So, running, do it. A couple of minutes late. Ready to fight there? I'd like to call to order the Thomas Village Town Council for January 9th, 2012. First item we have is roll call, please. Rhonda Mayor Boynell here welcome son here butler Hey, we're here here Thank you I am too is for public non agenda items We're not there for the public Nope really long. Item three, council updates. Thank you. Just the Ice Age discovery nonprofit is going to be going down to Denver this Friday to make that the museum of nature and science. So I'll be heading down for that meeting. You're good. That is all. Very good. I don't have any updates, Mr. Walkins. Well, due to the recent snowfall we got over the weekend, which has really improved the conditions here, the Nordic trails are finally getting groomed out, and hopefully we'll get those up and running this weekend. Very good. Mr. Cooker. Happy New Year. Very good. That was so last week. I don't know before. Where do we get you? This is Resolution Number One, series 2012 designation of a public notice board. Consideration of Resolution Designating Location of the official public notice boards for the town of Somersville Ich we have Ron does name on this Yes, or Mary Mary according to Our municipal code section 246 401 of the CRS also declares that that we need to publicly dismay our public business and Last year we did change the public notice boards. We had an official notice board in the center and now our official notice board is here in town hall and we still published everything at the center also. Post everything at the center also just so the public is made aware it doesn't have to come to the town hall. So this is just a standard resolution that needs to be approved at the first meeting each year. Thank you Ronda. You're welcome. So moved. Motion by Mr. Wilkinson. Second. Second by Mr. Cooker. Discussion? Looks good. All those in favor? Resolution number one, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? The ad moves on. Thank you. Next item we have is resolution number five. I'm not assuming item five, resolution number two. Series 2012, appointing municipal judge, a resolution appointing H. Lawson Wills as municipal judge and studying the term of office in compensation. Ronda. Yes, sir. Again, this is a resolution that needs to be done every year and the judges here, we have to re-appoint each year. The judges here to ask any questions of and then we can go on to the resolution. Very good. Thanks. Judge? Well, I appreciate it being here. Great. Well, how has your year been and I guess as you report a little bit of that? Yeah, it's been a good year. I think this is the third year I've done this. I really feel like we're starting to hear a stride a little bit about trying to find our own personalities and where we're going to go with things. Really proud of the way we treat people. The way we handle people. Obviously we're looking at a lot more remedial type actions rather than sanctions in this type of accord. And we've gotten good response from people. And I'm just, I like doing that. I like working this particular side of it and it's been fun. Very nice. How was our legal help? You know, with you. He's in pretty good shape. Yeah, I really, he's in pretty good shape. Yeah, I really, he's always prepared, noise ready, and that's three quarters of the battle probably. Are there any things that we need to adjust, change, think about, you know, this next year or, you know? Well, we talked about just modifying the traffic fines that would be perpendicular to the assessment. So if an officer pulled somebody over on the road, there is in the code now, there is a set number on what that would be. And the person then has the option of sending the money in or coming to court. That number does need to be changed. Those numbers for each individual traffic find need to be adjusted every once in a while. And what we were trying to do, or we talked about doing, is putting together some sort of resolution that would leave that adjustment to me at the end of, or probably at the start of each year. Do it as an administrative order. Obviously, we're not gonna make money in the municipal court. This isn't gonna be a situation where I'm ever gonna break even for you guys. But, you know, some of the offenses probably need to have an adjustment as far as dollar-wise up or down, and some of the other ones, you know, more down than I'm. John, dresser? You're on it. And you're on it. That threw me for a loop. Both your honors. The police chief approached me with this and they do a periodic almost annual survey of the jurisdictions up to the state and the county to find out what their fine schedules are. And rather than taking up the council time and doing two readings of an ordinance to amend our code each and every time we need to do this. The police chief asked me, can I do this administratively? So I went and did a little research. He just asked me last week and I went and did a little research and we actually have already passed the model traffic code. The model traffic code actually has in it provision 1701 that it is in the purview of the municipal judge subject to the municipal court rules of Colorado that he will adopt that schedule of fines rather than it being codified. And it would be my recommendation if it's okay with council that you simply repeal this schedule of fines in the code and because we've already passed 1701 as part of the model traffic code, then Judge Will's would adopt a schedule yearly, it would be posted. And then I should tell you, it comes up when they run out of preprinted tickets, because they don't want to print up new ones until they've adjusted. So it's usually about annually, it might be 18 months. But just as an example, if someone were to get caught for reckless driving below the roundabout, it would be $150 penalty assessment plus the surcharge and court cost to pay it automatically in the county. You think it caught above the roundabout? It's only $50 plus court costs here. So we want to be in conformance with the rest of the jurisdiction so that there's a reasonable expectation upon people that have violated that they're not getting a good deal somewhere and a bad deal another. And so Judge Wilson, I discuss that today and I believe that it is the way that it's provided for both in state law, the court rules and in the model traffic code. Why we haven't done it that way before I don't know. But if that's something that and I wanted to bring it up today, while Judge Will's was here, so that I could get your input. And if that's okay, I can draft an ordinance to repeal this section and Judge Wilson art don't really have to come back and spend a couple meetings here with you every year. So, one of the things that you have just mentioned the fines plus applicable court costs and fees. Is that sort of like when you watch TV, you know, this is free but you got to be shipping and handling another, you know? No, I want to love some top of that. Actually, what I should tell you is if you pay the fine without utilizing the services of the court, there are no court costs. Okay. But if you come into court and plead not guilty or even end up pleading guilty, that's when you utilize the service of the court, that's when the court costs go in. The judge sets the court costs, a portion of those go to the community, a portion of them go to the state. The state also charges a surcharge on any penalty assessment or fine that's in the schedule that we have to pay. So that goes directly to the state. Questions council may have. And I think our co-cars 35 or 50. Yeah, the court costs are 35. Okay. In regard to this proposal. No, I'm all favor. Okay. Okay. Any, is it okay? Jason? Okay. I'm pretty sure it sounds good. Let's take that direction and we'll bring you back on ordinance repealing this section and I imagine we would probably put together a schedule at our next court which is a week from Wednesday. And I do think being uniform with the other jurisdictions is fair for everybody. So that's probably where we start. Questions in general, John? Have you noticed any kind of change of direction of our crimes in the village? Is there any kind of trends that you're seeing that? We saw less construction types this year than we saw last year. Carn. That's the good news and the bad news, isn't it? Yep. You know, when that happened when they're around, there's usually a few more bar fights kind of thing, but we're still having some of those. But other than that, no, you know, it's pretty quiet and peaceful and we like it that way. In the youth, I mean, we both have boys, similar age. Have you noticed anything in that area? Well, and I wouldn't see anybody under 18. Okay. Unless it was for a traffic offense. They would go to the juvenile court down in Aspen. Okay. Some of the municipal courts do handle jubies. We have not, we don't do that. Feeling their setup a little bit better down there. I think Jason just volume question. Is that staying steady year over year? Yeah, pretty much. I you know, I saw it was 135 cases we dealt with this year. And I think that's pretty consistent. It really it's. You have to understand the part of our caseload goes to the standard. Okay. Really? It's... You have to understand, part of our caseload goes to the county. The state courts down in Bickking County in Aspen. We don't do any DUIs, the more serious crimes, I'll go down there. We really handle the municipal offenses. So, think of dogs running at large, minor alcohol offenses, and your motor vehicle operations. Those are really what we deal with. And we have talked about, there's a provision in the code and there's a possibility, and I probably shouldn't even talk to you about it, but there is expanded civil jurisdiction in our code, extended civil jurisdiction, and we may have opportunity to use that to keep some of the show cause type things for housing violations, zoning violations, construction violations, construction management violations, those kind of things. And I think we've had two over the three years you've been into the municipal court, but there's a possibility that we're going to utilize that extended civil jurisdiction a little more frequently with maybe some of the things that are in the pipeline. Not really at liberty to talk to a modern front of him because he may be the judge on him and I don't want to prejudice him other than say we may be utilizing that jurisdiction. One of the things I noticed in your attachment, and I don't want to prejudice them, other than say we may be utilizing that jurisdiction. One of the things I noticed in your attachment, A, it says, you know, bench warrant spending, minus three, is there a credit somewhere that we, how's, you know, there's three guys that are still out there, I suspect. I got to see what she means by that. Okay, they'll eventually get picked. Okay. Good. Well, Judge, thank you for your efforts and time. It's been, I really believe you've been a benefit to the community of some ice village. I really enjoy the job because I really do and I appreciate your support through the years. And it's a little bit that I can do and I really feel good about what we do here. And our police chief just has a stroll in here. I think he was dealing with something back room for a minute. Is there anything art that we need to be aware of with judge Will's here that you would like to let us know about? We're getting ready to most likely, I don't know what the rest of the council's gonna do, but I would imagine we're almost like going to reappoint and approve this resolution. But it might be something that might change it. Mr. Mayor, I would support his reappointment, certainly. I think that he has, his decisions have certainly been consistent with I think the community standards. And we would certainly support his reappointment. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion for resolution number two? So I'll go with Jason, second by Fred. Further discussion? John? Yeah, I do have a question on the Section 3 compensation. It talks about the annual payable, but the ski pass. Now, there's like 50 different kind of ski passes you can get. Is there any particular one that you'd prefer us to have in here? Or do you want to leave it open? Well, I usually get the full ski pass because my days are so broken up. Good. That is hard for me to just get away for weekends and this and that. Mr. Dresser, do you think they have to be appropriate to modify this to say that it's a full premier pass? I wouldn't. Okay. He's already got it. Yeah. Well, I know. Yeah, but he would have to get it again next fall. So I just, I don't want somebody come back to say, well, this is really for a one day a week pass if you're getting the premiere, right? Well, I don't, I don't think you have to worry about that. And the other side of it is is if you say a full premiere and he comes back and he says he only wants it one day a week. Are you then obligated to give him a full premiere? Okay. And it's good for Aspen, not Sunlight or Powderhorn. Right. Very good. Okay. All those in favor of resolution number two, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Thank you, Judge. Thank you very much. And again, I appreciate it. We appreciate your help and time. Thank you, Yarn. Okay, the next item we have is item resolution number three, series 2012. A resolution of pointy members, new terms for boys, boards and commissions. Ronda. Yes, sir. This year we had a total of 24 vacancies that were created by expiration of terms. And some of the positions were open from last year. I'm not sure if you want to go through this board by board, but I do have some information to give you on some of the people that aren't here to be interviewed and so on and so forth But if you want to do it as you go to each board, I can explain it as we go Okay No There's some reason oh right off the get let's start with boards of appeals Okay, are you witness? No, no Okay. Are you with us? No. No. No. No. I apparently I've just lost my tab that had my whole packet in front of me. Some reasons. Switching back and forth. You want mine while you're running? So one, yeah. So yes, for boards of a few of those gamers we have two vacancies in zero Application just pass Okay, Tom good to me right right so with this um the two people didn't reapply so I contacted them And I did get an application which is being passed out to you right now from Patrick Kilti right he's interested in reapplying and The other was Don upper and he chose not to reapply. Okay. So you do have one position open on that board, but as you could, I don't know if you checked your mailbox hasn't got out your attendance list from this year, but they didn't meet it all. Yeah, they had zero meetings this year. So I did see that. So, okay. So we have Patrick Kelty here. I would suggest we accept Patrick's application and have a vacancy of one then. How many are on that board, Rhonda? One, two, three, four, five. Five? Five. And then? Five and a liaison, Mark Kittle. Okay, so. And it is for a, I'm not sure of the term right now guys because I didn't put that in because we didn't have any application until we walked in, but I think they're staggering three year terms. All right. Thanks, too. So let's move on with set Patrick's. Well, let's let's insert Patrick's name into the resolution. Okay. And then when we get to the resolution you can decide each section will. So if you are in agreement the Patrick will be included in that resolution. He'll be appointed when you adopt the resolution. Yeah. Okay. Let's do that. Okay. Now the Snowmass Arts Advisory Board, we had 10 vacancies and eight applications and you'll see that we have a lot of incumbents and we have two new people. Is Ashley here? Okay. Great. So Ashley and Kelly are both here so you can interview them. All the rest of the incumbents. I do have a few. I see Carol. That's how it is here. And most of the incumbents you know very well because they've served wonderfully for us for many years. The only thing I want to say about the Stomach Art Advisory Board is that board goes up to a total of 15. It hasn't been full in a couple years, Carol. Two or three years, we haven't had 15 members in quite a while. But they do a really good job and they continue advertising if they feel the need. But just wanted to let you know it's not always at 15 members. Thank you. Ashley, why don't you come up to a microphone here because tell us a little bit about yourself other than what your application says. I did that application a while ago, so I'm not sure exactly what it says. But I've worked at Anderson Ranch Art Center for about a year now. I started in February of 2011 and I was interning for six months and then I was hired to staff. Basically I work really closely with the director and she, Barbara Blumink, was the one who asked me to be on this commission. So that's sort of my interest. I am actually also in the Carbonyl Public Arts Commission, so I'm very familiar and well versed on what commissions like this do even though the one in Carbonyl is very different. I have an art background. I studied art history at the University of Georgia, have worked in galleries, museums, that type of thing. So is there anything else that you'd like to know council? You have questions of Ashley You live in snowman's village. I did I'm a term. I did the application. I starting in January one. I do not okay. Okay, so I would point out this isn't advisory board Right. It's not a requirement. Well, that's why it was Disquestion because it had the I think your home physical address at because I was living in an instant through December so. Okay. Don't see the hands up. Actually I do appreciate where's University of Georgia? Is it Athens? Yes. Very good. I'm a North Carolina fellow and okay to school at South Carolina Not at all Georgia's a wonderful state Thank you very much for your time and I think that you will be right in there with Good good people and learn about some espelage and we appreciate all your efforts and desire to be on this commission. How often do they meet? Once a month. Yes, for sure. I'm going to be fine. Depending on business, I think if you look at your attendance report, they had maybe three months where they didn't have meetings last year. Okay. And very good. I don't think there's any pressing questions we have. OK. I do appreciate again that great tension. OK. Thank you. A lot of the other person we have is Kelly. She's here. Kelly? Kelly, why don't you come up and try to follow the same little deal there to us a little bit about yourself. And my name is Kelly Nielsen. And I work for Snowmass Hospitality as an HWA coordinator. I have lived up here in the village about two and a half years. My husband owns the village tavern, and we just had a little boy, so we have a four-month old. I went to Purdue, and I majored in communications, but I did have an arts and design background. Our turning over here is frowning a little bit when you said Purdue, I think. I noticed a little growl. Why? That went on to you. So to my dad, so I broke his heart when I went to Purdue, and then my sister did as well. But I did have a, I minored in art and designs, because I took a lot of art and design classes classes and I'm just interested in giving back to the community and helping with the vitality of it since I do live here and we own a business here in our community. It's important, very good. We appreciate your energies again. Questions, tell us what we may have of Kelly. Kelly, thanks again and we will be taxing all you folks for this board. Okay? And then we have killed batch older in the back and a few others but you know, the main thing I think the council wants to let you all know and understand is that we do appreciate the energies that go into these times commissions. I happen to serve it for a while many many many many years ago. So I have been very good. Now at one point and this is I guess a little personal thing was it this commission that we had somebody from South Carolina there was somebody in one of our boards that used to work in a location I used to I wanted to give a little grief, but I don't think that That was a little personal tease I wanted to play, but I don't think it will start putting that on the application Yeah, no, no, no, that'll be you know that could be trouble Is there anything else that we want to ask Carol or Carol's anything is a Member that you'd like to let us know that we should be doing differently other than funding you more Carol if you could come to the microphone because I think you know Nothing okay. Okay, then let you stay there to the back. Is there anyone else who like Sean any of those that have been on these boards? I want to. Sean's on FAB. That's right FAB. Thank you. I just saw it smiley face there. OK. One day, if you want to. No, sir. Do I recommend appointing all the incumbents also? Yes, please. OK. Let's move on to the next. Okay, this isn't great review board. We do three vacancies. We've had a couple people that are stepping down because they've had additional duties and responsibilities and they don't feel that they can do this, although it's one meeting a year. So Linda is the only person who has reapplied and Linda is with us and we're going to keep recruiting for that board. We have until December of next year to recruit some new board members because we only meet right after the annual budget is approved and then give out monies to the local nonprofits. So we can still keep advertising and try to get a couple more people. Very good. Linda, a question for you. What do you see as how do you guys judge and rate other than the applications? What's in when you guys talk about these things, what are some of your Found, you know, some of your goals and how you decide who gets what kind of money. How do you get you to the microphone in a second? That'd be great. We do have a list of criteria that we look at for every applicant. And chief among it is how it affects the village. Very good. And how many people in that organization use the services of the village. And so that's our primary number one. And then I think the group all have nonprofit experience working with other nonprofits in the valley. So they know some of these groups that apply. And we have very good discussions about the merits, which ones are funded by other organizations that might not need the money since it's been reduced over the years. And so we look at that. We look at, you know, we look at other sources of income. We look at the, and basically we try to evaluate them. And most of these groups have applied year after year, so we're pretty familiar with them. Very good. Questions that Council may have? Well, Linda, would you say something to the issue's going there? You mentioned your President of the Family Foundation. Uh-huh. The organization's working for social change. What kind of social change is that? We work on human rights issues and we work on getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It's very broad. We have a very broad agenda. And we do a lot of, we give a lot of money to food banks. I personally coordinate the lift up food bank in an aspen that feeds aspen in snowmass. So I'm pretty familiar with what's going on right now in that area. And it's probably the number one issue I would think that community is a face right now, hunger. Are there things that this community should be doing better or that people in general maybe not the government or how? You mean for the food bank? Sure. Well, I mean, Rhonda was great. We had the dinner, the, the Thanksgiving dinner that you guys all contributed to. I mean, having, having, what happens in the food? We've been open out two and a half years in the Aspen location. And we gave our food to over a thousand people in 2011, which is pretty amazing in this small community. Much, mostly from Aspen, but certainly there were people from Snowmass and Woody Creek, which we also work with. And I think what happens is we get a lot of support around the holidays between Thanksgiving and Christmas, restaurants to food drives, businesses to food drives, the schools, what happens is that then there's a low. So what would be great is if we could do something, let's say in March, April, other times of the year, where people just sort of don't think about giving back. So if the town wanted to do something that would be great, we