I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you you I'm going to do it. you I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. for November 19, 2012. First item we have is roll call please, Randa. Mayor Boynow. Here. Welcome, son. Sorry, I'm two pages here. Butler here. Hey, where here? Cooker. Very good. Next we have offer counsel actually public non-genitams. Is there anybody in the public which should speak? Let me see none. Let's move on to item three. Council updates. Jason. I have a few things just to bring up and see if we can get some follow-up on. First, I'll just say, I know the town's environmental advisory board is really interested in making a push before the end of the year to get people into the energy smart energy efficiency program. Yes. Run through core and anybody that has a home that you have some opportunity to improve efficiency and want to have a full-blown assessment done on that. I think it's a $50 payment by the homeowner. It's a $400, $350, or $400 assessment that you get, and they look at all your systems and can give you some great advice on how to address that as well as them on the spot of grades. How many, what percentage of our residents have participated in that? Do you have any sense? I don't know the count that you know. We were getting, this was earlier in the summer, it was after the goal was articulated, I think I'm trying to get 50, and we were close to 26, and we were going to get an update on that number. Well, you're going to do it, I'll pay for it. But the town manager's residence is going to do it next week, and we'll do a little promotion with that. With that, it turns out how easy it is. Anyway, Energy Smart Colorado, or 925-977-5 to get that scheduled. How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How are you? How Yep. That HOA is interested in doing a pretty in depth energy efficiency upgrade to their complex and have huge opportunities to do that obviously. They went ahead and got an assessment done as well. The results were huge on the side of opportunity that they have opportunities to address there. And the conversation kind of went to town policies around deed restrictions and whether some of the cost of investments that go into upgrading your deed restricted home could be recovered. And I know we had conversations not too long ago from our housing committee. But in this case, we're really creating a disincentive for our de-restricted owners to do energy efficiency upgrades and I went and took a look at the Picking County housing guidelines and their policy allows for up to 10% of the value of the home to be invested and recouped in their unit. But over and above that investments in green building energy efficiency or water conservation are not even held to the 10% cap. And so, and all those investments are depreciated over time as far as your resale value goes. But I'd like us to read it. Take another look at that housing policy relative to recouping some of the expense that owners might want to invest in, especially as efficiency upgrades to do more of an incentive towards that. How do you think about the market? Well, worthwhile doing. It gets into the whole issue about our, well, I had a conversation with several people from Creekside as well. OK. And I knew we had some grant opportunities through whatever. I'm getting older, something. What is a Holy Cross energy? I have no idea. The energy enhancement fund. The kind of the grant. Then, I mean, I don't know where this whole conversation really needs to go. I think it does make some sense at some point in time. We do some comparative analysis across employee housing in ski resort areas. The other thing though is I really started thinking a lot about this. We had a whole conversation when we were looking at the window replacement project down at clubb, billis club, what a con. Club of con homes? Yeah. Right. project down at Club Billis Club what it comes. Right and we got into a whole philosophical discussion and I don't know if Jason was on council at that time about what the town would be willing to support in the future when it came to enhancements or was it a responsibility of the homeowner on and on and on. I didn't have time to go back and look at all the granicus discussions on this issue. Or was it a responsibility of the homeowner on and on and on? I didn't have time to go back and look at all the grannicus discussions on this issue. So I basically told the people down at Creekside. I'm interested in I'm a believer in energy efficiency. I don't know where this project would lay into terms of conversation, funding, etc. And the responsibility of the town. But in other words, what I'm asking is would you like to have a work session on us? I think it does make some sense. It's not long. I would do also. So let's try to do that. That's right. Yeah. Thank you. That is if I'm re-elected. Well, you'll know maybe in this week. Maybe not. Maybe not. Oh, can you, well, anyway. Anyway, so yeah, let's see what we can do. Right now we are three of us here, so let's have some discussion about that in some future time. I agree. And maybe bring the Picking County policy. Yeah, sure. Sure. So we can look at that. And I don't know what Vale does, or. Thank you Joe. Just put it here. Joe, do you have a comment while we're? I do. Yeah, the Creekside homeowners have talked to me as well. And they are thinking about windows and doors and making some real energy upgrades, which I support wholly. And right now in the guidelines, they were saying, well, what can we do, Joe? And I, well, the guidelines right now allow for condominium associations, if it's, if the condominium association votes for these improvements That improvements allowed to be up to 10% of the Homeowner's purchase price. Okay, so these improvements that they are contemplating right now would fall under that that guideline And I just I don't know how much they're going to cost yet and I don't know if they do either. Okay, so they have a lot of information. I mean, there's a lot of information they've been missing. What I understood was they've got a small short window for loans, small interest loans that they're looking at, not grants. So they were hoping that some of the money that comes out of their pocket, they could be able to recoup. But I think it will be worthwhile having discussion as soon as we could, you know, to have some discussion and look at that to see what their timing is and a few of things like that. Is that something you still would want to schedule this year? If we could, I think we'd be your next window. Maybe we could talk to the HUA President and just find out what the timeframe is they're dealing with. Do you follow me? Find out what the timeframe is they're dealing with. You want me to do that? Yeah, if you could, sure. That would be great. Thank you, sir. John? Going for an energy smart grant. Not grants loans. I understand. And there may be a window though. I don't think they are either because I think it's not appropriate to multi-family as a way I understood the way that grant program works. Well, energy, that's not necessarily a grant program. There isn't, there's the energy smart program. Well, even the loan program, that's not, well, we are developing a loan product, but that's not really up and running to any great degree at this point. There are incentives and rebates and offsets and there's dollars out there to provide homeowners for certain upgrades but it's more in a rebate context. So not alone the loan they're talking about independent financing. Right. Right. So that's outside of the money. Is there a time frame that those low interest rate loans are only good through or I'm not sure they're talking to you about that I don't I don't know apparently they have talked to Alpine bank and Alpine has said that they would be try to help them if this didn't work so let's work on that and the different beast yeah no okay but when I talk to Betsy this weekend she said if we can't get it through core the Drew has said he would be willing to work with them on a loan for the similar thing Yeah, our energy smart team has has been trying to connect them with Financing resources that they work with on the front range that offer those types of things. I don't know if that's working out She put them on the same conversation with me, so So we'll schedule something. Yeah, if you can just talk to her and find out if there's nothing really pressing today Okay, just you know that we have to get done by the end of the year. Okay, so if there's no time urgency, we have a little bit of flexible. Yeah, let's go. We'll call. Okay. Jay, do you have anything else? Yeah, two more things. I went to an economic regional