I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. the you you you I'm going to do it. you you I'm going to do it. you I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the All right, let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. This is the Somers village town council meeting for January 3rd, 2011. First order of business is roll call, please, Ronda. Here. Here. Here. Here. Very good. Next item are for public non-agent items. Are there any out there? Please step forward. State your name for the record, George. Afternoon, I'm George Heggins. And I'm the, today I'm the officially representing the Towns Environmental Advisory Committee. And I'd like to mention a few of our 2010 highlights. The EAC helped initiate and had the town complete its first ever carbon footprint analysis. This important report gives us a significant baseline in which to make improvements and reach our goals. The total cost now is with $7,000 and the funds came from REOP. The town also completed professional efficiency audits of the town owned buildings. Important financial environmental changes are being implemented based on those findings. A lot of immediate improvements have been made to employ units like new insulation, windows, laundry room, facilities, caulking, etc. It didn't cost the town anything because we used Holy Cross Community Fund money to pay for the audits done by SGM. The town received approximately $80,000 in both local and federal grant money for sustainable initiatives. We'd like to take a few minutes at the beginning of this new year to officially recognize a few of the green stars here in town. The ones who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the respective departments, we have, we thought the town council meeting of the year was the first one of the year, was an appropriate time to acknowledge these individuals achievements through 2010. And we thank them for their continued efforts in realizing cost savings and positive impact to our environment. Joe Koffee and the Housing Department team in 2010, Joe Koffee and the entire Housing Department team showed their commitment to cost savings and to the environment. In addition to all rental units receiving extra attention to reduce air filtration costs, six new front loaded laundry washers were installed in a community laundry room that will reduce. That rooms water usage by almost 50%. The housing department received a $450 rebate for their smart purchase. Next month, a new 96% efficiency boiler will be installed in the Mountain View Housing Office with two new roof mounted solar panels to assist the new boiler with producing hot water. In addition, the entire building will be converted over to hot water. The solar panels and energy efficient boiler will significantly reduce our gas and electric usage. The housing department receives $7,500 in green grant, green key grant from CORE to support the installation of the new boiler and solar panels. Another green star goes to Greg Fitzpatrick with the Transportation Department. This followed Greg's facility maintenance specialist for our Transportation Department took the initiative to apply for and receive a federal grant for the purposes of upgrading the energy efficiency of partial sea building. This grant application awarded almost $75,000 to the town of Stomach Village for the installation of a zipper doors to the building to prevent heat escape. And for the conversion of all halogen lamps to LED lights. The town of Stoomis Village was only, was the only local in the entire state of Colorado to receive this grant money. Nick Ryder, the facilities maintenance supervisor, Public Works also gets a green star. Aside from Nick's day-to-day facility maintenance duties, he has taken great care to ensure his decisions were fiscally responsible, as well as environmentally responsible. Nick oversaw the energy audits of all town facilities, re-engineered the rec center solar system to provide more heating to an appropriate locations and reduce gas consumption. He identified and implemented the control sequences and programming for parcel C heating equipment and associated components. Through the energy tracker, verified increased efficiency in towns buildings. He uses four separate building automated automation systems to track and adjust settings to maintain or improve mechanical and HVA systems in town buildings. And when possible purchases maintenance, purchases maintenance repair and cleaning supplies that are green certified. I'm officially submitting this to the public record, and each individual name will be receiving a letter from the EAC to include in the personal file. We look forward to recognizing green stars throughout the year. Thank you, and I wish y'all happy you can do a year. Thank you, George. That was a report. That's amazing. George? Thank you, George. Ron, I would like a copy of that report. How sure would it? Okay. Thanks, babe. Ron will I could copy of that report? Sure would. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Any other public on agenda? Moving on item three or council updates? Are there any council updates from Jason? I just guess I should let everybody know it looks like the ice is ready down at the rodeo ground so anybody wants to go ice skating get on down there looks like fun. Speaking of the ice rank did we have any issues with the lights or anything like that with the because when I came through there last night they looked a little down. We did dim we did take out a number of lights, and we're kind of waiting to hear from some users, whether it's enough for the ice skating. We hope it's acceptable, and we did begin to get some calls from the neighborhood about the lighting we had last year. So we'll see if we found the right one. Yeah, I looked a little unsafe for the kids that were out there, but I guess we'll wait to hear. Okay, Markey. Speaking of lights, at the intersection of currents and rush creek, art just below the town hall here. There's a light pole, it doesn't have a light working. And I've been seeing a lot of people walking at night, dancing in the streets, trying to miss cars so I don't know if we need to talk to whomever to see if we can get a little more light there that would probably be okay I had a question to that came from sometimes smitten up on the mall, talking with some of our store owners, and that was yesterday? I think yesterday. I'm pass this when you're old. Well, when you're old. I'm better on Sunday than Saturday. I'm better on Saturday than Saturday. Are we going to be putting a Discovery Center where the former related was? And if so, what's the timeline on that? We've chatted with you a little bit about that. There was a negotiation. We were basically what we were hoping for was to get access for little or no rent in one of the spaces and that was the topic of a conversation with a perspective tenant and related. They did not come to terms and we're now talking to related about whether or not we could control and potentially have a portion of that. That's the same space that we were talking about. And the museum's ready to go and help us with an exhibit. We just need the space to do it. So that did not come to fruition over the holidays. They were hoping it was. So Dwayne and I are going to have a chat here in the next couple days. Thank you for the update. Date? John? Yeah. Just this afternoon, I got this brochure. And it was created by Ashur Hoyt, a third grade student at tele-elementary school in the Congress Park neighborhood in Denver. Two weeks after the October discovery of the Ice Age mammal bones in snowmasses, class was given an assignment to research and create a brochure for Colorado destination. Instead of choosing red rocks, Pike's Peak are the great sand and dunes as was suggested. He chose the Ice Age Discovery and Snowmass. And so he put together this really cool brochure I just got out this afternoon and I'd like to pass around and we can take a look at it but I'd like to pass this on the Susan and send a letter of thanks to this Asher Hoyt and thank him for his work and really appreciate him taking the time to consider Snowmass Village and how important it is. See and also I had, we went down and went through the museum again this weekend and I talked to Kirk Johnson and apparently there is a full model skeleton of one of the giant sloths yet they had a loan at a museum in Texas and they said it may become available for a place that we could pass if we could find a place to bring it up to snowmass. There you go. We heard about that. We also saw a few interesting things in the basement when we were there that again if we can find a secure place I think we could arrange alone. Yeah, Kirk seemed really interested in having something brought up to snowmass village for the winter. So these two things I'll pass them around and move on from there. Thank you, John. Fred. In the interest of full disclosure, I want to inform you about a conversation I had with Jim DePrance about a week ago. First thing topic of conversation was the foreclosure. He is reasonably confident that the foreclosure will take place. As scheduled at the end of this month, the delay has been because of mechanics leans. They have negotiated settlements with, I guess, several of the leanores are continuing to negotiate. And if they can't settle it before the scheduled date for the foreclosure, the banks apparently agreed to bond off the leans so that the foreclosure can take place. I allowed us how I thought that was great since we were having our retreat and it would be nice when we discuss what we want to low and bank representatives and they were going to put together their thoughts and ideas from how they wanted to proceed and both of us thought it would be a nice idea if our thoughts smashed but that will await further discussion. But the other interesting topic of conversation came up when Jim said that they control the own or control the conference center in the great what's the building, great peaks, capital peaks in the capital peaks building. And he said that unfortunately it's a waste. They're not doing anything with it. There is a conference center in the vice-royd. There's obviously the silver tree is going to be here for a while, so there's that conference center. And he's saying that space isn't being used at all. And he said does the town have any interest in it? And we probably leased it to the town for a pluck a year. And I sat there for a minute and I couldn't think of anything that the town could do with it. But I said, how many people does it seat? And he said, between 400 and 500. And I said, well, why don't you turn it into a movie theater and some sort of performing art center? He sat up rather directly in his chair, eyes opened wider, and said, that's a heck of an idea. And I am going to meet with my architect to see what sort of retooling or refitting needs to be done to put it into that form. I then had a couple of conversations with our town cryer Mel Blumenthal. And as many of you know Mel is very active in the film fest. And there's certainly, there's an interest on the part of the film fest to get involved with that facility, if in fact, it can be turned into a movie theater and some sort of performing art center. Again, we're having our retreat, and I thought I would bring it to the council's attention at this point so that if it's deemed worthy we can discuss that at the retreat. But I think it's a terrific amenity for