tried to put a container in the village market. It didn't really, they really weren't that receptive to it. We do keep a continuous kind of drop off at a city market and ask them. And that's really successful. That's just been great. People just constantly put food in there. So if we could think of a place up on the mall, which would be great, that, you know, but it has to be a place that it's where where the containers indoors. So even if I can tell them all if we had a bin here maybe that we could sort of... And the people knew about it. Yeah I don't know how much traffic you get up here but you know most people pay the handle that mayor. Okay most people are paying traffic tickets you know traffic ticket or five cans maybe you know we could... It's a good idea. They just had our judge in here, so we're not. Right. I have seen a box down at the rec center. Is that something you want to know? Yeah, that was somebody. What happens is that various people in the community just decide they want to do a drive. And Liptop is pretty loose about anybody who wants to, you know, collect food. They're open for it. So that was just an individual who decided to do a drive at the Rec Center. It's over now, it was during the holidays. We've had somebody who did one with SkiCo. And so, you know, anyone in the community can do it. And we're always in need. I mean, food goes in and food goes out very quickly. And when we run out of food, if we don't get food in the community, we then go to lift up, who provides us with, you know, fills up our shelves, but that costs money So it's much better if we can get it from individuals who volunteer and bring the food in and I've been trying to figure out a way They reach second homeowners That's really something I'd like to do because they come in the summer. They leave in August September They have all this, you know packaged food and we're a perfect place for them to because we only have non-perishable food so that would be a way if we could reach them that would be terrific. The second homeowners are going to be starting a newsletter. I spent a little time talking with Johnny Micaman about it after their presentation here and I don't know if you know John or not but I'll be happy to introduce it him. And I think he would be delighted to include a solicitation in the newsletter. That would be great. That would just be terrific. And we do work with the chapel, and they periodically have food drives, and that's been very successful. Very good. And so this is specifically, like you said, non-perishable can boxed. Exactly. We have a list of ten items that we can give to anybody of what we basically what we give out And it's all non-perishable So we do get city market does give us meat and frozen meat and chicken we have a freezer down there So which is just great because most of these people have not have protein for a long time Right, right, well good Because I would think that maybe some grocery stores that, you know, I guess there have to be a, you don't want to take anything that's past shelf life. No. No. I mean, you can, the shelf life, we can, I mean, we get fresh food and we, you can actually keep cans on a shelf for two to three years past the expiration date. And we have kind of a list at the pantry that tells us except for baby food which you have to immediately get rid of. But yeah it's all non-perishable. It's just easier that way. Although some of the other pantries down valley do have, they have fruits, vegetables and bread and things like that. Well good. Hopefully in your, you know, this portion of your life we can help with that a little bit but I guess we want to say thank you for your time for the grant review portion doing it. It's it's I just wish we had some more money. Yeah, I think we know which we could get more of that but your food drive we appreciate your personal effort. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, move on. Okay for the Financial Advisory Board, I think there may be a mistake here, Sean, you have not been on the board previously, have you? Right. Okay, I didn't think I remembered you being on the board, but somehow you got an astray as an incumbent. So for the Financial Advisory Board, we have three vacancies and four applications. One is an incumbent, which is David Richkowski, and Sean, Phil, and Peter are all here and all new members. Our new applicants, I'm sorry. Okay. All right, so we have three vacancies and four apps. Okay. Um, Sean, and four apps. Okay. Sean, once you're going forward, tell us a little bit about yourself. And, uh... Excuse me, one second. But Fred, because she lives for two-year terms available in the packet. Oh, who's she? I'm not sure. I'm like, were you a sugar dimmer? Uh... I don't see it there. Page 10. Page 10 you have? Thank you. That's one of the headaches of these digital systems. Eight. Okay. The damages are working. We let the carer. Two year terms. I can't answer that most I leave. Okay. No problem. Yes, it does say a two-year term for four. So. Is that the guy's question? Is this that incorrect? I think we'll need to confirm that. She needs to go and get her record of the staggers, which is what she's doing now. I would suggest you continue the interviews and when you get to the resolution you're going to have to pick who sits for what time. Sounds good. So Sean, tell us a little bit about yourself. Good afternoon. Sean Gleason, living in Stomach Village here for the last five years. My wife, Catherine and I have a baby girl that's seven months old. My wife is a school teacher over at Aspen Middle School, sixth grade. And myself, I'm worked for the related companies. I'm the director of finance over there. I've interested in this board seat for several reasons. I want to kind of get more involved in the community and understand what's happening with the town and also see where I can be of assistance to the town and trying to understand the market conditions out there and sort of what's happening in the town. I've been on the rotary club for about just over a year now and I was asked by Russ and Gary Hartman who's also on the FAB board to come up and apply for the position. Very good. Questions we may have of Sean. John Wilkinson. How do you feel about, we're going to be probably entering a period of negotiating, looking at potential applications for redevelopment of the base village. And actually working for the related companies, they may have an interest in that. How do you perceive your position with them in potentially having to recuse yourself from any of those discussions? Yeah. I understand that that conflict does exist and I'm well aware of it. And any place where I would need to recuse myself, I'm very open to that and would be the first one to sort of question if I needed to recuse myself. And I looked to the other members of the board to help me define whether or not that was necessary. And any time that that did come up, I would be very willing to refuse myself because I understand that conflict. Yeah, Fred, it's correct me if I'm wrong, but did we have a member of the, when I was on the FAB who was from related? Yeah, we had Scott Stinman, the only potential area of conflict that I can recall was from time to time when we actually have development applications. We'll have an economic plan that's presented and there was one I believe that related to the center that Scott recused himself from. Other than that, again, typically this board is reviewing your budget. It's reviewing special projects such as capital projects or marketing board. But that was one example and Scott Stenman did serve before. And just to give you a little additional kind of background on my experience, I was very involved when I worked for the ski company and Interwest on the base village back in 2005 and 2006 with the Metro District over there in the GID. And it was on the GID Advisory Board up until, I believe, 2010. So I have a lot of experience with the GID and understanding the dynamics of the tax levy and how the towns finances work. Good. Okay. Any other questions or shun? Thank you. And Mayor, I do to clarify, we do have three vacancies, not four. Okay. The resolution is incorrect. Okay. The memo is correct. Got it. We're good. Next, let's go to Phil. Welcome. Thank you. And tell us a little bit about yourself here. My name is Phil Suriani and I have moved here in November of 2010 from Orange County, California. Wife and I just moved up here. We've got three daughters who are 21, 22 and 24. So they're out of college or almost out of college. I got one left at Notre Dame and so when she's done, we're kind of empty nesters. So that's why we decided it was a good time to move up there. Why are you laughing? John, would have explained you a little growled there again. Well, as I said to the previous applicant, I went to IU and of course Notre Dame's one of our rivals, however my wife went there. So it's nothing personal. Well, that's okay. I went to USC though. Well, yep, good. Not the South Carolina one though. Okay, well, that's the other one. You're almost here. Here you go. Good one. Good. Got the basics out of the way. Right. All the good stuff. And so what is it on your application basically that you moved up from Orange County and now we're in Orange County? I lived in Laguna Hills for 20 years. I grew up in the LA area right in Los Angeles. And I took over my father's business. He actually was a financial planner, but we got into real estate. And I've since the last 25 years, we own and manage properties. We have about probably about 45 property, we own and manage in Texas and California. It's all commercial industrial buildings, that sort of stuff. So we do our own lending and all that, all on our own. And I basically moved my office from California to ask, but I only have one office and a very small office and three of us and work out of, have the office and ask when our house is up on Stellar Line up and snowmatch. Very good. And I've actually been on the finance floor before, but just for a large elementary school and Catholic elementary school in Orange County. Okay, very nice. Well, thank you. Any other questions of Phil? Phil? Hearing none? We appreciate again your application and you know, we'll vote here in a little bit. Okay thank you. Thank you. Next we have Peter. Welcome. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Tell us a little bit about yourself and all your efforts and it looks like the state. A Colorado that you've been working on. That's correct, Miss Mayor. Pete Strecker. I moved up here from Golden Colorado with my wife and our two kids in April. So relatively new. I graduated from St. Wolf College and Minnesota so there's plenty of no worries. Vivalries. My daughter applied there. Okay. I can't make them happy. As you know, as you mentioned, I worked with Stadicolor out of the last eight years in a variety of responsibilities from the budget director of Medicaid at $3 billion to a smaller budget of $40 million at the Paramelec culture and also serve for Governor Ritter for three years during the fund economic downturn. You were the cause of it, huh? No, no, no. I just relate to information. It was not the cause. I was there to measure. But also worked on a lot of capital budgets and things like that. So a lot of fleet and even employee benefits and things like that, which I think will all be beneficial, I guess, in terms of budget review and things like that. So definitely the financial background. I was married up here 14 years ago at the chapel. My in-laws have been around since the 60s. So it would be the woods. The woods. And just to have full disclosure, my wife works for a marquee butler. So with a wife, she's not here, otherwise she'd choose herself. And just to be have full disclosure, my wife works for Markey Butler. So, that's right. She's herself. Sorry, she's not Markey's in the hospital for those of you. It will work then being done. Very good. Questions that council may have, Peter. John Wilkinson. Yeah, I mean, you work for government, so you understand how the budgeting works on a government side as opposed to the free market side. And now you're working for destination. Have you ever served on any boards as a volunteer or any nonprofits or any other kind of? Yes, that's correct. Actually, I work as the, I'm on the board for the Little Red School House, as they're vice president. So that's one board I'm on right now. Otherwise I do a lot of work on the side. I have a contract business as well that I do some work for various lobbyist groups or other things like that for nonprofits to do financial modeling and things like that. Very good. Other questions? How many people do we have on that board? It's a total number seven. How hard would it be to add one? I mean, these all these... You've got a great group of people here. Yes, we do. It would be a code change just ordinances. I just, you know, The other thing, correct me if I'm wrong, Rhonda, but has Howard Gross put in his application for the marketing board, you know? Yes, sir. Yes. Yes, sir. So you're going to have two people, two people who are currently on the FAB, who have put in an application to be on the marketing board. If there are teams who are not. Well, but they may, you know, if you're looking to do this administratively perhaps, maybe they, one of, there's three people applying for two spots. So certainly one of those two is going to get on. And maybe if they resigned, you you could you would have another opening. But yeah okay. David is doing the marketing board members at your next meeting. Right, so we won't know that. Now I get a call today asking exactly when that might happen so. Okay, um no I just think that we have a fantastic group of new applicants and even our older, you know, folks that are incumbent folks are all fantastic. I don't want to lose anybody. You know, John Dresser. No, it's not provided by code, but there's nothing that prevents you from appointing a non-voting alternate. Okay. Well, what happens in my scenario? Well, they could be instantly appointing. I mean, you could... When opening comes up. If there is an opening... And they resign. Right. But we do have instances of people serving on two boards. Yeah. I'm not saying they have to resign. Right. But we do have instances of people serving on two boards. Yeah. I'm not saying they have to resign. Right. No. They want to because of the time commitments. Right. There may be an encouragement to do so. As you know, FAB kind of stands alone and has in recent years been directed by Council to look into the marketing budget as part of their budget process and the structure there. I don't know if that was a one time special project or if you would want to have cross representation on those boards. But I don't believe you'd have a problem appointing a non-voting alternate. Now the person that ends up with that may say, you know, I'll wait for the next cycle I don't know but if that's how the council feels Doesn't seem like it would be a problem to have this vast breadth of experience on our financial advisory board John Wilkinson well in the event that there was an Absence on board meeting if they're an alternate would they not be able to vote at that point? That would require a code change. You could probably have a new resolution in you to officially point that individual. No, he's saying just absent for one meeting. So if FAB member wasn't there and the old one was there, Some of them they should be able to take the vote. You would have to change the composition of the F8B. My ordinance to do that, which, you know, is no problem. I'd be in favor of doing that, because I would hate to ask somebody to sit and go through these meetings and if they take a spot because of an absence in that being able to vote. I don't, you know. The only thing that would be critical would be maintaining continuity particularly through the budget process is important to ensure that all the individuals are there that would be providing recommendations to you. So that would need to be an understanding with even an alternate. Fred? I guess I'm still not clear on what happens in my scenario. Let us assume that what we know that at least one current member of the board is going to be on the marketing committee. I don't think you know that. Well, you've got three people running for two spots. Yeah, you have more than that. There's there's there's there's so it applications are not closed. And it could be the will of council to not appoint either one of them and decide that they want to keep them on FAB and they're more. You don't have to fill the board. So you can't assume until the action is done and I understand you that I understand what you're saying that that's absolutely the most likely scenario, but you also can't guarantee that one of the appointed person will resign from the FAB. So there's too many variables to, I mean I suggested the alternate, but I think you should know that the financial advisory board is one of two boards and commissions that we have that are defined by charter rather than an ordinance that you've established them. It would seem to me that the best course of action would be to appoint your three people today. And I know that, and explain to the person that doesn't get chosen, you know, I mean, we've already had this discussion. I mean, they think they know that they're wanted. And if it plays out in two weeks as Fred says, give that person a call and say, hey, we would like to appoint you. If you're still willing, if we haven't insulted you enough by not appointing you today, I do believe that. I do believe that this is a board of a higher caliber because it is defined by charter. That it would be best to keep the composition as stated in the charter. Well, all I would like to say then, whoever doesn't get elected, please stand by. Because clearly we all want all of you on there. And this is just a administrative thing we've got to go through. But know that if you're not elected, it's not because you're not wanted. Because we can't do it today. And that's a tough decision when you've got viable candidates and you've got not enough seats and you really want to keep them on, you want them involved. And I guess what I would explain to the candidates would be that the part of the situation that we're in here is because of an expansion in the size in the marketing board. And because that expansion didn't come around to be law until the second meeting in December, we expanded the time for applications for those. Normally that would be done at this meeting so we would know the results tonight. We put it off for two weeks because the structure, the size of the composition of the board was undetermined until December 19. We then put out an advertisement for three weeks and we're going to do it in two weeks time. So, that's the reason that it's not all being done tonight. And we don't have the answer to the most likely scenario as Fred plays it out, and that, as the council said, we would certainly love to have everyone with the experience. All four, I mean, David's not here, but we all know what a job he's done on that financial advisory board, and the three candidates you have before you all have impeccable credentials and definitely would be asset. So that's the reason why Council's preferences for tonight. Vote for three. Vote for three. Vote for three. Hey, John. That's me. Pen. Come on. Here's a Jeopardy theme song. I hate this. I'll make some up too. I have writing so distinct. Thank you. Yeah. That's okay. Thanks. You're back up. Okay. And again, for the member that doesn't get a plot, you know, but pointed tonight as Mr. Dresser was saying, it is an important board and I hope the person doesn't get pointed, even if they may be the room. You know stays involved and you know they still come maybe spend some time coming to the meetings if you're not tonight. Get up speed with what we're doing or noties of the large numbers, we'll see what happens. The new members of the board would be David, Phil, and Peter. Okay. So, Mr. Gleason, thank you for your efforts. Stand by. Please do. Efforts, stand by please do Okay Next we have mr. Mayor. I would suggest that we skip to the part-time residence advisory board Okay before you recuse yourself. Yeah, because I'd have to leave my for that one part-time residence advisory board You have Mr. Fike and not no one's here really for being that they. Yeah. I think the only real decision you have to assuming you to point off for these people. The only real decision you have to assume in you to point off for these people. The only decision you would have to make is between the two condo applicants as to who would have the longer term in the shorter term. So I would be a decision between Mr. Fike and Ms. Foxgrave. Okay. And are they both interested in either one? I'm sure they are. Yeah. So the terms we have for the condo board are the different terms are one's a one's a two year one's a three. Okay. So council We want to make a vote of We'll just go ahead and and make a motion to approve Miss Fox as a three year turn. Is there a second for that one? Sure. Okay, you're incumbent. Has an incumbent? All right. Any thoughts about those boards or questions? Council may have, even with them not being here. Thoughts? Will I pass on? Just a question on the restriction. I'm trying to look up the municipal code on their status of residency, because I know there is one that is here a hundred days a year is there I believe it's five months but let me check and confirm that we had a long discussion about whether it should be six or five I can't recall if the top of my head out also would like to know on Glenn Clements he says he's into wing shooting. Yeah. What is wing shooting? What? He's into wing shooting. I imagine I was talking to Google man. Shooting winged, uh, just like you didn't hit the bird. Birds. Birds. Versus, uh, and loop or whatever. and loathe for whatever. Is that a question? Yeah. OK, so do we have an answer to that? What is wing shooting? No, no, what is the term of residency? Six months. It is six months, though. So for someone who's here for 100 days is less than six months. Less than six months? It has these five months. All right. So Jason? Nope, we got that one. So I think those people are all able to be appointed. Anything else? I should leave at this point to do the liquor licensing. I'll excuse myself on that one. Okay, Mr. Wilkinson, I just want to let you know that we have two vacancies for the liquor licensing authority and two applicants and both of them are in incumbents. Both of them had to work this evening. We're not unable to be here, but both of them have been on the board for quite a few years and Diedre has been our chairman quite a few times. So very capable applicants. Okay any questions of the applicants? Do we have a motion to approve those two? Second. Second. Do we need to save these all and vote for them all at once is that I think I think now you're ready to make a go to the next floor. I'm going to have to go to the next floor. I'm going to have to go to the next floor. I'm going to have to go to the next floor. I'm going to have to go to the next floor. I'm going to have to go to the next floor. I'm going to have to go to the next floor. I'm going to have to go to the next floor. I'm people that have been applied in the last half hour. Resolution number three, series of 2012. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve a resolution number three, series 2012? So moved. Do I have second? Jason? Second. All in favor. Does that in favor? I'm trying to scroll back to that resolution. Does it talk about the specific terms or do we? Yes. I don't need to go there. All right. All in favor of what has been presented? Hi. I'm posed. Motion passes. Bring Billy back to the motion is give the drapeologies I'm not going to say anything. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Done. Next we have. Mr. Peckler, I'd like a well-dressed man. Mr. May, maybe as a T.M. while David's turning things on. We've got two next two items really are both intended to help prepare the town council for what we anticipate some strategic discussions within EOTC. Again, David will also be presenting the previous planning on the West Village Transportation Plans and that also comes to you via our capital improvement planning. And as part of that process, you indicated an interest to go back in history, see what had last been approved. And then David will jump into some of the history and financing related to EOTC. But again, this all kind of comes together in anticipation of a debate that EOTC. But again, this all kind of comes together in anticipation of a debate that EOTC most likely will have about capital funding versus operational funding and the West Village Transportation Element has been a big part of our discussions with EOTC in previous planning. So David, you wanna take it away. Thank you, Council. So David, you want to take it away. Okay, thank you, Council. Thank you, Russ. Because this is an update on work that was done up to a point in 2008, I just want to make sure that what we're really talking about is how do we get to a, what are we trying to accomplish with all of this. And so I'm going to revisit something that I presented to you previously if you'll bear with me for a moment. But from 1983, 1984 on to 2000 there have been 25 different visioning for the mall transit area. And basically it's looking at the design criteria, and I'm sorry, the formatting's getting a little busted up here for some reason. But there are some key areas that are trying to be looked at. The most comprehensive and collaborative effort was done between 1999 and 2001 when everyone from an interest in the mall being successful came together. They set this as their objective for what they wanted to accomplish. In all of this, we wanted to be an international, we were known, resort, we wanted our facilities to reflect that, to be five-star, four-star, a five-star, four-star, if you, if five-star, if we could. They wanted to withstand the test of time. They didn't want to make investments that were going to be outdated the minute they went in, et cetera, et cetera. So here's what you're trying to address. And this is what all this work was about. They wanted to develop a sense of arrival that wasn't chaotic. Something that said, you are here, you made it, welcome. This is going to have a good time. What you see here is both Albert Lane, what it looks like on a March day in the winter usually, Mishmash, parking along fire lanes, and delivery trucks and pedestrians working with mixed in with a vehicular traffic. Below you see that's just below the mall on lower carriage way at lot six. Chaos trying to find places to park, trying to find access to the one-year key commercial nodes. Traffic along the roadway generates a lot of congestion. It begs management. And so it's not designed very well. It leads to gridlock. You have to put people in the streets to make sure this all works. Now, since the advent of base village, I would say a fair amount of this is now relocated down to lower carriageway at Treehouse and would road. So we just moved some of our problem. But the TCOs today still work to try and manage lot sex and daily lanes so that there can be a free flow of traffic there. Parking and access to where you want to go. Short-term kiss and ride parking is a key component. What you're looking at here is the parking lot behind, on the upper deck is the parking lot behind Snowmass Real Estate's office. But down below, that's the mountain chalet and a fire lane call to sack that is inundated with cars. And this goes back to when ski school was back here, back at the mall area. But again, this is what people are trying to do to get good access to where they want to go. They just want to go in for a minute, five minutes, 10 minutes, but they just perceive that they just want to get in and get out. And so they start using whatever space is available. Do you see that condition much today given the relocation of the ski school? The relocation of the ski school has softened that quite a bit, but there are still cars that are going back there to do different things. The clinic had a man manning the traffic circle just to keep cars out of there so that ambulance service to the clinic could still be preserved without getting bottleneck. It's one of those things. If you don't aggressively manage it, there will be problems. And that's pretty much what you see in this picture. This is going on today, up at Albert Lane just before the silvery hotel, right across from the mountain dragon, you see a no parking anytime sign, a car is open, doors are open, skis are out, this car is gonna be here for a while, there's a tremendous level of traffic going on because ease of access to your commercial note is not very good, and that's one of the things this whole effort is trying to address. What we're talking about here again is if they can't get into the parking lot easy, if they can't get close enough, they're just going to throw the doors open in the streets. So does all this look familiar to you? Have you seen this before? Yes. You know, anyone that's driven around the mall has seen all of this activity. It's a big impact on Raffta when they're trying to move through and get out of their depot and get back on the road. You have cars that are doing kiss and ride functions all over the place. People are going to solve the problem if you don't solve it for them. That's what we've observed over the years. That sign that's right there by that automobile says no stopping or standing any time, red letter on white, directing you to try and go into lot six doesn't matter. These people just stop, get out, this is closest we can get to our destination. What does this? You can have a big raft about honking behind them, dead moving. Even a big, yeah, it doesn't. How about we go do that? I think raft I've seen do that. Now another big piece in the design criteria that's in a attachment A, basically it's trying to improve the pedestrian experience. And this is what you have today. People trying to move between Lot 6 and the mall. Now again, the traffic volume has declined a little bit because of base village. But there is still a lot of congestion in this area. There's still a lot of traffic, and people are moving from the parking lot on one side of the street trying to access the commercial elements on the other side of the street. So you get this pedestrian vehicle conflict. David, one question. Why don't we have a pedestrian crosswalk noted there? Because that is a frequent, it's a short-term parking. You know, a lot of people use that to go up to them all, pick up skis or whatnot. Why don't we have a pedestrian walkway marked? No, we've experimented with a lot of different materials. The nature of the grade, the composite of snowmelt road, and the material that you can paint and or adhere to the surface of the roadway, usually gets scrubbed away, it'll move down the hill, it's pretty problematic. On upper snowmelt road by Albert Lane, you'll see we tried in different compound up there to designate a You know using a different color texture for pedestrian crossing just above lot seven That would that only lasted I'd say three months and it was obscured and gone It's not a bad idea. It should have been integrated into the concrete if you really want it to be there idea, it should have been integrated into the concrete if you really want it to be there. But it's not. I mean, that is frightening to look at those three young children holding hands trying to cross that. It's just an accident. Wait, did it happen? Is there any possibility of putting up a sign saying pedestrians have right away, at least to sign that intersection? For the driver, it's a very busy, confusing place. I don't know if another, when you think about all the signs along the parking lots, it would be great, but I don't know if it would get you where you want to go. But again, this is what you're trying to sort of address. And those are good short-term fixes. Again, even the people, things that we try to do to prohibit pedestrian activity, it doesn't matter, we'll go over under, around and through. Another big component and concern for the mass transit people is buses and private operatomobiles don't mix very well. And generally, what happens? I'm in my suburban, I'm pulling up, I'm the priority. No a bus full of 45 to 60 people is waiting because you've got a vehicle trying to do a kiss and ride function. Or again, people are trying to find access down into the main commercial area for delivery or otherwise. Yeah, David, just a quick question back up on that. We redid all the barriers there last year. Have you noticed any kind of difference because of the reconfiguration of where you pull in? Were the raft of buses pull in or are you still getting the same behavior? We're still getting the same behavior. It's more wide open now because the where that do not inner sign is in the right that island has gone or minimized it may just occurb and sidewalk sort of feature to sort of separate the through lanes from the raft to depot but you're still getting this commingling of private automobiles and raft of vehicles. This will come up a little bit later when we talk about the difference between an interim bus stop and a terminus. What you see here are four raft of buses that are at the point of trying to queue for their scheduled departures. Free skier buses are almost free flowing, so they're kind of coming whenever dependent on how traffic lets them get the scheduled departures for downvales, services and directs to Aspen, et cetera, et cetera. I was trying to stage on the other side. That's the three vehicles probably on the other side. Trying to stage, the last one may be a free skier shuttle waiting to queue up into the space provided. But you can see that Raffta alone is trying to get, has a circumstance where they're going to run into four vehicles being within the facility. And that's a fair, good fair cue that you have growing of passengers. Again, this is what you've got to think about in your queuing space when you redesign a regional facility. What you see the line of people going across the street are trying to access down valley. These are probably workers going home. What you have across the way are day skiers that are underneath the covering. They're waiting to go back to Astrid. It's a significant number of people, requires space. Do you ever see those kinds of numbers down at the base village transit? No. And maybe remind council, and I know you've shared this kind of the split of where people are getting often on the buses. The getting often on the buses is about 70% at the mall, 30% at base village. Obviously over time as base village were to continue to develop and grow. We would expect those numbers maybe to move to even out or switch places, maybe in the some far future. But today, 7030 is about the split between I want to go to the mall, 70% 30% base village. And, you know, part of our thinking for many years has always been, we want RAPTA to go to the mall. That has always been one of the, well, council has said it's good for RAPTA to go to the mall. I understand RAPTA has had a desire to change that. Anything that would shorten a headway would be a savings to Rhafta and an efficiency. So they would probably be interested in shortening any tripling where they can. Upper brush creek road is problematic as demonstrated by Saturday at 345. Yeah, that pretty much took R rough to out of the village court. So in this document, we made a lot of efforts back in the other days to understand what base villages, Aspen's Key Company's plans were for that development. It was reiterated numerous times that they were not in competition with the wall. They were the rising tide that was going to lift all ships. They were going to complement the mall and they saw the mall as the main terminus for the bus service. And having the density that you do have in the mall, it's like why would you move those people to base village to put them on a bus to ask. But now you're double handling people if you can just get the bus to the mall. So I'm trying to go fast. Platooning is another problem when traffic backs up. What you see are five of my vehicles coming up snow melt road that have all kind of bunched up now because they're leapfrogging each other, picking people up, dropping off, or traffic has gotten in their way. So now I'm having a situation where all of a sudden what was a bunch of staggered scheduled departures are now all bunched together. So when they get to my depot, I've got to sit there, unload things, I've got to move things around, stage people for their next departure because they missed their last one, et cetera, et cetera. So it becomes a real juggling act. And this again is what is a terminus. And when we talk about a terminus, why does it need all those bays? It's bays to get this, to facilitate, to sort this out. And make it make your bus service acceptable. One of the other components that was trying to be addressed in this design was delivery. What you see on the left is delivery trucks at the back of the cul-de-sac on daily lane. You see at least four of them in this picture, not uncommon, a lot of commercial retail activity back there on Albert Lane. And you'll be talking about the silvertry we do at Velliment. These vehicles are there today. These are vehicles trying to find access to deliver goods to the retail merchants. And it goes on. So on attachment A, basically, these are the design criteria that were laid out by that group that met in from 99 to 2001 and they touch on bus parking, roadway improvements to mitigate pedestrian conflicts, loading and delivery. There was some talk about conference facility at 10 to 16,000 square feet being tried to incorporate in things, et cetera, et cetera. But these were the design criteria but these were the design criteria that review tried to address. So in the end, back in 2002, there was a design that was brought forward conceptual. We're not married to it, but it was a design that was trying to meet all those needs. What you have here is a parking structure in the lower part of the picture. It was trying to add 100 parking space. You got a pointer? Yeah, okay. I think I do. If I can figure it out. Ooh, boy, that's a... Okay. Okay. This is. There's also a lever there, the little clear thing. Okay. Okay. What you have here is a parking structure. This was trying to replace the parking that would have been lost by lots of seven, six, 5, and 4. When we redeveloped the lower snow melt road, we anticipated that this new alignment of the roadway to pull the through traffic and the parking traffic to the outside, rather than going up the inside road. We put in the facility to facilitate this transition. And so it's there, but we've ever built a large island that's trying to create a large area. This is a pad for a rafter. There's a large island that's trying to create a large area. This is a pad for a rafter. There's a large island that's trying to create a large area. This is a pad for Rafta. There's a large island that's trying to create a sense of arrival with an icon statement of some sort, and then two split islands to accommodate Rafta traffic. And I'll address that later. Most notably is this pedestrian deckway was trying to create vertical circulation both to the transit plaza and to the parking structure so that pedestrians would not have to try and cost the roadway and interface with traffic that could walk directly from mall level to one of these vertical circulations to go back down to their car or back to the bus service. So that was one of the other things it was trying to address. Here as parcel C and this is where my bus storage facility is, we were trying to look at a way to relocate the bus storage facility somewhere else so that we could open this up to just delivery service so that it would boost the efficiency and move some of that delivery function off of Albert Lane and off of Daily Lane. I think that's about it for. And the price tag for that grand the OSL idea was about, like you said, the point. In the first go around, when it had, everything everybody wanted and there was a second parking structure in the upper village core as well. That was in the 17 to 21 million dollar range. That was beyond what that group was comfortable with and felt they could finance. This, the design that they finally landed on alternative Q, which it was called, that shows you how many designs we went through to get there, it was Q2 actually, was just the lower parking structure, the transit plaza, the real lining of the roadways to have a straight shot to Albert Lane and the new outside road and the parking structure. And that was about 12 to 13 million. And that was what that group sort of landed on as there. So again, this is what that looked like at one point with two parking structures and that arrival experience. We sort of walked through this a little bit, but I did want to give you, here's what it looked like from an aerial view, if you will. This again is Upper Brush Creek Road. Well, I'll use this. As currently, please. This is Upper Brush Creek Road going off to divide as it currently is designed. This was the new access to Albert Lane and the Upper Village to improve this, this intersection. This was the pedestrian plaza with vertical circulation and at grade access to the mall. These are raft of vehicles, three cutaways and two articulated vehicles. These were a drop-off areas for my service and then designated bays for pickups for different routes coming through here. Travel through lanes to go down. One of the big things with raft of buses are they you're talking a 90 foot radius turning radius. So you need 180 feet in diameter. So if you don't have to turn a raft of bus around you're better off. It can just go straight through so that was why we ended up with the split island design. And then again, this was the parking lot that was developed with the net new of roughly 100. Here is where that reconfiguration was programmed back when snow melt, lower snow melt was rebuilt and this was the new alignment of lower snow melt broke. that lower snow melt was rebuilt, and this was the new alignment of lower snow melt road. So again, again, David the major costs, you know, you had to create a fairly large pad to integrate both raft and the shuttle system that displaced about 100 parking spaces and each of those spaces was in the neighborhood of 40 to 50. 40 to 50, yeah. That's the parking development is what really carries the lion's share of a lot of it. You obviously have a major cost, which again, it alleviates the conflicts between pedestrians is moving the road to the outside or the perimeter of that. Basically here was the parking configuration. Three levels. Trying to be open air on three sides, so we didn't have to do full fire suppression and full air handling. So it did add a little bit of height to this facility. It was about 28 feet on the most exposed corner, but it was keeping it open so that it was less cost, less maintenance, more sustainable. And I believe. So then basically talking about, I'm sorry that this is so, maybe I can boost this a bit. This is basically the cost projection for that project at that time 12,600,000 broken into categories of what these components were. Again, later on, after at 2001 base village's application was resubmitted to the town, the town began earnestly looking at base village. It put the mall West Village improvements on hold to make sure that we didn't create any redundancies when base village was completed. Again, the ski company and the investors in base village made the statement that they were in interim stop, not competing with mall. Bus service was committed to going to the mall until it could be proved that it was detrimental to ski area operations or the community itself. We were engaged. So base village ran till about 2004 when their approval was made, private sector interests approached the town to enter into a joint development approach to the mall re-development. This involved an organization known as Urban Innovations, a company that works in specifically with joint development projects, trying to integrate between the business sector, the local government, and the Federal Transit Administration to leverage money using public and private local private dollars to get federal dollars. Running through the cross figures, there were four pages in this attachment C. I won't go through it all. Page 53. Yeah, you're now on page 53. I won't go through it all, but basically this is what it broke out into. You can see it broken into its kind of components. The replacement parking is almost 9 million out of the 26 million. And the funding scenarios were kind of projected on the right-hand side. We were trying to use, again, the EOTC 6.5, trying to get federal, C.Federal pass through money as well as a specific facility grant of some 9 million, Rhett was going to try and help with another 4.2 and then the partnership was looked at as bringing 6 million to the table. That's essentially partnership, private developer. Private developer, whoever that would be at the time. Since that point, basically all I've been doing has been is trying to, well, to finish this whole thing D. And 2006, when that was all going on, we began what we call Westville is Revitalization Plan, looking at what would make the mall more successful, what would we want to see there, how much density would we allow to have happen in there. Basically, this was a conceptual plan that was presented as part of that work, taking the alternative Q idea. Basically, that's alternative Q sitting where it was before the reconvert figured road system, the parking structure, the pedestrian amenity. This then was starting to get looked at as maybe we relocate the conference facility to this point, or a hotel or something as an incentive for the private participation to redevelop the entire mall area. And I would like to say at this point, none of this, this was all conceptual, none of this has any blessing in any land use application, no entitlements, no nothing, these were just concepts being thrown out that were, how do we deal with our future? And with that said, I'll try to shut up and entertain some questions. Thank you, Dave. That's maybe a real question. You should answer right off the bad Dave. And it's a question we've been batting around as staff, because you're going to be asked it, is there anything meaningful given that the cost we just reviewed that you could do at $6.5 million? $1,000. Every time I think about making that investment, in a minute you even tried to do this roadway alignment here, you went through 35 parking spaces in Lot 7. I think a couple of things of note that you might want to think about are that the parking lots as they are go back to 1996, 97 when the resort opened. They were designed, they have six, I'm sorry, 1967, my apologies. They go back to the tangent property owners have some right of access for their guests staying in their hotels which these lots were designed to obviously accommodate. There has been nothing but residential development from the divide to two creeks pines, the horse ranch, to you name it, infill everywhere, condominiums, homestead, timbers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You've had that development go on. In 2004, in your ski area master plan, you were made a decision that you were going to allow the expansion of the ski area to go from roughly 10,000 skier visits at a time and roughly 800,000 in a year to go to a million with 13,500 skiers at one time. So you were planning a major growth in your ski industry. You already knew that you had shortcomings, because we've been talking about this since 1983. And you were trying to address all these issues in some way. You want to do it frugally. You want to do it expediently. You want to make sure your investment is less endurers But this is a tough nut to crack and it's an expensive one So when you talk about what components could I pull out of this? It gets dicey because you're hitting the biggest thing your biggest shortcoming in this whole thing is your parking Your access to the mall is already bad, demonstrated by the Kiss and Ride function. So anything you do to this deck to improve RAPTA, that has any bigger effect than a lot seven, I think you're going down the wrong road. And then you have to think about that you're trying to use the six and a half million as leverage to get other work with other money to get bigger, better, and greater potential at solving some of your problems. So as I know, there's a sense of urgency and maybe we'll touch on that later, about