I'm you I'm going to pass the seal. I'll take another class and see you. the I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the 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. the I got really other ones. You look full of them. Yeah. I just used to walk out to these rocks. It gets up to you from the lobby chest, dog or a base. You can probably go to the door. No, just one or where you are. No, we can't. Awesome. He's a favorite call. He's both of them. Mark is in the way and He's both of them. Mark is annoying. She's walking in the... 359 is what's that? Yeah. He keeps all these fasts on the ground. That's 58 on my satellite. Wow, Mark, he helps. Great. I just heard him talking to you. She's good. Thanks for the thank you. Keeps all these fast Like to call to order These Thomas Phillips Council Meeting for September 10, 2012 First item we have is roll call please Ronda Here Here here here here here Very good roll I don't know for two public non-agenda items. Anyone have anything? Just not on the agenda? We'll just step forward. I have to turn it off. I've got a lot going on. Hey guys. Good afternoon. Jack Rafferty and Tom Yolkum, your ice-rink committee with an update. Who's that? That's not me. Not me. We wanted to let you guys know before the town manager report that we have a specific offer on the table as far as how we're going to manage the ice rink this year or what we're going to provide. There's still some unanswered questions as to whether we will have a refrigeration system. That was on the table earlier in the summer, but time frames and timelines have sort of backed us into a corner right now, so I honestly don't know. But at the bare minimum, what we're going to have is a repeat of what we've had in years past. So we'll have the boards, the Zamboni, the Zamboni trailer garage, and so forth. What we have is a donor who is graciously trying to offer us the opportunity to have it a refrigerated ice system. But there's about a 10 week lead time on the construction aspect of that. And there's a proposal that's in Russ's packet of what the town's commitment would be, financial commitment to make that happen. But we just may be under the gun as far as time to get it done for this year. But knowing for the future, the plan is to have a full size, Olympic size ice rink down there, refrigerated on a level firm surface so that it can be hosting tournament play in that kind of thing. Very good. Thank you. We did get together last week. You, um, myself, Russell and this gentleman. And I was first time I met the fellow and I want to say thank you for all that effort. He has put in his last three years and also you two gentlemen, because you guys have done the heavy lifting. You guys have checked once in a while, but you know, you guys are we appreciate all the energy you have done. So it's nice in my opinion to hear that you're willing to continue on in the same type as you had done last year. The only thing that we're really asking is that on the proposal that Russell fill in at the manager's report that this is going to be the thing that sets the tone for the next step forward. And that would really put the town in a position to assume this as their own. And now that we've got three years under our belt, and it's been a really viable good amenity for the town, I think it would be in your best interest to consider that proposal. Thank you very much. If you guys have any further questions after hearing that, then get in touch with either Tom and myself and we'll take it forward from there. We appreciate your time rolling to stay and do what you have been doing. Yeah, that's one of every 80 old Steven wants to. How do you do? Doug? Yeah. I've been one ass tracking. In case my question here or my, I guess I'm a little disappointed. The fact that last spring we came in here and did prior to the meetings and announced that we did have a $500,000 donor to do a nice ring. And I would have thought that we'd had a plan in place maybe a week or two after that or a month or two after that, but it was dribbled all the way out to here to the point that the donor canceled the $1,000 donation were down now to reconstructing that deal, but it would have been a better deal had we Had we been more able to accept the situation and take the money? A time, you know, we just wasn't just money and that was one of my Chief concerns I'll save for you know my own defense When you get a half a million dollar donation there are a number of things that come along with that. And I just can't say a thing. I don't think that that was the case. I think he said he would just put up the money and he could roll it up at the end of it and get it out of the way. Well, I didn't see that wouldn't part of the deal. All I heard was the town was getting a half a million dollar piece of ice. And all of a sudden I had to start worrying about who's going to take care of it? And all those things. Maybe the miscommunications of that is the problem. That could be. That happens in the past. That's how I'm fast. It's like I would hope that we could get the communication lines on because I didn't talk to anybody on the council. And personally, I've talked to Russ. But we never really get through. Well, I had heard from somebody at the rodeo, one of the rodeos, that this was a potential all of a sudden. It wasn't quite early in the spring. So I was a little bit... Um, let's just be clear about the timing. You came in on August 6th and made the request. And then it was subsequently a couple days before the 20th that Chuck and I had a good conversation. He made real clear what the offer was. So I just want to be clear about that time. It wasn't the spring. The only thing that I would say is that, you know, it was actually over a year ago that we came and so to, and kind of said that this was the direction we were trying to take with this. We were investigating putting some kind of a structured roof over it to cut down on the sun. And then, you know, so we had kind of handed you guys a packet of where we would have liked to have gone with this. And we've been keeping everybody appraised in the situation as things have developed. And when information was requested either from the board or from the town, we provided it in a pretty timely manner. And we just said, look, you know, we need the decision to be able to move forward on this by mid-August or the end of August, and now here it is the end of September and it's just coming on the agenda. So I think not so much from a lack of cooperation, but there's been very little initiative on the towns part to even want to get involved in this, that it has been Tom and myself on this donor, and we've been doing the lion's share of the work work but we would ask you guys that now that it's proven itself as an amenity that the town take some leadership role in making this thing happen as a full-on town amenity and not so much a private interest held by volunteers. Okay. I think that's where the level of frustration comes from. I understand that and I appreciate that but again with with our economy doing what it's been doing I can can't, like a CEO of a business would say, give it to me and I'll take care of it, I'll run with it. I've got to be a little more fiduciarily responsible. And there are other things that came along with it, which we didn't know until near the end. So I think there was, if we could have done this differently, you could have come in, we could have sat down, had this talk back in, you know, spring saying the roof, ice skating, all ice refrigeration system, you know, it would have been a great thing to move forward with as it was. It didn't happen that way. So I do want to say thank you and let's move on forward, but trying to say, you know, all these other things, you know, it's not helping the situation. Yeah, no, I agree. But after you hear the proposal, it's on the table now. The quicker you guys can act and make a decision on it the faster we can move forward. Sounds good. Are you guys gonna stick around for the 10 managers report? Or... I can not, I can stick around that way. That would be it. It's laid out pretty. You can watch them. Yeah. Yeah. a quick question. Jack and Tom thank you so very much for all your time and all your dedication to our town. It's amazing to see two individuals so very committed to making such a wonderful amenity happen. I'm always all about lessons learned about how we move items forward and I think that on our behalf perhaps we should have put together a work plan with a kutashita. It doesn't create excuses for our inability to move forward in a timely manner, but I think with the town managers report one thing I was already going to ask was okay, what is the work plan? How are we going to get this thing done and how are we going to move it forward? And what does that look like in terms of town council agenda is going forward. So I do hope that you'll be able to stay and help us through that process. It's pretty clear. I mean, there's clear but you know, I want to make sure that we have our teeth crossed in our eyes. Sure. And there's a there's a cap on on the commitment that the town is being asked to provide. Right. So, you know, it's not like you guys are reaching for the start with this. And I think everything is really based on the timing of what we can proceed with this year, whether we can get a refrigeration system, you know, built because they're sort of a built order. Uh-huh, great. And then how we move forward and one of the things that I think Tom and I both have is sort of a little bit long of a term vision of what may happen down in that piece of property. And obviously that's you guys, you know, decision-making process to come up with a master plan for that. I think after three years of having, you know, this rank run autonomously, that that should set the precedent that this is a good amenity that should be included in that piece of, you know, master planning for that piece of property. So I think from our standpoint, that was really our intentions was to make this something that now, obviously you guys have to deal with it. But, you know, in the long term, if we can make this work collectively, I think it's gonna be a great thing for the town. So I can't stick around, I will, but I'm not sure if I can hang out that light. Thank you. Thank you. Any else for public non-agenda? Moving on, Councillor Lovedates. Mr. Cooker. Well, as briefed a little over two weeks ago, I have had bilateral de-replacement. I am here quite honestly because I want to be sure we get through the one agenda item that we have to vote on and we've got a quorum to do it. And my plan is to stay as long as my knees will allow me. Very good. Keep you off your knees tonight. We think about that for a minute. Nothing now. Last week we had the JS Jazz Aspen snowmouse event. It turned out to be a very fun event for a lot of folks. We've seen a few things from email, some clients, that we brought here, thanks to all the folks who worked so hard. I think it was a big show off of what Snowmass has. And I got to shake my booty around a little bit. Tell the artist that this was Snowmass, not Aspen, and he changed the tune real quick, so that was pretty good. I was just gonna mention that. I wanted to give my appreciation for you to talk to Michael Fronty and tell him he wasn't snowmass. And he said it from that point on. It was great. I was trying to figure out how in a head, can I get up here and tell this guy, it's snowmass village, not As asked but Marke and I were laughing well we were laughing that's a bet you were you got to keep booty yeah not really Marke thank you Bill and thanks to all of those who spent time helping out for jazz asmen snowmass this weekend is the snowmass balloon fiesta as well as the wine festival so we hope to see all of you up on the mall it's one of our last celebrations of the festival so we hope to see all of you up on the mall. It's one of our last celebrations of the season so we hope to see you there. I have nothing else. Thank you. Jason, nothing for me. Sounds good. We'll move on to item number four. Continuation of a public hearing and second reading of ordinance number four is series 2012 Minor PUD amendment. This is a combined request to modify a plated major structure location envelope and authorize proposed development on parcel is greater than 30% on lot 37 parcel G, the pines. Since I am the manager of the pines, I will recuse myself from this discussion and hopefully you might call me back in when it's over. Mr. Wilkinson, the homeless yours. Okay, it's a raw storm. What do we have? I won't go into much detail. This was originally presented back during first reading of the ordinance on August 6th and at that time, council had some questions or comments which we attempted to address in our staff report This time around as well as the one on August 20th I'd like to turn it over or acknowledge at least the applicants Tom Newell and in Scott Brad and they plan to present the application or address any comments or questions the council might have Tom welcome Scott or address any comments or questions that the council might have. Don, welcome, Scott. Welcome. Thank you, John. Yeah, so we have a kind of quick presentation here. We'll try to make it as quick as possible once trying to address the, what we heard at the last meeting back in August 6th. Basically, just refresh your memory. It has been about a week or a month or so. This is a lot 37 of the pines. This map points south to the top. So it's at the very top of the subdivision. The existing conditions, thisF switches it around now and North is pointing to the top. 4 acre parcel. It's got a billion envelope down on the Northeast corner and ski trails that you see there on the plan. We're asking for an amendment specific to Lot 37 that modifies the billion envelope by moving at 23 feet to the south, not the north, and also we're asking to be allowed to develop on slopes of 30% or greater that are contained within that proposed building envelope. Why? We feel that the new building envelope, well we know that the, prefer a new building envelope contains less area of 30% slopes. It eliminates moving to this new belly envelope eliminates the need to cut down several matured trees along pinecrest drives. So it provides for better screening. And also it reduces the disturbance of 30% slopes between the belly envelope and pinecrest drive. Here's the site plan. I've kind of condensed it all into one. The existing building envelope is here in red. The proposed building envelope is in blue, so it kind of moves it up about 23 feet to the south. The building that we're proposing, the residents is in gray and then in the darker gray is the carport access road or driveway that winds down to Pinecrest Drive. Back in the discussion we we have back on August 6th I think we heard kind of three things or two things anyways really kind of generally what is the precedence for development on 30% slopes in the Pines subdivision is and also basically if you left it in the existing envelope what it looked like. And we also have some minor revised building designs that we'd like to show you as well see you get a better idea of where we're at with the design process. So as far as the precedence goes there's three lots that have received approvals for development