applicants for our top candidates. There was not a close fourth. And when I say that, we put a ranking and num-numerical order and we had a large difference between number four, number three. So that's what we're sort of. And all of us voted for the three. It's different order. We then advised candidates that they would need to return in approximately two weeks for final interviews with the council, a citizens committee, a staff committee, and to attend a social function where the general public would have opportunity to meet them. As time passed, we started to get word that one of the candidates might not be able to make the interview schedule. That person was working in a town, had a new mayor and the shakeup was going on. Additionally, we were told that he hadn't completely cleared up the potential move with his family and wife. We were told that at one point he was going to get a plane ticket to come, but we could never confirm it. We asked this on Sunday, on Monday, on Tuesday, and it kept coming back to us. He's coming out. He's on his way, and he never came to fruition. We discussed the possibility of postponing the interviews to try and accommodate his schedule. Our problem was that no matter what we did, we had no assurances that he would come. Additionally, the committees and other candidates had committed to the post-schedule. After thoroughly discussing the matter and realizing that we had all agreed that we had three qualified candidates and not a close fourth, we agreed to proceed with two remaining and committed candidates. Final interviews with Council and Citizen Staff committees were held in mid-December. After all, interviews were completed, we began our deliberations. The final interviews with Council and citizens staff committees were held in mid-December. After all, interviews were completed, we began our deliberations. We should point out, parenthetically, that we have been accused by a certain newspaper columnist of being remiss and not following the recommendation of the citizens committee as to the most appropriate candidate. We should point out that at no time during the course of our deliberations, where we ever advised that the Citizens Committee had made a specific recommendation We've actually asked them to give us the pros and cons we did not ask them to give us their preference on who we should hire We were informed as to what they and the staff can we felt were the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and nothing more This should highlight the principle that our newspaper columnists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. As the deliberations progressed, it started to become clear that there may be a division in the vote. Since it was Friday, John Dresser, who attended most of our meetings, suggested we go home, spent a week kind of thinking about what was being said, what had been said by all parties, and come back Monday to complete the deliberations. That is what we did. When we returned on Monday, it became readily apparent that the parties had become even more entrenched in their positions. Finally, we took a straw vote of what was three to in favor of Gary. We were in the majority. Councilman Jacobson and Habert were in the minority. Suddenly, and for the first time since the process started, Councilman Jacobson asserted that the process was flawed. Gary had an unfair advantage because he was the interim town manager and that he should never have had been allowed to participate in the process. Also, for the first time since the process started, Councilman Haver asserted that the pool was flawed in that we didn't have enough qualified candidates, and we should start the process all over again. Clearly, the minority was unhappy that the candidate they favored did not receive a majority of the votes. That, however, is no reason to attempt to undermine or reverse a process that, up until that very moment, the minority had fully supported. One doesn't get to change the rules of the game because one has lost. Yet they precisely was what the minority was trying to do. We suspect that had the candidate they favored received majority of votes, the process would have been fine and the pool perfect. We spent the next several executive sessions as well as numerous public and private conversations trying to convince the minority that when we had a public vote for the Gritlatown manager, the council in the town, it would be best if they voted with the majority. The minority was unmoved by any argument made, thus when it became time for a public vote, it remained three two. We can say, unequivicably, that any two of us had any two of us been in the minority, we would have done our level best to convince majority as to the correctness of our position. Failing that, for the reasons stated, the public vote would have been five-o. The minority was not of similar mind. Since Gary's appointment, the minority has attempted to publicly humiliate, harass, then antagonize him. Councilman Jacobson's made two motions to terminate Gary's contract and two motions to start the search process over again. Those motions were seconded by Councilman Haver. Councilman Haver has made a motion to start the search process over again, and the motion was seconded by Councilman Jacobson. We assert that the only rationale for making those motions was to humiliate, harass and antagonize Gary because the minority was well knew that the that the motions had no chance of passing. They certainly couldn't have made those motions to reflect the will of the community because most people we have spoken to are quite happy with Gary in his performance. Finally, they didn't have to make the motions to let us know how they felt. We were well aware of their position. Shortly, we will be a menacing Gary's contract to extend it through January 31st, 2015. We invite the minority to join with us in that amendment. By doing so, they can demonstrate our ability to put away past differences and work together in and for the best interests of our community. If the minority cannot see their way clear to work with us, we implore them to assist from their harassing activities towards Gary and give him the opportunity to prove to them and our fellow citizens that he is the best person for the slumass town manager position Respectfully Bill Boynow mayor marky butler mayor pro-term and Fred Booker councilman I'm sorry Billy heaven the three of you sign that letter. I don't see how that does not violate sunshine laws. Your comment that the three of us will be voting to amend the contract. I don't see how you can make the statement of that. Doesn't violate sunshine laws. You can see what you have. The serious concern as far as I have right now sitting there. Well, there are no signatures. The names are merely type, Jason. But that's what we are going to be using Jason and honestly you know from my years here and there's always a chance I could make a mess up that we did not meet together. You know there was no violation of sitting there and talking as we all do from time to time we can talk to each other. The three of you put your names on a letter outside of the process of this public meeting. That's very concerning to me. And I think it's emblematic of some of our concern over this whole process. It's great to hear you. Jason, I'm sure that those are good points for you to make, but that's what I've said, and that's what, you know, I want want the community to understand because there are a lot of things that we need to do projects we have to move forward on. Markey. Just a very clear in terms of this whole process. A document was drafted. I reviewed a document. I have not signed any document, but I had input and the community has a right to know I had input into a document that was read. I think that what we, what I'd like to suggest before we move much further is we're talking about, we know we have an extension of a contract that we need to do pro or con in terms of time. This town cannot go up without an interim tell manager and we're at the end of the three month contract by frankly as of April 20, something 29, there's something like that. So we know that we do need to, for sure, have leadership within our town to move the town forward. Second of which, we can't, I'll be extremely emotional about this issue and quite frankly we are. It has not been a fun experience for myself and for anyone sitting here and I'm speaking on behalf of what I've heard from our community and also just putting our own thoughts and emotions into trying to serve the best interests of the town. This is not a fun position for anyone to be in. I will, however, say that none of us that I know of have had any opportunity to start, to even talk with our search consultant since we offered Gary the interim position. I, for example, wanted to pick up the phone and call Phil McKinney, but in the best interest of working on behalf of our board, I chose not to. I thought if there was anyone of us who wanted to have that conversation as we move forward tonight, we might want to think about getting Phil McKinney on the phone and having that also in public. If we were to start a search process and we're talking whatever that might be, what it might look like, what would be our success factor, etc., but we don't have any of those data points. And that's extremely troubling. And until we get data, in fact, I'm not really convinced that we're going to move off the dime right now. We can talk about the whole conversation and the search process and on and on and on. But I would personally like to suggest trying to schedule some time that the public would be invited to really have a conversation, open and honest and frank with Phil McKinney. I think Mr. Dresser has said that the April 21st meeting, Phil, will be available by phone if we want. That's one of my thoughts. Could you expand on what the point of that would be, Mark? Well, you know, I have not done executive search in town management. I've only, my experience is limited to healthcare industry. For example, if we were to throw a net out to the remaining 149, whatever the number was, I don't know what people would say. They might say, are you freaking kidding me? I got the no thank you letter before and now you want me to reconsider. In order to reconsider, I may need to talk with whomever my boss is and I assume it's a council or a board or what have you. Because you just don't go applying for jobs, Willie Nellie. That's one question. I don't know the answer. I don't know this industry. Number two is, even if he started the entire search process again, where would he cast us now? Because I think he cast a pretty large and wide and deep within public service. So I don't even know. How do you restart a process when your individuals only been in place for three months right now. So I don't know what I don't know, and that's my concern is I don't want to make a recommendation to our community about starting a search process until I have data. Mark, I guess I'll be a little different there. I think that your last point was when we decide possibly to move forward with this, I don't think that we're going to get a better crop of candidates than we got. I don't know. That's what I don't know. Well, I'm just thinking, I don't think we will because people are going to come and look at Grant and go, why would I want to go look at that community? They're having their own issues that could I deal with We've got the perfect guy in the seat right now Gary's been you know was a town manager for 11 plus years. I think of this town He was released prior to the base village moving forward By the council which is fine. You know he had been on You know 11 plus years But know, we've got a new public works director. We've got a new community development director. We're going to be having a new, you know, marketing special events director. And the way I see it, we need some stability in this town. And I think Gary's the candidate and the person in my mind who I want to see is our full-time manager. So to me, you know, starting a new process, we have the guy right here will be able to get on with business, get things done, and I would hope, you know, to put Gary in the seat to allow the community to and Gary to work as the full-time fellow and not have this interim thing hanging over his head because as an interim you know you don't take the risks and tell counsel what they need to hear and do the right thing. There's a lot of stuff that has to happen. I think the community deserves to have the person in the seat that we have right now. Well I can't make a call. I'll go to Jason first and Markey. I mean, Chris first and Markey. Just, I have some things that I want to come back to in cover, but there have been so many things that have wrong as inaccurate already to my ear that going away from my