this town as I was thumbing through the comp plan in preparation for the retreat. I noticed that a theater and performing arts center is an amenity that the town has contemplated. Well, we have one built. We just got to get it refinished. So I bring it to your attention and hopefully we'll discuss it further. Thank you, great. Okay. Moving on, we have Resolution No. 1, series of 2011 designation of public notice boards. So moved. Second by Jason Haber. Why do we do this over here? Because we're required to. Good answer. And the only thing I want to note for this year, one of our designated public notice boards was always in the center and we bought the case years ago. I think when I first started 18, something years ago, to really put a case down there with a key in lock. We had that as one of our public notice boards. We laid a Westpac painted and decided to take it and get rid of it and never asked us if we needed it to be underlocking key. So I have now taken that off as our designated public notice board and here in Town Hall will now be the official designated public notice boards. But we will still hang things in the center, but I can't control people pulling them off the notice board. So from now on, the designated public notice board for the town of St. Thomas Village is located in Town Hall. Office hours eight to five Monday through Friday and the lobby. And the secondary place will continue, as you said, to be. I know a lot of people do stuff by that word. I guess I can't guarantee that an agenda might be ripped off or somebody pulls something up, but we will still continue posting there. And that's also on the website. Yes, it is on the website. When we hope to do a charter change at some point in time to allow just the website. Any further discussion? Just to point out in the resolution that's drafted. Yes, I know that. John Wilkinson is already opposed. Well, we figured he always is only about it. Just to cut and pace, I apologize. Okay. Would you like to oppose Mr. Wilkinson? Am I as well? I'm being serious. All those in favor of resolution number one, series 2011, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No, I'm sorry, that was Butler and- That was Jason Hayber. Thank you. Moving on, item number five. Resolution number two, series 2011, appointing municipal judge. This is a other annual appointment. And I think that honestly I've been to one of your wonderful morning events judge and as a visitor. Oh, thanks for the clarification. Yes. I'm not saying I won't be there some other reason in the future, but no, I just stepped in and watched it, and I thought that was very good. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time and attitude. I very much like the job. We try to focus on remedial rather than punitive or sanction oriented type resolutions, and we've been very successful I think in obtaining that. On your list I see there are a couple things that are sort of pending. We do have a couple of things pending. Bench warrants, what does a bench warrant pending mean? Well they elected not to show up to court for some reason. It was probably not a traffic type of fence but something a bit more serious. We usually issue a bench warrant when they don't show up, and we'll put a mileage border on the extradition. It's usually 50 or 75 miles, so if they do come back to the area, we would procure them. And then you have a bench trial pending, so that... We do. What is that? A bench trial would be a trial just to the court rather than to a jury Okay, so we've had we had any jury trials as of yet We have not we've had a couple scheduled and some close calls, but no jury We had a jury trial Four or five years ago. Yeah, that's the only one I've done in my years here. The prior Judge Lippmann, who was here for 24 years, could recall one before that. So as far as I know, there's been two. There have been two in the history. We have had a couple scheduled, but defendants apparently saw the way, he errors of their ways and disposed of the case in a different manner. And Bench trial those things they come in and observe? Absolutely. They come in they usually run for an hour hour and a half and we do them right there on court mornings after we do our regular docket. And so we're not really recording these to be a judge litment meal. We have our own little grassroots TV judge show, huh? No, we're not. We're not looking. I would point out we are a court of record and that's a very important distinction for municipal courts. And we do record all proceedings on audio, but we do not utilize the video system in here. What is the monetary jurisdiction of the court? It's generally an offense rents to a fine of $1,000 plus court cost. I have court cost for $35, I now. We keep them pretty reasonable. And generally those, your days that you have your courts, are they the day of the month generally? And we generally do them Wednesday mornings, third month. Third Wednesday? Third Wednesday, OK. Very good. Any other questions anybody has from Judge Wells? John. Hey, just this question. Do you see any trends or anything going on that's out of the ordinary or anything that's not really? What's the construction died down? We couldn't see in so many bar fights in that kind of thing. But other than that, it's pretty much the typical run of the meal. We'll see a fight once in a while. Some traffic tickets, as always, you know, neighborhood problems with dogs and things like that. We take special effort to try and accommodate. We understand the community is one that not everybody's here 12 months, and we also have tourists that come and go. When we try to be accommodating to those people to a reasonable degree. We're not trying to penalize or to adjust process on anybody, but