on 30% or greater slopes of the pines One is lot 36 the adjacent that is rate adjacent to a lot 37 lot 36 Lot 34 and lot 28. I'll go through these quick Whoops, I missed it quick. Oops, I missed it. Sorry. Lot 36 was approved with a billy envelope that had about 20% of it consisting of steep slopes, slopes greater than 30% and all 100% of those slopes within the building envelope were developed for constructing the residence or the driveway. Lot 34 basically had about 50% of the building envelope containing steep slopes and about 50% of those steep slopes within the envelope are used to construct the residents in driveway. And then on lot 28, about 35% of the envelope consisted of steep slopes of which half of those were used to construct the residents in driveway. So our proposal requests a new building envelope that has about 10% steep slopes and of those 10% we're going to construct on 60% of those slopes within the envelope. As far as developments in sitting areas go, I want to show you kind of the proposed envelope versus the original building envelope and the differences between the two. Here's our proposed envelope. The purple trees are the trees that need to be removed to make the development happen. I think there's eight of them. And then the steep slopes within the building envelope that will be impacted by the building are in green and then by the driveway and carport are in blue. If we use the existing building envelope, we would basically push this footprint down or north on the site and it would impact these steep slopes which are more visible from Pinecrest. Green once again for the building and blue for the driveway. And it would also take out the trees here that you see. There's 11 in total but what I really want to show you here is kind of the difference between if we take the building envelope and push it up the slope then we eliminate development on this, the green areas, the blue areas, and we retain these eight trees that are out in front of the building envelope, which I think go a great deal towards screening the development from Pinecrest. In addition to when we were looking at this and several other scenarios that all exceeded what the proposal is, the preferred drive alignment which comes off the end of the cul-de-sac with the building placed in the existing envelope on the north fringe of the envelope, with the preferred driveway alignment really starts to move that driveway into the steep cut that parallels Pinecrest's drive. Remove a lot more trees. Or otherwise, we end up with a situation over here on the kind of the northeast where we would have to create an access directly off Pinecrest's drive. Ultimately, I think seeing the courtyard and even the front of a garage because this would not allow enough room for a driveway to get around to the backside where we've got the current garage located. So basically the comparison here between the existing and the proposed building envelope shows that we reduce the amount of square footage on 30% slopes by about 40% from a thousand down to 600. We remove, eliminate three trees that have to be removed, but keep in mind, under the existing building envelope, those trees that are being removed are much more visually impacted. So basically 37% production of impact on steep slopes, removes development from the steep slopes near Pine Crest Drive and retains the mature trees between the building of a local Pine Crest. Now we'd like to show you these new designs are not significantly changed, but this is the original design of your recall, kind of looking to the west with the entryway, I'm sorry with Pinecass drive on our right here. And then maybe I can turn it over to Scott here to go through these new designs. You'll notice with this same rendering, same look that we've kind of softened the roof lines there on the upper part with the curved roof lines as opposed to the pointed ones here. And this was really a response. I think it was Mr. Wilkinson that kind of asked the question about this house being the highest in the Pine Subdivision. We're actually the highest lot in the Pine Subdivision, but we're not the highest house. Lots of 34 and 35 to the east, or actually would actually sit higher there above the 8400 elevation line. The main body of our house is sitting on 8400. So we would be quite a bit lower and part of that response too was to really kind of soften the placement of that upper level into the site. So we've gone to curved roofs on the kind of the southwest portion of the buildings to the gable form. So we've gone to curved roofs on the kind of the southwest portion of the buildings to the gable form. So we've reduced that quite a bit, which keeps us well under the limited height limit that's being proposed in the amendment. And then this is a view looking from Pinecrest. Any comments here, Scott? Nothing's really changed. the building footprint location floor plans of all state the same would just kind of worked with the upper reforms. And then this is the elevation from looking east. Any comments? No. And then finally I just want to leave you with this picture of the lot. You can see it behind lot 35 there. It's already constructed on the left before and after. Since planning commission and the first reading we have gone through the Towns Snowmass Homeowners Association, we've been granted conceptual and final approvals and support of the project. We've also maintained constant contact with the owner of 36 Mr. Ferris Wilkes throughout this process. He's showing support of shifting the envelope south, lights out we are maintaining the vegetation and how we're proposing to replenish vegetation that's going to be removed during construction. And that's our presentation. Thank you. Okay, very good. Thank you. I'll reopen the public hearing. Is there any comments from the public on this application? Hearing none, I will close. No, leave it open. Thank you. Okay, go to council. Any comments or questions for the up? Motion to approve by Markey Botlet. Second by Fred Hooker. Okay, any further questions or discussions for the Fred? I just want to say I thought you guys did a fabulous time the first time around And I really commended you then for what I thought was very sensitive, very creative dealing with issues that concern obviously this town. Do you have outdone yourself the second time around? It's just amazing. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Jason? I was just going to confirm I didn't see anything in the packet, but we didn't get any letters or comments from neighbors or anybody in the neighborhood. No, we don't know. I can hear you all say. I'm fine. I really appreciate your hard work in taking our comments into consideration and some alterations. It's beautiful. I like that little curve that gives us some character. A couple of questions. The driveway. Where is that little curve that's just some character. A couple questions the the driveway. Where is that going in this scheme here? Let's see it's just you can just see it coming off right here and working its way up and around the back. Okay and I can give you a better I can get that slight plan up. Oh that's okay I was wanting to see what it looked like. Yeah we and this is why we proposed some of that replacement planting is to screen what, 36, kind of soft in that corner as long as. Right. And the ski easement for the association is that behind the house? Yes. It runs behind the house and then right in front of these and between the house and the dark timber here, up to the top. Is that the one that comes off the poma, the Upper Poma? Well, I don't know why. That Upper Poma has up there. I'll know if this is the direct round. Yeah, it is up there though. Yeah, it probably comes off there. Are you planning on snow melting that driveway for the? Yes. Okay, so you know, we have a process for that too when you get ready. Okay, I guess I don't have any further questions. Close the public hearing at this time. And since this is an ordinance, any changes to this as presented? Take a roll call vote on this if we could round up. Why no? Wilkinson? Yes. Butler? Yes. Haver? Yes. Booker? Yes. Order zero. Passes, thank you. Gentlemen, we've got to with this is probably the easier part of the process. Thank you, Council. No, I've been instructed to put the dog map up here. No, I've been instructed to put the dog map up here just that There it is thank you great. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Thank you Okay. Now we're going to go back to item number. Item number five. Discussion of trail management and dog regulations for the Stomach Village Trails. Bill, I digress for one minute and just introduce Kelly Vaughn, our new communications director. She's joining us from Rocky Mountain Institute. Was their communication director for about four or five years and is joining us today. Very nice. So well-positioned. The conversation with the community. And then. The purpose of this discussion, what we would like to do is follow up on a discussion we had on June 18th, where we considered the Sky Mountain Management Plan, and it was approved by the town council at that time. We talked about a number of issues. It really centered around the proposed trails. And you can see it on this map. This is a conceptual map of the concept we're gonna talk about. But we talked a lot about five trails that would go into the county area and another trail that would swing into county land from the rim trail. At that meeting we talked about a couple of different concepts that we'd like to get some further feedback tonight and also some direction on potential code changes related to this. Again we spent most of the evening talking about the rim trail and as you recall with that, the history as we were doing our due diligence with this management plan for Sky Mountain, we discovered that there was a PUD condition in the horse ranch PUD that prohibited dogs on pedestrian trails. So one of the points of discussion was could that PUD condition be modified in the future to allow dogs? And again we've had dogs and that has been the practice on this trail for probably 20 years. We also talked about could we create areas if we're going to create no dog areas on new trails going into the Drowsteer Sky Mountain area, and we talked about a PD change here. We also talked about could there be an area where we could have some relaxation of the town's current policy, and you see the current policy in the memo, and we essentially do have a leash law. The practice in terms of enforcement is that if there's an issue and if there is a dog out of control that is not under voice command, then enforcement action can occur. That's not the limit of enforcement activity, but that's been the general rule of thumb. So we talked about potentially an area on the mountain, including the ditch trail. We talked about an area that would include most of the town. And again, you might recall we had approximately 60 miles of trail in the town that allows dogs. And again, it was really the three or so miles that we were talking about going to Sky Mountain that would prohibit dogs and potentially a new trail going into this area that eventually goes into county land that comes back to brush creek. At that evening, you might recall that we discussed if the PUD were changed so that dogs were allowed on this trail that the county said, well, we think we can get our arms around a leash law, but a strict enforcement of that leash law. And we kind of talked that we have not actively put a lot of resources into enforcement with dogs and trails, and that this would need to be done to achieve a new trail coming from the North Rim down to brush creek. And again, that was part of the Sky Mountain management plan. So tonight we wanted to section B or page 32 of your packet. We currently have the existing dog policy and it covers the entire community. The thought behind the proposed change, and again this is just conceptual language, is that the town could consider an update of, I believe it's a 1988 trails master plan. So obviously dated, that we'd consider an update of that, incorporate new management practices, new trail opportunities, and basically update that plan with new policies, that that would be a framework to incorporate trail regulations in other management practices. That that could also be used and have a map, maybe similar to this, that would be a reference in the code. And again, you see some thoughts in terms of a modification to the code. And again, it starts the second sentence with accepting areas designated specifically in the town's adopted trail management plan as voice and site command areas. And then it goes on with the current language. So in that case, it would allow some additional flexibility on the ski mountain. With the other trails in terms of no dogs or a higher level of enforcement, again, the thought that that would simply be done through additional signage, communication with trail maps. And again, it's our land. We have the opportunity to do that, but those would also be specified in the trails management plan that again could be changed, updated via resolutions. So kind of the first thing we wanted to get a sense of is going back to that discussion is, do we like the idea of potentially having some multiple zones where we have some flexibility, but also some areas such as those areas we discussed in June, particularly those trails going into the Sky Mountain area where dogs would be prohibited. Again, that would be via signage, it would be via information that would be on trails, plans, and specified in the updated trails management plan. So first kind of want to touch base on that concept and if it's a concept you like pursuing, then that would be telling us we probably should give some thought and work to our code as it relates to our dog regulations. Very good. Thank you, Russ. Markey. I may have missed it in reading this document, but we talk about the ski mountain. We have lots of trails up there. We do. Mountain biking as well as hiking. So that would be no dogs on leash on all the trails? Oh, no. I mean, opposite. There was a discussion that occurred between the police department, the Division of Wildlife for Service. And given it's in the town, it currently has a leash law on it, like all the other lands. But there was a thought that there could be some additional flexibility of having dogs under voice command from the ditch trail throughout the mountain except for that area on the other that is in the camp area that there's basically NEPA documentation saying that dogs would have to be under leash in that area. So essentially it would allow some greater flexibility for dogs off a leash but under voice command in that area. Okay so speaking to that is that something Fred? How the council wants to wait for it? Let me sort of back up because you're looking for guidance, you're looking for next steps. You know, sort of each of our takes on this. As I said at the last discuss, the perspective sky mountain park and our approval of of that and I voted for approval of that. I have absolutely no objection to creating trails on our land that will not take anything away from either what we currently have or what people perceive we currently have, and yet give a benefit that now that does not now it exists. And the perfect example of that