the 6.5 million in the EOTC funding. However, I think if you erode that, you're going to be right back. You're going to be in a worse place than you are right now in what you're trying to accomplish. And I'll start off a little bit. They think you're time there. You know, the decision by the vote to allow the bonding to get us that $6.5 million that we all talked about happened back. November of 2000. That's when the EOTCS for bonding of $10.2 million and that's when the RTA was being formed. Some of the half-cent sales tax went to fund the RTA and there was if these projects could move forward you know here would be bonding that would get them and that was voted on by the electorate of picking count. Right so in 2000 we had an idea and a thought you know of a plan that we could move forward with, the EOTC, helping to fund it into, like you said, to help leverage some monies to go for other funding. Part of the concern, specifically in my own mind, is that, you know, we've been talking about this now for 11, 12 years, and at a certain point in time, I think the community, when if and when raft at what you OTC, you know, raft at UTC, you know, whatever the group is, it looks for other monies to do things other than the BRT, people are going to say, look, you've got a six and a half million, seven million dollar number that you've earmarked for something that may never happen. We need to use that money or what else should we do? I mean, these are the kind of things I think as a growing resort that we've got to say, you know, there's a line in the sand at some point that we either say, we're going to put it back into the EOTC and then we're going to go back and work with the EOTC and say, you know, the six a half not the right number today. We're looking at 10. But we need, we're willing to put this money back in. We're going to keep that for another three years. And after three years, we're going to come with a plan to say, you know, here's the other monies. I know our partners are saving money to build the interest to ask them with those dollars because they know that the federal dollars aren't there, the state dollars aren't going to be there for 20 some plus years. So it's a concern that I don't want to lose these dollars that we have earmarked for the enhanced snowmast transportation system. Regional. Regional, right? Okay, exactly. Because it has to be something that is not just for some as well. Correct. I think there's other ways to skin the cat, maybe, that you could look at loaning. It doesn't have to be that the entrance to Aspen loans to $2 million for the PED bridge at the airport business center. That's possibly something that you could offer to get to a mutually agreeable solution. I think that's one way that you can look at preserving your dollars into the future if you're not, because we're not obviously we're not in a position where we're going to pull the trigger on this thing in a couple of years. And we've talked, you know, I think individually about other ideas. Do we enhance the brush creek highway 82? Park and ride. We're parking lot, you know, put some more structure in there and now the potential loan to the EOTC to move forward with an amenity. Or do we do something that's our rodeo lot where we put a tiered marking structure maybe down there, you know. So there's all things I think we're just way out and you know, let's see what could happen. You have to remember the guidelines for the half-cent sales and use tax are regional mass transit projects. So even the entrance to Aspen, the highway component is on its own. The transit improvements are eligible for that use of that funding. Okay. Alfred? Clearly this affects the mall. I mean, those pictures just tell an incredible story of confusion, danger, if you will. John points out people crossing the street. This has anybody talked to either related or to the new owner of the silvertry. I mean, they can't be happy seeing this kind of traffic impeding their guests. If we're looking for a partnership, clearly those are the two private entities out there that would be our natural partners. Is anybody ever sat down and spent any time with either a representative from related or representative from the new silver tree? And probably also the ski company tree. And probably also ski company too. And the ski company. Well, as I said before, the original work in 99 to 2001 was done with the existing owners at that time. The owner of the silver tree was telling where we're 12 years past that now and we've got new owners. I understand in 2006 that proposed owners we were working with them. They were partisan with the West Village Revitalization Plan. This project is really a placeholder in your CIP at this point and to move forward into that step that you're suggesting is one of the decisions you should have. I guess my point is we're looking for money. We're place holding as I understand it now $6 million in the EOTC. But as you have just told us, that doesn't get us very far. So we need more money. Yes, we've got bonding capacity. So there is something we can do as the town of Stone Mass Village. But you've got two new private entities in there that clearly have got some money. And clearly this affects their business. Why are we not spending some time talking to them, presenting this problem to them? They can't be happy with what they see up there. Yes? Yeah. I think the new ownership of the silver tree has engaged in the discussion. They have observed some of the same issues that you just saw presented. And I think potentially in a broader scope or in a next phase, my sense is they are interested in engaging in a discussion right now. You know, my sense from related is they're in a hold mode in terms of attempting to maintain what they have. You know, so I see kind of the new ownership of the silvery. They have already engaged in a discussion. They've met with Dave Staff and representatives from public works just talking about some of these same issues. So a discussion has been initiated. Are they at a point to really talk about investment? Probably not, but that is on their radar screen. Okay. I guess what I'm hearing Bill say is I'm concerned about losing this $6 million. And we use action, I think. Right, right, precisely. And that's what I'm totally agreeing with you about. And the only, seems to me, we only have two ways to go. Number one, bond. And number two, a joint project with private developers. And if you're looking for next steps, if you're looking for these my thoughts on the subject, that ought to be where we start. And I think I mean, this is, you paint a pretty ugly picture of the transit issues up there. As I say, I can't imagine the owners of the silver tree are happy about it. I can't imagine it's happy about it. Now, do they want to do something to date? No, probably not. But it's there, it's a long term project. It's been something that's been going on for the last 12, 14 years. But there comes a time when you need to move forward. And I don't think we can, I agree, I don't think we can count on state money. I don't think we can count on federal money. So where else do we go? John Wilkinson? Actually, there's a third option out there, Fred, and transit oriented development. We have this currently looking at several of those options. One is down in Newcastle where there's a piece of property where they have a bus station, but they want to develop it into housing and retail. And I see this as an extension of that concept. And so this is a terminus of the BRT line in Snowmass Village. I think there's a real opportunity out there to create a transit-oriented development in this area, which would include the private ownership, interest in the mall and the village, but also be part of what raft it can do, what power they can bring to the table to offset the cost of, is they're looking for private dollars. There are federal dollars that may still be out there for transit, but I think they're really trying to tap into private investors. Right. Well, but there's another layer of resources that we could fall back on. I'm not of the mind to do anything with that $6.5 million that is earmarked for the transit center since you know we all hit the great Recession and we are going to come out of it and there will be pressure on What do we do with the parking what do we do with the entry to snowmass village and I don't want to diminish that Pot of money that we have sitting there in terms of, should we do something now? Maybe, but I think we need to put that in the bank and keep it there and grow it. I don't well, it isn't growing because it's- It's not growing. You know, again, that's why I asked David to kind of answer that question. And it's something the previous councils have talked about is can we take fate in our own hands and just take that 6.5 and invest it. And I think as we look at it, you really don't crack the knot or you have a net loss of parking or you don't solve the complete problem. So I think our thought is you hold that money, but I think you're looking for that public private opportunity to try and expand and leverage that 6.5. And I think we have one new player. I'm not sure about related and whether they're truly interested at this time. They might in the future. I guess my other question is given the state of construction today, are your costs still realistic? Or are they too high? It's possible there too. I tried to say that in the memo that we have an accounted for the recession or return. I would still put a little caution that I mean those are pretty conceptual costs and I think you'd have to really come in and kind of refine that design, whatever that design was and get some good construction estimates on it. Jason. Is there something that dictates one for one parking replacement if we are expanding transit? The EOTC money has to be for a regional transit facility, assuming, right? And assuming this isn't the most cost effective maybe place to build a parking structure I'm just asking are there construction challenges that make this more challenging than say the rodeo lot if we wanted to well I think what it's that old adage we've seen the enemy and they are us I mean these aren't parking spaces that are for employees. These are residents are using these. Whether they're residents staying in those lodges or whether they're residents in a second home or whether they're you, you're all trying to get access to this commercial core. Many of you without transit services are relying on a car to do that. And so I think it's pretty obvious that your infrastructure has been wanting for some time for an investment or an improvement. Now, that's kind of going the wrong way from an auto-disc incentive program. But I think you got to be practical in terms of if my commercial, one of my key commercial nodes is suffering because I can't get people in there, then that's what you need to be weighing in whether to make the investment to expand the parking or not. And going, you know, that taking 35 out of it is kind of going really as the guy that manages the parking is kind of going, I'm pulling my hair out sometimes as it is. What hair do you have left? Yeah, whatever I have left. So, you know, that I don't disagree that if we were dealing with day skiers or employee traffic or something like that, that an investment at the rodeo lot would be a good one You already see that today on the kids ski days and big powder days etc. etc. You're 500 cars down at the rodeo You need that capacity down there somehow and your future designs there But again this parking is trying to address a different core of people. This parking is meant for either residents or hotel or hotel or lodge guests, correct? Because you've got to have a permit to park. And commercial. And commercial. If I come up and I want to have lunch, I can get there in park for an hour and have lunch if I'm for a mask man or something. So if you live up a wood road and you want to come down and have a lunch with them all and meet your grandkids or vice-stees or whatever, you know, we've all seen people and we've heard them say, I've been trying to park for half an hour waiting for someone to move and I keep going in circles. I'm going to go back to Aspen or you know somewhere else and so that was another thing I think that we were all you know recognizing that we are the enemy. But there's also the opportunity to just completely change that paradigm where if you're coming to snowmast for lunch you come you park at the rodeo lot and you hop on a shuttle and you're there in five minutes same same versus looking around for parking for 15 minutes. Well at that point then don't you have to invest a lot more into your bus system and get more buses to bring those people to the additional parking at the radio. I mean how's our capacity? It depends in your peak periods. It seems like we're slamming with Saturday on a kid's ski school day. There's no parking at the rodeo anymore. So it depends on the time. It's a very time-demand sensitive thing. During midday, yeah, there's surplus capacity. If you're right place, the right time, it's going to work for you. This will get to the free bus service, but we are actually pretty successful in terms of moving people in between snowmass and Aspen on buses particularly the free buses that have historically occurred. I guess what I'd like to understand is Why are we having this discussion if we're having this discussion for you to get some Directionist to where you want to go Fundamental problem is money. Yep. I mean if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd be building something. It is not just me. No, no, I'm just the messenger. No, no, I'm not saying you at all. I've got a hand in the audience with Kathleen. You want to come up to the microphone here and just... Hi Kathleen, Vanitovichvich resident Stomach village. I think our highest and best use for this project is a joint project with private developer of some kind. In November of 2011, just last year, the Urban Land Institute had a transit-oriented development marketplace, where municipalities and communities could come and show off their project and introduce themselves to potential investors and developers. We missed that opportunity. How many developers have we approached? Have we really gone out to the marketplace and shopped this project. Developers are going to be looking for incentives. What incentives can we provide a potential private fund? This is basically an urban revitalization project. Our community is perfectly situated for this type of project. I don't think we can say that we can't afford it unless we really know who we're dealing with and what type of partnership we potentially could have with private development of some kind. There could be several different developers involved. There could be several different public-private partnership, call it a TOD, call it a public-private partnership. A lot of development, community development, over the next several years, will be focused toward public-private partnership. But what I'd like to ask the council is your commitment to revitalization of this area. And where you see as a priority for mall owners, for the lodging community. what, you know, where you see as a priority for mall owners, for the lodging community. In 2005 or 2006, when we had public outreach meetings about this project, the rooms were packed. We heard from the lodging community, we heard from private business owners. We know that this project is necessary to some degree. It would be nice to hear from the leadership of what steps you're taking to identify potential investors. Let's see if I had anything else I needed to say. Fred, I think that there's other parties out there. I think that we have an attractive ski resort. We have a beautiful place to live, but they're going to be looking for incentives. They're going to be looking for opportunity. And with our commitment to this area, it could be attractive for potential people. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Right, so don't go away. I guess my question to you would be, when you say there are other private parties out there, strikes me that for any private developer to come in here and join venture with us in building something like this. They got to be looking how am I going to make money? You know, what's my payback? And I guess I can't come up with anything right away. As opposed to developers who are here and who are being affected by the traffic issues that exist up there. So if there are other developers out there, I'd be curious to know who you think they are and why you think they would invest here. Well, certainly there'd be an incentive for a type of commercial project of some sort, commercial residential project and mixed use project. Where would that go? David, you didn't talk too much about lot sevens upper above Albert Lane opportunity that's represented in that. Yeah Fred, I think what was contemplated in here was vertical development. Yeah, vertical development. Every shaded structure that you see here was a structure that went in 2006 was starting to be looked at for redevelopment. And you were trying to spur redevelopment. So the incentives were the existing private interests giving them increased density, one where it weather residential or commercial and trying to spur the development by through that means. Because you have a number of you have wool, you have related, you have now a Wasserman, you have still private entities with inzits, no mass and polka-loatty. Anything to see, Fred? The mall's a little bit larger right here. The idea, I think, at that time was, they would take out the tower building and all these buildings right along this area, kick them back over the transportation area, because right now, the transportation area is like right in this area where buses come in. The locals shuttle, yeah. Kick that area there and allow some residential development to go up there. But at this stage in our economy, we've got faltering development happening in base village, which has the basic infrastructure down there. And I don't see that you're going to get a whole lot of people clamoring at the bit right now to start doing some new development. And I think you would, to speak for the planners, I think you do have one major construction project that's on hold, and you wanna know how these two projects are gonna interact with each other, unless you wanna shut the door and say, come back in five years, you wanna make sure that your construction management plans are allowing you to still stay vital, vibrant, and economically viable while you're developing one area or developing another. I think at the heart of this, you know, I think, you know, what we're saying is we'd suggest don't give away this 6.5. There might be an opportunity for loans and that we maintain in four leverage in a public private partnership. You know, it's just in the context of base village, I think, to move forward there, we're going to need a little bit of strategic planning in terms of how whatever is proposed there to move forward would work or not work with what may be needed in the mall. We already have some underpinnings in terms of planning parameters, particularly from a transportation standpoint, with the comp plan, the big one being maintaining level of service C. So, again, I think there's gonna be an element of strategic planning that needs to occur with whatever happens with base village, where we look at both of these commercial areas, but I think for tonight, what we wanted to do was simply kind of bring everybody up to speed with the history. Right. To kind of prepare you for some inevitable discussions with your partners on EOTC. And again, I think what we took a good hard look at could we use this 6.5 in a responsible way today? And I think our answer is probably not. And the better use of it would be to leverage it with a future public-private partnership. So that, you know, I'll go to John Justin next, but our roundabout that we talk about the base of Wood Road and British Creek, we can't really use those dollars for the town to say, okay, we bitching about this we know it's a problem we've got pedestrian issues people walking across back and forth at night almost getting hit by cars coming up and down the hill there's no real way of using those dollars to help fix that today. Right not that not the six and a half million that we have. So again if you could sell it on a regional mass transit improvement, you're going to build a raft of bus stop there. Well, I think you might be able to sell them on that idea. John Dresser and then John Wilkinson. I just want to remind you and caution you when you start talking about strategically planning base buildings that you are a party, the town is a party, to a development agreement that is currently in place and yet to expire. Right. Thank you. Now, did we at one time talk about allowing a hotel to be in the built on taparoles parking spaces? All of that was conceptual. There's nothing. There was no, you were struggling with how big is just big enough and a lot of other issues. But I think it goes to the incentive of what can we do to incentivize a developer to come in here to build this, is that we say, okay, you know, you put a hotel on top of here, and then you have the land is pretty cheap because the town owns those spots. So there is a certain amount of incentive available, we got to convince the market like Kathleen said, you know, we missed the boat on being on the present list but we haven't packaged this in a way that we could present it yet. If I was to clarify a little bit too, I have a feeling because this has been on the shelf for a long time, this is outdated, maybe it's not the right plan. Maybe you have maybe for the community to truly get where it wants to go, there's a different vision. I don't know at this point. Russ, I wanna go back to something that we chatted about briefly before the meeting. And that is, and your words made this click, and that you L.I. If what we're saying tonight is we are in sort of a holding pattern, both for the mall and for base village, if we want to do something constructive today, and we want to show that we're making some effort to move forward, isn't this the ideal time to engage you L.I. to review base village to review the mall to review their interrelationship. And just to pick up where John just left is you know I anticipate that when we we have a new owner for base village today whether they choose to move the ball forward or not, I think that new owner will be interested in engaging the town, but again we need to wait for their invitation. Well, you're right, and I absolutely understand your caution, John. You can engage ULI or talk about engaging ULI for this project and the mall and a revitalization there, but you can't talk about integrating it with for this project and the mall and a revitalization there, but you can't talk about integrating it with a project that's already entitled. I understand that unless they are asked to come. And I guess if they are listening or watching, I would like them to be open to the possibility of chatty, if they want to chat with us about something, this is clearly something they can chat with us about. Kathleen? I want to make a point of clarification. ULI only sponsored a conference, they only facilitated an opportunity for municipalities to meet with other developers. We're talking about actually engaging ULI. In a project, that's something that's a little different. Right, it's very different from what you're talking about. But you mentioned ULI, Russ and I chatted about it earlier. And if anybody from the banks is watching or listening, we are certainly open to a conversation. Okay, I mean to me, frankly, that sounds like going down the banks is watching or listening, we are certainly open to a conversation. Okay. I mean, to me, frankly, that sounds like going down a path of what we already have right here in front of us. You know, we engaged economic analysts, we engaged all the property owners, we engaged a professional planning firm, and this is what we got, and it's obsolete. And I guess that's the thing the world has changed, and what does that mean? You assumptions that we made in these days are no longer valid? Well, what hasn't changed is we could go through that whole same exercise once again, and five years from now