economic development in Dillon about a month ago, Northwest Cog put on and put a request to the mayor and the town manager to get them up to snowmats on one of our genders to make a presentation. Snowmats is one of the only municipalities in their region that they cover that's not a member of Northwest Cog and I think it'd be worthwhile based on the things I heard at that meeting that they're trying to address regionally, especially relative to economic development. There might be some great opportunity and value in becoming members of that organization. The dues I don't think were particularly ownerless. I think it was in the $6,000 range for town our size. So I guess you guys have mentioned possibly having the director come up on the 17th. So hopefully that's still going forward. Is that yeah, track going by good. And then the last thing just I heard from interests related to the mall and some public art that was being looked at to go in as part of that project and The way it was presented to me was that there were some roadblocks coming up from the town that were being put in place in order not to allow and facilitate those public art pieces to be installed and I'm hoping that we can help move that along quickly or just get a little information about where that is in the process and what the process is and I think it would be. This is possibly a quasi-judicial matter. If that's what it is. If that's what it is. It's coming back to us. I'm just interested in what the status is and the timing is. There is an application. There's a process and that process didn't get them to a finish line, you know, for Thanksgiving. It's probably the short version. So they're going through the process at this point. Right. Okay. Yeah, we have an application. So, unfortunately, government does move slow, but that's what's supposed to do with this. So this would be an amendment to an application that was approved by the Planning Commission for an ice skating rink and this would be an alternative to that. Oh, I know. I know. Something to wear. What's going on there? Okay. I know a little bit. Okay. I hope it's not enough to affect your judgment when it comes before you and it quays. I can never well. You heard something in the grade. Okay. I'm looking forward to that discussion. What do we have at a timeframe when we think that's? We do need to. There is a process, isn't there a process option where the final decision is planning commission I think with this type of amendment. So there is that possibility. Okay. Great. Good. Marky. Well, I want to thank everyone who showed up last evening for the snow mass village potluck. It was a roaring success. I don't even know how many people were there, but I know they set up initially for 450 and there were more tables that were being set up. So it was excellent. The Weston really did a beautiful job with the layout and the tears afterwards. It was all very, very good. And I think everyone had a great time. I haven't heard any negative comments at all about the Thanksgiving potluck. Second of which is the trees of hospice or the loving tree will be held at the viceroy on the 30th of this month of 530. That's a free event. We encourage our community to come together. It's another community opportunity to celebrate and to enjoy members of our community and also to remember those who we've all lost over the last year, whether they be four like good friends or your dear, dear friends and members of your family. Very good. That's always a good event to participate in. Okay. Jason, I also got a call about the core information being dropped on people's door steps when people don't live there. And someone was complaining that there's going to be a lot of litter around because of that. And they were kind of concerned that we don't allow solicitations like that. And I said, well, I would bring it up at council meeting and you know, I think certain things like that, you know, are okay, but this person said, no one's here and these things are blowing all the place right now, so they were very concerned that and I just said, well, we will see what we can do in the future to make it work better. Those are door hangers or something like that. Okay. I'll take that back. Thank you. That message back. And just return from a nice little road trip and I think Colorado roads are beautiful compared to a lot of the roads that were on this last week and and there's no mass even better than those so you, all your guys. Let's move on to regular business. We're going on to item number four. This is Country Club Town Home Number 62, deep restriction removal. Mr. Coffee's name's attached to this agenda item. Okay. Recently, Tom Good, who's an owner of Country Club Town Home Number 62, approached me with the idea of releasing the deed restriction from his unit. He's, he's a has a deed restricted unit. And I explained to Tom how this would take Council approval and how we'd have to discuss this and so on and so forth. And also just in the last few months, we sold a unit which was identical in size to Tom's, which was unit number four of the country club town homes. And that unit, it's the same square footage, same configuration bathrooms, bedrooms, all that. That unit sold for $540,000. So in this memo that you have on page four, it kind of describes the methodology I used for giving Tom a proposal for releasing the deed restriction. And what I did was I used the 540, 540,000 as a base price and then Tom's current value for his unit is 349,28390. So the difference between the 540 and Tom's assess value right now is 190,71610. Is that the assess value from Picking County or? That's just a amount that was sold for. This is the 349 to 80. Well that 349 today is through time as appreciate all stuff he's but he's loved there since almost the beginning. No I think he's been there about 10 years or more because he he lived a mountain with you before that and he moved down there. Yeah I was going to ask question there so I read something I can't remember where I saw it but something about how you calculate the resale value if it was a country club town home owner before 1991. Is that ringing a bell for you? Yeah, that. That there is two sets of guidelines if you own before and there is 91 or 92. You're eligible for improvements. You can submit a list of improvements and then after that there's your improvements allowed so that that's the only difference between those guidelines. I don't think it's exactly what the difference was but only that it should be. And Tom is after that. He was purchased after that. Okay. Was there any appraisal that we did or do we just assume that since 60, the other one sold for 540, a comparable in size, but was, you know, we're hanging our head on the 540. Oh, okay. Yeah. We was at the other one set, it set on the market for how long for before we sold. So almost two years or So and when did that close He just closed about a month about a month ago. So it's probably a fairly accurate number. Yeah Yeah, you know 45 days 60 days ago. I think it closed Okay So you know, I went over this with Tom. Tom, unfortunately, couldn't be here tonight. He's in C. Sighten Heights, New Jersey, taking care of some family from the storm. And so, I told him I would represent him tonight and see how the council felt about this. The, just a history of these units as council knows we've had some real problems down there with assessments and affordability for employees. And over the last few years we've been buying these units and resell them and releasing the deed restriction. Well, with this opportunity, it allows Tom to stay there and he's the long time village employee, allows him to stay in the village. He would like to own that unit and he's willing to pay the difference between what the fair market value of a recently sold unit and his unit is to have to go through a broker and to release the deed restriction. So it seems like a fair proposal to me. And now are we eliminating the I mean we've had a rick riffing on retainer I thought to help us with some of these sales are we still engaging his services on this or is this a job now? This is totally independent. Yes, we know transfer of ownership and just be a release of the deed restriction That actually is for the benefit that there's no carrying cost or any other Associated cost with the transaction some moved for approval So as a motion to approve in a second, you, and just so the public knows these like Joe is saying These have been some problems that People who are living in them as employees and paying some in the town also have been paying a hefty portion of some assessments going on and it hadn't been As affordable as we had you know all strive strive for so we've been letting them Sell as people come forward and say, I can't afford this anymore. So to me, this is a good opportunity for a person who's been in the community to buy this and keep somebody living down there. We will be down there pretty much all year long. So I think it's a thing that I'd like to support also. John. Mr. Mayor, before you call for a vote on this question I just asked that Mark you'd clarify your motion because there isn't a resolution in front of you and what we're asking for is motion to staff to allow the release of this deed restriction so if you could clarify your motion to be that direction to staff to lift the deed restriction. Will you help me where I do it wrong? I thought that's what I was doing right now. Yeah, thank you. I moved that we released the town from the deed restriction and moved forward with transferring this over to a wholly owned condo for direct staff. Direct staff to do that. OK. And Jason, my second stand. Confirms that second. Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor please signal by closing. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Joe. Thank you. I know Tom will appreciate that too because he he was really willing to stay in snowmast and this will help. Well you can pick up the phone and call them. Well, emailing. I'm sure you'd be excited. We're going to move on to item number 5. The key. Appreciate it. Yes. Thank you. Item number 5. Resolution 32 is Series 2012, but many the 2012 EOTC budget revision to the 2012 EOTC hasn't trans it. Sales and use tax budget. Mr. Peckler. Thank you, Council. A couple of things. First of all, I apologize for the typo on page 10 and the Rezzo title. The D didn't get deleted, so we'll fix that. Brian Pettit has also here, as you may recall at the last meeting, the EOTC representatives just wanted to understand, get a bit of understanding of requests for additional funding for the design and engineering work associated with the ASP and ABC pedestrian bridge. His memo is attached on page 7 and I hope you've had a chance to review that. There's not much else in this proposal that you didn't review at the meeting on October 18th, which was the last EOTC meeting. Being I was not at that meeting, the total cost that we're looking at from EOTC was this sub total for additional budget requires 125,000. We've already done the 250. Correct. And so this will be an additional 125. This is for design, right? Design and engineering and then coordinate whether there is a lot of public outreach to resolve where to locate the pedestrian bridge as well as there was a considerable amount of work with C.Dot to get them in a position where they would be the project managers if you will and to get in compliance with C.Dot guidelines on a project. And then I believe there are some utility issues with a high pressure gas line as well. And the next question you have any specifics you want to... I guess the next question I have is, once this is done, and it's maybe a Brian question, where are the other funds to build it coming from? Is it... Why don't you like Brian, you answer that. What is the estimate? where are the other funds to build it coming from? Why don't you like Brian Answerman? What is the estimate? Either one, if you want to be here, that's right. Thank you. I'm Brian Petit, I'm the Director of Public Works for Pitkin County, and I've been heading up this project for the last year. And where the additional funds are coming from right now, we have $2 million out of a $3 million project. It could come in under that price, but that's what we're budgeting right now. $2 million is, there's $500,000 out of faster money from C-DOT. There's a million dollars that's dedicated out of the EOTC budget right now. And Hicken County gave $500,000 out of their general fund to the project too. So that accounts for the $2 million. The million dollar shortfall were hoping to be funded out of another faster grant that was submitted about two months ago. We will find out in December if we have been successful in that. The preliminary report from C.Dott Intel is that we are in good position to get some level of funding. What that level is I don't know. I guess because Brian, when I had a discussion with George Newman, he and I talking off the side, he said he didn't see any need to go to EOTC. That's why I missed that meeting. I guess it was a million dollar. So I'm sort of wondering how the came up with that million plus additional funds if they don't make their, whatever the grant doesn't give. I think there was always an expectation that EOTC would be on the hook for some level of funding for the construction of the tunnel. There was never enough money to pay for it all. We have money that's been budgeted by CIDOT, but it's out in 2017. Right, right. And that's just not going to work for us. BRT is moving forward next year to relocate their bus stop, the station there, and we need to put to make sure this tunnel is going in concert with that project. And so you think that'll be, we're looking at 2013 for that request for that additional? We're hoping to have this out to bid in February. I got you. Do we already have that contemplated within the ELTC budget? Capital budget? Yes. It's in the budget that is in front of you today. OK. And it's coming. I'm just going to. I'm just getting a little. Well, you know, we were sitting in the meeting at ALTC. And I think it was Jason, and I may be wrong, was asking for looking at the additional hours and the expense. And I'm going through them. And I look at the 356 hours and other 51,000. And I'm thinking, okay, I used to be a consultant. And if I didn't hit my project, the way that it was planned, I had to eat some cost. Now the 61 hours I saw with the McBride proposal, that one made sense because we all asked for that. And now then I see additional funding for more meetings. And I'm thinking, is it the fact that you're allowed to run this far over your budget proposal as a consultant? So you come in on a low ball, you wind up getting it and you come back and ask for the balance of the payment and there's no stop gap or Anything that we know this somewhere going through 125,000 dollars is a hell of a lot of money. I'm sorry guys Yeah, I'm just I went when he was telling us all this stuff So I was looking for detail and I find while we had meetings well with who? all this stuff. So I was looking for detail and I find while we had meetings, well with who? And there's redundancy in the scope. I mean a lot of that, I guess I'm really not accepting the notion that these were unanticipated and above the original scope components. I mean to me this I think the consultants at risk on that. I don't see how that comes to us to cover that overage. So I'm convinced I'm with you, Mark. Yeah. I guess I'd be interested to know what the approach would be if we don't vote to support the extra $125,000. Well, I guess my question, I guess, during the meeting, what did you all say? Did you vote against it during the meeting? We were, we asked to go to each one of the jurisdictions. And one of the, and we wanted the additional detail. Well, we got, this is the additional detail. It's not a compelling argument to me, you could pay another $125,000. Other than that issue around the McBride proposal. Especially the C.DOT stuff. I mean aren't the Parsons guys former C.DOT officials, isn't it presumably that we brought them on board because of that experience? One of them, Ralph Dupani is a former C.DOT employee. And at the EOTC meeting, the vote was unanimous in favor in support of this budget increase for the engineering work. Contingent on each interim. Any more information? On the additional $125,000. On this memo. Right. So yes, we'll approve it now because we don't have another EOTC meeting before we want to take an action on this budget. But we want to hear more detail on this particular aspect of that budget. And there were some skepticism across the table, I would say it was a fair assessment. Okay. And I think in the future, if we're going to move forward with these types of consulting proposals, we put some very strong language in them about what happens if you go over. And whoever, and Brian, it may have been you. I don't know who it was, but I can tell you when I was a consultant a minute, I was going over budget. I had to have prior authorization for any increase in expenditure and I had to be approved. And that's where it worked, but 125,000 bucks is I don't I It's like we open up our wallets and we just give money away and I I'm really struggling when I looked at the detail. I'm going. Oh, that's not a detail This is just oh well one two three four five and I had to have more meetings and well