are those five feeder roads into the Sky Mountain Park. Those trails don't exist today. If we approve the plan, they will exist. They will exist for the benefit by and large of bikers and hikers. They will not exist for the benefit of dog owners. And it's a practical matter. I think that's fair because he don't exist for the benefit of dog owners now. Dog owners can't use the sky mountain park, so dog owners aren't losing anything. They previously thought they had or they for a right that they thought existed. So I'm all in favor of that and have no objection to it. I guess where my objections come is if we're taking away something that is a perceived right, whether it is a right or not, but a perceived condition that has, and I'm talking obviously about the North Rim Trail. And the proposal in here is to amend the PUD to allow dogs on leash on the North Rim Trail. Okay? My problem with that is, for 20 years, dogs have been on the North Rim Trail, not required to be on leash, not required, don't require this with respect to leash on the North Rim Trail. The old requirement was that they weren't supposed to be on the North Rim Trail. John? I just need to clarify with you that the leash law applies throughout the town. Right. So it applies on the North Room trail at all times. So when you say it's been there for 20 years, not required leash, it ignores the law. And the fact that they're really not allowed there at all. Which is also the law. But that's, I guess that's where Russell is trying to start off the meeting today is, you agree, which is taking piece by piece to say, is it okay for the town to have multiple locations to where we do tweak the law to say it is okay in certain areas? Absolutely. I think that's where we started off. Well, I think that I absolutely agree. And I think, and I think the idea of having a designated voice command area is an excellent idea. And in and of. Now, you're right, John. And if there's a lease law, I mean that that area voice command, which would include the ditch trail, obviously very few people walk dogs on leashes on the ditch trail. That there are everybody's in violation of the law. But the fact that the situation has existed for 20 years, whether it be the ditch trail or the north-run trail. And I asked Russ about this, whether it's been a long time since I practiced law, but what are the consequences of having a regulation that affects or having a law on effect, and basically allowing just the opposite to happen over a period of 20 years. Now do we need it if what you're asking us is do we need to change that situation. So we do have it somewhat codified is where you can have dogs on a leash and where you can't have dogs where dogs can be off leash. I think that's terribly important and my only comment is, as we go through this, and as you go through this, you take into consideration what people's expectations and people's understanding has been over the last 20 years. Right or wrong. I mean, you're right, there's a leash law there you can't go any place without leash but as a practical matter we all know that there are several trails you know throughout the town where dogs have gone without leash and certainly there's been no demonstrable environmental harm. There've been complaints by people, complaints by bikers but there've been complaints by you know hikers and dog orders about bikers. So that's, that to me is the issue. The issue is to take into consideration that which de facto has existed over the last 20 years. That would be every trail snowmast village, not just two trails. I'm sorry? That would be every trail snowmast village. What do you mean? I'm sorry that would be every trail snowmass village. I can tell you there are people that perceive all trails are no dogs on leash or dogs off leash or fine. Well that's that goes back to your point. I can't just say it's the North Rim and the ditch when where I hike nobody ever has their dog unleashed. And I'm over on power line and Tom Blake and all those owe on that side of the mountain. So the perception is, well, they don't enforce it so I can do it. And that's why it's always been. So I hear what you're saying, but the perception has been, well, they don't enforce it so I do what I want to do with dogs. That's my observation. I would just make a comment to take some issue with the idea of no demonstrable harm. It's been going on for 20 years. So how do we know there's no demonstrable harm from a wildlife perspective? I mean, what would that area have been? Had there not been dog that's roaming off least? I don't think we can make that. So does that make definitively? Does I remember when those naturalists were here had there not been dialed as roaming off least. I don't think we can make that. Was I remember? I think definitively. I remember when those naturalists were here, they said that they had actually looked at the North Rim Trail. Because that was one of the reasons they were, the North Rim Trail was the reason that there were restrictions on the North Rim Trail, then maybe they would build that feeder trail off ultimately into brush creek. But they said as I remember that they had looked at that area and didn't see any significant difference between what that area looked like and what the areas, the other areas that they examined looked like, where there had been no dogs. Okay. So I guess getting back to Russ's question, you know. I just suggest sequentially. Right. You lost the, you know, somebody who want to push the button over there. But I think this sequentially question would be first, do you like this concept? Yeah. Which would tell us to work a little bit on the code. The next, and that's the question we would be us to work a little bit on the code. The next, and that's the question we would be getting to on the, Ron is going to yell at me here in a second, is then the North Rim Trail. So regardless of local enforcement, would you want the opportunity to have dogs legally on that trail? And from a process standpoint, John jump in, you're ready. We first created draft plan but before it's adopted, begin a PUD process that would be initiated by the planning director to take this basically through a minor PUD which would go to planning commission and then council to consider allowing dogs on the trail. A subsequent decision then and we've talked about this now with the police department is regardless of where. You know, and I think we acknowledge that we needed some additional enforcement capability. If we all agree that there's an area where no dog should be allowed, we also need some enforcement capability there. So we have figured out with the resources that we have within the police department, and you'll see this as part of the budget process, a additional resource that will be proposed in your budget for predominantly trail maintenance, but also looking at how to have three versus two people in trails, but also giving them some educational materials and communication capability with the police department to leverage our enforcement capability. We think we can move the needle significantly if we want to move the needle, but that's the second question. So the first one would be, do you like this concept of zones? And really what you're saying? Well, stop there. So how, the concept of zones, council and community, because I think there are people around who want to pipe up on that. John? Could you again explain to me what is defined under voice command on the trails themselves? Basically the dog, if you say, heel comes, stop. You know, that dog is under your command in not running while running. But right now there's a leash law in that area that says voice command. No. No. There's no words required on leash. Okay. But the trails themselves. On the trails. Anywhere in town. Anywhere in town right now. Currently, everywhere in town requires a leash. Okay, so what you're not really true. In your own, on your own property, your dog can run for it. True. Okay, so on public. Any area that's accessible to the public, your dog is required to be out on leash. In the town of Snowmass Village. So, what you're saying under this voice command areas that the leash law will go away in all the trails that are under that voice command bubble? It'd be relaxed in that. If you still had a dog running wild, creating problems, chasing wildlife, you would still have an enforcement capability against that type of dog. Yeah, I can't support that idea at all. I can see having areas that you could have a under voice command, but you're taking village bound, the power line trail. You got the new Valhalla trail in that mix which is the downhill trails for ski company you can't know. All the trails on Altcamp cannot be in voice command area. It's not. Valhalla in kind of flat down this way. Yeah I don't think you see it clearly enough though. Easy writer is right in here so cross mountain, the government trail, all those trails. This is not a definitive document. This is a concept that we're not trying to pick out each and every trail in each and every area. There's going to be a full blown process to adopt a draft management plan. And if that draft management plan that you arrive at, whether you do or you don't, includes areas that need laws changed, then you'll take on your quiz I judicial has and change those laws before you adopt it. Because those laws may not be able to be changed. Maybe, you know, I mean, there's, this is a concept. I mean, you can point at every little trail and say, not here, not here, not here, not there. But the time to do that is when the plan itself is before you. But I think he's on a bigger basis. He's saying any trail that's included in a voice and command area is unacceptable. That's what he's included in a voice and command area is unacceptable? That's what he's saying in terms of the concept. Correct. If you're saying you just disagree with the voice and the man, that's okay. I like the idea of having an area where you could have voice command on some of the lower ski slopes and I'm thinking the ditch trail might be a good one to test that. But as far as just having a blanket statement that we're gonna relax the leash law and all the existing trails on the mountain. No, that's perfect. Yeah, those are things I think we'll come up. So it's a concept you would still like to explore. Yeah, yeah. But this might not be the map. Right, and we're not saying this is the map tonight. Jason, and I kind of question that the 30,000 level weather from a priority standpoint, we really need to be putting as much time into a trail master plan update or having a much more limited scope of, for instance, a trial on the ditch trail. I mean, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of having area where you could have dogs under voice command. But at the same time, I don't know that I'm really all that in favor of some major undertaking that would involve a trails master plan update and a lot of analysis and broader coverage of that change and go to amendments and things like that. Just, sir. Mark, can you give them for it? I have two questions. The first one gets into the PUD at Horse Ranch, that minor amendment. If that were to, that was a decision we made to go forward with a minor PUD. Would that minor PUD require full approval of all the owners of horse ranch? No. It would require just the planning commission? No. Councilor. Planning commission would make a recommendation to the council. And what rights would the Horse Ranch Homeowners Association have? Well, they have the right to challenge any ruling you would make and they have extended rights under the code in terms of what they expect once a zoning is in place and PUD is a zoning. Do we have a sense from the homeowners? I don't even want to go down that path if we've already got a sense from the horse ranch homeowner's association. We want to go down that path if we've already got a sense from the Horse Ranch Home Order Association. Actually we received two petitions that include, I don't want to say majority, but a sizeable number of the Horse Ranch homeowners in favor of, back in changing the use on the North term for our. We've also gotten recently a homeowner up in Horse Ranch who sent us an email this weekend and said they were not in favor. But they like it's a comp. It's very controversial. It would obviously have to be a full PUD amendment process with referral to the affected agencies just like that. Any PUD we do? And how much is that going to cost? Basically it's using staff time and board time. And don't we send up referral agencies as well? We would get the additional online. Division of online. No, we don't get a bill. No, we don't get a bill for that. I didn't have it. It's time, though. Because we're not engaging in scientific study. We're not engaging in engineering work, we're talking about changing the use of a trail that's already existing and changing the condition in the PUD that approved the horse ranch. And that was your first question. It was my first question. The second question goes into what Jason had brought up in terms of an opportunity to try and dogs the voice command over on the ditch trail year one or year two and not do the whole trail master plan. The question that I put forth to town staff is our trail master plan so outdated that it still needs to be done in the context of the dog issue. Well, going back to your strategic plan, one of your strategic actions is actually, you know, as we've created new trails with the ski company, with the county, looking at that overall opportunity with both Drosty our trail system their trail system How do we manage it together? How do we promote it so that came into your strategic planning of Looking at it and yes our trail system since 88 is You know that plan is outdated Maybe we separate the two and focus on the trail master plan Well, I'm not sure I will separate it, Mark. I don't think it's going to take a whole lot of energy. On this? Very much discussion out. No. I don't see. I think that there are some things that have to happen. I think we look and say, what does voice control mean? I think there are some questions, and there will be some time. But I do personally, I see it as an appropriate discussion and debate to have because it is something as you've been reading these last few months since we brought it up. A lot of people on both sides have been commenting on it and I would rather a telecommunity this is something you can do and move forward with it. Well I think some work. I'm back to it and Fred. Oh I'm sorry. I can go with the PUD now that I've got the answer that I was asking. I also am very supportive of Jason. Maybe we try on a smaller scale at some point versus trying to figure out which trail where what have you. Because I can also hear what John Wilkinson is saying. If you go from this part of the mountain and you go cross mountain now you go into a different section and I will tell you Having been able to walk my dog several years ago. I would I can tell you I'm a person a very bad behavior I would know I know what I left the dogs on leash and when I went into a dogs off leash Well, I guess that's the different ownership skills that people have well that means you know how to read Yeah, beat your dog, Fred. To Jason's point, think about it for a minute. Right now, there is a blanket