we want to be as flexible as we can within the midst. Very good. And John, to further understand that the municipal court is limited in jurisdiction to only offences against the municipal code. So if there's a crime that's a state crime, our officers also take those people to the county court system over at Aspen. So if there was any of those kind of infractions, then it would be, it goes to your former colleague, Mr. Martin. Okay. So if it was serious or the person had a long criminal history or whatever reason that the officer thought it more important than the municipal court jurisdiction they would have the option to take it to county court. So are DUIs here or is that go to district? That goes to county. Any other questions? Is there a motion for resolution number two? I'd like to move Jason Haver. Second by Fred Cooker. questions. Is there a motion for resolution number two? I have a motion. Jason Haver. Second by. Second. Fred Cooker. For the discussion. All those in favor of resolution number two series 2011, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That's as unanimously. And again, thank you for your time and efforts for this community. I really enjoy the job of everything. Thank you very much. And Mr. Wirkelson, he was an eye on that one. Yes, he was. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. It wasn't written into the resolution. I told you that one. Thank you, guys. Thank you very much. So again, in the court cases, we had 173 cases filed in this last year. So it's quite a few. Thank you very well for making that happen. Moving on. Item 6, resolution number 3, series 2011. A resolution appointing members to new terms for boards and commissions. I can help you with that. Okay. We had a total of 18 vacancies this year. And we did put an ad in the paper and we did some letters to all those who had their term was up. You can go through and you can see on the memo that under the Arts Advisory Board, we had five vacancies and only two applicants. And this board has 15 members, so we don't mind if all of those don't get filled. We seem to be working pretty good right now. There's no issues on not enough members and people are making it to meetings. The Financial Advisory Board, we had four vacancies and four applicants. and Howard Gross is a new applicant, not an incumbent. Under the Citizens Grant Review Board, we had one vacancy and two applicants, but I do believe that that was some stake and we do actually have Sally Sparhawk applying for that position again And she is already been voted in in the chair and she's an incumbent so if you could ask ads Sally to that list so that would be two applicants and two vacancies. Yes sir Okay, then we have the marketing and special events and Group Sales Board. David Perry is for the retail, our lodging, I'm sorry, and retail, we did not have an application come in on time, but I hear that we might have one from a current retailer, Johnny Henshel, who owns two businesses, the Stomass, Incline and Whitewater Rafting. So if that does come in, we'll put him on the next council meeting, okay? And then we also have an applicant in the application in front of you for Duane Romero, who is ex officio, who is also up. His application came in today, so we'd like him to be considered for the ex officio position. Lick or Licensing Authority. We have one vacancy and two applicants. The part-time residence advisory board. We had one vacancy and one applicant. And the Planning Commission, we had three vacancies and three applicants, and they're all incumbents. Very good. If you have any questions, I know that all the incumbents don't usually come. I see we have a few faces out there, Teddy Farrell and Rick and Howard and Doug and so there's an end Susan Cross is here but a few of the people I got a call from Doug or Don Crouch and he has to work till five but he really wants you to consider him for that position. And who else did I get a call from today? Sally? Sally won't be able to make it, but she said, please consider her. She's actually already been appointed as president for this year, so our chair. So it'd be good if we give her a spot. So, Ronda, the only one I guess I was reading this weekend that we have to say vote on, because we have more applicants than vacancies. That would be the liquor board. That would be liquor board. Yes, sir. Okay. And I also see that we have Michelle who is applying for both the liquor board and the arts advisory board. Yes, sir. And- You would still have to vote on everyone but you don't have to interview everyone. I mean, you still need to appoint them, even though they're in compence. They need to be appointed. So I guess in our voting, I don't see that we have to do any secret ballots for anything other than possibly the liquor advisory board? Unless Michelle wanted to resend that board position and just go for the arts advisory. Michelle, what are your thoughts? Come to the microphone please. Sorry to put you on the spot here like that. I am happy to just give my time wherever you're wherever I'm needed. If it's easier to reason the liquor board, I'm happy to be that sit on my heart. I'd leave it up to the council's discretion, not just mine, of course. Sure. What does council feel? Do we go ahead and vote through and? Did you look at the applications for both of those people for the liquor board? I'm always interested, so why you're interested in various boards. So what's your... Why are you there? Why are you enthusiastic about... Yeah, why are you there? You know, Samas opened the community to me about three years ago. And I am here now settled and ready to give back to the community. Liquid board is interesting to me only because I lost a brother and nine years