comments, which I will return to. First of all, Gary regarding employment law. Gary is not an employee of the community. He is a consultant at the moment. Regarding interim versus full town manager, we heard for the first three months of Gary's time that as interim, he was in a lesser position. His consulting contract reads that he is appointed as the town manager for a substantial amount of money. So I want to be clear on those. In terms of a lot of pontificating about whether we would get good candidates or not and trying to second guess, I hope you guys got it. I already have an email from one person who's ready to do the job right now. Mr. Robert Hubble that's at a carbon deal, it's sent as a pretty impressive resume, and said that I don't say he's good for the job, but we can try to second guess what it would be. I've already heard from some of the candidates who were in the first round who are still interested in the job. So I just wanted to touch upon those brief things. Also in your timeline, one of the things that really started some of the conflicts that led into the overall process that you didn't know was that when Mr. Forest resigned, he wasn't fired, he resigned and he wanted to be, have some assurances from the town, he knew that he couldn't find a condition that he wanted and the council majority at that time's reaction was to throw as much money as possible to try to win that process and we're repeating that kind of behavior again here and I will stop there but I would like to come back to my prepared comments. How much money do we throw at Chris? I believe you guys were talking about a compensation package in terms of his severance around $320,000 at which point I was completely mind blown and how you could do that and that's when the employment lawyer you can shake your heads. I'll go back and find the tape. I just because there was no discussion. There was an dietary figure. Especially that number. There absolutely was and it was only when we finally consulted with the HR attorney who explained repeatedly the fact that being a democracy and having a council person that serves at the pleasure that you couldn't even create a plan like that because it looked like it went over two the two year, over a one year term and so there was no way to even do that. And then that's when it finally fell apart. And I believe that in due respect on my colleagues, that's where the problem started in terms of being intractable around the process. Well, I'll have to disagree with your numbers. Also, we can contract with folks for town manager for over one year period. We've done many, you know, previous home we had was a three year of Mike Seagrist. And we've had two year ago. It has to do with the calculations of Severance package and how that was handled. It was not, it could not carry through. There was no way to make a contractual agreement beyond the election period or beyond the vote of council. With, except by compensating that person through a process of severance. And that's why the package, severance package was talked about, you guys were talking about ballooning it up to over $300,000 in attempt to get Mr. Forrest. Mr. Forrest held to his moral compass and he held to his discipline and he said, I will not accept a situation like that. And I will do it out of my concern for the town. And if I don't have full support, I'm gonna move on and take the job that he had already gotten. It wasn't like he got fired. He already had been looking for a job for nine months, he took it, and the council had to accept that. One thing I'll tell you that Russ and I did talk about his working relationship here. And I had tried to talk him into staying. And he finally told me the reason I'm leaving is because I think that if I leave, the council will not have a lightning rod and you guys will be able to, you guys in Gaul will be able to work better together. And I said, Russ, don't think you're so special. We're still going to have these problems when you leave. It's not going to be anything different. I would hope it would be, but I just can't see that being different. So there are a number of things like that going on. And yeah, today I'm still in the seat where I believe that majority of us believe that Gary is the right character, as town manager, to lead this community over the next couple years. First of all, and I'm not willing to move forward with a week process. Are we on item number six or are we on item one or number one? No, we're still on our first question. I just wanted because item five is about the executive search process. And was it ready? Okay. I'd like to make a few more comments. Well, the the search process is if we decided to open those doors again, the timeline I would look for would be starting off with a little longer than Jason's period. I would think that you'd have to publish the application in the job position for about 30 days, another 30 days to 45 days to get applications in, then possibly the head hunter would do his review and we have to get together to have meetings and that was a few times when we were doing this process we had to change some of those because people couldn't get to be there consistently. So then you would hire somebody, let's say, after maybe three to four months. That person would have to give three to two months to their current employer if we decide to hire them. So we'd be looking somewhere, July, August, just before the election and you know That person would then have to learn the system understand the community go through budgeting process understand all the nuances that go along with it and I you know don't see that with all the Potential changes and development issues and current state of the community of lack of development that we need to be training somebody new. I think we've got enough new folks in the building currently and I again will go back to the stability that we need to have a person to leave this group. And Fred and Chris. And then Marky, sorry. We're going to have a new council in November. And I think it's important that that council have the opportunity to work with Gary. So it would be my hope that the contract is extended not till January 31st, but till March 31st, 2015, because January 31 31 would not give that council the opportunity, I think it's entitled to and it needs. But I am certainly with Billy and the belief that Gary is the right guy at the right time. I think he is doing, from all reports that I've heard, doing a good job. His direct reports tell me they enjoy working with him. I think that's terribly important. His direct reports tell me they enjoy working with him. I think that's terribly important. And I mean, we can argue pros and cons, but if this is a democracy, and if three of us are saying that this is the right man for the job, why the minority wants to continually hinder and harass him, because the majority is in favor of him. Does it strike me as the way a council and a democracy should work? Chris, then, Marky. First of all, I'm glad that finally we're having some public discussion. In terms of democracy, Gary had asked for a public vote when he first came on board and was looking at the process and the majority didn't want to do that and they wanted to do it behind closed doors. And again, I feel like for that I respect your comments but those are sort of for item number six which is a discussion of the interim town manager contract or the consulting contract. And we're talking about the executive search process and I appreciate everyone's different view of the facts. Everyone may perceive things differently and when the executive session, if no one's requested it, those tapes are destroyed and so we're gonna really have to rely on hearsay. So in that regard, I'm gonna present some my perspectives on this and I'd like to, throughout that be able to ask Gary a question or two because I know he was there. I'm of the opinion that the current agenda item is somewhat of a farcical charade. I think it's engineered by the majority, perhaps to revise history. And unfortunately, it's too little and too late. It is also another distraction from the important work that needs to be done responsibly and effectively to govern the town and move ourselves towards prosperity. To the matter of the search process, which is what we were supposedly talking about tonight, the integrity of the process was corrupted by the following circumstances. I will come back to each point in more detail, but to briefly outline the major, the main problematic issues in the Airist's Follows. Inclusion of the interim town manager in the search. By Gary Souther's own statements, he would have not done that if he were running the process because it complicates it and does not create a level playing field. The reporting to the press of inaccurate information about the withdrawal of one of the finalists. The finalist did not withdraw. He said he could not make the short notice of the schedule for the community meetings. The negotiation by council members directly with the candidate of their choice about compensation and Violation of the agreed process. I will get to the details as I work through each each section Regarding number one as I said Gary stated the inclusion of the sitting manager Complicated the process Gary can you explain for the public why you felt that was your opinion? I've conducted many executive searches and most of them include an interim candidate or or A candidate from within the organization It does complicate the process you have to make sure that you maintain objectivity through the process and that the council is completely informed and that the best candidate is selected for the position. It's not uncommon to have that. When you asked me, my preference, yeah, the preference is not to have an internal candidate, but it's a very common thing. I'm just referring back to when we were in session and you said that and you said you wouldn't have done it in your professional judgment had you been running it and I feel like we were somewhat misled on that and so Fred is correct. I brought it up after the fact and as Marquis stated, having more experience in the public in the private sector as opposed to doing something in a municipal scenario, I didn't see the kind of feedback that you would get. And the candidates involved in the search stated, as was obvious to a number of the outside observers, that including Mr. Souter and the search, sent a message that Council wanted the interim and was not truly interested in considering other candidates to find the best candidate for the town. And Gary, as I said, you have appeared to maintain the opinion that Council should continue to restart the best candidate for the town. And Gary, as I said, you have appeared to maintain the opinion that council should continue to restart the search. Every time I've brought up the motion, I don't know what my colleagues have been doing, but I'm looking at you and you're shaking your head saying start the search. Are you still in agreement that that's the best approach for the town? I think you should call your retained search consultant. I think that's a good idea and ask him. I know Phil McKinney. I know him to be a competent professional. I've worked with him. I've competed against him. He's good at this and I like your idea and I would recommend you go ahead and bring him in and ask him about that. As you get closer to your lecture, I'll go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. I don't feel like you're answering my question and I didn't make that suggestion Marky did. My question was, you have nodded your head and said yes and recommended both in session and in public that we should start the search process over again. Do you still agree with that? I think you're getting too close to the election now. I think it becomes more complicated, the closer, a couple months ago, yeah, I think you could have pulled it off. I think getting this close to the election, you should bring in your consultant and ask him what he thinks in terms of developing a qualified candidate pool. So as time progresses and you get closer to the election, it gets more complicated. And going back to that as I just read it right, I have heard from some of the candidates already that people are of course still interested in a great job, especially one with excellent compensation. So if I understand correctly, you were fairly certain about that before, now you've changed your mind due to the election. Okay, so my second point, a false statement was made to the press that a finalist had withdrawn from the search. That was not the fact and the candidate did not withdraw from the search. The fact was that the majority was adamantly inflexible regarding the schedule of the meetings with the community groups. This again sent the message to the candidates that the council did not truly wish to find the best candidate and had already made the selection in their minds. The greatest irony in this was that the majority then totally disregarded what was nearly unanimous recommendation from the community groups that Mr. Souter was not the best person for the job. Gary, I'm sorry, I'm not, I like you, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. We're adults here and I'm not that emotional about this, but I don't like to start mixing up the facts. And Chris, you're making the facts right there because they were not as a good recommendation. Can I speak and then when... But if you got us, you're gonna make the truth out of stories. Fred, I have already told you that I don't agree with you and it is the fact and you guys were adamantly inflexible and you would not move off the dime on that and the person never withdrew and I have talked to him in person and he spoke Specifically to Mr. McKenney and said he was not withdrawing and that's what was told to the newspaper Whether he sends another message to a candidate that we've made up her mind and we're not moving off the dime I'd like to move on to my next point, please I think I want you know we will dispute the claims you have Chris at because you know you know, there had never been any directions. Would you take your own notes and then dispute them when I'm done, please? Tell you right now, because you're making all your points at this moment. That there was no comment. I talked to a person on that board on that committee. He said we were never asked to give our recommendation. We were asked to give pros and cons. Well, we heard about it in the executive session. And you heard about it specifically. No, we didn't and it Mr. Dresser somehow and Mr. McKenney seemed to all of a sudden show up at that meeting and have a new rule to the game plan which was that they weren't going to report on the votes. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter before a decision was made, we all knew what the decision was and so all this talk about support of the community is hard for me to stomach. Go ahead, Miss. Any more? I do, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And the thing that's ironic about that, so the public understands, is that that took out out of 150 people, weeded down to nine, weeded down to seven, weeded down to three finalists. By not wanting to be flexible about making a different schedule or meeting with that person who's on the other side of a country, coming from even the one candidate coming from, being so inflexible, sent the message to those candidates that you're not interested. The search was further maligned by the negotiation by members of council directly with Mr. Souter outside of the prescribed method for negotiation. This was a specific agreement. After a specific agreement by council to have the attorney enact negotiations, we had put it off on the table and we were waiting to hear back and members of council came in and said, hey, this is the number we have to hit to have Gary stay with us. That one was when I started to have my problems with the integrity of the process. That's when I knew that we had a real problem. Ultimately, this is the same dynamic which arose when the forerunner town manager resigned. The majority at that time was willing to part with rational thought and attempted to win back the resigning manager by offering extraordinary sums of money in that situation. Mr. Forrest stood by his principles with a stated concern for the town and maintained his position by resigning. Gary one of the things that surprises me is that only a few weeks ago when you and I met together you told me you didn't want this job. I've been clear and I've stated several times. Yes, I do not want to take a full time, permanent job with the split council. Makes it very, very difficult on all fronts. I just clarify. And I've been, you've been very honorable and a number of your comments. And I've said that. And I don't feel that you've put yourself in this position I feel that the majority has put you in this position. It's the same phenomenal logical position we were in with Mr. Forrest in the current situation we have a consultant who was willing to compromise and and in some ways I have to say go against some previous statements that I thought you're going to make. And the result has been an extraordinary compensation package at the expense of the town. As one prominent state politician who happened to be talking to me on another matter, explained to me in listening to this situation, they really thought like it sounded like a potential case of malfeasance. This appears to be a governing style of the majority, not to compromise. I've listened to the complaints about the majority. We offered to compromise. We said, let's hire Gary. He's a good guy. And let's keep the process open until we get there. And Gary said, that's a good idea. And my colleagues, I respect all of them, did not want to do that. They wanted to get it done We then talked about compensation. No, we're not even discussing about that. We're gonna get this done come hell or high water so There's speed appears to be no approach to compromise Which has resulted in a pay that I think is somewhat indefensibly high we can talk about the next agenda Agenda item and Gary again, I'm not saying you created the scenario. I understand you're bargaining, you're sitting over there and as when we go through some of the details, I think that'll become clear. And the current situation is counterproductive and not beneficial to the town and as Mr. Souter and himself has repeatedly agreed we needed to start, we need to start a search, we need to do it swiftly, and whether Gary created the situation, the council, the majority or the minority, we have a kind of lightning rod circumstance, and we need to find a path to move beyond it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Marky. Councilman Jacobson, I am not going to go point by point to argue your statements because we'll be sitting here all night long and truth comes from people's individuals perspective. So I think it's going to be pointless to go point by point by point. However, I am somewhat intrigued and perplexed as to the fact that you've talked with some of our previous candidates outside of a contract for search activity. It appears with Mr. McKinney. That does give me some pause. You got to be kidding me, right, Martin? No, I am just asking. You got to be kidding me, right, Martin? No, I am just asking. You got to be kidding me. And we're after the search, according to everybody, it's been closed. And those people called me or emailed me directly. I did not reach out to them. OK. That was my next question. I'm sorry, Mr. Jacobson. I'd like to finish my comments before being interrupted. It appears to me that we're not going to move off the dime right now, which is very disconcerning in the best interest of this town. I really think we need to talk to Mr. McKenny, plain and simple. I think many of you, several of you may not agree with that. But I think in the best interest of this town, that may be step one of really trying to figure out where we are. Mr. Souter has continued to be very willing to serve our town as an interim. He's publicly stated. He's behind the closed doors stated. He's not going to be able, he will not accept three two vote for a permanent position. We're not moving beyond that. He's willing to continue to work with us an interim town manager. That is great. And he has told us, you know, with a 3-2, this is what my understanding is, and Gary correct me if I'm wrong. It's what I've heard and what I've interpreted. That it is not a good situation to be in as a permanent position and taking a permanent position on a 3-2. But you are willing to do the interim on a 3-2. But you are willing to do the interim on a 3-2. I totally respect that. And I'd like to get us to a consensus. There's a way we can, there's a path to get there. However, we have absolutely no information from our search consultant as to how that might happen and what a full process might look like or a short-term process or anything. So I will tell you tonight we need to move on to the next point of the agenda, but I think it's extremely crucial. To me, the executive search process is what we've laid out to the best of our ability. I respect Councilman Jacobson's position. I think we all worked in good faith effort until the end of the day. If we were going to discuss Mr. Forrest issues tonight, then we should have information in front of us versus coming from our minds as to what occurred and what have you. So personally, I'd like us to just put the executive service process to the side and move on to the next agenda item unless there's other comments or comments from the public. Fred and then Jason. Chris, again, I would point out that the statement in the state that read by Billy that at no time during our deliberations were we ever advised that the Citizens Committee had made a recommendation is absolutely true. It was only well after we had that straw vote. I first heard about it from a conversation I had with Jason two weeks later. So we were never advised of it to keep bringing that up and saying somehow we've been derelict and are doing it not to follow the Citizens Committee. I think it's inappropriate as Mel Blumenthal saying it. Secondly, this is the third or fourth time you brought up this. We have bargained with Gary behind your back. There was a three to vote. We knew what your position was. I was a bargain with Gary behind your back. There was a three to vote. We knew what your position was. I never agreed that I would not talk to Gary about what it would take to retain him. There wasn't any reason that you guys were gonna talk to me because you did want him. But I never agreed that I wouldn't talk to Gary. I don't think Billy ever agreed to it. I don't think Barkey ever agreed to it. So we can't talk to Gary. I don't think Billy ever agreed to it. I don't think Markey ever agreed to it. So we can talk behind your back. We talked to try to cut to some resolution to hire Gary. I'd like to speak, Mr. Mayor. What happened? First of all, I disagree, but I will agree with you. If you would like to have history say that we only heard the pros and cons. The pros and cons were obvious long before any search committee or anybody else got involved. And that's what both groups said. The fact of the matter is, by the time we were having discussion and by the time we were working on making decisions, the fact that there had been an almost unanimous disapproval of Gary for the position was at the table. As to your second point, we specifically resolved in the meeting that John Dresser, the town attorney, and or Phil McKenney would be doing the negotiations. And it was in the passing, I think, two weeks or so, and we were waiting to come back, and all of a sudden low and behold. We spent probably, you may all probably remember, Marquis, a good amount of time, was it 135, was it 132.50, was it 140, back and forth, and then we had resolved it a number, and then John Dresser was to carry the offer and come back to us. And in the time that we returned to the meeting, all of a sudden we became obvious that council people had decided to go outside of that process and negotiate with Dr. Lee. I don't know if anyone else recalls it that way, but I absolutely do. No Chris, I think, you know, I'll look to Jason here actually. That's why I told Jason he'd go next. Jason? Well, I will just say although we did not work together on crafting the statement. I do concur with all of the statements made by Councilman Jacobson. I do agree with that position and the version of events as he recounted them. And I understand that that differs from your perception and recollection of that but I will say for me personally the process that we did undertake I believe was influenced by the majority I believe it was compromised and manipulated in terms of outside negotiations and lobbying and therefore I think it was Did leave and create an environment for for discontent from that from the gecko in a way and You know to take Gary's words During that process, you know, directly from Gary, I've been lobbied heavily from the rest of your colleagues over the last week as he was considering the decision of whether to accept the position. As I recall, and I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that local government works on a majority rules. I have no problem with that. I don't mind being in the minority. I don't think it's the right decision. I'm not going to change my vote just to appease that situation. I stand by my perspective on that and the opinion that I think represents a good deal of constituents in the community. That said, there was a three-two majority to select Gary as