prohibition about not having a dog, about requiring a dog to be on a leash. Every place you go, if you don't have a dog on a leash, by definition you are in violation of that law. As a practical matter, we all know that there are certain areas that over the last 20 years that people have taken dogs walking off of leash. Now, it seems to me, and this, whatever this master trail plan has been, has been, is 20, 288 did you say this plan was not the effect? So it's 20 years old. I mean, this community has changed since then. This mountain has changed since then. I think this is an absolutely appropriate time to undergo a master trail plan review of with respect to dogs as to where there can be dogs on leash where they could be in this town and you've got to have your dog out of the leash now. It'll give it damn where you are. And the other person said, I've been doing this for 20 years, so bug off. And that's just not a position you want to you want to leave the town in. I think you want to get the town in a position where they say, we have looked at it now. We're taking an overall view of it, this is how we think it ought to operate going forward, not the way it's operated since 1988. And I'll pipe in now. I think it's appropriate, as Fred states, to look at this. I also believe it's appropriate for people who are walking the trails that don't have dogs to be respected and not have to put up with junk dogs jumping on them and coming up. I mean, one of the things that, you know, I do walk my dogs on a daily basis and I'll tell you that I break the law at this current time. I do walk them. I'm going to say that on the record. I have a leash with me. It's a good thing to please choose otherwise I can fight. Thank you, John. But it is something that I, my dogs and I respect people and we pull them up next to us so we don't typically have to fear. But I do see people who are very concerned and very afraid and I don't believe they need to be in a position to where they can't go out on the trail. Same time I think it's appropriate though that they might expect a certain area that they could possibly run into dogs that are off a leash and they can be aware of that. I think there are a number of things that a community needs to do if they do have a voice control system to where even have gone as far in other communities to have a volunteer board that sits there and helps design what those policies are and helps police that. They help please picking up the dog poop. It helps you know do a lot of things because you know dogs can be problem. so I kind of respect that. So my personal desire would be to allow the discussion to move forward to have, you know, different management areas for different things. And again, I think that's the concept under debate. And art we're here, I want to share the debate. He's had within his department where they've been very strong about this, the positives of having a voice command area, but also there are others that are concerned about the ditch trail given that's a flat trail that again a diversity of people use in the community. So the point though he made to me was that if this is in the form of a plan, you can modify it. You can review it on a regular basis. You might also start off small versus expansive, but that would be a good topic of debate once you got into this. John Lockelson? Okay, well as far as what you would like to have from this council's recommendations, I'd point to page 31 in our packet. We first bullet points is area where dogs are under voice command. This is ditched trail and ski areas, excluding ill camp areas. I would just say trails by themselves. Not say just those exclusive because I think the plan needs to look at every trail condition not just that Also, obviously we're gonna hear from the wildlife people I'd also like to add to that the winter issue because we do have a significant Winter issue with dogs on on and off leash on the Nordic trails and on our town wreck trails. And that would need to be part of the look at the master plan. And then as far as the North Rim Trail goes, I'm willing to allow a little flexibility in testing on whether or not we can accomplish the goal of having a 75% compliance with dogs on leaches up there. I know we're not going to get 100%, but I know there has to be some level set there on what can be enforced and what can be done. And it has to be part of the PUD process if we go forward with an amendment. And again, the real question for tonight is, you know, are you comfortable with us moving forward? Again, with the process, I articulate, articulated, which is, you know, creative draft plan, then you would see a PUD amendment in the information. I'd be clarification on what Fred the Marky then Jason. Yeah, I think, again, I think having this master plan is, at listening to what Bill is saying, and I actually agree with Bill that there are private citizens, private walkers who do command. In this area, they will be on leash. Add people know that they go to a place where there's leash, the dogs are on leash, they shouldn't be trouble. I mean, assuming people abide by rules, by the plan. But right now, you've got nothing. You know, you've got, as I say, you've got all black, everything on leash, and you've got 20 years worth of experience that says, well, here I don't need a leash, and nobody's gonna bother me. So for all, a bunch of the reasons the job stated and bill stated, I think this is a very important thing to go forward with. Okay. Okay, Marching. Jason. I was just a clarification from Wilkinson on page 31. He said, area where dogs are under voice command. He said all trails. No, no. He's voice. I'm asking for clarification one. No, what I want that to represent is that we're not just excluding the L camp areas, but we need to look at all trails. All trails, yeah. Yeah, that are in proposed voice command area. And I think again, the specifics of that would be part of that deliberation. I don't want to see dogs off leash on all the trails. I just want to be perfectly clear. I don't mind maybe the ditch trail, which I'm really questioning, knowing the number of guests that walk that trail. And I was on it the other day as I headed up towards the East No Mass area and there was one owner that must have had it wasn't you. Five dogs and I don't have it I don't have a dog that I walk with anymore I tell you scared out of me. But I hope you have that. So I mean we need people within reason. Yeah, Jason? Yeah, I guess just a couple of times. After saying the Ditch Trail might be a great place for a test, the idea of having such a flat grade, it's really great for walking with kids. It's really great for elderly walking. It might be the worst place for a test. And so I just want to say, I hope we don't rush into that. And then when you talk about a trail master plan update, do you anticipate requiring a consultant to accomplish that or that? I'll be done in half. Turnally. Yeah. Okay. So- But the clear, Jason, it is more than just dogs. It's looking and updating. Here's what we have today. Here's what's being talked about in the future in terms of new trails. So it's more than just, you know, policy discussion about dogs. I guess to me, this is being driven to a large degree by the idea that the county wants to put in, I forget the name of that trail on the North Rim. The rim connector I think is what they can show. I'm not sure they either want to, they're willing to if certain things happen, right? Right. And so that is creating for us the impetus to look at this trail master plan, possibly add enforcement and additional costs associated with managing that. Whereas the alternative is to just leave it status quo. Dogs are not allowed on North Rim Trail. But I guess there's still some demand for increased enforcement if we want that. Correct. Even if the Rim Trail stayed status quo status quo rim trail stays no dogs allowed whatsoever They're still not gonna build that trail until we demonstrate that there is some level of performance on that I would say safe John Sorry, no go ahead if you have a comment I Think you're kind of taking the short view on the impetus here because before drosty purchase came up and the possibilities of these things we've been dealing with use issues where the town enjoys a recreational license agreement to use the snowman's club golf course for the Nordic trails and so golf course for the Nordic trails. And so, I'm correct me if I'm wrong, this has been going on long before it grows to you. I am. So, I don't know if I agree with you that's the impetus. And so, maybe something I have one other point too, with regard to, as you get into this process, the idea of test areas for voice command, et cetera. You're going to hear from our animal control people because they've been downable, they've visited with them, where they have the program done. You're going to have some experience to rely on before you go into a, decide that a test is required to get to your plan. I think you might go one way or the other, but I'm saying just. OK, it's helpful. Thank you, John. John Wilkinson? Yeah, the only other comment I like to make is that it has been tried and asked been where they've allowed dogs off leash on the Smuggler Mountain road. And all you have to do is take one afternoon on a nice day to walk up Smuggler to see how it works or how it doesn't work. I just don't want to go so far that it becomes unusable for a majority of the people that want to be out there. Which is, I guess, one of the areas and reasons why some communities have gone as far as building a fenced-in area. That's what I can have dogs running around, getting exercise, playing with other dogs, and you know, it's not a trail system specifically, but it's, you know, as well, no carbon-dale, algebra have these things, and I think it's junction. I mean, a lot of people do have them, and they are becoming more prolific, you know, in communities, but I think it's, you know, something that personally, I know my dogs are Different than somebody else's dogs and I I believe I can I used to jog in North Carolina with seven whimeraners And I could run up on deer and keep them with me when we saw them and they wouldn't chase the deer but you know, I know other people who have one pick and ease that can't control, you know They're running out 100 feet and bark at somebody. So everybody's a little different and dogs are a little different So I think it's something that does need to have a discussion that we move forward with Okay, so am I hearing a Support right we're bringing forward a draft management plan. Yes. And you would see a variety. You'd see also recognizing it's not just a discussion, but you'll see an update of here's the trails we have today. Here's some trails that are in the future. Plus this discussion on dog policy. And then with that, if there was a level of comfort with that, we wouldn't approve it, but we would initiate a PUD process. Yeah, that was going to be my point. I think going back to the trustee property trails issue, and I don't know whether the people who were here before us were truly a vocal minority in a bunch of winers or they were the silent majority and represented what a great number of dog owners think. And the obvious issue here are dogs. I would submit to you John. The issue is also bikers and there are people who are scared to death of bikers but that's a different discussion. This discussion is centered on dogs and I think people who have been here a long time, who have walked dogs here a long time ought to be involved in the process. It ought to be satisfied that they're getting a fair shake. Obviously people were satisfied they're getting a fair shake. Obviously, people were satisfied they were getting a fair shake with respect to the drusty property and it's used. This is town property. This is property that people have used for 20 odd years. And I think there ought to be some input from them as to what they expect, what is fair and what's reasonable in terms of regulation. So I would like us to come up with a plan, but I would also like us to have some community hearing about this. So people, you could express their views. Are we a bunch of winers in this community or are we people who care about dogs who want to try to do the right thing? Thank you, Fred. Anything else, Russ, do you want for us today? I'll just say I'm really not in favor of moving forward this, I think it's a distraction and something we don't necessarily need to be just thening too much staff time on. Is there anyone else that feels like Jason? Oh, no. So it's basically four, one. Thank you, though, Jason. Okay. Moving on. Look at licensing, the third. Thank you. Back to the top of mind list here. Next thing is a discussion on the first reading, ordinance number five, series 2012, entertainment district, common consumption area. Mr. Dresser's name is attached to this. Thank you, Your Honor. Just to be clear, it's what we would be doing by this ordinance is creating an entertainment district within the town. It then is up to the liquor licensees in the entertainment district to determine what they would like to have as common consumption areas, the hours they'll operate, etc. The only thing we're doing is picking it out a place that's no more than 100 acres within the town to be designated as an entertainment district. Then it's up to the licensees in that area to determine what they want to have as common consumption areas and what kind of hours, operations, security, all those kinds of things. So they would come to the liquor licensing authority with that plan. Or even if they want to do something, right? We're enabling this to have the door to open. That's right. Let somebody come forward and say, we think this is a great idea and we want to move forward. Well, they actually have to have what's called a promotional association. Right. Which is an association of the licensees within what they want to designate as a common consumption area and how they want it to operate, how they're going to secure it so they can operate safely and how they're going to comply with the state statute in addition to the rules and regulations that you find in the ordinance. So that's really all this does. There's no licensing involved. It's simply, they're going to say that we're going to make an auto-free zone where you can carry a cup of alcoholic beverage from one place to another, or consume it out in the public area. Thank you. Mr. Wilkinson and Fred? Yeah, a question for you. How many acres are inside the red bounded area as presented? It's very difficult to get an exact measurement. This is a proposal. Yeah. You'll see when we get down to the discussion items that how big do you want it to be? This is nowhere near 100 acres. This is probably in the neighborhood of 30 acres. Then I would question why not extend the boundary to include the snowmass center area. Well, it has to be an auto-free zone. It can take this area, right? Well, you can have roads in the entertainment district, but you have to have when you designate a common consumption area, it has to be auto-free. Got you. OK. So, well, just, I mean, from your point of view, maybe you believe the center could have block parties or whatever, but I don't think you can cut off the post office and the village market, the pizza delivery, the gas station, the