be left in this exact same spot. I mean, it seems to me, if this is really that great of an opportunity, and it's so appealing, and all we need is to identify the right incentives, then the private sector is going to come to us and say here's what we're thinking, this is a great opportunity, here's what we need. How much did this study cost us to develop this plan? Was this part of that? Half million? That's about half million. Well, the half million has been spent over a decade of time in different looks at this, and different attempts to move forward. As I said, in the memo, at one point we did a full praisle of town property back then established land values to enter into joint development negotiations. So that we knew what the town was bringing to the table besides the six and a half million of EOTC, our half-cent sales and use tax. We've done an environmental assessment at least on a project conceptual and got a finding of that it would qualify for a categorical exclusionrucian because we're not changing any of the inherent natural uses today of the property. So there were a lot of things that were done that were just not pencil drawings on a piece of paper. Fourteen exploratory holes were drilled to find out where bedrock was, what's water doing, etc. Well, that's, you know, my fear is what Jason brought up is that, you know, we could do another study unless there's somebody else at the table. We could take that six and a half million dollars and just eat it away with Planning and studying I don't think I'm trying to push a project Understand that we're not suggesting that it was really came about I think because it was one of those things where I've sensed that all these because it was one of those things where I've sensed that all these Desires from the different communities aspen snowmass in Pitching County and there's a six to half million dollar year marks Sitting out there that we would be pressured at some point to say What about that money are you guys ever go do anything? And I think it was appropriate to get counsel sort of I do anything. And I think it was appropriate to get counsels for the up to speed this counsel. And other ones to say, guys, what can we do? I think the major message that hopefully Dave is left with you is that those needs, those fundamental transportation conflicts and issues, even with base village, haven't gone away today. So that justification that need is still there may not be the appropriate time until we get further into whatever the final solution is with base village to do any further planning here. But I think we just wanted you to be prepared to talk to your colleagues from Picket County in the city of Aspen. Jason? I was just going to ask if you're making those comments in relation to our next agenda item in that there's a risk at about that six and a half million in order to maintain that. I think those are going to be things are going to be asked of us when we do have those meetings or when there is a subcommittee discussion and all those kind of things I'm you know I don't want to lose those dollars but it was something that I believe that we are going to get pressure. Are we sex mating? You know, could you release some of that 6.5 to pay for the free bus service? Right. So again, we wanted you to be prepared. And we could loan part of that 6.5. That might be a good example. Until the economy turns around. Yeah. Are we segueing into the next item? Well, unless there's anything else, Councilor, really, I don't think there's much more. But I think we all agree. We want to maintain the opportunity and have that card in our pocket, the six and a half million as a potential incentive to attract private investment and eventually see a project happen there. But right now, the opportunity isn't presenting itself. So what are the other opportunities when you have a pot of money, six and a half million, that, you know, can you leverage that with other funds, bonding, you know, what, you know, local requirements? How does, you know, I mean, there's a variety of different ways to leverage it. One, it's a great leverage for other public dollars. If those public dollars are there, it is a leverage for public private funding and when you have that in another place in similar sort of circumstances and it was actually the major intent was to create a transportation facility. You did a request for proposals and you were relatively up front. Here's a pot of money we have from a public standpoint. Here's what we're looking at from a private sector. You need to put some parameters on that. And you throw it out there in the community. In that case, we actually sent that RFP to qualified members of Urban Lane Institute, which essentially is a membership of developers in the country. So there's a variety of different ways you can leverage dollars, both public and private, when you have a little bit of pot of money to, but you first starts with being clear about what you want to do with it and what your ultimate vision is. And the other great asset we have to leverage is the land that we have on there. I mean, that could be another $6 million. Potentially. How do you tell that? Is that our land now? Is that still SRA? I mean is that stuff been cleared up? Or the surface lots? Yeah. Surface lots we own the bus stop is yet to be conveyed. You came up with a number though didn't you for that? Yeah the appraisal it's referenced in your the communicate. It was about crazy one. It's referenced in your, the communique. It was about 14 million. That included the, the deep of, the daily lane, deep of the, the, the, the, the lots that were being impacted. What do you recall what year we did that? That was like six, two thousand and six, six. So it is declined as well, but I'm just saying what it was. Yeah, and that was an as is not an as if. Right. Right. Anything else on this item? OK. Thank you, Council. Thank you, David. He did have those discussion points he wanted to talk about. So anything there that we didn't answer for you or need to discuss further? I think I'm hearing that, yeah, leave it in as a long-range plan, but it's out there a couple of years when more things are happening. B is, are there any specific projects you wanted to move forward with? One of the big ticket items in there is a $7 million bus storage and office slash driver facility to pull that out of parcel C building to open that up for delivery to try and at least do a step there Now that's not a regional transit facility, so it's a stand-alone But it is one of the things if you even if you were gonna bulldoze the whole place and start over You're gonna have to relocate my operation somewhere that's that's one of the ones I can pull out of and say, there's a project that could go off and do something with. But again, it's pretty spending in pre-recession dollars in a conceptual thought. Yeah, touch sheds. We love touch sheds. Pretty good. Okay. Yes. See the one I'm interested in. See? See, this I think could as gets a little bit to what Fred was was touching on that as you go out and you're seeking that private sector's participation in this, in this whole thing, what do you envision for West Village? What do you foresee as the relationship of West Village to base village, et cetera, et cetera? And how strong a commercial component is that? How is it, or a portal, if you will, or is that the residence place and day skiers of base village? You've got a lot of things that maybe you want to grapple with and revisit that. It is a component in reference in the comprehensive plan. I mean, there's a document to start with as well. To go, what do we see as our future and particularly in this area, as a, especially planned area? Russ, what would it entail to work towards something in that regard? Again, I think you need to look at it as a component of the whole. So again, it's looking at not only what makes sense in West Village, and there is some updated guiding principles in the complaint, but it's understanding, again, where are we with both the Center and Base village to really tackle that issue? Well, the question that Dave's asking is that should the council revisit the incentives and the West Village revitalization plan? And I say, yeah, in order to attract a third party to this process, we need to look at the incentives and put those on the table. And that will make more clear what the potential is for the redevelopment. My sense is you may need to get a broader kind of higher level perspective on where in the world are we today versus in early 2000 in terms of residential demand market and commercial demand at a high level within the community. John Grisha. David Jason couldn't recall. Do you recall if the 500,000 that was spent out of EOTC funds, any of that was applied towards the revitalization plan? No. OK. It was mostly the work in 99 to 2001 and then in 2006. That's most of where those documents, yeah, Joe Craig comes with the MK Centennial, who did, as I said, Boings and, you know, this was a lot of design work. No, I understand. Yeah, and it was the appraisals through the Urban Innovations Co the urban innovations coordinated that effort. Because I just want to point out that we couldn't remember exactly how that was paid for. But the 500,000 came out of the EOTC and the West Village revitalization came out of the town's coffers. I think Jason has an idea of the lump number that we spent there. I felt like that was somewhere in the 250 rain. That's on my recollection, yeah. So, okay. Fred? I guess I would re-emphasize and encourage you to speak with people you can speak with. You can speak with related. You can speak with related. You can speak with the folks that own the silver tree and bring these concerns to them and see what their reaction is. If their if related action is, you know, we're on hold, we're not doing anything. At least we know it. The silver tree says, listen, I'm spending $30, $40 million, re-decorating the place. I'm not ready to talk about something like that, but at least we know it. But if we're looking for some place to go, I think we ought to start there first. Okay. Good point. Moving on. Moving on. Item number. We'll take a break. You want a break? Yeah. Sounds like they want to break for 10 minutes. Let's try to get back here with 620. Mark with item number eight, formation of elected officials transportation committee, subcommittee to investigate alternatives to fund the fair subsidized bus service between Stomach Village and the Aspen. 45 minutes for this one. So thank you, David. Thank you, Council. Basically what we need to do, as you all know, the EOTC has been subsidizing fair free bus service between Aspen and Snowmass. And there's been the decline in revenues as diminishing that ability to fund that service as a free service. And we're trying to set up a subcommittee to study alternatives and what solutions for what we can do. We're here to look for two representatives from Snowmass to participate on that subcommittee. And I have given you, again, a tremendous amount of material. Sorry to read on that. Which is, yeah, well. I didn't see it. But I did feel that it would be beneficial to point out a few things. I would also like to point out that there was a pretty significant error in the attachment D, which looks like this and you have large copies and I'm sorry the font was so small you couldn't even read the numbers. We've tried to fix that and submit that to you for as the amended and correct material. Which is what we have on our desk today? Yeah, that you have on your desk today. What was the mistake that was corrected in here? We had the Raffta Expanded Service was in there twice, which was 5.7 million. Is that item number one under EOT? Yeah, it's that number, second 15 was what that we found it there. So we pulled that out. We found it there, so we pulled that out. Russ asked me to reconfirm the numbers that I used for an assumption on using the RAPTA survey from 2004. Those numbers changed slightly, so I updated all that information. Obviously, the purpose behind this spreadsheet is to show you from a historical standpoint. Where's money gone and where's the sources of those money been from a jurisdictional standpoint? We can get to that in a bit. And in thinking about this, I think there's a couple of things that you want to keep in mind. In attachment A on pages 68 and 69 are the mission statement and guiding principles that the UOTC has sort of agreed to and historically live by. They recommitted to these, I believe in 2002. And when you look at these six items, these six criteria by which you measure everything and make decisions about your investments of the half-cent sales and use tax, I think you find that the transit, the fair subsidized bus service fits very well into two, three, and four. You're hitting three out of six as a minimum of key of what benefits that that investment bring to the table. They're not capital investments into the future, but they are enhancements to bus service that definitely have proven through the Warners study that you did on the data between 2008 and 2009, they definitely show that their investments that are getting positive results and moving people from cars to bus service, which we'll talk about. And there's a little bit about item number five is that when the language for the intergovernmental agreement was made, there was a lot of study and focus on what was the comprehensive valley transportation plan. And in that plan was a specific line. There were line A, was Aspen to the airport, line C was a connection of some sort from Aspen to Snowmass and it was originally envision being along the Alcree quarter but it was a major connection between Aspen and Snowmass to utilize EOTC funding to drive down, you know, private vehicle utilization as much as possible. What was that? Number five? Well, it was number five, but where was it? In the original agreement, if you, I can send you some of those materials, but it's called, it was like exhibit E, and it was the comprehensive valley transportation plan, and it had a mapping showing these different lines. Line A, line C, and I forget what the line was that went down valley, which was at that time trying to target a rail solution and using the Rio Grande Vredway or Highway 82, whichever one it needed. But again, throughout these agreements, that's a reference that you see. And I think absent, as it's pointed out in the historical piece that is in front of this around page. Let me see. Well, at one point you had a vote on the met, which was back. The young, okay, it was on page 64 in November of 94. The mountain expressed transit component was a fixed guideway bonding measure that was sent before the legislature was to prove that failed at that vote at that time. I don't remember what the reason behind the why it didn't pass. But basically, after that, and at a strategic on page 65 at your snowmass Aspen linkages task force, which was trying to look at a way to improve the connection between snowmats and Aspen, there was a recommendation out of there to discontinue discussion of the Alcreek Road as a transit quarter for a number of geometry slash design features particularly at the little divide that made a problematic and then the share nature of the development that was starting to happen along the Alcreek Road and the preservation of it as a rural scenic quarter. There were a number of things where that sort of mass transit quarter in there didn't make sense. So, brush creek road then became your primary quarter for mass transit. But again, line C was a significant component of what these funds were supposed to Line C was a significant component of what these funds were supposed to help support, to reduce cars traveling between aspirin and snowmass. I think it was something that shouldn't be lost in the discussion as we constantly focus on the entrance to Asman. So within this, I just wanted to point out that this mission statement on page 68, it's pretty important. And you're, you know, the investments that you're trying to get the UOTC to make in a fair subsidized system or do fall in these categories and should be eligible. eligible. We just again you've already heard in EOTC meetings different people's opinions about the history and what agreements were again this is the black and white of how it was represented to the the taxpayer so again you know we think this is important to document you've heard about discussions that occurred with previous mayors with one one of those previous mayors, he would probably have a different perspective on commitments that were made about, at that time. So again, I think it's important to look at what's documented, what's in black and white in terms of the history and the purpose of EOTC. Russ, could you refresh us on what that comment was made I believe it was at the EOTC meeting in Mayor MacIerland of Aspen made that the all my ass was really responsible for for for use. Well it was it was that and then there was something else in some trailer meeting they had. Yeah, there was some discussion T Michael you know at the mayor at the time I think it'd be best for him to represent that, but I think it's fair to say he has a different recollection and a different representation that what was made to you. As I recall, what was the representation that you recall that was made at that EOTC meeting? Dave, you got some better background on it, but it was essentially that the fares generated between Aspen and Snowmass, you know. around on it, but it was essentially that the fares generated between asthma and snow mass. I thought it was that we would accept a trade off of having a fair base system rather than a free-system, increasing contribution towards that. I think what was happening, again it gets a little sketchy and I wasn't in the trailer. So this trailer was. So, basically, when the formation of the RTA was coming, there was a lot of push to get everybody to be subsidizing RAPTA or the RTA in the future on an appropriate level. And historically, even though we were contributing to the 1% and this half cent mass transit taxes that were a part of the Picking County, Aspen and to a certain extent Picking County, Aspen and to a certain extent, Picking County were also contributing additional funds to support Raffta at the time. And they were looking to snowmast to kind of pony up as well. And we were kind of saying, well, in any cost analysis of all this, you've got to take fair revenue into consideration if you're doing what's your benefit, what's my benefit, you know, you need to pony up this much. And we were kind of making the statements about, well, we know there's a lot of cash coming out of snowmaz on the raft system because tourists are paying with dollars and not using punch passes or other devices that give you a discount on fairs. Much like trying to project what the fair value is that you need to mitigate with EOTC money today, that was true back then as well. So there was never really a way that Raffa could come to an elected body and say, here's the dollars coming from your community through fares, and so that factors into some equation. Now, what Nick is alluding to, again, I wasn't in the room, but I do believe that absent being able to say, how much are you really asking us to contribute outside of what we are contributing of the remaining percentage of the 1% county tax as well as this tax which 80 some percent of this is going to subsidize our TA as well. How much do you want us to contribute? And at a certain point, during those times we had to rescind tax so that we could add tax. And that was a big issue at the time as well to make sure that we were staying within legal limits and with what would be palatable in our resort industry. So we were making some big decisions about what you have to do as that's your job is to say, how do we fun all the things we want? And so I don't think the fairs, if we're back to the fairs, I don't think there was ever really a very good answer on what that number was back then. And at least you have a number today very good answer on what that number was back then. And at least you have a number today what Raffa thinks that projection should be. But that's still, as you know from talking to Dan, there's a lot of caveats to that. That there's a lot of moving targets and there are a lot of variables and we can get it close, but it's not exact science today. And nor was it back then. Do you know how they got to 81.04% of those dollars going to? As it explains in some of this material, when the RTA was formed, all the jurisdictions were now trying to contribute to the RTA on equal footing. The EOTC has diverted funding to RAPTA when it's needed to help. So you're contributing a little bit more, but you were trying to get to a 1.67 funding rate to the RTA from the Upper Valley Jurisdictions, which you had all these pre-existing tax structures that were in place. So rather than create new taxes, you tried to reconfigure how money that was already being collected was being contributed to the RTA. Is that help? I think again another component we're sort of talking about it is in 2000 there was the formation of the RTA through a vote of the people, and there was that bonding election, which again identified these four pieces as components of that bonding issue. And they were again the 7 million for the snow mass improvements. The Picking County bus stops on the A line, which was the line for massment to the airport. There was the investment in some new buses and maintenance facility for Afta, and then there was also the commitment to the entrance to Aspen. So the last bonding measure, these were pretty much the key components. There's a lot of data in there, but I'm going to pick up for the sake of trying to just jump to some other information. So in attachment B on page 76 and 77 of your packet, and because my things don't quite line up, I have to get a sense of where I want to be if you'll bear with me. I believe that we get to page 5. Sorry. I'm trying to. Here is where the two pieces of information, first of all, in this retreat, it was a long discussion about the financial history, the mission statement, some of that information is there, but this began, and that retreat was reserving for the entrance to Aspen, and there was a beginning of the discussion about the fair subsidized service between Aspen and Snowmass. And John, nodding his head, he remembers some of that day in the silvertry hotel. The OTC did make some agreements to begin reservations for the entrance to Aspen, and there was the desire to continue the fair subsidized service. This is pretty much on this page where you find those decisions that were reached basically. These are the minutes for that meeting. This was the first extension to the end of the 2010 ski season, so it was a year of reservations. You jump later on to the next meeting that was shortly thereafter, there was some more insistent discussion about what have we decided to do? What did we mean when we said to thirds, reservation, et cetera, et cetera? And how are we going to fund as revenues were declining? How are we going to fund both this fair subsidized service and other capital projects that we want to look at into the future? And I think you would be well served to sort of revisit those portions of those minutes from that meeting. One thing you'll recall is there was an understanding that Snowmass would attempt to convene a subcommittee at that time. There was a lack of interest from the other jurisdictions and joining us in that, but we did attempt to do that. And now, again, I think there is interest by all three parties. Yeah, because at one point, I thought it was, they were thinking that we were gonna set it up and we were gonna come back to the group saying, this is how it would be funded, you know, out of some ask dollars or something. And it it's like no, this was supposed to be all three of us getting together as a subcommittee, not just snowmast to help do this. And I remember Markey was saying she, you know, involved in that. Well, that's what it says on page 80 in the last paragraph that councilperson Markey agreed to chair the subcommittee. And it was later agreed that he subcommittee would not be formed. And you know. That keeps being pushed back at us that well we thought you were going to form a subcommittee but it says here in the minutes that the group