ago. So I want to make sure that I can fulfill whatever I need to new blood and just keep an open perspective on like report and licensing for the community. Art is something that was open and I just went for. We always appreciate citizens involvement in all these committees. And I never like to say back off because it's always the citizens what make, you know, still my skills work and all these different groups are very important when they may not seem to be the outside person. But, you know, when I sat on the court board it court board, it was definitely an important position to sit on and same with the arts advisory and the rest of these groups. So we always appreciate the time. Whose chair of sob now is? Lisa is no longer. Lisa's not with us anymore. She was the chair. I'm not sure. Barb. If they've named a chair, I can't answer it. they'll probably name it in January because Lisa went through December. Okay. And so she has resigned. Okay. And so they'll their first meeting of the year, they'll have to appoint a chair. Because I see Barb on here. She's really strong. But she's very impressive. Be great to work with her. Okay. She is very impressive. Be great to work with her. Okay. So in that case, I guess we should just go ahead and do a vote for that board. I think the rest of them we can make a motion to approve the rest of them as. Well, you'll need to make a motion to amend the resolution to include Sally Sparhawk under Citizen Grant Review Board. And Dwayne Romero is ex officiall under the Marketing Special Events Group sales. A move. And then you would want to delete Michelle Bates from the liquor licensing. That would be your amendment for the resolution. That's a lot. We're going to have a discussion. Keep Michelle on there, probably do a vote. John Dresser? I would just urge you to maybe refresh yourself on the qualifications for the marketing and special events. Board, and that you're considering nominating the rain There was something of the developer. One ex-official member of the board, appointed by the town council to represent the ongoing development business in the town. Set up sufficient, she'll be non-voting, but enjoy the other rights. Okay, so I would, with that information, it's probably not appropriate this point to possibly get Dwayne at this point in time as an ex officio. Well, you know, I don't know. I don't know what we do. We don't know what we do. Related Westpac is not defunct at this point. No. That I would describe them as ongoing, either, which is the word contained in the definition. So I don't know any more than that. I would prefer we defer that appointment for right now until we go through the foreclosure. That would probably make sense in my mind. Understand the foreclosure is not the beyond property. No, it's not the subpogee foreclosure is not the entirety of related westpacks holdings within the building. We just don't know what we don't know yet. That's my reason why I would defer. And you know, related does have them all the center and all the other property vessels. But that's not a developer, is it? It's not a representative of ongoing development. It doesn't seem like that. I care representation. Okay. Well, go ahead. I was just going to say while we're on the topic of the marketing department and maybe someone can clarify, David Perry's application to fill the lodging seat. His application doesn't mention anything about representing any lodging interests. I know the ski company has lodging interests in the Snowmass Club, but can we talk about a little bit how we got the ski coat seat into the lodging slot? Anyway. Well, the ski coat doesn't have a seat. Or I'm sorry. Mr. Perry's. You have a person that's employed by the skiing company, honestly. And I believe at the time that the ski company actually owned and was expecting to own a lot more lodging, these are V-base village. The other side of that is that the qualifications are not necessarily that you are in the lodging business unless of course you're nominated. I haven't seen any nominations put forth to you. You only accepted applications. So there's no preclusion in your code from Markey representing Rika. OK? So it's only that those industries are allowed to nominate people to this board. John's last point, I think, is an important point, particularly in the two categories of retail and lodging. And it's a discussion that I've had with Council, and I think it should be a subject of a future discussion with Council. But again, from a pragmatic pragmatic standpoint my understanding is that nomination process has not occurred it's been a matter of finding somebody that kind of flies that flag to pursue the position with David's position I think it's been a historical position but again that could be a structural discussion I think we may want to have in the future. Is it more direct? Is it more honest if we want a ski co representative to have a ski co seat? Then you'd be, that'd be a discussion far beyond what we're doing today. But in section 216B, it says an industry nominee need not be a member of that industry. And so we do have David and I guess Dwayne. Dwayne is applying very specifically for a C-design. The C-design is defined under in section 2-313. It's interesting because there's a shalcon's system of seven members and one ex officiating. The members of the board shall be subject to the provisions of 316 which is the nomination process. The first five talk about nominees and the last two don't. Two members at large and the ex officiating. so they aren't necessarily nominated. John a question if not a John the Sput but if the council did choose to change the structure of a Board of Commission and there were ongoing terms to be filled if a position was changed