Maybe you weren't needed in those meetings. And it doesn't incentivize the strategic bid approach of low bid and we'll come ask for more later. And you get approved. So, yeah. So what is the approach if that's what I need to be clear of more key? None of this money's been spent. So there's been no expenditure on unallocated funds. That's what it's meant. That's been spent as the 250. I just haven't completed. We haven't completed the project. So these are the reasons why we're running over, but we haven't gone over the $250,000 allocated funds to date. But we've reached the end. What the deliverable was the completed design. Correct. But I want to make sure that that was clear, correct. And so the deliverable has not been done yet. And if the $125,000 is not granted by the EOTC, and no one else picks up that shortfall, the project stops. What, they're not obligated under their design contract to give, provide the deliverable? Based, based on the overages that we've had because of the additional public outreach and the coordination that was required, we've reached our $250,000 allocation. So there's unforeseen issues that came up that needed to be addressed by Parsons that caused the overages. And were those known all along? Absolutely not. I mean, the public process, when you submit yourself to a public process, there are many unknowns that you have to take on in consideration of what the public has to say. So I would. So who? Oh, when Pars is contracted, I would assume that there is a contract. I would assume, don't you love it, all these assumes that someone is accountable for that contract, an overseeing that contract, and those responsible parties within the terms of the contract has certain milestones that need to be achieved in a reporting process relative to where we are with the milestones. And second of which is if those milestones are not deliverable within whatever, whether it be scope or whether it be problems you run into or finances, those are discussed along the process. finances, those are discussed along the process. At what point? So you've heard of my assumes. Do we have all those assumes within the body of their contract? You have assumed correctly that there has been oversight of the contract the whole time. We have been in discussions with Parsons that we are, we're going to overrun this engineering and design contract. We've known it for months. We came to the EOTC as soon as we had availability to cover the overrun of the contract. Well, now then this begs the next question with EOTC. We don't beat that off and we all know that, right? I mean, what is it twice a year? Well, three times. Four times. You were trying to hit it. Yes, there anything anything with any OTC that contemplates a special meeting? We're not controlling. Well, we don't control it, but there's no limit in terms of number of meetings. Right. I didn't think there was. So how were we made aware that this was happening? Well, as the manager of the project, we've been aware of it. And these things needed to be done. So even we knew we were gonna over on the contract. Did anybody know? We knew as we were doing these things that we were gonna over on the contract. And you or Parsons and members of Pick and County, members of City of Aspons, members of Snowmass Village. We're just trying to get to the issue of our own accountability here. It's a good question. And it's between Parsons and Pick and County and myself, we knew that we were going to over on this contract because the level of coordination that we were having to undertake to make sure the project was successful. And so we came to the EOTC as soon as we could to ask for the money to cover the overage of the contract. These things need to be done in order to make the project successful. I clearly understand that, but this question becomes one is when the information becomes available, how are the various municipalities alerted to the fact we got a little problem here. You know, you better be tight in your belts and pulling up your pants, because this is not getting pretty. So, I just, there's a lot of issues around the OTC that concern me. And every time we turn around, it's one more expense that somehow we all were not made aware of. Or we have overages, or we'll just go over to that little $3 million capital fund and pull, there's a lot of issues around accountability here. So I will support it now, but if I come back on Snow Man's Village Town Council, this to me is an area that needs to be addressed as accountability and responsibilities. Good, Marty. I mean, I do remember in our smart discussions earlier, we had suggested a couple different looks at different areas where the underpass would go. And I know those probably added. But when we do those, Brian, it might be good to say, look, we can add all sorts of studies to this. But there's going to be a price point that you should understand that you're going to be required to come together and go forward with 50% more than you budgeted. So be aware when we ask for more public meetings, there's somebody who's got to pay for that. It doesn't just happen. Seed actually not doing the goodness of their heart. Towns, don't ask isn't doing it out of the goodness of their heart. EOTC, you know, because this is something I think that when we all work with contracts, we were very careful. So just, I think be aware of that. I'm also, I think, going to support this, I will support this tonight. But it is something that I do not like seeing. I want to get that done. I think it's safer to do it that way. So, Jason, do you have anything else? I'm not going to support this tonight. I think a thousand hours overage on a 2000 hour contract is unreasonable. I think the consultant should be held accountable for some of that. I think possibly the project managers should be held accountable for that for some degree. And so maybe that should fall to Paken County. So I am not in favor of additional pleasure request on this and I don't think I'll should fall to EOTC. Okay Mr. Beaking that there's three of us here, we need to support this in the three of us. The three of us all three of us need to support it to pass it, right? On a resolution pursuant to a charter section 4.6, three members of the council are required for final pass. Thank you. So go ahead. We have yet to hear a motion. Right. I would like to say this is still within the 10% of design and engineering that a standard any kind of standard contract would have for a construction project of this level. So while I agree this is over from the previous estimate and contract that we signed with Parsons, it is still in line with standards that are set based on this level of construction project. It's under 10% design and engineering for the project itself. So I think if I don't disagree with anything that has been said here, but I will say it's a reasonable cost given the scope of the project that we have. My math says it's 12.5%. I'm sorry. My math says it's 12.5% on a $3 million project. It may. You're correct. You're correct. Sorry. But yeah. And I guess part of that, Brian, is that when the design engineering goes 50% over, to me it's like why would we go forward with the whole project? You know, if we're already seeing it, and rising by this much, it would not be something I'd be wanting to support at the end of the day, because I would say our whole project's gonna be 50% more if our construction documents before they even have, to get them to final deliverables, I'll give you another 30%. It's the stop now. But as it is, is there, Marky, do you make a motion to support the resolution 32 series 2012? Electrofacial Transition Community Revision to the 2012 EOTC have some transit sales and use tax budget. Yes or no? Could I ask a procedural question? If they make a motion it fails John. Can this come back to a future council or a full council? Absolutely. Okay. I would suggest we table the discussion. To table you have to have a motion first. Turn the floor and it's been seconded to table. Okay. I move that we approve. Resolution 32. Resolution 32. I'll second that. Okay now. Understanding where this is going to end up. I would move to table this till. I assume you wanted it your next meeting. Yeah, our next meeting December 3rd. December 3rd so that we can have, you know, full council discussion and you can take back the information you've heard to and we can talk to our peers in the other areas because it is a concern. I think we watching the public's money have to be ultra cautious with some things like this, a lot of things like this. So I've made a motion to table. Is there a second? Second. For the discussion. All those in favor until tabling to December 3rd, after 4 