agreed not to form a subcommittee. Well, Russell, you saying now they want is the purpose of this? Yes. Now they want a subcommittee, right? Right. Now I think each jurisdiction would have two representatives on a subcommittee. Which I think needs to happen prior to our meeting in March. Right. So, second. Probably within the next month we would be pulling the subcommittee together. I want to put words in your mouth, but aren't the two logical candidates from our board, Markey and John? I mean, you're on the raft of board, right? And Markey was the one who volunteered to do it at the outset, and he had some real interest in it. I'm happy to nominate her since she's not here. Yeah. Well, that was, I guess, the way I was looking at it also. But today, I'm wondering if it shouldn't be John and Russ are Fred, just because of the continuity of the election come in November, it might be a little something to have one of you two new members who most likely will be here after November involving this discussion. So it's not just two people who may not be here in November. It's just a thought I'm throwing out. It's just a thought I'm throwing out. I think it's... And I'm not objecting to, but my only concern is my lack of background. You can get up to speed real quick with all the data. Make it up as well as we can. Fred, you're getting good at that. No, but maybe John's on... I assume this decision, whatever decision you made on this thing, will be made before the next election. Oh, definitely. OK. So with your, I mean, I don't know anything about the raft aboard, obviously. And I'm not trying to duck it. I'm just saying I'd rather have somebody that I think is more qualified than I am to do it. And I'm not just saying that. So I personally, yeah, I was thinking that John and Marky would be the likely candidates to be in the subcommittee, but I think we need to go through days. Okay, how did we come to selecting Marky as a representative? It started off because she had said initially at that first meeting that she would chair that group. No, but my question is, has she had experience dealing with RAPTO or dealing with this issue per se versus Bill? Have you been the RAPTO RAP in prior years? You have to make more sense to have John and Bill be out representing him. Well, Bill is the alternate on the RAPTO board, so that could work also. I mean, that sounds like a pretty strong. That's fine. No, no, I didn't realize, I didn't realize Bill's experience. And I think we're big because there is a type of timeline to have a recommendation by March that you've got to be able to commit. Great. And I'm not saying year, nay, one way or another. I'm just, I think I'd like to work with John and the other subcommittee members. Great. I think a couple of things. Why are we going through all this? And just so I can do my stick and then shout out is basically just to show you a couple of things from that Warner report. So you remember why you're doing what you're doing or why you're, you think this is a good investment. What you generally see here is, is, rafter riders and these numbers for the visitors here and of both Aspen and Snowmass, these are people using rafter that do not bring a car to this community. And those are pretty staggering numbers by any jurisdictions measure. That between the fair subsidized service and the free-skier shuttles, these are huge numbers. It's also true for residents that are living within the community, maybe their subsidized housing, I don't think it really matters to you because they're moving to jobs, they have less money to pay for parking or whatever it may be, but you're seeing a pretty significant component of the residents of your community that do not have a car and are using RAPa to move up and down the valley. And if you're going to be concerned about hard times hitting the poor people in your community, transportation is 10% of most housing costs and it's second only to their mortgage or rent. So it's a big deal. The other piece is did it shift people from cars? And this is Attach Benee on page 97 of your packet. But here you see, if people that were here for both years, did you change your behavior? And it's pretty significant that in every category, pretty much there was an increase that, yes, my use of mass transit increased from 98 2008 to 2009 and then overall category. And lastly why? What was the factor that made you change? And this breaks into whether they had a car, or they didn't have a car. And still the fact that it was free is the big driving factor for these two categories. Far and you see free as a factor for whether, is it a parking issue, is it stop locations, whatever you can choose from these, the fact that there was free service was still an overriding thing that moved people from what they were doing before to what they were doing now. The only other piece that relative to the Warner study that was in, not in the directly mentioned in the summation, which did say he was very upset at his unique feature. It's great. You guys should continue it. Also, this was in the detailed report and I just wanted to point out item seven and item eight. And these two talk about whose benefiting from this, because there is a sort of an essence that this is something that's benefiting us, and I don't think that that's necessarily true. The ridership gains between aspirin and snowmasses were in the non-skier hours. And that's pretty logical because there was a free skier shuttle already. So from 8 to 445 you had free service between Aspen and Snowmass. So where the major growth in this was from 445 into the evening and the biggest users died in number eight here. The biggest users of that network in non-Ski period are people staying in Snowmass who dine out or shop in Aspen and that came from the data of the survey. And this is going to be a little bit of a segue into something that we could talk about sales tax leakage. And we'll get to that. And I'll re-loss of retail. We'll talk about that a little bit later. But I think these are key things that came out of the survey. And maybe why don't we have a survey somewhere I don't know. We didn't study it anymore because it didn't tell us what we wanted to hear. Do you know if the other jurisdictions aren't doing the same selection that we're doing for this subcommittee or? Yes, okay good. I believe they have there. I'm going as much into the history as we are right now. I just say who's going to settle this subcommittee? So I just wanted to touch base on a couple of those things that gave you some directives. If we could kind of return to page 59, I'd like to hit on a couple of things in my memo. And then before I go to this history and talk a little bit about sales tax. And what that means to the three jurisdictions. On page 59, I think what you have going on here is the trouble within the EOTC is after you make the reservation to raft of the 81.04% of the sales tax, you only have the remaining 18.96% of the sales tax and the use tax. Those two taxes right now in the recessionary trend are generating about $750,000 in sales tax and about 800 day, $150,000 in use tax. So you have about 1.4, 1.5 million that you're working with. And from that 1.4, 5 million, you're making a 2-thirds reservation right off the top. That leaves you about 700,000 to work with. The Fair Subsidized Services is about 1, half a million and therein lies the rub. You only have about 200,000 left for other discretionary capital projects and there are a couple on the horizon that are probably going to be coming to the UTC to ask for funding. The PED bridge at the Aspen Airport Business Center is the one you're already hearing about, and you've committed $250,000 to it as a project. For the study. For the study, design work study, and that's going to probably be about a $4 million project when it actually goes into construction. So they are working to try and find alternative funding sources, but money's tight and you're going to probably be asked to contribute something a million, if not more, to make that project your go. David, on those capital projects, are they still subject to the same requirements that you outlined earlier on the five-dit points. Did you go T.C. by any chance? Yes. They would theoretically, those are the guiding principles for you to make a decision on the best use of the resources. And again, the PED bridge is trying to connect the RAPTA regional bus stops and the allow movement from the Aspen Airport Business Center, not only to the regional bus stops, but to the airport business center as well, in the future that would be line A, again that would be the terminus of line A. So you have one of your first bullet point there on the top of that page is that you really have little funds to deal with after the two-thirds reservation to the entrance to Aspen. It may not be off the table. You might want to consider what would it look like if we just changed that slightly. Could 6040 work and create enough funding to both reserve for the entrance to Aspen. That's a possibility, but you have to talk about that with your counterparts. That's the item, the second bullet point, the two-thirds reservation off the top, not of what's left, creates some of this funding shortage for different projects. And lastly, you have some members of the UOTC that believe that the contribution of the 81.04% to of the sales tax that the operations of RAPTA is your operating contribution and the rest of the funding should be kept for capital. As we move down there, I just wanted to articulate the possible funding options that we've been heard of to date. Increasing sales tax rates and on page 60, I've given you the information that I gave you last August on what those potential rates or increases could be. what those potential rates or increases could be. You could try for a new lodging tax. Raffta has the ability to assess the lodging tax. You could look at Raffta, maybe trying to do it within the upper valley jurisdictions. Is there an opportunity to repurpose existing lodging taxes that are here and in Aspen or a portion of those? I guess that would not as well. I don't see it practical in Aspen particularly since that's a relatively new tax for them. You could ask it but I guess technically within our existing marketing tax or lodging taxes is just an allowable use within those. You'd have to re-purpose it and then take it to the voters. It's good and he's seen as a marketing amenity. Don't know. Certainly positive for the business community, but not with the way it's written. Couple of the other ones that have been thrown out is other funding for a fund a portion of the fair, subsidized service, a minimal fair of $1, et cetera, et cetera. There's a number of different things there. You can see contributions like you're maybe suggesting from another entity. Make the fair subsidy seasonal in nature. Again, change the 2, third, 1, third discretionary calculation policy. Again, change the 2-3rd, 1-3rd discretionary calculation policy. You could use part of the 6.5 million to loan until there was an economic recovery. And that's rather than just using it, you could loan it. And I think that would be a win-win for all parties concerned if the economy rebounds. And the list of capital projects isn't too huge. And then you could do a status quo where you're going at it day after day. Any questions about that? Yeah, I mean because that's really the heart of what the discussion will be. Well David, one of the things that's been left out of this discussion is the fact that back when we did have a fair service, it was free for the skiers during the day. And so there's a direct benefit to ask for the skiing company because the skiing company is paying for that. Well, one free cost of doing it, right? Right. They put in the money because we've gone to the fair free service Benefit ski company enjoy out of having this even though they still do contribute contribute to that cost Is there a way to figure that benefit out? I'm from what I've heard in sidebar conversations the ski company feels like it's In sidebar conversations, the ski company feels like it's because a lot of people that ride the Ferris service during the day are not skiers and so they are contributing disproportionately to the mass transit movement between aspirin and snow mass. And so they feel like they're over contributing. So I think trying to shade that after hours operation, somehow supporting them in addition, and asking for an additional contribution would, it's not out of the question, but I think that's how you, that's the response you might get from them. Do we know what that dollar amount is? Is that in the spreadsheet? What's the company's cookie? Yeah. Oh, the ski company? No, you'd have to ask Raffta, but I believe that contract is 1.2 million somewhere around there. It might be 1.4. It increased your income with an inflation factor. So, for the sake of time, I'm just going to go here, this on your exhibit C, this is the UTC budget that you approved for 2012. And I'm just pointing out that what we were talking about here is revenues and expenditures. And you have about 800,000, maybe a million, four, a million, 800,000, $1.4 million, surplus that you're dividing down here for your one-third calculation for the entrance to Aspen. So, what you're operating with now is a surplus discretionary surplus deficit that the entrance to Aspen is subsidizing for what is going on today. Here again is the fair subsidized service out through the end of April, and the end of the ski season in April of 2013. And that's just what you've seen when you approved the T.C. budget. But it paints the picture for you of the reserve vacions for Aspen. What it also parents out, I think, is if you go to the electorate for another vote for transit funding source, is that you have this UTC accumulative surplus that holds both R6.5 and the entrance to Aspen, sitting at in 2012 is going to be about $11 million. And growing by some million a year, 800,000 a year. So this will be something you need to discuss and be aware of when you're looking at your options if you want to get a viable alternative. Why do you say that Dave? What do you mean that? Well, I think the electric is sensitive to increases in sales tax or when you're putting in a $11 million. I'm sure a plus. Building a million dollars towards you. How big of a project? Well, it depends on what is our project and what's the entrance to Aspen. And that could be a big ticket item. You know, you've heard numbers anywhere from 50 to 75 million dollars, which might be that order of magnitude. And I think Tom Oaken, one time, kind of said, you know, maybe you could get $16 million out of that 50 to 75 million in bonding or paying for cash. The other element of that is, again, if I'm going to stut taxpayer, which I'm sure we all are, we're very close to being able to hit this formula of two thirds and pay for the free bus service, but it doesn't really afford any opportunity for additional capital projects. Additional projects, let's say X Games comes to us and say we want to express something. We don't have a dollar. I mean that kind of weighs in on the loan concept too. The replenishment of that fund, it wouldn't want to be caught with an opportunity coming forward and not have the money there ready to put it up. If that did come to the table. I think you're still sitting at a near, I mean there's no design work on our project. There's no design work on the entrance to Aspen at this point. So you're three, five years out probably by the time you get through the politics. Say 30 to 50. Yeah, 30 to 50. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was being overly optimistic to not to be conservative. But I think you're looking at an issue that's, you know, five years out. Keep going. Okay. 10 years out. Yeah, keep going. Oh, I thought you made keep going. I know. For the sake of, I'll get to the last thing and then we'll hit the discussion items. Basically what you have before you is the amended attachment D and I want to walk you through it a little bit. Basically what this is trying to do is show what has been the total revenue gain and the half-cent sales and use tax by category and what's the total today at the end of 2012? This does not include the entrance staff and our project, only the funds that have been expended year to date. So we're only looking at 2012. The color coding is trying to identify who the user or been user of the services is. For example, the blue is the raft to support and the information of the RTA. This kind of off magenta color is, I'm going to color blind, so forgive me. But that was the Raffer and the Rio Grande, Denver Rio Grande, right away acquisition. The entrance to Aspen is, are the projects listed here that were specifically the airport intercept parking lot and all the work on the Aspen, the Brown and about at Castle Creek and the bus lanes from the airport business center to their roundabout. Our project, the half million that we've spent out of the seven million is shown in yellow and then there are a couple of regional things like the X Games, the brush creek study and also a study for the Garfield County. So these projects then bear with me, but basically what Dave Peckler did, and this is my assumption and my work, so I'll take responsibility for it all. I took a raft of survey of boardings and allidings on raft of done in 2004. Last time I believe an O&D study has been done. I took from Buttermilk Park and Ride, which is the last stop within Picking County on 82 up to the city of Aspen. And I took and I assigned boardings and allitings by jurisdiction where they happen. So what you had, Aspen boarding and allitings 45 points, almost 3-quarters percent, picking county had about 34 percent, and snowmass was about 20 percent of that ridership. Using these factors, I assign the benefit to Rhafta, Rhafua, and the regional projects. What you come up with is down here at the bottom, the allocation of all the spending to a jurisdiction. And so you have who benefits? So Aspen for example is 53% of the total expenditure of 73 million year to date. Picking County is 30% of that expenditure and snow mass village is about 16.2. No mass village is about 16.2. When you look at the revenues over here, basically all I did was made a projection for 2011 on revenue collection. And those projections come out to be about 65.8% will come from Raffta, will come from the city of Aspen, Picking County will generate about 15.2% of the 1% sales tax being collected from Ascrancet and Snowmass villages contributing somewhere in the neighborhood of 18.9%. That creates, we're generating about $15, $16 million. And if we're looking at it, comparador our benefit, we're getting about $11, 12 million. So here today, we are a donor, read jurisdiction, if you will, to the funding done by the Electoral Officials Transportation Committee. Now we talked a little bit about sales tax leakage and that's what this bottom piece is for. So David the revenues is attached to the allocation of all spending to EOTC. So that's the direct comparison that you're making. That's the direct to the comparison. This is what we generate in the one cent transportation tax. And then this is using that there have to survey to say who benefits from what and you're making this comparison. In the top line in your revenue, you say picking county half-cent sales tax. Yeah, right here. That's not the 1% sales tax. No, this is the half-cent. This is the half-cent. That's not the 1% sales tax. No, this is the half-send. This is the half-send. That's 1%. I just used the 1% as a way to find out how much each jurisdiction was contributing in sales tax because I had that in a study. In looking at study done by Thompson Consulting, who did our economic analysis. They showed that in our retail beverage and commercial retail sales, we retain about 43% of our retail potential revenue in snow mass. Where's that? Is that just, it's not on this? It's not in there. Okay, that's all right. You don't, don't take it out. It's fine. That's not jumping out of the window. No, I was just looking forward here, and that's why I was questioning it. I just gave you this summation. There are some other things. There's lodging sales tax, which you collect 100% of. So I'm glad to 100% of, so I'm not going to belabor this, but in the end, what that means is about 62, 63%, you retain 63% of the potential sales or retail activity within your community. So I applied one third, because that's simple math. I applied one third from the 18.9% collected in the 1% sales tax. And I said 5% probably goes to Aspen and 1.3% probably goes to Pick and County. In city market shopping in El Jabel or ABC buying gas or who knows what but you know probably the lion share is going to ask and to have a good time in town. That generates these percentages, Aspen generating about 60% of the sales tax revenue, picking county about 14 but we're now generating about 26 percent, which would give you, say, your generating $21 million compared to a 12 million. And this would be relative to that discussion of 7.7 million is all you deserve to get out of this and be happy. Well done Dave, well done. Thank you. Okay. This is a lot of voodoo math here. I like it. A lot of voodoo math, a lot of voodoo math. I mean, we want to be clear. Part of these are hard numbers. Surely when you get to the leakage. You're making some assumptions. But these were the kind of things I was looking for when we started first talking about it. I mean, this helps testify our discussions that we're going to have with City of Aspen and Picking County. So, I think Council should consider before you go into the meeting and you may want to talk about it a little bit is you know What is the highest and best use are you committed to the fair free service? I'm on page 61 of the pack I'm trying to get to the end so we can retire And I believe you know Those are some of that I'm on, B, C, and D. Should you consider loaning? I mean, that's a potential that isn't addressed in the options list. And it sounds like you've made your selection of Bill and John to represent. Yep. Sounds that way. Okay. And I'll answer questions at this point. So now that we have our representatives, the next step is to try to hook up and schedule some time here between, and I imagine it's going to be more than one meeting. Yes. Our staff is going to meet later this week. I believe we have the first staff meeting scheduled to sort of kind of draft out what Yes. Staff is going to meet later this week. I believe we have the first staff meeting scheduled to sort of kind of draft out what are our options and then try to land. Where we might have the most overlap to get the greatest participation. And also just how to facilitate this discussion. And just a reminder, we've only had two people respond for the 20 seconds meeting. That's right Dean. Who couldn't have the meeting on the original date? Has been in Picking County. Is it eight individual there? I mean are we going to make more problems for ourselves trying to move to 22nd versus holding it on the you know I guess that was sort of running the reasons, you know, I can, I just make it work, but why are we moving? Because everybody can't be there on one group or we heard. Aspen and Picking County can't have a quorum on that original date, both of them. Well, I think we can do all we can to be best prepared for this. And I'm going to need time to really understand. Yeah, and I'd like to have a hard copy I hate to do. We may have more discussion today before we sit down. Anyway, exactly. So let's find out, I guess, Rhonda's question to the council start off with. Can you make a meeting with EOTC? I have Fred and Jason responded. Are you OK? I'm OK with that. I'll turn it down. I'll make that date work then. What's the date? The 22nd March. That's not spring break is it for schools? No, okay. It's the week after. The week after this meeting. Yes, okay. Perfect. after this meeting. Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Well, that's great. Glad to hear we can be flexible. Well, we want to see the best outcome. I mean, I'm totally committed to keeping that fair, free service going. That's the fundamental question. Yes. I still feel a strong level of resolve. Yes. I think that's most important. I mean, you know, when I sit back and read level of resolve. Yes, I think that's most important. I mean, you know, when I sit back and read some of the reviews from travelosity or the other sites, one of the neat things I've read in there is that people are saying they can get into Aspen or into Snellmast for free when they, you know, they come to Snellmast Valley and ask them Valley to vacation. And that's really, it seems to me, pushing a lot of people to say, let's go there. I think it helps all of us out. Yeah, I think it's going to come down to a matter of how you fund it. I don't think the fair free service is going to go away. It's just a matter of who's going to where the pain is going to come from to keep it going. And I think there is a solution out there. It's just going to take some time. But I don't I really don't see it going away. Okay, what? But that's just one. But I mean the whole idea behind the OTC is that we all have to be unanimous in each jurisdiction. Correct. I mean not unanimous but we each jurisdiction has to approve it. Right. Right. So there's a lot of leverage out there mm-hmm David anything else we need tonight no I think I've talked myself out yeah no thank you thank you thank you council thank you we'll have to set up some time you bill you and me yeah and and probably David also a little more. Okay. We'll move on to item number nine. Resolution 25 series 2011. Drowsy acquisition. Will you do that tonight? Well, there's a recommendation in there. First I need to apologize to you because it looks like the even number pages didn't get gluted in the packet. But the important part is on page 106. Also, it was for background. You've seen all of this before. It would call it our meeting on December 5th that we had a discussion about all the factors that go into the collection fee and that what are vehicle specific ownership tax proceeds that the town would receive. At that point, Picking County staff indicated a willingness to include language in the IGA that would backstop MVSO tax receipts to a level that wouldn't sure that the town wouldn't have to appropriate from the general fund to pay. The treasurer's 2% collection fee to gift $2 million over the course of seven years to the Picking County Open Space and Trails, Drow Street acquisition. Just last Tuesday we got our staff received their first stab at the language. And obviously we were trying to get your packet ready for tonight at that point. Didn't have enough time to review it. Discussions went back and forth. We had a key player on our team that was still on a vacation, being our finance director. It just became problematic to get you a packet in a timely manner with language. Our recommendation today is, and you'll recall that this was just became problematic to get you a packet in a timely manner with language. Our recommendation today is and you'll recall that this was tabled. This was moved and seconded at the December 5th meeting and it was tabled at that point. It's also a resolution that's numbered in the series 2011 and his Russ has talked with the county manager and the county treasurer. We've told them that, you know, this is not timely from our point of view. It's timely from your point of view because you're on the receiving end of these funds and we couldn't, we couldn't in good conscience bring you the language because it didn't say what they said it was gonna say in our opinion. So they asked for some time to reformulate that language and what we would like to do now is have you, what we recommend that you do is recall the question on 30 for resolution 35 of 2011, declined to approve it so that it would die so you would not be approving any IGA one way or the other and that would allow when they come back to us Pick and County comes back to us with the IGA which reflects the language that they proposed here on December 5th you can then review that language and determine at that point whether it's a fish or not Okay, red that language and determine at that point whether it's a fish or not. Okay. The red. At the last time this issue came up, I was accused of short-circating the matter and not allowing all of the issues to be ventilated. I'd like to cure the errors of my ways. And what I'd like to do tonight, because I spent a fair amount of time thinking about this, is review the bidding here. So we all understand what has transpired. Over two years ago, the county came to council, I was not on the council, and asked for a contribution of $2 million for the purchase of the trustee property. They also said at that time, there would be no other cost fees, expenses, any amount of money that would be asked for from the town of Snowmass, other than the contribution of that $2 million. Is that documented? That is documented. You can go back and watch that. Well, there was a specific question at the previous meeting we had this kind of queued up the time the date and it was at one of the critical meetings where I asked the staff, are there any other operational costs? Now, in the context of my question I was referring to, are you going to come back and ask us for maintenance? Are you going to ask us to build the trail? And again, the response was, no, it's $2 million. And that's all, again, I was not on the council, but I was at the meeting as representative of the FAB when that representation was made. Again, as I say, I was not on the council, but what the FAB said was, we're not going to tell you how much to give, but what we recommend you do is give in a fiscally responsible manner. in a fiscally responsible manner. And as you remember, as John remembers all too well, the mantra was tax neutral and debt free. We didn't want the town to issue a bond for this amount of money, and we didn't want the taxpayers to pay any more tax. And as you know, the consequence of that was that a tax that was supposed to roll off was put back on the ballot to stay on so that it would produce funds over a period of seven years, $2 million to pay the pledge that the council made. And I thought that wasn't absolutely appropriate decision. Shortly after the drossty property closed, the county came back to us and said listen, we want to do an environmental study of the drossty property closed, the county came back to us and said, listen, we want to do an environmental study of the drossty property. And as long as we're doing it, we like to include the open space that the town has in that study. And they asked us to contribute $34,000 to that study. I was vehemently opposed to that. I said number one, it's not a study we needed, it's not a study we wanted, it's not a study we would have ever done. And if the county wanted to include that study with the study of the drossty property, God speed, let him do it. But I saw absolutely no reason. This challenge should contribute a dime towards that study. This challenge should contribute a dime towards that study. The majority of you felt differently and voted to pay the county $34,000. I thought that decision was wrong then, I think it's wrong now. Now the county comes back to us and said, because you've left that tax on, there is this transfer fee of some $40,000. There is this transfer fee of some $40,000. But they said, don't worry, you're going to be getting $40,000 from this motor vehicle tax because you've left the tax on. So you're coming out even. Well, gentlemen, I have to tell you, that's the silliest argument I've ever heard. We're not coming out even. We're coming out losing $40,000. We're going to get that money from the motor vehicle transfer tax bill, come hell or high water. And what the county is in effect saying to us is that money comes in your pocket, take it out and give it back to us. That's not coming out even. That's losing $40,000. Now a number of you had, oh and by the way and the staff's recommendation was to take the fee out of our annual payment. Okay. Now a number of you had some concerns or arguments against that. Marky said, well, the fee is statutory. We've got to pay it. Well, she's right. The fee is statutory. But who pays it and how it gets paid is not. So it is perfectly appropriate that that fee comes out of our $200,000 payment. Jason, your comment was something to the effect that, well, it's on us. We should have known the statute was there. Well, we didn't know the statute was there. Nobody at this table knew it. Nobody at that table knew it. Had I, at least had I know the statute was there when all this originally transpired, item made the same argument then that I'm making now, that the fee should come out of our annual payment. Having said that, there is nothing that bars us from taking that position today as opposed to the, at the outset of this when we agreed to pay the $2 million. So I'm not so sure that argument carries a lot of weight. John, your argument was, well, we're really not paying you $2 million because we're paying it out over time. So its present value is something less. Well, with all due respect, at the end of seven years, we will have paid them what they asked. We will have paid them $2 million. The fact that the present value is not $2 million strikes me as absolutely irrelevant. Because taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you're saying because we decided to do this in a fiscally responsible manner, we should somehow be penalized. We should somehow be held culpable and have to pay more money than we actually pledged to pay. I'm sorry, John, I just don't follow that logic. It's my position that we ought to vote to adopt the resolution originally prepared by staff and have agreed to take the fee out of the $2 million, out of our annual payment. If you elect, if you vote to take this fee out of the town coffers, there's probably nobody watching by now. But if there is anybody watching, I hope they come up and ask you two questions. Why did you agree to pay the county $74,000, which is what you will have paid them, the $34,000 for the study and this $40,000, when you have no legal, moral or ethical obligation to do it? The second question is why did you agree to pay the county $74,000? When two years ago they told you you wouldn't have to pay another dime. I hope you've got good answers to those two questions because honestly I don't. Thank you, Fred. I guess this is one of those things that a few of us have been thinking about over the last month or two since we've been talking about this. But I guess my feeling today is that I don't necessarily want to go back on something we agreed with talking to people face to face. I felt that there were some things that, you know, the $40,000, as Fred says, $74,000 number, I think had some benefit to the village for long range ideas. Specifically, the $40,000 I felt that, you know, in the grand scheme of things, it might go a little bit of distance to help us have a better relationship with the county folks at some point in time. But I'll change my tune a little bit to say that as I've thought about it, you know, when you say you're going to give $2 million, you know, part of that is there is a discount in there. And, you know, every other tax district never does, give more than their number in the county, pulls those dollars out. So, you know, the argument that they were making, I'm probably more into Fred's camp tonight to say, you know, $2 million was the number we went to the voters with. This is what we said in county you you know need to do take your 2000 you're 2% out but I'm not sure that I want to move and give additional use tax even though Tom and these guys said oh well you'll be getting extra money anyway. I'm still I'm because I'm more in the camp of Fred tonight to say that at least on this issue I would propose that we do just say two millions a number and that's all we you know I'm not gonna go and grab any of the dollars out for that. So that's my thinking tonight. I'm not gonna change that when I hear from Tom again to say well well, you know, you committed to it. I think that it is one of those things that, you know, unfortunately, is taking this long to get the language and it's allowed us to think and contemplate our next move. And I'm thinking that I would probably tonight like to say, the number is, is John Dresser put together in the resolution was to say two millions of numbers. That's what we should be contributing. It was to say that in the future they come back to us and say, well, there's another issue. We're going to do four million, but you need to give us the other two percent on top of that. I don't think it works that way. Just press. I asked the question at the last meeting to John. The first one to believe in a win-win, I believe the county is a strategic partner, and that relationship is extremely important. But I asked him, where does that money go? That 2% it goes into their general funds. So again, they have the flexibility with that general fund to appropriate any way they see fit. They absolutely have the statutory requirement to collect it. But they can't appropriate that in any way they see fit. They absolutely have the statutory requirement to collect it, but they can't appropriate that in any way they want to. The other thing we want to make sure you understood that was discussed at the last meeting is, you know, the taxpayers still pays for this in four different ways. They pay for the county open space tax, town of Snowmass Village, they're paying for the $2 million. They certainly will contribute to the general fund and then we all pay our motor vehicle tax. So we're happy to continue to work with the county to see what language would come forward and have them here to present that. You know, Jason asked which was the more straightforward, the better solution, and certainly, this is what the language you had at the last meeting is straightforward and clean. And again, the language we received last week was still complicated. And she was not guaranteed. Val, and maybe it could be with more work. Yeah. How does the rest of council feel tonight? Mr. Wilkinson. I'm thinking about it. Well, that's a good thing, Jack. And there's no time pressure on it. Yeah. But as John said, you know, I think we need to deal what we have on the table here, you know, and oh actually I'm I'm encouraging declining We need to deal is decline this and let them come back with their language You can still have both options on whatever you mean so there's no decision they need a tonight other than this By declining this you're not bound by that action. You're saying a month ago we said come back with language, we're saying the language wasn't what they said it was going to be, but the action that we have pending isn't the language either. Unless you decide it is after you've heard their language. And I mean, we do live in this county and we did offer them the chance at that point. I'm not disagreeing with you Fred, I'm saying let's hear them. And if it doesn't measure up and you still feel the way you do, the option of the two million less the collection fees is still on the table. Are you saying that we can't adopt the resolution originally prepared by staff tonight? Well, he's saying you can? Well, he said you can. I'm not saying you can. He's recommending we- I'm saying our recommendation is- The decline is- Let's see what they- We can't let these hear them out. And by declining this resolution, declining to approve this resolution, when new language comes back to you, we will have a new resolution approving the language in a new idea. But the new language is going to be talking about them guaranteeing we pay no more than $40,000. The new language is still going to have us paying the transfer fee, is it not? Isn't that what's going on here? Isn't that what they need? Yes. I can't speak for their language, the language. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, attempting to work on is that the MVSO, they would construct it so it would be a backstop to the 2% administrative fee. They're saying they're working on that. Yes. The increase in the motor vehicle specific ownership tax because of us taxing for drosti will offset the collection. I thought I understand that. That's exactly what I'm saying. Right. But that doesn't do anything to my question. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. They're still taking $40,000 out of our pocket. When we get to that discussion, you have that item. Right tonight. It's not, we're not. But if you agree with me, my point is, if you agree with me that we should not be taking $40,000 out of our pocket and paying the county and that that $40,000 should come out of our annual payment, what is in a, can we not, if you agree with me, and I'm, you know, that's obviously your individual decisions, but if you agree with me, can we not vote to adopt the original resolution that you presented to us saying we will pay you $2 million? Let's the collection phrase. No, we'll pay you $2 million. However you get the collection phrase. If you don't have that language in front of us, can understand. Understand. We don't pay the collection phrase on top of it. No, they take it out. They hold it before they send us what's collected. That's why the language says we'll pay $2,000 less than the collection fees without. Oh, okay, well either way. Exactly. It's the same way. But the same principle. Right. I get a question. Is that MVSO fee? Would that come to the town regardless if? Yes. I mean mean we're gonna get that But see it's it's a fluctuating pool right you don't know what it's going to be in any any given year But we're gonna get that regardless So that's what we get a bigger percentage the higher more taxes we love He we get a bigger percentage over the overall pool right So they're so collected now there is what they're trying to construct is language that if that would fluctuate or tax rates and some other place in the county Plummeted, you know, we would still be guaranteed that backstop That's the language they're trying to craft So it does not diminish Fred's point now does The MBSO we would be getting Okay, it's ours it goes to our general fund and I get again John my point is we're gonna we're gonna get them on the come hill or high water and what the county is saying to us is well you're just coming in your right pocket now just take it out and give it back to us and so when they say you're even, we're not even, we're out 40, even if they guarantee it, we're out $40,000. That would otherwise be ours. Bless. I think it's a question of process. You certainly can approve that IGA today with the language we presented, or you could have both versions presented to you. You know, the language we had at the last meeting and whatever language they come up and you can have a discussion with them. But the language we have in front of us, the community has, it's been out there, is this. Correct. I think this is what we have to deal with tonight. I don't think we can personally add on. No, no, no, no, you can't do it tonight. But this would be at a future point in time when he had say, well tonight just just just also understand that the county already approved an IGA and sent in January. We approved it on it by GA County amended that sent it back to us in September. That amended one is it's like if you think of counter, offer, counter offer. And now, if you approve, as Fred suggests, the draft that we, there's two proposed exhibitors in there. The one the county approved in September, which makes no mention of the collection fee or the MVSO. It's just straight, you give us $2 million, which would end up with us paying $2 million over the course of seven years, and it's at point $40,000 off to pay for the collection fee. Okay, so you'd end up paying $2 million, $40,000 under the county's approved IGA that's before you today. And under ours you would pay $2 million and you would subtract the county collection fees. So you would only pay $2 million now. Is that before us tonight? Yes. That language is in here. But understand that would then be a counteroffer to the counteroffer that they made in terms of negotiating this IGA. So is it better just to have them here? I'd rather have that conversation in person again. Right. And I'm open to having that conversation. And you could have both versions in front of me. Right. Version you have tonight and whatever they put on the table. And what I'm saying is if you decide that that's where you want to go, kill this resolution because it's a number from last year. Right. It'll be almost, it'll be the same resolution. You're still just going to be choosing an IGA to append as the exhibit. They're going to come in with their language that is the formula that they are trying to come up with to entice or to get your assent to the MVSO concept. You can listen to that. You can approve it. You can approve that to your resolution or we will bring back this same draft that you have that says less collection fees. And whatever happened at the last meeting, I think we did say to them, as a body, you did say to them, we wanted to hear it now. At staff level, we told them that, well, we didn't even tell them. You tabled it to this day, and unfortunately, we didn't get it till last week, not in time to include in your packet. So, could I just get a sense of the council? If we're not going to, if you're telling us we shouldn't be voting on it, do you believe that we should pay the county an extra $40,000 over and above the $2 million we pledge to pay? And if so, why? I'm still kind of thinking about it, I guess. And part of the thought process for me and I think it's consistent where I was last meeting. We were basically asked by the county to contribute $2 million, right? And the town said, okay, we'll contribute $2 million. If we give them $2 million tomorrow, that's it. $2 million, that of our general fund. Done over no x-watt $40,000. If we choose tax collection, that comes with a statutory 2% fee, collection fee that goes to the county as a matter of course. And so we made that choice, not we personally but we as a body made that choice to go the property tax route. So that we know that comes with a 2%. No we don't. At the time we pledged the $2 million. Nobody knew about that 2% fee. Well, I think the other point is, if we've done $2 million at one time, which is to $2 million to the community, let's say, we'll play him this year, $2 million. It would still be a fee on top of it. What would be the fee? 2%. For what? Not if it was a property tax. If it was not a property tax. I mean, if it was just- we just took it out of our general fund. If we did what has been did they just wrote a check for a million bucks out of their general fund. If we did a property tax. Right. One year property tax for two million dollars. Then there will be a two million dollar. Either way a two to three on top of that. Correct. So here's another question that kind of plays in my mind. And you said it tax-free, tax neutral, debt-free. So we retired and you said it tax-free, tax-neutral, debt-free. So we retired other debt that we were collecting on, right? And I don't know what that was specifically, but maybe someone here does. Presumably, whatever we were collecting to pay that or collect those came with the 2% collection fee. Is that accurate? Right. So obviously, we were kind of doing that before on exactly that same collection, but we were getting the funds. Yeah. That's easy. I'm using that. Make that. Huh? Make that more clear. Well, we were we were retiring debt. So we were paying off. We we have we borrowed money to build something. So we were paying that off. We borrowed money to build something so we were paying that off. So if we were taxing our taxpayers for $2 million and we were going to spend it to do something in town rather than give it to a taxing authority that our people are already paying. Yeah, but we collectively agreed that it was worth making up right here. And said no fees, no expenses, no office fees. And based on that, no fees? I mean, is that, that's? No additional expense. I don't think you could get that specific. And if we listen to that, but they were asked a point blank question about, is there an any additional cost? Right. It's still important that the context of that was probably operations, trail construction. It seems to me we made a conscious choice of how we're going to raise that money to make our contribution and the method by which we chose to do that comes with a fee. See that was not made in a vacuum separate. They were in the room and they actually