the town manager. The offer was made and the offer was rejected. So to me, you know, in a normal process, if you make an offer of employment and that's rejected, then you move on to your next candidate. But this board, the majority of this board, decided to open the door for Gary to present terms. And so what we're stuck with now is a permanent slash temporary situation of a consultant contract working on an interim town manager appointment basis for the foreseeable future with no path. Mark, you referred to a path to get past this, but I don't see what it is, and I don't think you expanded on it at all. And this board has not talked or presented or intimated that there's any interest in moving past that. The position I've heard is we're just going to let it run on three month recurring contract and the next council can deal. It's basically pushing the decision off at the expense of the community, paying a premium for a consultant to work on a part time basis, which frankly allows us to handle keeping the ship upright but doesn't let us get to the real work that we're here to do for the community. The bigger community issues that we need to get involved in to move forward. So I'm really just content with that. I think the town is left in the lurch and we're paying a premium for it. So again, with Gary's words, and I heard him too, you know, doesn't want to be a lightning rod. He came in, he facilitated a retreat for this council, which, you know, we talked, I think the words charade and a farce came up before, you know, it was to put on a show and look like this council was moving towards being more productive and having a better working relationship. I think we were not successful in that, frankly, I think going down that path, you know, kind of set a stage. It set the stage for involving the stakeholder committee. You know, we wasted a lot of people's time. I don't know how many hours they work for but they interviewed several candidates over the course of a day. And ultimately, what we all know now today, regardless of whether you heard, because frankly, I think we didn't ask for it in a strategic way. You know, we said, just give us the pros and cons. We don't want to know what the consensus of this group is. But frankly, now we know. and we knew several months ago, it was a unanimous vote for a different direction. And we are ignoring that. It's what you can't shake your head. I can't because I talked to people, Jason, who were on that committee, and they said they did not vote unanimous people that position. Okay, I think you're again revising history, but regardless. I think it's incredibly disrespectful to involve people like that. And then I'm not saying it's derelict, but it's disrespectful. And to totally disregard that input that we asked for is irresponsible in a way. You know, I've heard Gary say it, and it wasn't in the context of not only in a 5-0 vote, but this job is not for me, or the exact words that came from Gary's mouth when we met several weeks ago to talk about this. You know, and I heard him say again, lobbied heavily doesn't want to be the lightning rod interested in the community being able to move forward. I think we've created a situation. And again, three-o vote. You guys can control. Offer the job. Sign them up. Make it happen. We can accept a final decision, but you guys have opened it up by entering this contract on a recurring three-month basis for us to talk about it every three months, to talk about it every meeting. If you have an employment contract, that's off the table, right? We go, we talk, you know, once a year whenever that comes up, but basically you guys have structured a situation here that keeps this in the conversation and you're right. It's uncomfortable, but it's not because of us. We simply voted in the minority, right? You guys are making the decision, has the majority to go forward in this way. And so I make no apologies for making the motions or seconding the motions because I think we should be going into a different direction. I don't think it's in the town's interest to continue on this path that we are. So I'll just say that. Let's see. I guess, you know, to the degree that we started this relationship off with Kerry in August of last year. So it's not three months, it's eight months now, right? That's pretty good. Okay. So eight months we've had, we started right off preparing this council to enter in the search process with that retreat. Unfortunately, you know, the intent of that was to help heal a rift in this council. And I think what we are all acknowledging is that disappointment and the way that it's being handled is perpetuating a rift. And Gary, unfortunately, you know, and the warnings were there, we know from day one, but you've become part of the problem now. And so having a constructive working relationship on this board is really complicated by the fact that we continue to perpetuate this situation. So I think unfortunately what this creates is a dynamic where we have a manager that's in the situation where his contract is coming every three months and he is obligated in order to continue that contract to serve the interests of the majority. And that is not a healthy dynamic for a council manager relationship. So for me, I think this process has been manipulated to the point and compromised to the point and unfortunately, degraded to the point that I don't see there being a positive way to really heal that without going forward with the search process, moving past it, letting bygones be got bygones, and trying to get to a point where we can get to a constructive place with this council. And that's the only way I see that moving forward is by opening up a search process and coming to an agreement about a consensus candidate. So I'm gonna wrap up in one sec, Marky. So that's, I guess that's what I'll say about that. That'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not us to move past these positions and come to a place where we can get to agreement. Markie. It's very evident to myself and I'm sure to everyone who is present tonight and to those who are listening to the conversation. to myself and I'm sure to everyone who is present tonight and to those who are listening to this conversation on Grannicus. Our board is more or less or is at an impasse on this issue. There is, earlier I suggested I'd like to talk to Phil McKinney. That seems to have fallen on deaf ears. And I think it's important to know the lay of the land from a search consultant who has way more experience than anyone here. We know that Gary cannot continue to exist in an environment of being a lightning rod and sitting with the three two. The notion was to extend an interim contract until January or March. And that's not this part of the agenda, but trying to move beyond this council that's very divided and perhaps in thinking about what would be the best process at this point is I will tell you tonight that I sitting here is just one member of the council. I'm asking and begging that we have a conversation with our search consultant to help us move beyond where we are now and then at once I am satisfied with additional information, factual and objective information I'm willing to listen very carefully to his advice and to how we move forward to heal this community and perhaps have a whole different approach if the decision is to move forward after we talk to him about a search process that would engage our community members in a very different manner but I'm not willing to put that out tonight because I don't have the data on conversations with Phil McKinney. So I will tell you, I will pause tonight, put myself on pause until I have that opportunity to speak with him. And if you want to authorize me just to call him on my own, I'll be glad to. But I don't think that serves the best interest of this council. No, I don't either. In our community cave, Mr. Dresser had said something in there that Mr. McKinney would be available by Skype on the next meeting date. So while I'm not necessarily in favor of going down that road because I do again to believe we've got the right guy. Yeah, I do too. I think it's possible that does make sense if you, you know, if there's your desire to listen to Phil, we can do that at that next schedule at the next meeting. I guess I'm curious what you're thinking you're going to hear from him or what's going to sway you in terms of that conversation. You just talked about earlier. I heard you say you'd like to get this an expeditious manner and get it done by July. I don't even know if that's possible. Why not? We control the terms. You advertise it for three weeks. You've given three weeks to get there. It's very interesting. You look at it for two weeks. You're done in three months. You're experienced search consultant, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I'm a patient, I in this industry and I don't think anyone sitting up here tonight clearly knows what search is all about when you do a truncated or next-bedited process. And I have talked with people within our community about doing an next-bedited process. Everyone has a different opinion. So those are details we can work out. It either takes three months or six months or nine months or a year. What is the deciding factor? I am not I am not I am not going to move forward to that until I have a conversation with Phil McKinney. Billy Fred. I guess my problem is we go through the search process and we're exactly where we are today. And we don't have a consensus candidate. I mean, I'm very sorry. I think Gary is the appropriate guy for the job. I'm going to be hard pressed to find somebody to replace him. You stopped from the job. We had 150 applicants. I mean, my gosh, that's as big a pool as you're ever going to get. And we came down to three. And all three of us, all five of us, I should say, agreed that those three candidates were qualified. They were either one, two or three out, every one of our lists, okay? And now only because the minority didn't get the candidate that they wanted, suddenly we wanted to do the search process all over again. And my concern is you do it, and then what? If we're back where we are today. What in the world have we accomplished? Hey, can I just jace and then Chris? Fred, I think you're losing a key point of this process. You have everybody on this board gets their opinion. So the vote came out three, two. So you guys control, the majority controls. So nobody's twisting your arm here. Make the offer. You have the power. Make the offer. Your candidate rejected the job. Doesn't want the job. Now we have new terms that are at the expense of the community. $17,000 a month, for a part-time position that doesn't get us the full services of a real-town manager. How is that in anybody's interest and why not just go forward on your three to majority and take the action that you think is in the town's best interest? I don't understand that. And I just have to reiterate for the public and anybody watching in an attempt to get to a place that made it a more unanimous vote. We provided an opportunity for compromise. I'll say I did. I didn't, I won't say weak, as Jason and I didn't discuss about it, but in our meeting I said let's compromise and at the time was we got him move forward. We got a higher. So let's take Gary I said great. Let's do it for a period and let's open the search because obviously we have not gotten there and it was the absolute in Transigence and stubbornness and at that time unwillingness to go as Jason stay and even just make a public vote and say this is what we're doing. That we've been like swirling around and so now eight months has gone even at the initial time when we were looking at the contrary I said you know it doesn't sound like this is going to be totally successful. Why don't we move along in a parallel process, even if we end up hiring Gary again? Why don't we at least go through the process and complete it so that everybody feels whole? But no, we're going to get this thing done by an N-run and a consulting contract, and that's who we got. Okay, so I guess we're not going to get anywhere with the GIC research discussion process, other than possibly having a next continuing this portion on to the next meeting. And I've got a couple of hands in the public. We'll go to Gary Rosenau first. State your name for the record please. Any committees you may be on? On the microphone please. Go to the microphone. I'm the guy who incorporated snowmashed village. And this is not the snowmashed village that I incorporated. It makes me sick to hear the kind of things that are going on here. And I don't mind being a troublemaker. And I'm willing. And I'm just about ready to do it. And when I got Jack Schuss to run for mayor, he was very, very tough about everything. And he ran, he was a very good mayor. And