o'clock. Please signify by saying aye I sure Any opposed thank you Brian. Thank you Moving on we have item number Let's see here six Resolution 29 series 2012 approval the 2013 EOC budget. Mr. Peck was named on that. Is there a motion? Is there a motion to approve that resolution? You know it's always so hard to read these darn things on these iPads. Okay, we'll school a day first and we'll help you with that. Okay, on page 17 is where you find the resolution. This again is pretty much the budget that was reviewed by the UOTC collectively at their October 18th meeting. At that meeting, the one variance is that at that meeting there was a request for planning an engineering work for Ruby Park, which was tabled to allow a little more clarification on the scope of work and have Aspen City Council review what their proposal was. That proposal was is on page 15 of the packet. If you wish to review the memo from John Krueger about what transpired at the Aspen work session on the Ruby Park remodeling request. In the original proposal, the 500,000 for the Ruby Park Transit Center planning and design work was to be funded out of the entrance to Aspen. In the final revised proposal, it's now at 200,000 for planning, scoping, public outreach, and conceptual design. And it's being requested that it be applied to the 3 million capital lock box that is sort of for generic projects, as opposed to the entrance to Aspen. And John Krueger is here if you have question It was 500,000 originally looking at a more grandiose planning effort I believe since then It's been sort of tapered back to 250. I'm at 200 sorry. Yeah. Thanks for construction. And again from a different pot. That was made the interest of a different pot than it was originally scheduled for. Correct it was first identified as a project under that would fall within the entrance to Aspen lock box. And now it's being requested to be funded out of the $3 million general lock box. Why, that means 50% of that money is snow mass village money to fund a project. The reason I'm not saying that money is no mass village money to fund a project. I think it would be interesting to hear what Aspen's rationale was. And if there's been a reaction from Peking County, that this one would be interesting to hear as well. If I may, John Krueger with the City of Aspen, Director of Transportation. If you recall the EOTC meeting on October 18th, the original proposal got tabled. And there was some discussion about where it should be funded out of, where the inference to Aspen Lockbox or the $3 million capital pool was appropriate, both the county and city council members discussed that. And so at the meeting it was tabled pending a work session. Staff was going to have with City Council which we didn't deed have on October 30th. And at their direction we revised the proposal and they felt it was more appropriate for it to come out of the $3 million capital pool rather than the entrance to Aspen Lockbox. It does get repaid if you look at the budget out of the discretionary funding. Both the snow, it does come 50% out of the snow mass. 50% out of the entrance to Aspen does get repaid over time. It might be somewhat slowly, but both of those lock boxes do get repaid. Our City Council felt that it was more appropriate for it to come out of there. And in the original policy discussion we had, which created these lock boxes and the current spending policy, it was anticipated the reason we came up with a $3 million capital pool for projects was so that that money could be used to help go after grants and kind of leverage available resources for projects and along with the ABC underpass the Ruby Park Transit Center was the second one of the The Ruby Park Transit Center was the second one of the, was the next project in that as well as a few other ones that came up. That's how we ended up with the $3 million if you remember. That's how we got to that part. So, I think that's some background on it. Council wanted it to come from there to change it. We recently went in front of the BOCC and they did approve it. Coming out of there and the request that was on last Wednesday at November 14th. And we're going in front of the Aspen City Council on Monday November 26th with. Well, at least this resolution, both home or beyond the agenda, consent agenda. And I guess we'll see what happens with the other one. So it does get repaid, both snow mass lockbox and the city of Aspen lockbox will get repaid and become whole at some point. Okay. So, I want to start philosophically on something. And I tell you, I am still struggling with the notion that 81% of the money that always comes in out of that half a percent or whatever the magic number is is to support the operations of Raffta. There is no And I want to be careful how this is interpreted. But when I looked at Raffta, it's as if I have 81% equal Y dollars. So therefore I can spend all of that up to that 81%. And I have absolutely no accountability to make sure I have efficient operations. Because I've got this other little thing of a 19% that is there for my little capital project slush fund. And there's always the grants out there. Well, you know, it gets to the point in this country where there's only so many grants and public dollars that are available and I never, ever hear raft of coming and sitting at the table and saying look we found a way that we can fund a million or two million or even a hundred thousand dollars of this needed project because we've saved so much money in operation. I never hear that and I've been doing this four years. God time passes. I know, ever hear that because it's the 81% number and everyone says we can't go back and look at that 81% because of voters approved it. Well, just because they approved it doesn't mean you spend it. You spend it? Well, I would to clarify, the 81% is a component of the funding mechanisms that make up the contributions by the upper valley jurisdictions Regionwide RTA, Regional Transportation Authority. That said, you have a representative on their board. He's not here at this moment and he could address having just completed their most recent budget proposal that would, you have to trust that your representative on that board is looking out for your interests and the regional interests to make sure that RAPTA is running efficiently. That is one of their key strategic goals. I don't know how to, what more to say to give you greater comfort that RAPTA is doing everything it can to manage the resources that it's given effectively. Well, let me just ask you this, Dave. Is there any fiduciary obligation on behalf of that board representing all of us to come back on a regular basis to the constituents and give us updates of their budgets. There's a review of the budget at every other meeting I would say, which is monthly. And generally in the last five in a row there have been budget adjustments that are addressing both revenues and expenditures as the details for BRT and their operating budgets and their moving towards natural gas conversion of their rolling stock and service plans for the winter have been moving forward. So Rafft is reporting to its board its financial position on a regular basis. Well, yes. Well, yes, part of my fall. I mean, as the ultimate, I had not been going to a lot of meetings, but I'm not going to be the main character from Snowmass going to them. And I will make sure that you do get all those reports and we can talk about them meetings, council meetings here. I think not only just here at town council, I think it's extremely important that our communities know where we are with RAPDA and what's happening at RAPDA. I mean, we get those, you know, we're doing this, now we're doing this, we're now we're doing this. But you, most of public agencies, public funded agencies, I think have a fiduciary responsibility to report back to people who vote on various measures to maybe you want to call other men, you report what have you and I can't tell Raffta how that needs to happen or the RTA. But I just think the communication back into the community's hands is extremely important. So having said that and we have to trust our trusted leaders who sit on that board that they really have. And I know John has the best interest of the community at heart. Now we have the issue of the Ruby Park. And I'm thinking, I'm just struggling with the fact that we talked about it coming from the entrance to Aspen because the Ruby Park at all due respect is far more an Aspen in Minnety. Then it is snowman's village and people will say well people go down there it's partitioned off a little differently than it has been in the past. To accommodate all sorts of different things, but I mean it's all half-sent