bank, from auto access to have patrons consuming alcohol on those robots. Now physically yes absolutely it can be done. on those roads. Now physically yes absolutely it can be done. But wouldn't that be controlled in the actual operation of the common consumption? Yeah do you want to allow that in an area area that is a commercial hub that is predominantly auto. Well, my thinking behind this is that when the original base village approval went through, there was going to be a connection of a gondola from base village over to the center and there's a proposed hotel, a mandarin or an intel, whatever behind the center. And it may not be happening anytime soon, but why not? Entertainment districts can be changed by you at any time. Okay, so we're not stuck. Okay, well that was under 100 acres. Right, you're okay. Okay, well that was that was only trying to think if in the future. It's Fred. As I understand it, this really is just an enabling legislation. The details as to how it will be operated, how it will be controlled, who will govern it. That's all to come later. We're just, all we're doing is allowing the merchants of the town to have the opportunity to organize this entity for their for their mutual benefit. For the liquor licensees, right to organize it. Because each licensee has to have a director named to the Promotional Association. That's by state law. Okay, Fred. Anything else? Marky and then Jason and John. I have two questions. One of which is I assume this is banned to our liquor licensing board for discussion. They've heard of it. They've heard of it. They've heard of it. Do they have any advice or recommendations to us at all? I think they're in favor of an entertainment district. Okay. Second of which is I'm sure art has looked at this from a police control perspective and his senses, it's okay. He's supportive. Okay, he's supportive. Okay. Understand that the obligation for security falls on the promotional association. Okay, now let's ask, I want to ask one other question then. Can I do that, Jason? Yes. So if the security is up to the promotional association, then are there requirements around those who are doing security like they can, they don't have to sit, they can't sit, they have to be able to enforce. The statute doesn't go that far. I've always wondered about some of the security companies and the qualifications of their business. Well, the way this ordinance is is written you would delegate that authority to determine whether the security arrangements were satisfactory to the liquor licensing. Okay then I would be satisfied because I know how tough Ronda is. Well she doesn't have a vote in this. She's merely the I think I know the chair. Staff liaison. Yeah, that would be the chair. Okay. Yes. Okay. Jason. I was just gonna ask the question about the insurance provisions. Mm-hmm. It requires that the promotional association carry a million dollars per incident in the name of the town as additional insurance. I'm just questioning whether that's enough. Insurance, I've been done. They're also required to call out, carry their own liquor license, insurance and their premises liability. So, each individual licensee in addition to the association carrying the 1 million per inch, you know, you could decide any amount that's is that a Standard number that is no Nope, it is not in the in ablame statute I don't know I just in terms of exposure to the town in this scenario You have a promotional association that is getting the license to do the common consumption area. Are they identifying the town somehow from claims that arise out of activities that go on there? Well, it's hard to tell because if the common consumption area is completely and entirely on private property, why would they have to do anything for the town? Now, if they want to include public property in the common consumption area, the town then becomes part of the promotional association and says, we're not going to let you use our land unless it's a $5 million policy. I guess I would defer to our council insurance expert, but to me $1 million seems low. It is not my, or I think that's a private individual's concern of that group. You know, if that's something that would come out of this discussion, and we look at the final details of this thing, but this just opens the door to allow that conversation to happen. For them to make the proposal, for some, for licensees to form a promotional association and come up with an operations plan that's acceptable to your liquor licensee authority. Russ, Mr. Mayor, I know we may have some public comment on this if you'd like to entertain. Certainly. Please step forward to the microphones. Date your name with the record. So my name is Vicki Weinstein, and I, with along with my husband, Vic Weinstein, who's here with me this afternoon, own a resident at the Capitol Peak Lodge, which is part of base village. And I notice that in the statute, you're all concerned with everybody except who actually owns the property that you are potentially including within the Center, Tamin District, namely the owners of the base village. The Master Association, which of course, as you know, is a very complicated mess up there, who owns what, but the Master Association owns like the village level, the plaza level, and that's a good portion of what you are proposing to include in the Center-Tainment District. So I'm speaking as myself, as a unit owner, I'm also on the board of directors at the Capital Peacallage and I have to say I oppose strongly this entertainment district as it's being proposed to you today and for two several reasons. We all agree that we want base village to be successful, both residential part and the commercial. We all want that. But already the situation that we currently have, the noise and the alcohol are big problems for us, especially for the residential units. The noise early in the morning, 6.3645 AM, all the way up to 2 AM, the noise is a big issue. I understand that's a different issue, we will address that at a different time. But the liquor is a big issue. I understand that's a different issue. We will address that at a different time. But the liquor is a big problem. There are so many people who get over intoxicated. They are drunk. They go into the garage. They drive home. I've been on the skittles on a Thursday evening going up to the concert with young adults from down valley, juggling away two cans of beer just from the time they get on the skittles to the time they get off before they enter that concert because they know they're not allowed to drink once inside Two cans of beer each of these kids and you know you can imagine what goes on up there. So drunkenness is already an issue. I think we're very concerned That both from a noise and a liability issue for us as owners of the units up there. We don't want anything else that's going to encourage or enable more drinking. If you insist that you want to pass this ordinance, I would strongly urge you to include provisions for the property owners, such as the Master Association, Capital Peaglodge Association, whoever owns the property that's going to be included within this district, that we be indemnified by these liquor licensee applicants so that if anybody gets hurt, they fall down in the plaza. They fall off the skittles, they fall down the stairs, whatever happens, these things do happen. We don't want to be held responsible. Guess who's going to be sued if somebody gets injured up there? Yeah, maybe the liquor licensing maybe, but we also as the property owners are going to get sued. And I don't think it's appropriate or fair that we have that additional exposure for something that we have absolutely no control about. In addition to the indemnification, like the town is being covered as an additional named insured, I would ask that the property owner,, like the town is being covered as an additional named insured I would ask that the property owner such as the master association or the various kind of any associations Also be named insured if you deem it necessary to go ahead with this ordinance and excellent points. Okay. Council, John? Yeah, I'd like to move ordinance number five series 2012. Second. Further discussion? John, just one comment, Jason, you did have a question. There was a dram shop long Colorado that limits liability to $150,000. And that can be penetrated if there's three conditions. Serving a visibly intoxicated person, a habitual drunkard, and the third one is underage. And I would hope that the concerns this lady just had that would be addressed in any application that would come forward as through this enabling legislation that her concerns would be addressed in that group that would have to put it together. We're just allowing them to have that as a possibility and I support it. Jason? I was just going to ask is and I'm sorry I didn't see it in the ordinance but is there any noticing requirement around the liquor licensing or decision around the public hearing there? There is a public hearing there. There were two points that Vicki brought out that I think are extremely important if we're going to go forward. Is there a possibility that their aid of homeowners association can be a member or can have input into this and are enabling the language A and B is can the property owners be indemnified for whatever insurance policy, this little group you think wants to do? You can, but they actually have greater authority by virtue of their own apprentices. So they could say no way, Jose. That's right. That's an association decision. Yes. So then I want to play this out because I'm a little short on the uptake here. So we have this enabling language and let's say you know four of the restaurants come together down in base village and they do a petition. They want to come before whatever this body is to get a liquor licensey board. They got it together. They can't do that without the approval of the property owner, which is consent. Okay, so they could deny consent. Therefore, it wouldn't happen. That's correct. Okay. Now if the restaurants up on the West Village Mall come together and they want to do something therefore people could not get on the Skittles and go down to the base village area correct since that's not part of your common consumption area. Is the area good for reduced No, the skittles is located within the entertainment district. So if you're trying to get a certification of a common consumption area, you could include that because it's within the entertainment district in your proposed common consumption area. So I could get on this. Let's say the base village people are not the liquor companies or liquor. They don't have permission from the Master Association. So could I still get on this Gittles go down and then exit out through the garage with alcohol or would I be in violation? And on the boundaries of the common consumption area, and understand that skittles is not owned by the association, it's owned by another entity. But once I hit base village, it depends on where they, where the promotional association decides to determine what the common consumption area is. Now, if in your hypothetical, you're saying that they have included skittles. But at the bottom of skittles, the base village master association says that the plaza is not included. I guess they could joyride around on the skittles, but they can't get off on the property where they don't have consent. So that would be a enforcement issue? Well, it would be a nice security. Security would be shut up. I would imagine the perimeter stating you can't go by on this point. It's like you can't. I currently today, we have the marty wrong mall. Special events. Special events, thank you. We have the same kind of thing to where it's recognized that day, but that there are security around preventing people from walking off as much as possible, you know. Hey. Lou? Sorry. Yeah. Hi, I'm Vick wine. Say, Vick, right. That's the smart one. I'm Vickie's I'm Vick wine. Vick, right. That's the smart one. I'm Vickie's husband. That's OK. I just have a question. Who originated this idea? State of Colorado. State of Colorado. State of Colorado. No, no, but for us here, who was it the restaurant owners that came to you and said, she would be great if we haven't obtained this this. I think what happened was the state of Colorado said, this is something that people have been coming to the state and saying, can we do something like this? We're having all these special events going on. And I think the state sort of said, let's float this by and allow communities to have the opportunity if someone chooses. Most of the state came to you and said, state said in general, we're going to allow that. The base fillage would be a good place to have this. No, no, no. Who said they didn't come to us and say base fillage would be a great place. Who locally initially? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Was it the restaurant owners? Was it the liquor licensees? Okay. So, were the restaurant owners the bar? Right. We've also been approached by property owners, low, for example, but others on the mall that are very intrigued with this idea. I know, I'm not political, I'm probably not politically correct. But do you really believe that you can keep people who are drinking in one area, getting on the skittles and you're going to police them and you're going to keep them from going anywhere else. Do you think that's realistic? I mean, this is even less realistic than the dogs. But I mean, and I understand the problems you have, but you know, I live there part of the time. And you know, we have our problems in the base village and we're looking to you to help us. I mean we've called Russ before regarding noise issues at 630 in the morning. We need your help. So you know please work with us and don't shove this down our throat because everybody and I maybe I'm representing somebody other owners that aren't here, we came here, it was very important to us to come and to communicate with you because we think this is a lousy idea. And I lived in New Orleans, and I know I heard somebody call this the Bourbon Street concept, and if that's what you want, that's destructive to snowman's village. I mean, this is supposed to be a classy place. And if this does not sound classy to me at all, and we're very worried about it. So that's the answer. Can I have one more quick thing? I just want you to know I'm not talking hypotheticals and I can't say too much because of potential litigation and all that. But the issue is real. With people getting hurt and suing us for no reason that we had anything to do with it. They just get drunk at one of the bars and they're on their way to the car, on the way to the bus, whatever. They get injured and we get sued. So we really, really either don't want this at all, or if you insist, again, please, in the ordinance, make it that the property owners get indemnified and get named as co-bend, you know, in short. Thank you. Jason? I'm just in disconnect there with the tree house, spilling out onto them all, or inviting kids and families into that area. I just see a disconnect there with the tree house, spilling out onto them all, or inviting kids and families into that area. This is definitely a mixed message in terms of creating this party district, if you will, entertainment district