made the point that John made at the last meeting that the present value was reduced because we've chosen that method. So they were well aware in the context of the amount we decided on that we doesn't mean we're obligated to pay it. We're obligated to pay the county $2 million total. And that's the only obligation we undertook. They undertook all the other obligations with respect to the trustee property. This is an obligation with respect to the trustee property. The fact that we've chosen to do this in what the council at that time thought was a fiscally responsible manner, I mean, this is John's argument. We're to be penalized because of that. We're to pay more than $2 million because we tried to do it in an appropriate way. I'm just, I just don't understand the argument that because we've done that, we owe more money. When there's no statutory obligation on our part to pay it. There's a statutory obligation to pay the fee. But the manner in which the fee gets paid can be exactly as staff recommended it. The last time we addressed the issue. So I think you're penalizing even more the taxpayers of this town if you choose to pay the fee out of our pocket. And I don't think that's fair to the taxpayers. That's not what they agreed to do. What was on the ballot? Wanted up right now. Yeah. Yeah. There's a $2 million. Again, I still think the fundamental question. It was. But what did it say in the body in the text? It was in the last package. It was a mill amount, wasn't it? There's usually some details. That is an important nuance. It was fixed to a fixed amount versus. It was addressed so we would only spend $2 million. So Thomas, no mass village taxes be increased $200,000 annually commencing in 2010 for collection in 2011 and by 200,000 in calendar years, 2011 through 20. The fixed amount. Inclusive and in calendar, 500,000 in calendar years 2016 and 2017, by the imposition of a milleve sufficient to generate such amounts. Such taxes to be used for the purpose of financing together with Pitkin County, Colorado, the acquisition of a county open space parcel known as the Drosti property, or to reimburse the town for amounts previously expended for such purposes. And shall the proceeds of such taxes and investment income there on be collected and spent by the town as a voter-approved revenue change in calendar years 2011 through 2017 inclusive without regard to any spending revenues, raising or other limitation contained within article 10 section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other law. That's somewhat unique to fix it to a fixed amount versus a mill levy which will generate different levels and I think that's why there's greater sensitivity. It's not uncommon. It's not that unique because when you have a general obligation instrument you have to make a certain amount so if you're a general, if you're assessed value goes way down those are not tied to a mill levy. But you understand that we did the council based the amount. Remember in history, I mean, Fred, you're well aware of this because you were on the FAB, but at the time they were considering the county was considering this purchase, we were considering the continuation of that point, 8.1 mill levy, which represented the amount for that assessment cycle, valuation cycle on that property. For the retire those bonds, we agreed that that was the tax neutral. It was .81. But when it came right down to it, it had to be to the amount because everyone pretty much knew that the assess valuation was going to take a dive. And if it wouldn't in the period of the time frame, it wouldn't have generated that amount of money. The original one. And the original point eight one was going to be divided up between a recreation subsidy and a transportation subsidy. And this community made the decision with the guidance of council by putting these questions forward that they did to support the transportation and a drowsty, but we still As you say in a fiscally responsible manner Made it tax neutral and debt-free so others we did not incur any expenses of Bonding for this and doing the debt so That's how you came to those numbers. And that's, I mean, it doesn't say $2 million in there. It gives you the breakout. 200, 200, 200, 200, 500, 500. An interesting question is, is if we don't enter, I better not throw the thing. Yeah. We've had that discussion. Okay. Well, I, you know, I think the key question is one of processes. Do you vote on the IGA tonight, or do you wait for that language and have a face-to-face discussion? With their language on the table, plus the IGA that we have? I'm Jason, and I can't, but I think we need to have that discussion face-to-face. I'm more comfortable with letting this version die. And then opening up that bait again of whether because I'm still a little bit on the fence. I mean originally when I read that first packet material I was like of course we're not going to give them another $40,000 and then as I thought more about it I kind of came around to that position like you know if we said we were going to give Matt and we chose to do it this way, then that comes with expenses that we really should have known about. So anyway, but I guess I think at this point, I'm open to that debate, I'm open to talk more about that and happy to be convinced. I'm not anxious by any means to give another $40,000 away to the county from our taxpayers' dollars. So I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. I think it's important to recognize exactly what was said at that meeting about how when the council came to the determination that it was gonna be $2 million, Russ asked the question and unfortunately you can't glean what the understanding of the people on the council at that time was, but there will be three of you that helped make that decision here at that point. And it may be that we play a little bit of Granicus back for you. And we did, we teed up. Yeah, it was like Granicus. at that point and it may be that we play a little bit of granicus back for you. And we did, we teed up, yeah, all the time. It's like granicus. Yeah, you know, by virtue of the language of which the voters in Snowmass Village approved, doesn't that not obligate us to pay that collection fee to the county by virtues of the statute? I don't think so. Well, you can pay it out of your collection. Tally, you pay the thing. We sell the $2 million and it's, you know, the county has to, you know, have it's discount, do the thing, but, you know, we said the top number was $2 million. So that can't be said by that. The one we, who this, this statute relates to in terms of that 2%. It's just collection collection. The treasurer is allowed to charge 2% collection fee to municipalities within the county. Special districts get charged 5% for clients. Is the loud or is obligated or is required? I mean is that that's the set amount? But there's a loud means they don't have to. Well we that's my estimate manager. Whether they could wave it as an action of the county, and he informed me that the legal input he got was they could not wave it. But it had to collect it. They'll collect it. Just choosing how it might get different legal opinions. At any time that any municipality goes for a mill-lovy approval that language is never in the enabling Vote that yeah, we're on top of Deadting the town for four million dollars or whatever you're gonna have to pay a two percent fee You know, right? Just that four million dollars when you keep the money Yeah, I stand that's it's worth it. We're taking it out of art that money would come back to us John Yeah, no, no, it's a rather large Well, it is it's fairly unique for a community to Obligate itself to pay for a property that's not even in our jurisdiction right and so this is I'm trying to work through this and seeing how It settles out through the enabling legislation through this and seeing how it settles out through the enabling legislation. Well but the point is if you've got a middle I mean that money comes to the town. Right. What we're doing is giving the money away and now we're being asked to give away another 40 thousand dollars. I'm we're gonna have this discussion again with the county. I don't think we need to continue this discussion. Let's take that tonight. I think tonight we need to deal with this resolution and decide how we're going to move forward. Would you like a motion to turn? Well, we've had an open, it's already been paid. It's already been paid. Yeah, it's already been moved in second. Oh, OK. So now we're reopening discussion on this resolution, at 35, 2011. And we need to vote up or down this tonight. Right? You could table it again. I don't think, like John, I think you were made a good point that I'd rather kill this person. I'd rather kill this one and bring up a new one with the correct numbers for 2012. Well, with their language, because if you're going to even consider it, it's my recommendation that you do so under a new resolution because it was not one of the exhibits that was originally in your packet when you first considered this resolution. Right. If that's your decision. So I'll call the question on resolution 35 of 2011. Those in favor of supporting it please signify by saying aye. No way man are we voting this up or down? It was moved. Well see what happens right now. No no no no. We'll get voted down again. Anybody so may when mean it's dead. Yeah you will be in this. Okay. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, So, zero four. Okay. Thank you. Once they come back with language and this will be thoroughly vetted, there will be no time pressure because it's not a table. Resolution. When they bring it back, we will fully vet it so that you have your choice of two exhibits to attach to a resolution approved in an NGA. Would there be anything else that would be helpful in that discussion? Just the date of that last conversation where it was representation, the time to look back at that. We'll get that to you because it takes a while to figure out which meeting they actually. Okay. Well, I think, you know, what Russ was saying is that when that was presented to us, I was thinking along the same lines too that we're not going to be putting any more money for trails or maintenance or mapping or surveying or anything like that. And in defense of the wildlife study, it really did benefit snowmen. It absolutely did because we did not have that study in place. Hunt Walker did a thorough job of going through all these files looking for that information. It did not exist and we really needed to come up with a better plan for not only the property across the street but in the snowmess really to self. Okay. Moving on. trail. You might remember at the last joint meeting of the county commissioners. You can't avoid Pitkin County tonight. In the town council, they asked your opinion about a bridge at lower brush creek that would be crossing the trail to avoid a picture of the Maroon Creek Bridge and they would I think their preference would be to use that and to spend less money and then you see an alternative on page 119 for 610,000 which looks very similar except for there isn't doesn't appear to be a, not a box for this structure. Three feet, remember. Short or whatever. So they wanted to know if you had any opinion. John Wilkinson. And there's a meeting tomorrow night in this room. Yes. I actually went over and met with Gary Tenembaum today at the Bikken County Open Space and talked to Jack Hatfield as well today about the bridge because it is an issue as far as the aesthetics of what's going to be in place for the next generation or so. And our concern was is that we wanted to keep something more in line with the bridge that Snowmass Village, again paid for that's outside of the town of Snowmass Village by the roundabout. The drawings we don't feel really adequately illistry what the impact is of either bridge on this site. And Gary and his staff is going to be here tomorrow night with further explanations. But part of it is that the solution is there to make a bridge that makes sense that does look appropriate for a spot is just dealing with the landowner there has been difficult and we haven't got any word that they're willing to allow. I think it's either 400 square feet in order to make it a more acceptable bridge. So this is basically the only solution we have in place is to put up the existing Room Creek Bridge or build a pre-fab bridge which is four feet lower. I'm just not ready to make a decision to say I'm for this bridge at this time because I think there needs to be some more vetting of what it really means and potentially going back to the land owner to say hey, you know, let's do something that makes sense for our entrance to snowmast. My only perspective, John, you know, let's do something that makes sense for our entrance to snow mass. My only perspective, John, is the alternative bridge that was more money didn't look aesthetically all that different. There's a third one out there that we're not seeing that third one is if we can use the land owner's property to land the bridge on. This is only if we stay on the county-owned land. So you're saying hold off. I'm saying let's hold off and get some more information before we give the county an opinion on it. Jason? Not everything at this point. Yeah, I guess last meeting we talked about this, I was making the statement that this is Whether we use the box culvert or the pocket whether we use the bridge authority there, which is more of a box versus building one was going to save The documentation says here 600 300 thousand dollars. Yeah, the difference. Yeah, from $600 to the $290, whatever it was. And I was thinking that, you know, this is different than the other bridge that we had put up, closer to the install mass, because it's, you know, it's coming at Brushby Road. But it's really not as important to me that we, you know, add that $300,000 cost to make that happen. Because I believe it's lower, it's not going to be, you're not going to see it one way other, either way, it's going to be a three-foot difference. And I felt it was important to say that the county should be the ones making this call. Thank you for letting us know, but you guys go ahead and make the call. If you want to spend the money go ahead, if you don't, that's another story. So I'm not in the position of wanting to change that, but the county still make the call. So they save at least $40,000? Open space. So I'll probably come to the meeting tomorrow night and see if they have some new information. But I don't believe snowmatch should be. It's not our property. I think far enough down the road. I want to forward a recommendation. So where is the rest of the council? I'm totally agree with you Bill. I'm really very tired of giving the county our money. I'm, I'm sorry. I just, you know, we got lots of good uses for it. Well, this wouldn't be our money. I mean, this, but it still be our money because it's still county money. Yeah. Yeah, it's open space, but. Right. Where do you think the county gets the money. Jason? Because a chunk of it comes from Snowmass Village. 24% right. I'm fine with not offering a recommendation necessarily on this. I think like you say, up to the county opens this for this fine by me. So set three. Set three. And then final question. So, set three. And then final question. That time of the year, last year about this time we got together, had a retreat, came up with a work plan for the year. Don't need to talk about agenda, but just wanted to ask the question, do you want a schedule time? Because we've kind of exhausted that work plan from last year, except for a couple items. One big one. One big one which we all agreed we couldn't do much with. What kind of timing are you thinking, Russ, that we, you know, you said four hours in the documentation, you think four hours would be enough to a morning or afternoon, whatever we can kind of depend, but at least kind of a minimum of blocking out of half day. So again, it could be an off Monday. I think it's probably worth the time to get us together to. I'd recommend we do that. So how does the rest of the council feel? Yes, down there. Okay, I'm in favor. Yeah, ready? Yes, yes. Put an off Monday be the best time frame to look at. Yes, yes. Okay. Lemmy Marke's not here, but we'll shoot out some emails and see if we can focus in on a Monday and then it's two months. Okay. Nothing else. Nothing else in the manager's report? Cast is in Steamboat. And that's the same weekend we have X Games here. Yes. Yep. So it's unknock on the little bit. OK. So I can't go. Is it a weekend? It's a Thursday night. It's a Thursday night. And then the actual substances Friday morning. Good thing to go to, but I don't think that's going to work for a few of us. Okay. James students coming from New Zealand. Very good. All right. Next. Ronda. I just want to mention that I received something from Colorado the municipal league today and it's um Yeah, I think you were able to apply for a scholarship for lodging Registration and the lunches for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday for the Coloradling Municipal League Conference in June and I was just going to have you put it on the measures you pour to have them just let me know if they want to fill it out Because you only get one permute municipality and I wanted to offer it to you guys first, and if you don't apply, I'm going to. So. Good. That's a great conference. Yeah, it is. It turns the bank for the buck. I mean, we should at least submit for one from that. It's a direct speech this year. It's a direct speech. Yeah, a direct speech. Yeah, we We should submit the form regardless of who it applies to who I should definitely submit one do that Anything else pretty money's good. Okay agenda for next council meeting one additional item to Look at adding to this and that would go along with your nominations or your appointments to the marketing board is I believe the business plan based on the input and direction you gave would be ready to come back to you at this meeting. Good. For the marketing, for the marketing rights. The timing on the new board appointments does go into effect. They go effective that meeting or they're next meeting. They're next meeting. They get sworn in. I do bring that up. That was a point of discussion. Susan and I had is should the new board weigh in. They probably will anyway, but it'll take them a while obviously to come up to speed and I think they want to make sure they have something to present to them. First quarterly report. Okay. Okay. Do you think? The other thing for kind of future agenda is February 6th the Water District has requested some time with you to present kind of the state of water and give you a little date on water related issues and then on March 6th we have Mark Fuller coming to present kind of the state of water. Give you a little date on water related issues. And then on Mark six, we have Mark Fuller coming to present the watershed plan to you. Very good. Good timing. Do you think we'll have the county back on this? Dressed issue for the 23rd or? Adout for the 23rd. No. Just given John's scheduled and what I know to be there. What are you out of here? Good for you. Powder date. No, no, it's a big change. That was yesterday. That was a Sunday, anyway. That was a Sunday. OK. I don't know about that. We put you last year. Then we have council comments, committee reports, calendars. Jason. Give me one second if I can come back. I had an inquiry about a bus stop that seems to be questionable with how safe it is and is there anything we can do? Specifically, a cross from Mountain View on the downhill side. I told the person that there really wasn't much we could do about it, but it probably does need some discussion because I think it probably does make some sense. I probably, there probably are a few others as we dealt with last year, you know, down by homestead. There was a concern by staff that this was not a safe one, and we still said let's go ahead and maintain it. So I think that we probably do need to have, you know, discussion about this one across the Mountain Dew. That'll sound, I mean, we certainly can, it'll sound very similar. You remember, Art Smith was in front of you in September and talked about a number of crosswalk issues. I think David was with them, but it's very similar. It's something I have begun a discussion on. But you know we have that's a common issue with traffic just moving too fast on brush creek and people trying to cross brush creek. I guess that was so concerned. So let's see if we can, is that. What would you, I guess what would you like to do with that? Mr. Mayor. I think just schedule it for some. I'm not sure what we can do really. I just, can I get back to you maybe in a town manager's report initially. Sure. Okay. Okay. Um. John. Let's see I talked to our state senator Gail Schwartz last week and she was asking if there's any kind of legislation that's knownmass Village would be interested in having her bring forward to this current legislature. A couple of the items that I brought up, she was interested in the compressed natural gas issue that is currently going on and Raffta is committed at this point to export. I think they're going to go forward with it and Glimwood Springs built a CNG station there and she was wanting to know if we're going to be interested in doing that. We're looking into it, I'd like to have her pursue that a little bit further for funding. There may be an opportunity to build a CNG station at the ABC where the RAPDA, the RAPDA buildings are RAP. The other one that's accessible by the public? It could go that way. I would like to see it go that way. Yeah, I think you're probably gonna do anything. Yeah, I used to have some ability, the public to use those things. They do that in red junction. Yeah, so she's looking into that part of it. Russ sent me an email on that. I asked her to take a look at special districts in the state and how they operate and what the check and balance is on special districts and how they vote and what the oversight of their powers go in in regard to construction. I don't know if anyone's followed the story of needing construction up in Meeker that built the elementary school. It was under, inspected and under engineered. And so she's looking into those kind of issues and I explained kind of what went on in our community with the school district and in housing and it didn't have to go through our process. But I think there should be an opportunity for local communities to at least be assured that the buildings constructed by special districts are up to the community standard. So those are the kind of things she's hopefully going to take a look at. If there's anything else that we would like for her to take a look at, please let her know when she's available. Be a email or phone calls. Okay. See, and then we have a raft of meeting on this Thursday and the trails meetings tomorrow or what are they calling that Rusty, you know? The Drostee. Is it really trails or is it both trails plus the bridge on a Drostee day? I think it's just a meeting to gather a community comment on the bridge. Just the bridge, nothing else. The trails meeting about the long-term planning on drosties on the 26th. No, Camarna is strictly called by Picking County Open Space on the bridge. That's it. Thank you, John. Fred? Nothing. Jason. Nothing for John. Fred? Nothing. Jason. Nothing for me. Okay. Next. Executive session? Yeah, there's a disc. It won't be long. It won't be long, like. Town Council now meet an executive session pursuant to CRS 24-64024 and Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stomach Stom Mr. Mustow, Ms. Mustow Code section 2-45C specifically discuss two items. A determining position relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, instructing negotiators pursuant to CRS 246402. 4E and Mr. Mustow Village, Ms. Mustow Code section 2-45C5. And conferences with an attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice and specific legal questions pursuant to CRS 24-642-4C, and Stomass Village Municipal Code Section 2-45-C2. Is there a second to that motion. Sure. That's John Wilkinson. I made the motion. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Let's go to the small conference room. The game on? No, it's happening. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. Thank you.