when I did this, I didn't even realize that I was fighting against the Jans Corporation. I had no idea. I just went ahead and got Jackson's to run for mayor. And we incorporated, but it was a different place. This is not it. And I think that Gary and Gary Souter was manager here and he was the best manager we ever had. And I think he's damn generous to put up with this kind of crap. I really do. This is nonsense. You're a good guy. I know how you feel. I know I've known you for a long time and I think they're damn lucky to have you. Now, I know I have no I have no official position of any kind at all, but Fred knows what happens with me when I get when I get a little bit aggravated about something, right friend? Yes, sir. I've caused some trouble before not too long ago and I'm ready again. Mr. Minow has, but I'll try. And I guess, Marky, if because you haven't done an executive search in this industry, you're not an expert. I guess I must be the expert in the room because I was here hiring and firing two town managers Well, that doesn't mean you're qualified. I don't think so either. I don't think so either. I'm not an expert at all What is troubling I think to most of the people in the community That all five of you seem to be unable to understand. Is you want to talk about, I did it right, I did it right, they did it wrong, why don't they vote for me? That's all, frankly, water under the bridge. If I was Gary Souter, and I think he's smarter than I am, I wouldn't take this job if all five of you voted for it right now because an election is going to come up. It's going to be in November. By January, there will be a different council. And he might be out. He's not stupid enough to say, I'm going to take the job and the chance of getting fired again. It is a democracy and the majority does rule. But the majority rules doesn't mean the minority have to capitulate. As Councilman Haber suggested, he's not going to change his vote. That's not required of him, that's not why he got elected, that's not why you got elected. You got elected to stand up for what you felt was right and to stick to it. And as Councilman Haber suggested, the problem is your candidate, no matter who's right, no matter how many of you get together and decide how you're going to vote or don't get together, whether you did violate the to vote or don't get together? Whether you did violate the sunshine law or you didn't violate the sunshine law, is you relevant? It doesn't matter because you're wallowing in this stuff and that's where your failing is. Do you know you have a majority right now tonight to move ahead, but I bet you none of you can see it. It's a minimum of three to two vote and I think it's a four to one vote. And the moving ahead is the first step. Get a hold of your consultant. You don't have to... I hate the whole idea of a Skype conversation. But if that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do. Get him, get him on the public, get him on the granicus, get him. And you have a three-majority, probably four right now, somebody make a motion. But what you want to talk about is why I was right and why I was wrong. And that's where you're failing this community. So you have an ability to make a motion next meeting to talk to your consultant and get the hell off of. I think he's the best candidate. I know he's the best candidate. I don't think so because it doesn't matter matter. He's not gonna take the job. He's a hell of a lot smarter than that. Thank you. On your name? The President has some asked for many, many years. I'd like to echo the sentiments of the two gentlemen who preceded me here, this podium, as far as Gary Souter goes. I think he's a very fine manager. I think he's the best that we've ever had and we're lucky we got him and it should never have come to this. Yeah, my children shouldn't be walking like Arnie Morgan said. It's not worth it. You're never going to find a perfect person for one thing. If you do, how long is he going to be perfect? What for? Just utter nonsense is what you're doing. Thank you, Roger. Really? Anyone else? Fred? Arnie, just so you understand, I'm not asking anybody to change their vote. All I have asked of the minority is to stop harassing Gary. That's all. Fred, you asked me directly to change my vote. No, sir, I never asked you to change your vote. Yes, you did. For a lot of appearances. I asked you to change your vote before we went public. Yes, sir, I sure did. Absolutely. Because I thought, in the best interest of the community, a 5-0 vote would have made the most sense. So you're absolutely right, Jason. I ask you to change it. I'm not asking you to change it now. I'm simply asking you to stop harassing. I kind of say something about Mark Yudhanjik-Griss. I really appreciate the comments that have come from our public this evening. the comments that have come from our public this evening. And I think it's extremely important that we clearly move away from whose right, whose wrong is Arnie stated, which goes back to my first comment about trying to move a process forward. And that is, and I'm gonna ask you one more time, can we please get Phil McKenney on the phone and have a conversation. Okay, I move, I move that we get Arnie more, Arnie more, sorry Arnie. I may be getting emotional, I need to calm down. I move that we ask our search consultant, Phil McKinney, to be available on the 21st of April. I would prefer that he be here in person versus on Skype. I think it's extremely important to do a face-to-face and do it in public. I won't second that because I think Skype's fine. If you would say if you'd be comfortable to Skype I would second that marquee because he's wherever he is. He's unable to be here. Okay then I will move it to a Skype at a minimum. I'll second that. Further discussion about Marky's motion, Chris? One more one no Chris. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. You know, I just want to say I'm happy. I appreciate your suggestion, Mr. Markin, and I appreciate your motion your motion Marky and I am willing to Listen to Mr. McKenney, but I am telling you right now that I'm going to take it somewhat with the grain of salt Because I already listen to his recommendations the first time and we breezed over the notion and I'm not saying we shouldn't listen again I'm just saying I am so that we don't waste a lot of time in Listen, listen, again, I'm just saying so that we don't waste a lot of time in Perhaps a Fairly hollow gesture of talking to him. I appreciate that one man's professional opinion. I appreciate Mr. Souter's professional opinion. I appreciate at this point the clear message that's sent when we continue to have an interim in the process. And I appreciate in my recollection of history how that was sort of swept under the carpet when we went through this first time in Listerton to Mr. McKenney's advisement. So I'm not degrading his advisement. I'm saying I'm willing to do that, but I take it with the grain of salt. I'd like to see us start the process and start it in real. First, secondly, because this has been such an odd, I might use the word cockamami approach. We don't even have, I've asked several times whether we've clarified where we are in that contract with Mr. McKenney. There are different terms and whether it's actually closed, open or not. So I'd love to hear on that if we do talk to him. And just on one other point, as Arnie just put forth, this is a body that has certain governing procedures to make a motion relative to a contract for consulting services is a polite and Disciplined approach. It is not harassing people or making trouble as some of our community members might have suggested They would like to do this evening. It is a principled part of talking about a contract for financial services Thank you. So I've got a motion on the table. If we'll discuss about that motion Jason. I want to clarify or hear some further thought on what the subject of that conversation will be and if we have specific questions we're going to be asking him to come prepared to address and you know what are we asking of him to provide us? My just to clarify in terms of that motion it was to really talk with him second of which is I would suggest that we each put together a list of questions that we want to ask Mr. McKinney over the next week so he can be prepared to really do a full discussion with us about a, for example, if we were to continue with the search process, what would a process look like? Number two, where we've been through the process what, four months ago, three months ago. Would the pool of candidates be the same? If not, how would you expand the pool? How would you decrease the size of the pool? Number three, what's the next-by-dieted process? What's a full process? What is your timing? All those questions? I would agree not to include all those questions. I'd like that in writing ahead of them. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Because if I were going by or out of the other end of the phone with a client, I don't want to walk into a conversation blind when my professional opinion is extremely important to the decisions that are being made by the client. So I think a outline of questions and it would be very helpful to him and to all of us. Those of you that have questions, you can submit those. Okay, and you can submit those to me and what you want your first question to be where we're at in the contract from last time. Absolutely. Yes, you want your first question to be where we're at in the contract from last time Absolutely Where he thinks we are In the contract. Yep. Okay So with that clarification All those in favor of mark ease and motion Please signify the saying aye aye aye Those opposed? Aye. That's four to one. OK. Thank you. Mr. Morgan, moving on. Item number six. Discussion of interim time manager contract. As we see in here that we have Gary's first period is coming up at the end of April. Is that correct there? April 30th. April 30th. Thank you. And that if you know if we make any changes that's this is a time to make them. Or if we don't make changes it moves on automatically at that point. But also it's really it says that there is a 15 day notice right Gary that if either side says we don't want to do this. There can be a discussion at that level. Just 15 day termination notice for either party. So is there any comment at this point we want to continue on making changes and or wait till after the meeting with Phil, Marky, this is a discussion. Just a discussion, we're not actually taking any action. Okay, Marky. Relative to the contract, it seems as though we have somewhat of a timing issue. April 21 is just eight days or nine days before the termination of the contract of the end of the first three months. If I understand the dates correctly and I'm looking for Gary, is that correct? It renews automatically. It was only last terminated by an action of counts. Okay, so technically we would not, I was very concerned that we might be in a lapse period. And I just want to clarify guys, I don't just jump up. To clarify that at this point, I know we have the automatic renewal gear in my question for you. We should not or will not be anticipating a notice to us that you're terminating during that lapse of time. No, I will remain flexible to serve your needs, the council's needs and the committee's needs. Okay. Any other discussions about contract? Yeah, I would like to have some discussion about extending this contract rather than having this revolving door of every three months to give some solidity to Billy, you brought this up. You know, we've got three new department heads. We're looking for another department head. You know, I'd like to see Gary in a more long term position than this contract has of it. And as I said before, at one point we talked about January 21st and January 31st and it struck me that maybe March 31st, 2015 is a better date, mainly because it gives the next council an opportunity to work with Gary. And I put that offer discussion because I think it's, while the minority is unhappy with the interim status, this makes it less interim, if you will, and it at least takes us out to where a new council has some time with Gary. Markie? Fred? I know that it would be great to extend the terms other than every 90 days. I would prefer, though, in the best interest in the spirit of our conversations tonight that we revisit that conversation and length after we talk to Mr. McKenney. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I would also agree with that. Yeah, I think Fred, you're heading down a path again of this notion of increasing security. Unfortunately, that's just not possible. We're talking, there's still a 15-day termination clause. There's, I mean, if you want to talk about creating a severance clause or early termination, you might achieve what you're looking for. But basically, even if you make this 100-year contract, there's a 15-day termination. If there's no consequence for terminating early, then it creates the same scenario we're in already. We can talk about it every meeting. And I'm sure we will. Yeah, I'm just trying to stay on, I guess, my understanding of the concept of the contract. There is a discussion to be had about what we're doing moving forward, but just in terms of the contract, I have to repeat for myself my personal opinion. And not that I don't want you to get paid a ton of money, Gary, and I already have said I like you as a person. I think it was an indefensible, and irresponsible decision, and there would lack all negotiation. We negotiated against ourselves, and we ended up basically just negotiating with the terms presented to us and we've got a contract now that is quite expensive for a part-time interim manager and while I did find it hard to understand when the majority represented that Gary and his abilities and it seems to be the case could do this job in 32 hours and therefore we wouldn't go over the $207,000 annualized mark or the $17,250 mark. And now I'm even more surprised that in the performance of the contract, in our busiest potential for a major development in the community, the last two applications we looked at was SKECO and related. During that month and I applaud you, you were able to do that contract, do the months work in 14 days, two of which were only part days. And I just, I guess I'm maybe echoing Councilman Habers thoughts that this continuing in this way, to not A, open the gate for you or any other candidate, to not have the best candidate working with total inspiration and being able to really drive the car is still a propuxing to me. And so I have that sort of issue with the contract itself and with what we're trying to achieve. I mean, I think we've lost sight of trying to find the best candidate. Now we're losing sight of getting the best performance. And I still have trouble understanding, in a way I have trouble understanding why you're here in front of me because you have repeatedly said in front of me because you have repeatedly said you don't want to be there and you've repeatedly said we should start a search and we're looking to you now to go into a retreat with you coming out of this last retreat and I'm having trouble understanding how those things comport for me and I don't know if you can explain them but you know you've really stated a number of times that we should be starting this church and I wonder why we don't get that advisement as to the best approach for the town but I applaud you for being able to have the thick skin to walk through it. Those are my comments from over with Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Chris. The last comments I'll make on your item manager tonight. I think Gary is a professional manager. He's a strong manager. He knows there will be many personalities he will have to deal with. He needs a strong council which sets goals for community priorities and works together to accomplish these goals and community priorities. I think that Gary is the type person that as a full-time manager, he can tell the council things that they should be doing and they need to do. As interim, I don't think he's willing to put his neck out. As a full-time manager. So the strength, what Gary brings to the table, what he brings to this community, we have to recognize that council members need to be able to have different opinions and agendas, but they need to be able to work together. Gary has worked for many different groups of elected leaders, and I've had many of them come to me and say, you guys will be well off to make sure you select Gary. I've even heard that from Sam Mammoth and the Colleal of Municipal League, said, you guys would be lucky to get him. So I've experienced Gary, probably more than anybody on this council in the past. I saw what happened. At one point maybe I thought Gary was a little bit weaker of a candidate, not a candidate, a manager back in my first days of running a council. But in that time Gary's been here, he's learned a lot, he's taken a lot of the education to other communities, and he's gained a lot of education from other communities. And that's why I'll continue to say that I think Gary is the right candidate for this job. We're not going to get another better set of applicants this time around, next time around we do anything. So I think that the next meeting, there can be another discussion about the contract. If we hear from Phil and we get some information. And I'll go ahead and not sure we'll put that on the agenda, but I think it is something that. I like to put it on the agenda. Can I make a motion, Mr. Mayor? Sure you can. I'd like to just kind of stay consistent. I'd like to make a motion to terminate the contract with a pseudo-in-associates pursuant to chapter six. Second. So motion by Mr. Jacobson, second by Mr. Haver, further discussion. I think we already had the discussion. All those in favor of Mr. Jacobson's motion please signify a saying aye. Aye. And those opposed, aye. Three to two. So let's move on then. Unless there's any other comment from the public. After hearing that. I'll take the more. Please step forward, take your name with the record. My name's Tammy Barr. I'm listening to this, and I'm sort of surprised, and I'm sort of sad. It seems like, I mean, I know Gary, Gary's a great guy. But you guys are hanging onto it, and the thing is that it's over, and it's done, and you need to move forward. You need to let it go. He's a great guy. It wasn't a majority. It will not be a majority. It's not going to happen. So you shouldn't keep talking about it and you shouldn't keep reading sheets of paper. And he is a good man. He's a good man. He's not the man for this job now, though. You guys need to find somebody else. You know, and whether it's one of the other two that you you all five agreed on or whether it's somebody else, you simply need to let it go now and you need to bring in McKinney and you need to start your search and you need to find somebody as soon as possible. That's all. Thank you, Tina. Thank you. as soon as possible. That's all. Thank you, Tina. Thank you. Okay at this point we'll close that item six and move on to item number seven, Managers Report. Mr. Souter. Thank you Mayor Council. First I want to commend you all for having this public discussion. I was pleased when you placed this on the agenda last meeting. And I've heard these discussions before, but I've heard them in the executive session. I think it's great that you guys came out and were able to talk about this publicly. So thank you. I think it's a step in the right direction. Thank you. Managers report, first I wanted to introduce Julian Woods, Bill, you introduced her earlier, our new community development director, and welcome Julian. She's a welcome addition to our senior leadership team. She started on March 24th, so this is the official third week, so she has a completely of the lay-in now. But I've had some good meetings with Julie Ann. Definitely she has a good feel for the town, for the community. Lives in the community has a very deep resume and won the competition fair and square. We had a really deep applicant pool. It wasn't, we didn't have 150 applicants, but we had somewhere in the mid-40s, and out of those about 30 were folks that were truly qualified for this position. So I want to welcome Julianna Boyd, and I encourage any members of the public to call her or reach out to her if they want to get to know her better, especially if you've got a project coming up online. So. And Julie, do you like Julianne or Julia? How does that miss Woods, is it Woods? I will answer to both. So the only reason I became a Julianne is because I worked in another community where they already had a Julianne staff. And so I became Julianne and it's just kind of stuck. Very good. Well, maybe we'll continue with that. Thank you. Welcome. Next thing Gary has on here is a strategic strategic planning session. And I, when I understand, we have everybody has responded that they'll be there other than Mr. Jacobson. Yeah, I can make that. Thank you, Chris. Excellent. Thanks, Chris. So we'll look forward to that next Wednesday April 16th. That will be at the Stonebridge I do have an agenda that I sent out to you last week. If you guys have any comments on that it's pretty straightforward. I want to make the best use of our time and see if we can identify four or five strategic goals because I've seen you guys operate, and it's unfortunate this search process has caused the divisiveness, but I see, when I look at your votes, I will tell you you're not a dysfunctional council when it comes to voting on other issues. Most of the times your votes are pretty healthy, they're mixed up. It's not, and I need to say this for the community, it's not a three to vote on all issues. I've seen other councils that operate that way, and I put them in the dysfunctional category. You guys operate in a pretty healthy fashion. So therefore, I'm being positive. I think there's some common ground out there and look forward to our session next week. So if you have any comments on the draft agenda, I welcome them. Okay. Anything else on his manager report? I had a few reports that I attached from staff per council's direction and just ask if you had any questions on the irrigation systems, Andy Warline is in the back of the room. I gave you way more information than you asked for on that. You asked about the rodeo, you got a five page memo, but I thought about turning it down, but I wanted you to see we've got issues with these systems throughout the town. They will be manifesting themselves in the budget as we move forward. So I'm going to encourage them to bring the most critical cases forward and put them in the 2015 budget. So very good. I thought it was a very well done report on irrigation. Yep. Here you go, Andy. That was a good one. Thank you. I'll tell this back there too. Yeah. Thank you. Also an accessibility update. We've had some public comments about accessibility. And I think the takeaway from that memo is that the Weston and Challenge Aspen are working on a pilot project to create some handicap spaces close to the slope. So, I think that was the crux of this issue. We have a lot of handicap parking around the community, but they're not really accessible to the slope. So anybody that needs to lug their equipment to the slope is facing a difficult path. So also a memo on the ski racks on buses and- Gary really quick. I'd like to talk a little more about the accessibility. You made some reference to some conversations with the Weston about making a program for creating accessibility through their valet program possibly. I think it said for residents, I just wanted to make sure we're talking a little more broadly than residents and I'm curious about how that would work with the valet program. Did you want to comment on that? Weston's approved for. Thank you. Sure, that's fair. So the meeting I had, and this was basically an update from a meeting with Challenge Aspen. So right now they're running a pilot parking program jointly with the West, and it's through the season. They're looking to extend it into the summer, and it's the first year of what they hope will be a long-term program. I believe it is just offered to residents currently, but this is something that they're taking a look at to. As Gary mentioned, the crux of the issue was we do have a handicap parking spaces, but they are in town-owned lots. A lot of the parking spaces that individuals with disabilities are looking for and would like to access the mountain are on privately-owned land. So this was sort of a way to mitigate that challenge. The Weston, again, it is managed through challenge aspirin, so it was more or less an update. I think we could definitely provide them feedback on our support for that program and how we could envision it, broadening and what the what role the town could play moving forward, but so far it is just for residents. I guess one thing to look at, maybe, and I'd ask that we look at is all of the town rights of way that extend perpendicularly towards the slope, just take the very end of those and make those handicapped parking spaces, maybe doing some exploration of whether we have capacity there to accommodate a few vehicles on town on land within the right of way. We're at Jason, I didn't get the look at that. At the end of the all of the different roadways going up the hill that extend perpendicularly into Fannie Hill. So the end of the number parking lots. No Anderson, Berlin game, camp round. Oh, at the end of the lanes. Yes, the end of the lanes. I see. OK. We can look at that for the public and Martin's public works director. However, there