funding for projects and it's just funding for projects and it's just the policies a little different right now. And I think I know some of the county and the city's ideas were that yes, for the park is an assman. Yes, it's been in the FEIS and record decision, but they felt that they wanted to, the Capitol Pool was more appropriate for it to come out of. At this point, the EOTC can always change. Did you provide an explanation of why? Yeah, why? I don't know why I wasn't there. No, I'm John. Well, because the council at the workstation and at the OCC made it didn't feel toward it didn't feel as appropriate and he and forget who else on our council said no we wanted to come out of the Capitol pool but I mean they want to do it regardless. I can't I don't know if I can speak for Brian I saw you standing up there did you have a comment that we'll go to Jason? Yeah, I can explain why the Board of County Commissioners supported. And the reasoning was that the capital, the three-lead dollar capital pool was set aside to do matching funds for grant opportunities for capital improvements. And that was the nexus that the board linked on in order to make that approval. And Brian, exactly approval. And we are in, we have applied as, as that project has for a faster fund request of a million dollars. We don't know what the status is, but we know that they're considering it. Raff also has some bonding authority left from BRT. There are in the throws of trying to get BRT up and running but they've said that they were definitely gonna be a partner in the project. They wanna be a partner. It's in their best interest. And so. But just to add on to that, this Ruby Park was not part of the BRT. That's why it's not really part of the funding deal. And BRT's got a finite timeframe that it has to get done for to get the federal funds so we can continue to participate in those things. So that's one reason so the community understands why it's not part of the BRT. It never really was envisioned to be part of that, even though it is the beginning of the end, the term is of the system, just with not in their scope to put that in the plan. There also, the constraints by the federal grant they got, the very small starts, the BRT was in several different grant programs, and then ended up in the very small starts, which had a cap of $50 million in the FTA said you cannot see that and they wanted a cushion in there and I think graphic anticipated that once they get BRT up and running which is their deadline September 2013 they want to come back they want to be a partner it's in their best interest to make Ruby Park work and function better so I think that they will do that. Jason? I guess I'm trying to think about how this would be the equivalent if we were asking to take funds out of that picking county pool to fund design of the Snowmass Transit Center that we already have a lock box set aside for. And given that Ruby Park is part of the entrance to Aspen project, if that's what I heard you say, it was part of the FES and it's part of that project, it seems like that's what that money is set aside for to fund project components associated with that. So, well, it seems like this county pool was to make things above and beyond entrance to Aspen and above and beyond Snowmass transit center happen. And so to me it seems like. Well, it wasn't it's not a county pool. It's for the EOTC and some of the projects listed when we created this through the subcommittee meetings we had. I don't know how many of those that led up to the recommendation from the subcommittee, which were related to the current policy, and some of those other projects were the underpass, Ruby Park. There was a possible underpass of buttermilk. There were some around about funding in snow mass for in there. I mean, there's no restriction. If you snow mass wanted to come and ask for design money, that's what that is there for. And I'm an appropriate. And that's why the ABC came out of there. And that's what it was created for. It just seems like the original thinking of requesting and out of the interest assessment funds, the more appropriate ought to pull that out of given that we have dedicated funds for that project. This is a component of that project. Further it's paid back over time. Further down the line, if we ever get it designed and get it to construction then that might be a consideration because the grant to get considered for it, they need to see progress that we're getting toward design. And it's like all these projects, particularly with in seed out of which is undergoing a lot of changes. The key is to get the projects and the funding is to get them fully designed and on the cable and ready to go. They recently came into $67 million from the federal government through some reapportionment. And it came to the state of Colorado and see that said what are we going to do? And they started looking out for projects and 20 million, one third of that came to our region because there's two projects ready to go. They got $10 million a piece. So that's why one of the motivations for creating this pool was so that we can get these projects going and done and ready. Both the ABC and Ruby Park and the Snowmass as well, I think that would be appropriate too. But that was one of the reasons the thinking behind creating that pool. I thought the thinking behind that was to create dollars that we could leverage to go get that. Exactly. That's what this design money would be considered is. Yeah, in order to be competitive for the grant, you've got to show that you have a consensus that the community desires to do the project number one, that there is local investment. The City of Assum has $250,000 in their 2015 budget for construction. And so, seed out in the grant application people looking what is the commitment here. So I've told them we're looking at some design, we have some things going on. They really want construction, they want a 100% funded, 100% of design funded by the local community before they'll consider it for construction money. And we're only trying to get through the first kind of phase of the design piece. So if we're going to be competitive, if we're going to be getting the arena and compete for the grants, we've got to get through the design process or demonstrate to them that we're in a design process that we actually have a project that people are interested in. Otherwise, it will get knocked off the table and somebody else will get the money and we'll have to get back a line if and when we can ever get there. This is an question of whether we have the resource available. It's just a question of which pot you pull it out of. And it's, but the EOTC fund itself grows every year. Yes, yes. And you remember the EOTC. So you can request, you have projects you're eligible and can make the request as well. And part of that $3 million pool is anticipated. So that's what it would have projects to compete with. Yes. OK., put in there. Well, you know, John, we don't mean to be meeting up on you. We should be meeting up on our peers. And it's my thinking with these next couple of years that we're going, I'm not going to let us leave a meeting and not have a discussion with our peers and instead of having you guys come afterwards. So I'm going to work on that part. Russ? I was just going to work on that part. Russ? I was just going to interject the same thing, Bill. I think there's a procedural change that is needed. And the managers have discussed it. I know it makes John's life much easier. Is that if we had a final decision when we walked out of that room versus all three going back to our own jurisdictions, and then making changes. And we've been all been guilty. We've been guilty of that room versus all three going back to our own jurisdictions and then making changes. And we've been all been guilty. We've been guilty of that too. But if we can make a final decision at that meeting and it's done and there's no other opportunity for then going back individually, I think it would make things like this much easier. The change of where I came out of came out of our council work session. So I mean, there was some discussion at the EOTC meeting, but I'm gonna take direction from our council and they said, no, we had the same discussion. Well, should it be this, should it be that? And they said, here's what we want you to do. Okay, get out of the $3 million capital fund. We think that's more appropriate. The county agreed that they're meeting. So, no, no, no. So we've taken the same resolution everybody. Just saying that there's a flaw to that process. Yes, it's speaking of process. Given our previous conversation and that we're table the decision on the 125, this