centered around the idea of alcohol consumption, focus on our family resort. And not only that, but right at the front door of our children's center. So I'm having a hard time with the idea of voting in favor of this at this point. As the way I look at it is just the opportunity to allow further discussion to happen, which would bring out all these points to say, you know, these are things that should be taken care of, details taken care of. You know, since I've been here, came here in the late 70s or late 80s, people have said, why, this would be neat if we could walk around. And I'd say, well, if something's not, as a bartender, I would like to control certain things and not like, you know, everybody running around. But the other side of the equation is that there are, I think, all the special events that we do have, you see people walking around, I think this just helps make that special event process work better. So that's why I am going to say one. I am too. And I think we do have to remember this is a resort community. It is our lifeblood. So things that we can do to make it more enjoyable for people to come here, for people to have a better time when they come here, I think is important. God knows we tax them enough. I think we ought to try to give them something for their money. I couldn't agree with you all more that there is certainly the potential for problems, the potential for law suits. But that's going to be true whether we enact the say or not. Because all this is doing is enabling a group of liquor licensees to come forward and put up a proposal. It's then our job to be sure that they are properly police, that we are properly protected, that you're properly protected. But to not have the ability to do this in a resort community, I think would be a mistake on our part. Russ? John, as I understand from the previous question, the town, if this became problematic in the future, was undesirable, this could be revoked. I assume through two ratings have been ordnance. Absolutely. Good. Okay. So, with that, there's been a motion in the second. Just a question. On Cougar. Process, why is it? And maybe John needs answer this I'm not sure but in terms of that process the what's it called? No the promotional association comes together with a proposal we want to create a common consumption area on the base village plaza in terms of reviewing that and maybe placing conditions on that or finally approving that, that all lies with the liquor licensing authority. Yes. That's correct. So we never see that, once we pass this, we'll never see an application for a common consumption area come before council. Is that correct? I wouldn't say that, generally I would, but there's a right of appeal and the appeal would come to you. So? Generally I would but there's a right of appeal and the appeal would come to you so they're standing for an appeal I didn't know anybody who testifies Okay, if something's approved there's not an appeal process for that or there is no anybody who comes and testifies that the public hearing has standing to Pursue an appeal comes to liquor licensing authorities correct to pursue an appeal. I'm still liquor licensing authorities. How are you hearing? Correct. Okay. Thank you. So all those in favor of the motion made by Mr. Wilkinson second by Mr. Cooker. Please signify the second eye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed. Aye. That's three, two. This is Butler, Mr. Hayber negative point out? Got it. Thank you, Mayor. Okay No back to the top of my page. Don't get away from here. I need a jasie report. As a report, thank you. Got a couple items in the agenda and in the report to run through. First and hopefully most simply, it sounds like September 25th does work for a budget retreat starting around the year. I have to leave early. I wrote you the email. I've got a three o'clock board meeting in Glenwood Springs. so we'll be done by two. Should be, I mean, over the last few years we've been done after lunch immediately after lunch. Okay. Skip lunch. We'll keep it working. Eight to two. Or we could go earlier, another half hour earlier. Started eight. We're on left. It started eight. We'll sort sir breakfast instead of lunch. Yeah. Sounds good. It started eight o'clock. Are you okay with a gram of faith? Sorry, okay. You used by my phone. I'm hearing someone. I know I'm saying no to eight o'clock. No, I didn't hear anybody saying no but I heard some frust frustrations like oh That would have been me Okay That okay, that sounds good rest. Okay great Next the ice rink and I do want to kind of just with what Tom said I want to go through a little bit of the chronology We have been talking with both Tom and Jack and we told them that we would look at injecting this into the budget this year and we in fact hunt and Andy and the gang at the rexenter created a budget and then on August 6th kind of a new piece of information came to us when Tom and Jack came and said they have the opportunity for a refrigeration system and then had the opportunity to meet with this benefactor or talk to him directly and that's been certainly part of the communication challenges. He indicated a couple working days before August 20th that he would simply like two things. One, grading and the town to take care of the electricity to deal with this refrigerated ice system and that the operation would continue as it has. So since then, we've been learning more about what we needed to do with grading. We've learned about the electrical system, which is significant. It's, we've gotten a spec sheet from Jack. It's a three-phase system. We actually have three-phase electricity, but it's nearly 800 amps, Mark Kiddles, and for me, that's about the same size as you would need for a big box, like a Lowe's or a grocery store. So it's a lot of electricity that a system like this consumes. To try and gain some clarity, the mayor and I met with this benefactor along with Tom and Jack and again Jason thank you for the phone call that I think also helped open the door for this meeting. And again, he reiterated, again, a very simple request. And he said, how about we just make this clean. It's a $25,000 up to a $25,000 contribution. Again, that would be operated by 32 below in the way he framed it. And then we talked about about what would that money, what could that money go for? Again, it was suggested that we grade the site, similar to what we did last year, same size of ice rink as last year. We also looked at a much more significant grading of the site that would allow it to be done once, that would accommodate kind of the full Olympic size ice heating ring that Jack spoke to. That's more of a project that would be in the 20 to $25,000 range. What's the range for the sale? About three to four. The electricity were still given this piece of information we got that we have three phase but the ampage is very significant. You know, that could eat up quite a bit of this $25,000. And the other you see in here that was important to them was plowing of snow, a portipati, a trash container. Probably can get the portipati donated. We can shift a trash container, take care of that. So again, really the big cost and it's a variable. What we heard and Bill, if you heard something different jump in, is he'd like to maintain the option that if he could rent a facility or buy it, that we would still again contribute that $25,000. And that that could also be used to bring electricity to the site needed for this refrigeration system. So again, it's a request of 25,000. The other thing that was occurring, particularly in the August 20th time frame, is we were taking a good hard look at the budget. And again, with RET you see in the memo that's, I think that's described on page 44. The RET budget has been upside down for the last several years. We've been using contingency and we've been in a cost cutting mode and we'll talk more about that in budget. But even with the cost cutting we've done, we're about $200,000, where expenditures are exceeding revenue. So we don't have a lot of money for this, we're actually in the whole. So if you chose to support this $25,000 request, again, it's the scenario that 32 below would be operating it. We would be contributing up to $25,000 for the purposes on page 43. And what we suggested is, again, you'll see in the budget, we have some flexibility for one-time expenditures within the general fund. And if we don't see a transaction across the street with base village that the general fund pay for that as a one time and then if we did see that transaction that Rhett would reimburse the general fund for this cost. So Council's comments hearing that Fred. Okay. What happens next year? Yep. In other words, I guess my question is, is there offer to us that we make this one time $25,000 contribution? And from that, and that money gets allocated as you see here. And from that moment forward, we're out. And everything, the payment for electricity, the operation of the ice ring, the, whatever ongoing operations, daily ongoing operations that has whatever capital expenses it has, it is their responsibility. We are simply making a $25,000 contribution. Is that your understanding? That's my understanding, Bill, did you hear the same thing? From the benefit. That's never the, there's always something coming on down the road Fred. I can't tell you that he did say this is your contribution, but I always have to believe that there is one of the other needs that this thing is going to provide. And I would think next year maybe we would provide the electricity for it. You know, Jason? You might have a better idea. I mean, that might be a fair statement. This is the one thing we're being asked for for this year. Right. But we have to have a bigger conversation about what we want to do with the ice ring. I mean, right. Exactly right. My opinion is an incredible amenity for the town. Should it be part of our recreation department offerings? I think that's a question we need to talk about. Well, I don't think you should draw any conclusion that we pay this 25,000 one time and then we're out of the ice ring business. I agree. I think that's a000 one time and then we're out of the ice drink business. I agree. I think that's a very fair question and then my question would be, who are the beneficiaries? If you are telling me that the beneficiaries are simply going to be the residents of this town, and people who come up from down valley, what is the town getting back and return for that? If you're telling me the beneficiaries are somehow going to be our guests and this represents an incredible amenity for our guests, how are they going to be accommodated? Do we have a capital? Do we have a budget where we can go out and build up by a whole bunch of ice skates that are available for Redfield. Do we have the capacity to run a rental operation? Would I say capacity? I mean both human capacity and fiscal capacity. I mean to say to get a little pregnant this year bothers me. And I think if you go to have a big discussion, we ought to have a big discussion about where this is going. As I heard this gentleman's comment, he went from a $500,000 gift or contribution out to a $225,000 one. Let me jump in a little bit, Fred. One of the things I did say, we did talk about, let's do a three-year window. Let's see, what's it going to take? And I remember that we did have, look, he'll do this. And it's possibly he'll lease one. It can be leased a lot better price than buying one. That may be an opportunity he's going to look into. But I was sort of directing where Fred's coming from is, look, let's just say one year. Let's try to just look at a three year window. And I didn't get any much resistance when we talked about 25,000 But I along with Jason believe that if we get into this there are going to be things that we're going to say gosh Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a nice Set of rental skates that you don't have to bring your own stuff here that we buy somebody's, you know instead of rental skates that you don't have to bring your own stuff here. That we buy somebody's, you know, the grand junction ice skating rink who's for sale now this week instead of trying to raise the money. Maybe they've got some skates that they'd be willing to sell. Or other folks, I mean there are going to be certain things that are going on. And I think it's a great amenity that we've had these last three years. And I think it, you know, those are questions that will come around with time. I think we've got the decision and discussion about what is going to happen at the rodeo area. You know, what is the master plan? And can we work this into it? Well, again, you know, that's where, you know, you hear some passionate in the room. And the passion, this is a lot of work. And, you know, you hear some passionate in the room and the passionate. This is a lot of work Mm-hmm. And you know, so I think if Jack and Tom were here, you know, they would say we would love somebody else to Pick up the operation of this Not just from an insurance standpoint, but again, they Our mouse kind of dropped when they talked about the time commitment. It was three to five hours a day so You know, I think this is a lot to ask of volunteers. And we certainly can put together a budget and we've done that, but then you've got to see the full budget presentation because you're gonna make some trade-offs. Right, right. And we've signed down. Well, then. If we have a rec center currently, does running what kind of deficit? It's $250,000. Running $250,000 deficit. And now we're talking about adding on this incredible amenity that I mean, just thinking off the top of my head, I don't see, this is going to be for free, right? People are not going to be charged for ice skate. Well, right now we haven't gone there. But you know, that is something we talked about at the previous council meeting. Maybe we have to, you know, start charging. You know, if we have people down there and it is going to be used and it gets to be Olympic sized, maybe there are, you know, groups that would come in. I mean, there's a whole bunch of stuff. Mark, can you, let's go, Marky and then to Russ. Well, you know, we're in the 11th hour. I really think we need to put this in the context of where are we going and how are we going to get there. I'm okay with the $25,000 to get a program in there for this winter. But it'll be the last time I'll support a $25,000 request without having a broader plan for that whole area in the nice rank. That's fair, I think. Now, then the other question that I have gets into the LLC. Who is below 32? How is that owned? And we have a lease with the Snowmass Western Heritage Association. Not for the one we had. Got, huh? Well, keep going, I'm not. Well, I'm not aware that we have a lease with below 32. We do. You better get up to the market. Yeah, so this started off first, and this has been a point of significant contention within, and I don't think I'm overstating it. Rhonda, and if I am, jump in. But this has been a source of contention with the rodeo board. So I think the first year we did have a, did we actually have a lease with snow mass western heritage? It was a separate lease of snow mass western heritage for the winter time. It was currently snow mass western heritage as a five year lease from June 15th to