is turning radius issues that we that some of those spaces have been taken away. So fire access, emergency services, but definitely we'll take a look at that. But that's some of the reasons why some have been reduced out of some of those lanes going on. So thanks. Okay. Welcome all ideas. Thank you. Then ski racks on buses. Sounds like we're Mr. Peckler's suggested possibly bringing these skis now onto the bus. It's pretty much what's happening. I mean, I can I can I can put mine in one at a time and Mr. Peckler has suggested possibly bringing these keys now under the bus It's pretty much what's happening. I mean I can I can tell you I have to put mine in one at a time and you jammed them in there and It's a delay and it's just easier for most people who are just carrying them on the bus Most people do yeah, I know we're after this had a few of those because I was actually on a bus last week and Someone's ski was flapping and somebody else had to the person, I don't worry about it, but if it falls off, they'll buy you a new one. So apparently that is the thing that's been going on. And so it's good to know, but you know, thank you very much for that one. That seems to be the direction we're headed. There's, and I've got a few other add-on items I wanted to bring to your attention that it's since arisen but I also have the update on the reop status Renewable renewable energy offset program and the FAR X-Ice tax any questions on this Yeah Jason, well, I just I think your last sentence of the reops that everyone else has either made other plans or mitigated Offsites, so I'm curious about what made other plans might mean Abandoned snow melt, that sort of thing. So yeah, cause them to rethink. Great. And then on the floor area, I think you addressed this coming from the idea of the impact on floor area excise tax saying it hasn't resulted in any new or increase in flora area excise tax. We were actually expecting a reduction in flora area excise tax. We were expecting an increase in building permit revenue. Right. The question is whether we've generated any new building permit revenue as a result of people coming in to legalize their already illegally converted crossbases to counter the impact, the negative impact on the floor area, excise tax revenues. So I think that still needs. I'll need to clarify that Jason. This is a report from Mark. These are pretty much his words from his memo to me. I think you may have a question wrong. Yeah, I think so too. So let me clarify that and we'll get back to you. Thank you. I have heard from a few architects that they're getting very busy and a few builders are starting to do things too. So I think it has done some of the, provided some of the impetus to some of these folks to let them move forward. Okay. The additional items I had, Mr. Mayor, if I may, are quickly going back to the strategic planning, strategic goal setting, talking with Julian Woods. We would like to plan an idea that the town council get together on an informal basis with related, this is on a stipulation they need to withdraw their applications, which they're not here, but they've indicated a willingness to do this and begin to have an informal conversation without pending applications to discuss an overall community vision for the base village, mutual wants and needs and see how we can get the community, the council and the developer to come together with some common goals, some mutual agreements, some higher level of understanding as opposed to them. Just coming in and throwing applications at us and seeing what sticks, what seems to have been the trend. I don't know if anybody see it from related but. And so that's our suggestion. I'd like you to think about that, contemplate that. We can talk about that next year. I think that what we've been directed from our attorney was that we can't do that. They have to come voluntary, come to us and say, we like to do this. So we've always been waiting for that conversation. Right. We'd like to have that conversation. Right. They have to be the ones that come to us. I understand from our attorney to have that conversation. Go ahead. I have been having some conversations with them regarding their proposal and where they're at. And I can't speak for them, but they have indicated a desire or willingness to withdraw the application that they have in order to open up the door for more conversation with the community. That's wonderful. Great. Yeah, I think. So, stay tuned. Yeah. Also, I'm sure you're all aware we had a pedestrian accident, a serious one, a couple three weeks ago, and appreciate in Martin's jumping ahead. I said, we need to be proactive on this. So we do have a pedestal out there now. We also got a light with a beacon on it. And we are investigating other alternatives to make that intersection safer for. Well, now there is a light pole there that I remember many years of what we were talking with at the time. I guess it was Nick Codes, because I think the electricity runs out of their system and can speak to it. But that was always something that was either electrical issues that we're going to go in and fix and repair or what can be done to lighten it up a little better. So we've been a couple items that we've been looking at are not only improvements at that intersection for the future design and the roundabout design, then also just intermediate items that we would address. That light is a conversation on ownership. And so I've been addressing that and talking to Holy Cross about that and that ownership. I guess my position is I'll come back with you on an estimate, their staff is working on getting estimates to get it fixed. If we can't come to resolution on who owns that light, proposing let's get it fixed and move forward on this. So that's what I'm planning on doing. So hopefully by the 21st meeting I'll have that information with some recommendations of short-term solutions not just including the ones that we have out there but also the long-term of where we're going with that whole issue. Very good. And because I do believe that was something that the landlord over here owned and there was just some electrical issue. I agree, but there's some difference to the opinions. So we're gonna work through those items. Maybe we can get a meter on and put turn it on. Very good. Very good. Okay. Anything else with the town manager? Last item was just an update on Tourism Director Executive Search. Executive Search topic comes up again. I did meet with the subcommittee of the tourism board and they had recommended a truncated process, which not a big fan of, but we are doing that. I interviewed five search consultants and these are consultants that were well-networked in the marketing tourism, hospitality industry around the country and around the world. I think this is an important position, I'm willing to invest. Actually, we would be paying for that search consultant with a saved salary in the vacant position. But they wanted to do a first run, so they've kind of committed to me that we'll take a first run, see what's out there, so we're going to do in a vacant position. And, but they wanted to do a first run. So they've kind of committed to me that we'll take a first run, see what's out there. So we're going to do in a quick sweep. We're doing a two week campaign that ends, I believe, the end of this week. So most of the, and there's not a lot of, it's not a very targeted search. It's pretty wide open, which is what they wanted and I was happy to accommodate that. So we're getting a lot of applications, most of which are underqualified. However, we'll screen those out and hopefully we'll end up with a few good candidates and then they did commit that if we're not happy with that, we will hire a retained search consultant company to move forward. So I expect that process, most search processes take four months at a minimum, six months, usually at the outset, before a person at this level can move here and come on board. Unless they live here. And we got lucky. Yes. Very good. So I'll just an update on that. Got that going. Thank you. Yes. And I'm done with the manager's report. Very good. So just an update on that. Got that going. Thank you. Yes. And I'm done with the manager's report. Very good. Moving on in our agenda. We have agendas for next council meetings. Mayor, I just want to note that on April 21st, agenda, we will have an additional resolution appointing some additional people to various boards that have positions open as in the planning commission. Very good. Any comments about the agendas? Yes. Jason. Sorry, I'm trying to find that. 89? 89. Thank you. on the May 5th agenda. May 7th? No. Where is 7th is a Wednesday? May 5th. I'm looking at this thing here. May 5th. The next generation commission from City of Aspen, the representatives were originally slated to present on tonight's agenda. They were unable to do that. They had a conflict and they requested to be rescheduled to May 5th to accommodate their time. Great. Thank you. That's just a presentation, right Jason? Yeah. A discussion. I have a report on that. Okay presentation, right Jason? Yeah. A discussion. I have a report about this. Okay. Sounds about right. Yeah. And then the only other thing I was going to raise is an upcoming agenda item. I'm curious to know what the status of entryway planning is and when we might see a discussion on that. I thought we were talking about a spring time frame on how we're going to start that process. Right. time frame on how we're going to start that process. Right, I was waiting until we got our new ComDev community development director on board. And so yeah, that's at some point in front and center. So yes, Mark? I know that we're talking about the entryway as a work product for our town and for Comdev and for our council. And I know some of the notions that have come forth gets into a discovery center in a potential home or what have you been we've heard you know just tangentially. I am aware that the board and or individuals within the board of the Discovery Center are very, very active soliciting dollars to help pay for the consultant to help us land what the recommendations might be for the Discovery Center, the next step for quote the bones. I would almost ask that as part of our work activity over the next month or two, we hear from Cardamon and whomever as to where we, how we as a town can make sure that we can either help participate if there's a shortfall, because I think that answer to that question is extremely important as we begin to think through the entryway project. Whether yes or no, you see where I'm going with that? So I'd like to know, okay, from Cardamon is what's the dates for this consultant, consulting firm. I know they're soliciting donations to help pay for that study. Is there a shortfall? If so, what's the magnitude of the shortfall? You know, kind of that status report. And once when that report might be due in tandem with some planning efforts that we might do at the entryway, I don't want to do the entryway project. And here comes the report and says, well, it needs to be at the entryway. And it's like you're throwing out the baby with a bath water. It may come back and say, well, we really don't want to be in the entryway. We need to be ABC and D, you know, on and on and on. I think it's critical. So I'd love to see Cartiman and probably Grigny. Isn't he President of the board? He's the President of the board. Come and give us a status report on where we are with that feasibility study perhaps. And if there's additional shortfall and then we as a council can talk about how we might be able or willing or not willing to help fund if necessary. That's great. And I appreciate this suggestion. I sit on the discovery board and my understanding is I think they have a proposal for about a $50,000 study and we're hoping to do a cost share on a 50-50 if they could do fundraising for 25 of that and look to government partners to come up with the other 50% of that would be welcomed wholeheartedly. So but I think that's a great idea to bring Tom and I know Gary you were talking about having some meetings over the last couple weeks with Tom I don't know if if that was able to occur. We did with Tom and John Rig. I think there's an interesting conversation of whether you know that becomes a marketing department expense or appropriation or whether a general fund appropriation. I don't really care. I just think it's important. It's a big question. It's a big question. I think it's extremely important to do the entryway right the first time. I agree. Would you like a placeholder on a future agenda then? May 5th. May 5th. Yeah. Great. It's one of those days. Sneak go to Maya. Okay. We will do that and I'll contact them and see if they're available. If not, we'll plug them in shortly thereafter. Anything