would that affect essentially effectively change or stop participation in a board? Well, it could. It would depend on the council's decision and they typically either do that at a time when terms are expiring or they provide for mechanism for to turn over one way or the other to a larger or smaller board. I just raised the issue. I like the idea of I think personally of having somebody like David Perry or someone that represents the ski company on that board. At the same time I like the idea of having local lodging properties represented on that board and it seems like we're missing out on that perspective. Well actually we have a number of those but persons on that board already that aren't up for renewal. Yeah it's not up this year. We have a number of those persons on that board already that aren't up for renewal. Yeah, it's not up this year. We have John Bradley and C. Bob Zinco. John Quigley. Sinko. And those two. Those two. And are those designated lodging seats? Yes, there's three lodging seats in there. Categorized by, nominated by lodging businesses that were members of the SBRA, one that is nominated from the lodging businesses in snowman's place. So that's kind of an at-large lodging business and then one from base village. So this is the base bit. And I think you know Jason's right, part discussion to say maybe we need to look at the marketing special events board structure instead of right now, but I'm thinking that's going to be a longer discussion that we should have. We had that discussion last year at this time, we ought to do that. Right. So I think that this, my goal is to, and I just couple of months to have that discussion with that board to talk about a number of items. But for today, I don't see a problem with the applicants as in hand other than possibly doing. I just point out that person like any of them serve at the pleasure of the town council. So I just wanted you to understand the qualifications for that seat. Thank you. So how does the council feel about the, let's go with Dwayne's discussion, should we accept his application or put him on hold until we have a little more information than under our belts in hopefully end of January. I would move. Would you leave him on there whether that's easy or not, whether that transition may change? Parking? I move that we would defer the appointment of the ex-official member of the marketing special events group sales until the second meeting of February. Second. Second. Any further discussion? I just think it makes a lot of sense because, while the foreclosure may not be the be all and end all of things, it certainly is a significant step and you are going to have a new owner in base village who may be more appropriate to be on that, that ex official position than somebody from the late at this point. I just think it's worth waiting and seeing what happens. Yeah, and we may hear more than one order. We don't know what we don't know again. That would be, it's reason why I think it'd be wise for us to be prudent and deferred. Okay. So, well, if the consensus, I don't think Marquis motion truly fits in parliamentary-wise with the resolution that's before you, you would need an amendment to add to weighing two-year resolution. Okay. And I think you're suggesting that you decline to make that amendment, or you could make the motion and it can fail, or you don't have to take it up at all. We're going to a huge motion. So I can type it. Go ahead then. We were talking about adding Sally Sparrowhawk to this amendment to add Sally Sparrowhawk to the Citizens Grant Review Board. Okay, is there consensus among the board to have that minute? Yes. Okay. Then we have Michelle Bates as a local licensing until we go ahead and do a vote on that one. You want to do a one at a time because I did have a question Susan Cross crosses here and she had applied for the assistant grant review board along with now Sally Sparhawk and since she's here I'd certainly like to hear from her her interest in being in honor of that board. She's already, she's already in. I think what you saying was we have that was a mistake that that that should be two people and two applicants and two vacancies. Okay. Okay. So I think we're okay. I think Susan's fantastic. two people and two applicants and two vacancies. Okay, okay. So I think we're okay. I think Susan's fantastic. What do you know? She was my boss. Okay. I think we all know Susan W. Fantastic. So thank you, Susan. Sorry for that cut. But let's get back to, let's do a vote for the Licensing Authority. Okay. Grande, if you can pass out some scraps of paper if you have any. She's good. She's good. Where's she going? She's talking so much. I want to do it on an app. Mm-hmm. All right, notice. So this is right down a place of between Sally, means Stacy Stokes, or Michelle Bates for the liquor licensing authority. Pass them to her. One more coming. Yeah well you know. You got them all now. We're on to tabulate those. We need to prove all the rest of these. Well once we have that. Do we need to prove all the rest of these? Well, once we have that, I think we can prove them all. Okay. That point is enough. I'm not going to do the motion to the third. Last, we don't have to do that because it was on there. Three from Michelle Bates and two for Stacey Stokes. Congratulations. Very good. We should ask. Do you still want to be included on the Arts Advisory Board? Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. So as our amendment was to have Michelle Vates on the liquor licensing authority. Okay. And Sally Sparhawk added to the grants review board. Those are the only amendments that I believe we need to make now. All those in favor of those that amendment. I'm saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Then resolution number three, motion was made by Second five is saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Then Resolution number three motion was made by That marquee yeah, okay, is there a motion for a resolution three with those new names added in half those amendments? Let me ask the attorney over I'll be glad to make the motion and then is that where you want me to put into The motion the issue around deferring I move that we adopt resolution number three series of 2011 with the final modification to citizens grant that would include Sally Sparovok and to citizens grant that would include Sally Sparovok. And liquor licensing board, Michelle Bates. So is there a second? Second. Second by Fred Cooker, all those in favor? Hi. Hi, and you posed. Thank you for your time for those sitting in the audience. Thank you, attention to us. Move on. Congratulations again. All the rest of you were appointed also. Congratulations. Congratulations. Okay. You really are a lot of smart people on the financial advisory wrong. Harden, we've got the bird tents wrong. Okay. Now we're going to move on to item seven. Public hearing and discussion, consideration, special review, applications for the Elk Camp restaurant at a night lighting plan for nighttime operations to 12 a.m. Midnight together with the associated minor play and unit development amendment to the Somas mountain. Mr. Wallstrom. Thank you, Mayor. This is a meeting to follow up on the initial review of these applications back on December 20th. And for the record, the applicant has responded or has a series of responses to the town council concerns and comments that were made at that meeting on December 20th. This meeting is also the scheduled formal public hearing for these applications. I need to state for the record that the applicant has provided executed affidavits for the posting and mailing of the public hearing notices and the public hearing notice was formally published on the snow my son on December 15th. We also need to during this meeting complete the review of the applications, which also include the minor PUDM and minor kind of standard might be some questions related to that particular proposal. And then regarding the night lighting plan to 12, I need to draw your attention to attachment one in the application, which is basically a list or a myriad of lists of all the allowed and conditional uses in the final PED guide for snowmass mountain. And what we did was underline under the allowed use section, some of the uses that could or potentially or might be operating on the site if or might be operating on the site if the night lighting plan is granted. And that might be a reason why the Colorado Division of Wildlife may have some concerns. The arrow items on that particular list represent the applicants proposed application. It includes the special reviews for the restaurant, the night lighting plan for operations to 12 midnight, and then the associated minor PDM, which is mostly changes or clarifications as a result of the proposed camp breast current replacement. So with that, I'd like to turn her over to the applicant, Chris Kylin and David Corbin to pull off on their responses from the last meeting. At this time, General, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Dresser. Anybody have any comments at this moment? We will keep the public hearing open until the end of this section. Chris, thanks for coming again. Thank you for having us, Chris Kylie and David Corbin with Aspen's Keene Company. As Jim referenced in his introduction, we were able to provide some follow-up responses to some of the comments that came during our presentation on the special review for the building. And we also have the second part of our application, if you will, which is the minor PUD amendments to the Snowmass Mountain PUD guide that we've developed with Jim Wallstrom. We'd be happy to respond to or present the additional information that we submitted on the special review and then turn over to the PUD guide discussion if that makes sense for you and I defer to the council as to whether you'd like a presentation of that information that we provided or whether you'd like to go straight into discussion or any comments that you have regarding our letter date of December 22 of last year 2010. Okay. Fred? I just want to try to understand the PUD amendment. You're saying, if I got this right, what you want to do is say that for commercial usage, and by commercial usage, you basically need restaurants, you are entitled to 120,000 square feet. And any other use that's not restaurant oriented falls into a different category. And I guess my first question is, is there a maximum amount of noncommercial usage? No, there is not even from the 1990 approvals. There was not, and there wasn't even an inventory of the existing operational structures from those previous approvals. In fact, we think those structures may have exceeded the 120-limitations that was previously established way back in 1994 or 1997. But in 1995, we ask for an inventory of all the uses and structures on the ski mountain, including restaurants, some of the offsite facilities, which aren't really part of the recreation zone, district, they're part of other PUDs, and all the restaurants and other operational facilities. And those total well above the 120 square feet if you take them all together. 