September 15th on Wednesday night for the summer time. And that ends I think in 2014. Separate from that, when the issue first came up a couple of winners ago, we had a lease with SWHA, Tom Yokem at the time was in charge of both of those for the first winner and then last winner. It might even been the winner before too, but we have a lease with below 32 LLC for the winter time operation that you've seen the last two years. Have we seen that a council? Do we approve that or is that within the purview of the town to approve? No that was something I think you recall in request there was no money really being asked of the town. Okay. So you're aware of it. And so last year it was below 32. I don't believe there's any interrelationship at this point between that LLC, which is essentially Tom Yokeman, as I understand it, probably some other people in Western Horde Heritage. But the real fundamental question is, is this something, I think, if we go back to 2007 2008 when we were $6 million in ret revenue We probably would be proposing this as a town amenity right? Right now if you bring this in you're making some tradeoffs so We're making tradeoffs, but we don't have the information to know what we're trading off right you really need the budget presentation You know there's not a trade-off with the 25,000. The 25,000 dollars the way this is framed, there isn't a trade-off. You're not giving up something, but it's in the context of a one-time cost that we can absorb in this budget, we believe. But if you began as you're suggesting, which is a good discussion to have, is we want to plan for this. We want a long-term plan, so that means putting it into a three, five-year budget. And the rent budget will continue to be a budget in the near term over the next five years that's upside down. Well, ma'am. But in the time for our budget discussion, are we going to understand? I mean, I frankly agree with Frag in some degree that if we're going to be investing in this, it should be an amenity for the community that serves not only residents, but our guests as well. And it really doesn't do that because people aren't traveling with their rentals. You don't have skate rental. Most likely, we don't have a skate rental. So for our budget conversation, well, we have an understanding if this is absorbed into a town operation, and we want to run this that has full, you know, really achieves what we're trying to achieve with this, what that costs over the long term. I think of what you're asking. If your direction tonight would be, we would like to see on an ongoing basis what this would cost. We did have a constructive discussion with our insurance entity on Friday. Yeah, Thursday. Yeah, Thursday. It was same day actually, it was Thursday. And we spoke directly to the individual that ensures and deals with other ice skating rings. So he had some good news for us, some flexibility, but also a buck, which was in an outdoor facility like this without any sort of protection, the burden and responsibility of maintenance is going to be tougher. And that corresponds with what we hear from Jack and Tom. They just got to have to spend quite a bit of time on this maintaining it. So if your direction today is we would like to see what an ongoing budget would be. The electrical component is a major variable in terms of what that monthly cost would be. Very confident we could give you a budget without the electrical component and we could give you a good sense of what that additional incremental cost is. I mean that's an optional component. It is. I mean we could put up a shade structure and it may be more cost effective to do a shade structure versus again I was blown away when Mark Kittle really articulated this electrical transformer again would be in the same magnitude of a big box shop or store. Mr. Welcome, Senator. I look for a go first. Well, show me. Well, no, and the other thing is step back and think here for a minute. These guys have come to us. At first they said it was going to be 500, they're going to contribute 500,000. Now there's going to be $225,000. And is that the end of their commitment? Is that the end of their commitment? Is that the end of their obligation? We're talking, so suddenly this now becomes a, you know, the rec center south. This now becomes a town, the town's obligation to operate, to run, to maintain. I mean, for these guys to come into us and say, I'll give you $225,000, goodbye. I'm not in favor of that at all. If you know, I thought these guys were either going to run at themselves or be some sort of financial and partner with us. If in fact this is something we want to undertake. But for us to sit here and discuss this like this is going to be our party alone after they write us out of check for $25,000 dollars No, that's not well, but that's not what I heard from them We're talking about two different things that you're talking about one year proposal for 2012 13 And then we're talking out into the future. What is this like for 2012 13 They're maintaining it right they're setting it up. They're operating right. Are they ensuring it? Yes, they're ensuring it. I mean, the 225,000 is just for this year. I understand it, but you're asking them for a budget. You're asking them to look out three to five years in a budget of what it would cost to operate this thing. Well, if you're asking them to look out three to five years for us, I want below 32 to look out three to five years of what are they going to do for us. I mean because of all they're doing is giving us the seed money and saying, Godspeed, it's now your party. I'm not in favor of any of this. I want them to be our partner because we wouldn't do this without them. But for them we wouldn't give the $25,000. Because there wouldn't be any skating rink. So all they're doing for us to say, we're going to give you to it. If all they're saying to us is we're giving you $25,000 this year, you pitch in $25,000, we'll run it this year and from here on out is your party. I don't. I think what's happening is that they are telling us they're going to do the same thing as last year. Period. They're saying also that they're looking into possibly getting some affordable ice system. And what they're looking for the town to do is to say, hey, would you be willing to commit up to $25,000, you know, to do this this year? And some of that money is actually going to be used to help build in the electrical connection possibly in a few other things. But it's not, you know, and that's the town's commitment. If we, you know, we don't know today that they're going to be able to get an ice system in the next 10 weeks whether they buy it or at least one. There are some talks that are looking at trying to lease it. But right now I think the thing we're looking at is can we move forward doing the same thing we've done the last couple of years at $25,000 top end number, capital that number, you know, and I think that's something the town can look forward to and bank on and You know these all these other questions are all appropriate questions, but I hate those will come at another time Yeah, the next question is would be direction to staff is if you would like us To clearly articulate what an ongoing budget would look like with now the information we have where it's It's rolled into the direct center and now we we're going to look at, you know, what do we charge daily fee? Do we get some ice skates, new ice skates, you know, a sharpening system? Do we put people out there? I mean, there's a whole bunch of other stuff that would come along, which I don't think would be a bad thing, but, you know, sort of like John and my idea of who years ago about getting a wave pool. It's always neat things to have and people would come down and use it. But you know, the stats got a deal too. But we have three votes for the wave pool now. I just want to mention actually back in the heyday of the red fund, we actually did put together where the process of putting together a budget to run on ice rick because we think it's a great amenity and it would have included skate rental. It's just at the same time I was being asked to see if I can reduce the subsidy and that's going to be adding to the subsidy and when the well ran dry, as Russ has pointed out, we stopped. We love the amenity and if things rebounded, we consider it right now, we haven't been working on it. Russ, so again, two questions, maybe with this, We've been down and we consider but right now we haven't been working on it. So again, two questions maybe with just John still. Do you support the 25K the way it's articulated and then I guess the second question would be would you like to direct us to make sure you have the information to look at that in your budget. Yes and yes. Okay so John Wilkinson before we say those answer those questions, what do you have? Well, listening to all these discussions, this is not a fully big program we got going in front of us. There are just way too many unknowns, too many issues that have not been fully vetted. I don't believe this rank is in the right place to benefit our resort community. It's going to benefit a few that like to skate and play hockey and I can appreciate that. In good times, yes, we could have done that, but as a fiscal voice of reason, I can't support this, I really can't. I think the 25,000, yeah, we could afford it this year, but what do we do again next year? And we're giving up something. I mean, if we came in, if the trails committee came in and said, hey, we need 25 grand for a new downhill bike trip, we would have to go through a full process. I don't think this has been through a full process of what it is, what the extent is, what the cost is to our community. And it's our responsibility to protect our fiscal budgets for the town. Yeah, we could throw it out there, but I'm very fearful of what it is going to mean and impact to our budget at certain points and we're already subsidizing the rexinter, which is hard to run as it is. A question, Jason. So looking at the details of the proposal that's in front of us, one component, well, I guess the question would be, in terms of the 25,000, how was that envisioned? Is that actual cash, contribution, or are these services in kind to be accounted towards that 25,000? Kind of the way, again, I just wanted to make sure another set of years were in the room. For example, if the electrical service was only 5,000. And we could get the port of Hottie donated and we could move the trash can from one point to another. Yeah, it could be less than 25,000. So it's up to 25,000. I mean, if we take out this. Transformer element of the electrical and the temporary refrigeration system and we want for this year what we've had the past three years We're talking about three thousand dollars of grading We're talking about a portapoddy and whatever the service of that over 70 so what you're to drive a little skid. We are going to drive any of that. This is a number we got from Jeff. We got skid steer. Under the ice to take this note. 7500 for plowing. That's what we say. We say three to five hours a day. It's going to take a snow. You got to get on it. You got to clear all the ice off. Let's know. You got to have a machine on there to do that. So that's where we came up with the 7500. OK. Or he takes some shovels out there. Who you? Well, that's what Jack and Tom had done. I guess that was incredibly labor-intensive. Yes, that's what they did five hours. That's what we did one yesterday. So grading for three to five thousand, three to four thousand, plowing for seven to five hundred. A port of potty, you think you can get donated and service. At an offer of three hundred bucks a month. Yeah, that's on the top ten. So that's four months, three to four months, that's 400. And a trash container and we're gonna service that like we do other public trash containers. And what happens is it'll just be a part of the recreation departments that they get from solemn waste. And we leave out the power system. I mean, we're basically at a $10,000, $11,000 number as opposed to $25. I mean, with the discussion, I threw the power in there, just in case you could get it. What would it take to put power in so we can just plug in and we're often running if you could find it? I mean, he'll know that number within 15 days, I guess, if that can happen, I guess. He was telling us. Well, to me, that seems like a bargain for a public ice rank. I mean, I think if you ask the city of Aspen, I wonder what they cost the incurred and maintain their outdoor ice ranks. But to me, that seems like a pretty reasonable investment for to maintain this for one more season. And in the meantime, let's come up with a really substantial plan about how we deal with this coming forward. I mean, if you need to review that in the context of your broader budget. Right. If there's a hard burn over the $25,000 number, I mean, maybe we go to a $15,000 number on the idea that we're not getting into the. Yeah, but as he said, in the next 10, 15 days, he would know whether that could happen. And at that point, we would know whether we're spending money on electricity. I guess the other question I would have is, what would we be giving up? What would we be trading off? Well, this thing is not because we're counting also on the base village sale happening and getting something to the right fund. Get the fund. Read the person's right. Nice job. And then the general operating budget or in the fund we have about 8 million now. Right. I mean, and our purpose is to find. And our purpose is to find. And our purpose is to find. And our purpose is to find. And our purpose is to find. And our purpose is to find. And our purpose is to find. And our We may agree, disagree, say we're being too conservative. We're going to give you an assumption of about a 3% growth in sales tax, which pleased it's not zero or a negative number. But that's enough to accommodate utilities and fuel and medical insurance. But then there'll be a pot that we think conservatively 1.5 or so million that we're looking at for one time cost. Some of those are maintenance classes that have deferred over the last couple of years. This would be part of that. So we're talking. So Rhett can reimbursate. Okay, so we know we have adequate cash within the general operating budget for what I call kind of a temporary loan. Right. To improve. I'm fine with endorsing up to 25,000. It may be 14,000, it may be 15. I think we're starting to split here as a who's going to get what for what? And let's get a plan together and move forward. Okay. Fred? No, as I understand it, what you're looking for is for, I'm willing the Creekville Rise and Base Village does close to get re-aversed from that red payment for that service. So at the max, what we're committing today is up to $25,000 that the general fund will get re-aversed from red. And we are making no commitments beyond that maximum, up to $25,000. That's correct. OK. And we're also requesting a longer term plan. Plan. Going. It would be considered, I'd propose, on the 25th. Right. Good. OK. That's on the table. Is there a motion that we can sort of? Some move. OK. So motion by Markie market at 25,000 dollars for this ice skating program second by Fred all those in favor. Hi. Hi. Those opposed. Hi. That's 4 to 1 Mr. Wilkinson. Negative. Great. And again I