else on the agendas? Do you still want to have the May 14th work session? I'm going to do this today. Can I just put that item on one of the empty agendas that we have ahead of that? I would suggest that we put that on. There is a meeting in Glemwood for fire mitigation that I'm hoping few people find time to go to. I Julie Ann's going with John Mellie. I've been to the one last year. I think it's a good place for those folks of our type elected officials to go and understand what's going on with when you pull that bell and bring in the resources, what is going to cost you? How do you going to manage it? So would you suggest that this work session item goes in June or May? Well, being that's the only thing for that hour there, I would probably suggest we move that. You know, I would generally like to have a couple things on the agenda, but what does staff thinking and why they have that on that date? Well, no, we can move it but you would you like to? I'm asking Gary and Julianne if there's a good reason to continue having that on the 14th. On the 14th, the good reason would be if we could get related to have that informal discussion. That won't happen with me. Time to turn to the 17th. You need to be here. So that's not going to be a time that I would suggest you'd have that informal discussion. Thank you. So I would probably at this point suggest that we clear that date of this work session. I'm trying to have that at Smotherton. Do I get in the fifth or the 19th? It won't be the fifth, because I'll be leaving the 23rd, 22nd through the 17th of May. Any time after that? Got it. Okay. Moving on, I have number nine approval of meeting minutes for February 18th, 2014. Is there a motion? It's Fred. Second. Second by Chris. Any alterations, edits? All those in favor please signify the saying aye. Aye. Moving on March 3rd regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? That's Fred. Second by Chris. Any changes, thoughts? All those in favor? Please do not fight a saying aye. Aye. Moving on, I have number 10. Council comments committee reports, calendars. I'm Fred. Nothing. Mr. Jacobson. No, Mr. Mayor. I've gotten a couple of things. I've got a call from an individual who was wondering if the town has any places for electrical charging stations for electric new electric vehicles that are out now. And so is there a place that we could do that? Is there a place that we should be allowing free parking? Should we be putting in electric charging stations, and what would the cost be? There's a miscarriage. And Ms. Kelly, I said stand up to the microphone. Sorry, I laughed because this is so perfectly timed, but I do get a few calls here and there over the summer months from people community up from Denver and wanting to know if they can charge their car for an event or if they're staying in the village and to date I've directed them to the viceroy because they have the only charging station available in the community. Is it working? Yes. I have not been up there to test it recently. Ben working and just showing up they didn't plug it in. No, I just know from a previous discussion. Oh really I heard that it was working. Well, that's why I'm asking. I'm just, I do have a friend who parks there regularly with Aramai's Nissan leaf. And he, according to him, it was working. Oh, good. Pan has last visit to Snowman. But I'm not certain what that date was. But we applied for a grant through the Colorado Energy Office for basically the goal of the grant is to allow communities to install public charging stations. I just was informed that we were awarded that grant. So we are working the next step is getting the appropriate staff members together to look at viable locations. We definitely know we want it down in Talham Park station for sort of that train connection to the upper village, Mark Kiddell kindly went and checked some of the connections and he's developing an estimate in terms of what it would cost to get. Basically, what we have to look at is, and this is how Mike Ogburn from Clearputt is, we've got to figure out how to put a connection to put a dryer in a parking spot. That's the type of electrical work you need. So that's being bit out and we'll have a cost estimate in terms of what the grant will be able to cover in terms of percentage, what the town needs to be able to match and we can go from there. Just let's see. You know, the core has provided grants in the past to cover the cost of electric charging stations. We have asked and received one for their installations. The town of Carbondale received one for there. So if the grant that you have is not going to cover that, you should think seriously about it right. I'll get right. I'm going to get right in for it. Grande Udall Energy Pioneer Grant, which the deadline is May 1st, coming right up. So. Excellent. Yeah, because I would hope maybe that we could do something up in the numbered lots like below the, below six and you know the 90 minute section or something a little bit down where people who work here might be able to plug in up in that location. So only my thought. Great. But I think that there should be a couple of those in the numbered lots if we could if we can make it work and not take them out with our snow plows throughout the year somehow. It's definitely we've seen in recent media this is the direction that area municipalities call out of mountain college, just got a bunch installed. So this is the direction a lot of other communities are going. It's becoming an expectation for commuters and car owners as these vehicles become more and more. Is there something that even the town should consider requiring something to put into our inventory? Does that make sense to have a charging station here? And is there, would there be a grant for that or would that just be our general fund if we were looking in that direction? Because that was one of the questions many years ago I was asking to have, or am I come talk to us to tell us, this is the trend or this is something that you're gonna be seeing. So our new developments can be putting these things in and or we can be thinking about them. Well, we've had conversations with staff in the last couple of budget cycles at least, I think, about whether we should be converting some of our fleet to hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles. And up until this point, I think the advice we've been getting is that they're not worth the investment. They're not, you know, this other thing for whatever reason. So maybe some of the thought on that is evolving, but I don't think it's something we haven't brought up over the last few years. The engineering has really improved. Put off from the staff report that basically advises against going in that direction. So if we think there's a chance that we get different advice. Are you seeing on the poor side that more people are finding that it's efficient enough or costable? You see them around. I wouldn't say it's you know just taking off game busters but I think there's a trend towards it there's some benefit in it I'm not you know an expert on the technology or the really the benefits of it so somebody was at a raft meeting that had one down in Carmandale. Okay. Sounds good. The other thing I have is I got a call from a constituent stating that the trash dumpsters in town were getting to be pretty ugly. I know many years ago that the town dumpster guys would have a couple of rooms and they'd be cleaning up. I also understand that a couple years ago, specifically in the divide dumpster and the pines dumpster that the guys were told not to clean those up anymore. And so that they were told that the probably managers should do that. So wearing my hat, I've been doing that on my pines dumpster and the divide dumpster. But I have been seeing a lot of messy trash dumpsters. And I'm just wondering if we can suggest to our, should we suggest to our dumpster folks to try to clean up as they get to them and or have people who are dumping in there. Make sure they get stuff into the dumpster can. But animals get into them and knock them out, but glass falls out when they're dumping. A whole bunch of things. And so. Yep. I can talk to our staff about it as well, and what they've been seeing them in there in their daily more than once. I know it takes a little bit longer to keep it clean. Does. You know, I've done the routes with them. I've been doing that. So I kind of have got a good perception of what's going on. It goes in trends with your amount of people in the community. I do want to give you an update that we are working on the far away dumpster. Oh, good. So that is moving forward. We get quotes coming in and that will be working on after the ski season's older. So you know, kind of catch up season for us as the shoulder season as well. But I'll pass it on. Thank you. Yeah. They could just do a little better job and spend a little more time. That would be more wonderful. The ski season is getting ready to be over here. The snowmass this year got the extra week. I think in comparison to other areas, the last mountains will be doing weekends. So I think it'll be great skiing up on the hill for the folks who live here and show up here we've had a lot of you know days here of snow so get out there and enjoy it the season closes down the 20th of April. Village market I guess is going ways we all know and I hear there's a little get together this Sunday with the Mountain Bayou. I'd say, say goodbye. 1 to 4, 1 to 5, which is a Gary, do you know of? Have you heard? I do not know. I know it's start. Well, 1 o'clock. OK, here's Hay. Says it's 1 to 4, huh? They want until 8. OK. So come by and say goodbye and thank you to those folks that have been here for 35 years. Marky, I want to move on to you. Anything for the council council? Well, to an extent, it was a very bittersweet weekend. Walking into village market is, for me, very sad. It's the work that I do. And you see someone who's been here for 35 plus years, is like, if you will, death. And the grief for me that has come from losing a very, very dear amenity in our town, whether grocery stores as a service or necessary item, I consider them also a strong colleague of this town who have gone above and beyond in any to help any nonprofit, any family. I saw what they did when John Beamus was very sick and bringing up groceries, doing whatever they could to be a good community citizen. And I saw what they did with Leah Morearity when her son was born. So they've really reached out to our community and I do hope that the community does go and thank every one of the employees for a job well done. Then last evening I went up to the mountain dragon. It's the last night that food was being served another very bittersweet moment as another one of our community gyms leaves us. So I encourage everyone to go up and talk to Merck and his staff, they will be open until 20th, but no more dining service. So get up there and thank them for many, many years a great service. Thank you. Jason. Well, I'm sorry to bring it up, but it's been bothering me since our second item of the evening and comments that I think you made about the three of you and the majority communicating and working on drafting that letter that you presented as well as comments you made about future actions that the council would be taking relative to amending the contract. And during the meeting I looked up open meeting requirements of the Colorado Sunshine Law, which states that generally that requires any state or local government body to discuss public business or take formal action in meetings that are open to the public. And a meeting refers to any kind of gathering convened to discuss public business whether in person by telephone electronically or by other means of communication. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that a meeting must be part of the policy making process to be subject to the requirements of the open meetings law. Therefore, for example, emails can be considered meetings. But the term does not include chance meetings or social occasions where public business is not the central purpose of the meeting. Just wanted to read that and caution you all. Thank you. You're exposing the town and the community to liability with actions that could be considered in violation of Colorado Open Meetings Law and I would ask that you be careful of that going forward. I will commit to you that once Mr. Dresser gets back we will talk about this exercise and see if in his opinion that was an issue. Great. Okay. Any other calendar committee reports hearing none is there a motion for a uh... was an issue great uh... any other uh... calendar committee reports hearing none of their motion for a journey the cooker second-hand is to Jacobson all is in favor we are adjourned thank you very much uh... Oh. Oh. Yes, please. you Thank you.