resolution builds on assumptions coming out of the 2012 budget in terms of building the 2013 budget. So do we have to table the 2013 budget decision? No, there are two separate resolutions. The 2012 is supplemental. And this is an initial for the whole budget. You know, if you're not... This is the whole 2013 budget which includes... Well, this discussion we're having. Right. But it also includes the fund-induced includes- This discussion will have them. Right. But it also includes the fund- Now is the hurry up for that- It's a check-in. That was cheated by the previous discussion. So that 125 is reflected in the- Right. And if it's not that- You're not spec- Well, I'm not so sure. I would say there are two different resolutions. You could prove them separately or not or prove approved separately. We've done it in the past. I guess my point is we don't have a decision on the 125, which is included in the proposed 2013 budget and multi-year plan. No, it's not. It's included as a 2012 supplemental. Yeah, it's not part of the 13. The construction and other things are. But it affects the fund balances that are carried over. But that's not an expense request. That's the fund balance. You're approving a budgetary expenditure. Right, yes. Not the revenue expenditure. Fund balance is a calculation. You should be glad you don't have to prove that because that's the impossible to figure it out. To know for sure. Okay. That's an unknowable number there. So is there a motion to support resolution number 29? Serious 2012. I'll make the motion. The inclusion of the... motion to support resolution number 29, series 2012. I'll make that motion. The inclusion of the. Yeah, just as it's here, I'm not suggesting we make any changes. We've had a discussion. I don't believe these are the gentlemen to have that discussion really with. We've had different policies and procedures and it's changed. EOTC has been in place for a long time. So that's your discretion, Deb. Right. So I think I'm going to push that to the next meeting to make sure we have these discussions in total. So we walk away with not too much. It's much easier, but we only have three meetings a year. Maybe not one. We need a quits. And that's why these things get ended up in these types of meetings because I mean the grant process go along. They want to have for both Brian and our project, I think February was the decision point for the grants and the grant thing should, that's a two year grant cycle. So if you missed this, then we're 2016-17 or I don't know when. So we could do a supplemental amendment to the 2013 budget that puts that 200,000 back in the entrance to Aspen. You could or in your December meeting you still have a chance to do it as a 2012 supplemental. Yes, this year. Or one of your next meetings. Oh, council meetings. Yeah, your council meeting. I think the county has approved this. Both of these resolutions. I would anticipate that the city council, they want to hear what you're going to do, but I would anticipate they would approve both of them. And so, it would be your last meeting for the other resolution. So, it could still happen as a 2012 supplemental. Does that make sense? Well, not if you approve the expenditure in 2013. Okay, well, but if you do it in your next December meeting, well, I think we're confusing with things. If we don't approve this budget as it's proposed today, we could look at it again at our next meeting with clarification or an amendment to change the great to the ETA lock box. Yeah, we being the Stomach Town Council. Right. I thought you were talking about the 2012. I mean, maybe I got confused. Well, I think we're going to be talking about the 2012, that first portion we're going to talk with the floor. We're following up on that. That got table. Right. So this is just for the budget of 2013, the initial 2013 budget. Yes. And I made a motion to support it. I didn't hear a second. So it may die. You could do the same thing you did with the other one. Good table, again. Have a larger discussion. But we have to get a second to, you know. I'll second it. OK. It's been seconded for the discussion. I'll make a motion to table to our meeting on December 3rd or December 3rd. Second. Second. Second. Okay. All those in favor of table Thank you. Thanks, all right, guys. All right. Moving on, we have item number. This is a seven resolution 30 series 2012, the FTA master agreement resolution authorizing file of applications for the Federal Transit Administration, Mr. Peckler. I'm over. Two, I don't know. So, I was in vote, made a motion person. Jason made a motion to approve. Markie. Second. Second. Any other discussion? All in favor, please signify saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passed unanimous. Thank you, council. Item a rate, resolution 21, C he opposed. Pass you nameless. Thank you, council. I am a right resolution 21 carriageway, a resolution Waving of certain submission requirements or Courageway subdivision plight application. And we got Mr. Wallstrom's name here. Toons here. It's tracking him down. Okay. Move quicker there than he was watching probably. I think we did. I bet she he's moving this way. Let's take a quick break. Let's take a five minute break. Okay. Yeah, well I said it's so short. Paul, well, I say so sure. Paul, you need to bring your microphone on the phone. That microphone, Paul, yeah. Bring that right in front of you, Paul. That's the almost- I'd like to reconvene. Continue the meeting. We're now working on the next item, which is the Resolution 31 Series 2012, regarding regarding subdivision plat submission requirements. Request for waiver. Mr. Walston's names here. Jim. Thanks mayor. This is a request for waiver of certain submission requirements for subdivision plat application that was submitted. And the application wasn't submitted concurrently with a rezoning or development or redevelopment proposal. And so the applicant request waiver from the engineering and landscaping requirements that are commonly associated with subdivision plots. The staff is recommending approval of this request, subject to the language outlined in the resolution attached. And the applicant's representative Paul Tadun is here to answer any questions. Thank you. So, there's been just, does anybody have counsel on counsel? I have questions. Well, I don't know if the people listening on Granicus know what the heck we're really talking about other than, yeah. Would you like a little more explanation? Well, I think it'd be very helpful that we're talking about the carriage. We're talking about the carriageway apartments and because of the intricacies of the plating and the different land ownerships that surround the property, it has come to represent four distinct little parcels. And there were different ownership history. So some of the property was actually platted. Other parts were not platted. And they have all now come into common ownership surrounding the building. And what they would like to do is have it just be one piece of property identified as carriageway apartments or whatever they decided to title it and they need to have your permission to do that. No normally that would probably be a subdivision exemption process because at this point they're proposing no development. Unfortunately the four criteria that are the elements to get a subdivision exemption don't fit exactly what they're doing here. Therefore, they're going through a full-blown subdivision application to subdivide property. Almost always when you're doing a full-blown subdivision, you're proposing some sort of development or rezoning or something like that. They're not doing that here. They're just simply trying to combine these properties because it doesn't fit into the town's subdivision exemption process. They're doing it through this subdivision process. And the subdivision process actually requires because it is contemplated for future development that certain items be included in that application, engineering plans, landscape plans, monument records, and they're not doing any of those things. So they're at before, but before they can exclude those from this application, they have to ask your permission for a waiver from them. So that's what they're doing here tonight. Then the process will be that this will go to the plan commission and come back to you and the applicant hopes that they will be granted Subdivision and they can have a plan that combines these four distinct properties into one parcel and that they can record a plan So this is a common sense request. It's a it's very common sense request It's kind of because of the limited applicability of subdivision exemption, we have to go to this fuller process. And because