infer in this discussion you would like to at least have this broader budgetary discussion. Right. Right., the only way I want to have a broader budgetary discussion is if they come forward to us. I don't want us to make a commitment to undertake to run an ice skating rink starting next year. If this is their idea, this is their plan. If they want an ice skating rink and they want some sort of ongoing major Operation continuing operation there. I'd like them to come forward to us and see this is what we would be willing to do Before we start spilling spinning our wheels because before running a 225,000-dollar deficit at the rec center right now This this is only going to exacerbate it Well, I know certain amounts of, I think the community should be investing in the Red Center, and I think this could be one of those things. It's gonna be a balancing act no matter what. We'll have those things. We need a game plan, that's what we need. What's the pleasure of council on that? I wanna see the game plan. I don't think they will propose. No, they will not. For them to spend that kind of that right now. It's really going to be determined when you approve a budget. Absolutely. Regardless, that's going to be two readings in October. Okay. The A. Let's go on, Russ. Let me run through a couple other things. We are hosting the Colorado American Planning Association on October 3 through 5 and this is a conference where we're showcasing the community and this involves some mobile workshops because you have staff involved in it. This would involve we'd like to use some town buses for these mobile workshops and this has a value of up to 600 bucks. We've done this before but I think it's worth the work. I can do it. Just to see if you're comfortable with it. Is that okay with council? It doesn't. It's something that can be absorbed but we want to acknowledge it. This is the same that we're doing for the rotary. Why? No, this is different. For and that's a good question. For other events, we do charge for bus service for this since town is participating. This we brought this conference here. This would be in this request simply. He's okay. He's just cheering his water. Okay. Okay. John Wilkison? No, I think this is a thing that we need to support. I'm volunteering for part of the day on Friday to be one of the tour leaders on one of their field trips up to the Skyline Parks. Very good. Yeah. I'm looking forward to showing off our little joint project. And then the core pace letter? Well, transit items. Before then, you got two transit items. David just wanted to acknowledge that he is participating on the Intermountain Transportation Planning Commission. Sometimes you have commissioners and elected leaders to participate. But again, this is a group of people that will look at state funding, particularly for the Western slope for transit dollars. He just wanted to ask before kind of jumping into another round of this. Doesn't elect it. The official want to do this. He's happy to continue to do it. Yeah, he has my vote. Yeah. Other communities in the region typically have their... It's a mix. I think my vote. Yeah. Other communities in the region typically have their... It's a mix. Pick and County will send, I think George participates in that Eagle County will send a commissioner. Other communities will send staff. So it's about 50-50. I mean, I like... It seems like he's been pretty effective in that. Oh, he has been. Oh, he's guy. He gets a lot of grant dollars. Yeah. OK. And then we have a request from Core. And again, you may recall the PACE program property assessed clean energy program. Again, it was something that was approved within Pitican County basically as a way to finance energy improvements, energy efficiency, renewable energy for homes and then would be assessed back through property tax for the payment across the country. This was being looked at, but Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, through the FHHFA kind of mucked up the works and now it looks like FHFA is proposing some other regulations that would make this more difficult. So we are being asked to provide a letter opposing these new regulations, proposed regulations from FHHA and I don't know. Jason, if you can, more information. And endorsing an alternative to that, which supports basically some different rules that acknowledge the benefits of this and at the same time mean to protect the interests, I guess, or point out that the interests of the entities represented by FHFA are still working. So, if you like, I mean this would be a quest for the mayor to sign a letter. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I thought it was well written. Okay. Is it, Ross, there was another thing about the parking plan? Yeah, we skipped over there. Oh, thank you very much. The parking plan, this is really a question. Hasn't really changed from last year. You can say great. It's done or we could schedule a firm meeting. Great done. No. Great done for me. Marky. I'm done. Done. Well, the question I have is in Dave's memo to us on the first paragraph talking about they're changing the first two hours will remain free. Base village. Yeah, but the first hour, we don't have any control over it. We don't really have any, I asked them then, is that something we really have any control over and we don't? Because we ran into that. We were over at the high school state ski championships last year in Avon and we went up to dinner up to Beaver Creek. And it's free for the first two hours and we decided to go for ice cream afterwards. So we got kind of penalized minutes. Yeah, we are five minutes late and we got penalized. That's not paying attention. Yeah, well, but you think you'd want to keep people there. You know, it should be charged for if you leave within the first two hours, it'd be tened out. You know, it's just like a cloth ear port one time doing that. But anyway, it's not uncommon. Yeah, well other than that John. Yeah, you okay? Well Okay, thank you for thank you Thank you, that's David. Thanks. Yeah, David really Okay, so now we've got next meeting agenda Any this is on September 24th Is everybody gonna be here? Probably would break this into two items. There's kind of a group of a lot of capital projects We've talked about that we want to give you updates on some progress on roundabout thinking And also want to give you some updates on some transportation related items. That's not going to meet the full capital plan project plan discussion. Right. No, no. This is just an update in specific areas where we have updates for you. We need an hour for the Western's sign plan. Yep. I don't give to see it till Wednesday. Okay. I'm seeing that the planning commission meeting so I really can't give you an estimate. Okay. I think it's pretty straightforward from what I've read out of the packet. Now there are certain standards that Western wants so they're mending the plan that was in place for the silver tree. Okay. So we'll start off at 60 minutes and if you find you can change that reduce it whatever. I find we're never disappointed if we get through it faster. Right. Okay. Anything else about the agenda? No. Moving on. We have minutes. We're May 21st 2012. We have to approve them for each. Well, because of some people being present, some not, yes. Yes. Sorry. So is there a motion to approve the minutes from May 21, 2012? So moved. Welcome, sir. Second by... Second. This is your... Hey, Burr. Okay. Um, I... Go ahead, John. Just tell them. No, I just got a couple of changes. just pass them over to Rhonda. All those in favor? Aye. And then Mark and I abstain because we weren't there that meeting. Fred's not here so only. Fred, Fred, did you have a chance to review the meeting minutes from May 21st? Yes. And do you approve them? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Moving on. June 18th. June 18th. So move their motion. It's the second motion by Mr. Wilkinson. Second. Second by Marky. Discussion. Operations. Old and favor. Aye. Any opposed? And then um... Good night. Good night, tonight. Good night, thank you. Is there a motion? So moved. Mr. Robinson? Second. Second by Mr. Haver? Um, he wasn't here. Oh, I wasn't there. No, he wasn't there. I'll second it. Thank you. Um, discussions, alterations? All those in favor? Aye. Marky and Jason would stay in. And it's grown right here. I don't know how you're like on the third. So moved. Second. Second by Marky. Motion by Wilkinson. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Everybody there, that one? Yep. Thank you. And then six. Motion for approval. Marky second by myself. All in favor? Aye. And you posed. Passions. And that is it. Thank you so much. Would you get calendars, any comments? Mr. Wilkinson? Just got a question. Let's see, the pick and alert is still up. Outcreek road is closed in entire length from Highline road to West Butternode for an incident that is currently going on. Still? Could you tell me what's going on? No, Yeah Well actually in that meeting's over maybe the daily no news does have in it. Sorry They do have there's an incident going on so it is public what's happening Let's let's direct them to the Lincoln leave it Yeah, and so you can read it in the paper Let's direct them to the link and leave it at the end. Yeah, and so you can read it in the paper. Okay, check the newspapers. Both papers have some story on that. Just a question now. Did we approve 70s a week work on the Weston? I think we did. Yeah, I thought we did. The work plan? Yeah. Okay. Well, I mean, there's still limits on noise generation. Right. Any project actually can work seven days. It's the noise generation on Sunday and then I think after seven. Okay. See we got raft of comments, committee reports. So Mr. Cooker. How's it? Mr. Wilkinson. Got raft on Thursday. Yeah. Why don't we go into that one? Let's see, Wednesday is Nordic Council and I can't go because I have a library board meeting that day. Yes, it Wednesday at noon. Where? The sister's city room at S. Bin City Hall. If you can. I'll do that one. I think. Yeah, look at that. John, just for future, is that one where this is a seat of the town on that or is this specifically you as an individual? It was. It wasn't seat of the town. Yeah. Okay. It was, but I don't think it is anymore because it's a county-funded thing now. Yeah. So what used to be the town city of Aspen and Pickham County funded it? The bylaws though do state that there should be elected representatives from the various entities. Communities? Yeah. Okay. I have no other committee reports. Markey? Just a request of my fellow council members to get your evaluation in on our two employees. Oh yeah, I never count. It was sent out ages ago. Did you send it to you? I sent it to all of you. Town? Town email? No, I sent it on your, well, it came out. Yeah, it went to your town address. It came out last Monday. Yeah, I didn't. Well, you got yours. you're well came out yeah it was went to your town address came out last Monday yeah I didn't that's what you got yours did you saw I saw the email go out yes I do not have it okay we'll make sure you have the forms and the dates I'll be happy to do it thank you okay Jason I was at a Riverdale Water Empower Authority Yeah, Tuesday. Okay. Jason? I was at a Rudy Watton Power Authority meeting a week or two ago. And we had a presentation. Now I can't remember who this gentleman represented, but it was deep into debt repayment on Rudy Reservoir and the dam there and there was some horribly convoluted thing that was going to make paying for that next to impossible and now they've somehow figured out a way to make that happen in a happy way. So I don't honestly understand all I don't honestly understand all of it. Great degree of achievement. But they were smiles all around. And the other thing that I thought was interesting that came out of it was we got a presentation not too long ago on the state of the watershed or the watershed plan. And it was a list of like 200 different implementation items that spread to the health of the watershed. And now, Rwappa staff is going to start with the town of the salt, but trying to do a more tailored implementation plan by jurisdiction. And so they'll develop a list of 10 or 20 things that really speak to things that can be done within the town of the salt. And they'll go present that to the town council there and that the idea there being that'll be kind of a template going forward that then they can come back to the town of Snowmass or to the Snowmass Water and Sand District and talk about you know 10 or 15 things out of that big report that really makes sense here for snowmass so hopefully we'll see something coming out of that in the not too distant future. And finally, water has become more and more part of my daily life through work with core. We've got more into pursuing the part of our mission that talks to water efficiency and promoting water efficiency around the valley. And we are bringing together representatives from water suppliers up and down the valley. Later this week, in fact, to talk with the Colorado Water Conservation Board about developing a regional water conservation plan, which for one thing will help preserve water in the ecosystem in general, but also will open up opportunities around grant monies that are available through the CWCB, both for developing a regional conservation plan and then implementing ideas that come out of that. So that's my report. Very good. Looking at calendars, I'm thinking that I'm going to have to be rat in California on the 22nd of October Trying to change that but it doesn't appear that it's going to be changeable other people are at town Here Second October that's a second reading of the budget I'm here. What day? The 22nd? October. That about October? That's the second reading of the budget. Oh, the second reading of the 2012 Revise. So I'll have a budget. Again, that may not, I don't know, there's not anything terribly major in that. Okay. Yeah. Everybody else is around town for these meetings? Yeah. I'm sorry. Why are we meeting on the first of October and the. We're not meeting on the eighth and the twenty-seven. The first Monday is the. Well, the first Monday is the first. It is. Right. Why are we not meeting on the first? Because the meeting we're having the week before is on the twenty-fourth because of this. They were staggered. They're exactly. I think it's like a late wise to be having a meeting on 24th and the very next Monday the first. Oh, I see. So they would Monday last year, we, you know, this calendar, we were able to keep two weeks between each meeting without having to meet on Labor Day. Right. We're assuming kind of like not meeting Labor Day. Right. We like it. I guess he's really asking for feedback about the Tuesday after Labor Day. Now that we've done it, is that something that I'm not? Would you have preferred to do that? No, I kind of like how you've set up the calendar. I think I would prefer to do that, but you know. I'm fine. Just as long as I hit it, it gets with the head. So we'll have a full discussion when we bring the resolution for meeting the next year. It's a very good question. Which will be the second meeting in November after we've appointed a new council members. Very good right. You're welcome. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Thank you.