they're not contemplating development, staff is recommended that these waivers be approved. So moved. Okay. Motion by Markie for to move resolution 31. And is there a second? Second. Motion by Marky for to move resolution 31 and very second Second second by Jason Haber for the discussion I guess two things in terms of purpose for doing this narrow outside of the development application It's to facilitate it transfer or something more easily or no, it's really I transfer something more easily? No, it's really. I was hoping that this would be one of the meetings I could go and say only two words. Thank you. But what we're trying to do is we knew there was a boss. Yeah, yeah. That was a boss. Basically, this is an outgrowth of the way the town was platted. And there was a structure that was the main platted subdivision. And then, as time went on, a parking lot was given to the project and then some open space. And then most recently we had the SRA that was contributing the parcels of the SRA open space that belong to this particular project. And what we have are three or four different platted parcels that in the eyes of the county are separate parcels, some develop, some not, when this is all one project. And what is trying to be developed here is to demonstrate to the county, to demonstrate to the public, to demonstrate to people that might finance the property that this is all one simple parcel. And in most municipalities, this is exactly what you want. Is you want your properties to be easily identifiable, no confusion with respect to ownership and so forth. And that was the appropriate time to just make it in one plated parcel. And I've argued that it shouldn't be very complicated, but back and forth, and we're going through the process. But we're not reviewing the subdivision replettes. The details and criteria right now. I can show you, I can show you, graphically what we're not reviewing the subdivision replettes. The details and criteria right now. I can show you, I can show you. It's just graphically what we're talking about. But it's basically the carriage apartments with the surrounding land. Surrounding land. This photo is just on the waiver of those two submaul. Right. And because it's already there, and it's been there for many, many years, the landscaping is there, so it wouldn't help the process to do a landscape plan for what's there. And there's no engineering involved because it's all status quo. But if they were proposing a redevelopment plan, then we need it. We need that stuff. So this is, if it were to be redeveloped, this would make it much easier and they could go forward and it would make it easier for you as well. Paul, weren't you the attorney for the town when this first was platted? You're bad! Where'd you see that seat? You're first talking about this, you're just making work for yourself in the future or what? Oh, you're bad! It has been a motion to accept by Markey Second Bad Jason. Any other discussion? All those in favor, please signify, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passed unanimously. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Next item we have is back here. Resolution, no, no, no, no. Here, here's where you manage your report. The only thing I'd add is that we talked about this in the budget discussion. We had a very good discussion with Holy Cross about the enhancement funds and got some really good clarification from them on some specific ideas that we did discuss in the budget process. And we'll bring that specifically back to you in the form of a proposed budget. But again, this is something EAB has been working on is could take a good chunk of this and apply to a renewable energy. And the Holy Cross company is very supportive of that as long as it is for a public use. But they were also supportive of Trail signage, which was interesting, and that was a challenge we talked to you in a variety of other things. So we'll bring that back to you. Also just want to let you know if you haven't heard our holiday party will be December 7th. Very good. And we every we RSVP to our bar. Okay. Okay. Anything else on that? Moving on item 10, a Jennifer Neppest Council meeting. Any changes, comments other than we've added tonight, couple of wrong discussion items maybe I just want to acknowledge an application that is working its way through the process the Roaring Fort Club don't want to say a lot about it but it is an application it will have a second hearing with the Planning Commission next week and it is tentatively scheduled to be at your next meeting. It will require either delaying the packet till Thursday or simply inserting in the resolution from the Planning Commission and adding that to the packet. You can delay the packet. Or is it essential that it goes on that agenda? Yes, we have public noticed it for a public hearing. They're obviously looking. I think in terms of fairness, because you will be in Queensland, judicial. I hope that you say, I don't care what you say, but I don't want you to get the application and then get the recommendation separately. So if you want that whole item. After the packets issued, that's fine, but I don't want the staff report going in front of the action by the planning commission. So that's suggested. So you either have the packet without it, or you can have the packet, or you can wait until later and have the packet with it. But you're talking about just delaying my day. Yeah, just a day. Well, that's fine. I mean, we would later now the packet with it. You're talking about just to leave my day. Yeah, just a day. Yeah, that's fine. Well, I mean, we would just produce the packet. They would come to you Thursday morning. OK. Saturday is fine. That's fine. OK. OK. The only other thing, and this is for the second meeting December, and we'll wait and have this discussion. But related is asking for a little time with the council just to share with you. Their thoughts, it's similar to they've been doing a number of presentations within the community, but just to share their thoughts on next steps. Jason? First meeting in December that we talked last time when we were looking at the agendas about not having the marketing group sales and special events quarterly report on the first agenda of the new council. We could bomb. Sounds like we could use a little. They have scheduled it. I think we need to push it. Jason, I think we're supposed to be tonight. Yeah, we have the way that we're doing it. So we're going to have to bump that in just a minute. Have that meeting as a schedule right now. Instead of the second. Yeah. Thank you for being in the assembly. And you may want to amend that in consultation with the town manager based on how the results come out in the next day or two on the provisional review because it is very possible that there could be a leak out and that would, yeah. Could possibly take it out beyond your December through. Lovely. If that happens, then all things go basically, yeah, we would need to simplify this agenda. Okay. I appreciate that update. But for right now, let's just keep that going as it is on here. Can I clarify? We laid Westpac was going on the first meeting in December? No, seven. Seven. Thank you. I'm fine with a request. I just wanted to give you a statement. My corner couldn't hear you. Sorry. Thank you, Rhonda. I also know for the record that Mr. Kudun was still in college when the plating took place. He's not that young. Graduate College in 68 and law school in 71. Okay, darn. Okay. Then on our agenda for tonight, we have council comments, committee reports, calendars. Let's see here, we've got a RAPTA meeting. I forget what I put that in my calendar. After that meeting, I will have a report to you about what's going on there and give you some data I don't have anything else at this point marky No, not really Jason Just a reward by meeting coming up on December 5th Okay Then do I have some other documentation about it? Are we gonna do an executive session tonight? I think we have that on your revised. Because I didn't pick up my revised. We need to get that clarification to read that language. Is there a round of it? Item 12, tear my table up. Executive session, town council, now meet an executive session. Pursuit, the CRS 24 or 6 424, and Stomas Village, Missful Code Section 245C, to specifically discuss one item. Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategies for negotiations, instructing negotiator as pursuitant to CRS 2424 E and semisabilizable code section 2-45 C5. Is there a second to that motion that I made? Second by marking, motion by myself. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We'll adjourn to the small conference room to have this discussion.