100,000 square feet. But I want to understand that point that was very, maybe I misunderstood what you just said, Jim. There was 120,000 square feet, correct? And some of the square footage may be associated with other PUDs but not with 120 as the 1995 PUD contemplated or was it a confusing PUD? We're not carrying the square footages in the other PUDs against the 120,000 square foot limitation. Those are restricted by the other PUD, such as the divide PUD, two creeks PUD and the wood run five PUD for the kids' cave building. Right now, well previously back in 2005, there were 68,000 square feet of restaurants developed. Sam's novel was redeveloped at the smaller square footage and right now the applicant is proposing slightly over 62,000 square feet. So the applicant has used up a little bit more than half of the 120,000 square feet for the emergency. So just to be a devil's advocate. We all have been up the SAMS and we know that it's undersized on high ski days, very undersized. Are we looking at downsizing this elk camp to get it 120,000 or is our goal to identify what's in the best interest of this village and not have a negative guest experience by waiting forever to get a table? No, I don't think that would affect the square footage of the elk camp. I mean, if you assume that the other operational structures are not commercial in nature, they still have about 57,000 square feet left. And in actuality, I think the outcamp rest are going to slightly smaller by floor air calculation. And the current cafe season. It's the same. Roughly the same. Okay. And that's crap. So the questions that were brought up this last week, we are all reviewing our packets for the PUD. Basically, we are not an issue today. Got the clarification we're getting done? Go ahead. Well, I see two separate issues here. One of them is addressing this application in front of us and coming to terms with how the current code fits with their application. The other issue is taking a look at the whole structure of how this is done and go back and take a look at it because I did in looking through this there's a lot of structures that don't exist anymore that calculate towards the square 40. So I think that's a separate discussion. I think that's something that we need to do in another setting other than taking a look at this, you know, I'm comfortable moving forward with this. Okay, I'm looking at the location that's presented. The questions that were brought up are with this answer very little plan. Yeah, yeah, I think so. You're exactly right, but you know, some of the uses have been relocated or demolished or reduced in size and but staff and plan commission recommended that that inventory list be updated by 2015 if and after the outcast and is built and after Samsung's maybe two three years down the road you know well I think it's something needs to be done sooner than later just so that they can plan if there's anything they want to plan going for. At least you have the ground rules set in place. Yeah, our application on the PUD amendment was really stems from our working with Jim and Chris on the Elk and a restaurant application. Nothing in the P the amendment affects our restaurant application one way or the other. We really just saw it as an opportunity to clean up the document for ease of administration in the future. We're happy to have that discussion now. We're also happy to separate it and have it at a later time. There's a larger discussion to be had. However, we're not looking to structurally change anything at all in the PMA. We're simply trying to lean it up and bring it up to a current date. If somehow account for the 120,000 square feet in some manner, I don't know how you portion that between commercial and ski-related facilities, but there should be some sort of cap or some flexibility in how you determine how that cap would apply for any application. Well, and we weren't – regardless of how these uses might be categorized, we weren't seeking to increase those square footages by category or globally. Again, as Chris said, this was more almost a definitional matter as everybody started looking at this going, where does it fall? How does this language work? So we aren't proposing substantive changes to that document. You know, I understand it, but it was enough of a, you know, I was confused enough and then several emails back and forth and I'm still not entirely clear on it, but I just realized it's something that we need to accomplish going forward, but as far as this application goes, it makes sense fuzzily. Just go back to my original point. What you're trying to do is could find the 120,000 square feet to strictly restaurant usage. Though there are a few other uses that go into those structures. For example, there's often a little retail component for accessories or whatever. So we would sort of globally lump those together as commercial as distinguished from operational uses that are more sort of back of the house if you would. from operational uses that are more sort of back of the house if you want. Okay. So moving back to the, I guess, the first part of the discussion, issues that we had brought up last meeting. And one of the larger ones sounds like timing of operations. We have a last week's, last week's discussion about timing was you were trying to, you know, you're maintaining a 12-PM, I should say, operation schedule so that you could maintain using the gondola and the other lifts in the U.S. system with an option to extend the subject to special review. And I guess there were some concern with the Department of Wildlife about about the up to 12 o'clock time. I'm sorry, I don't know what they say. So how do we clarify that? We're standing on our prior position. We believe the hours of operation question really is already a settled matter for for the Forest Service and for the town. And I think both Jim on the staff's part and our submitted exhibit both describe that eluses it already in the uses allowed by right in our Mountain Master PUD that operating the Gondola's Till Midnight and operating on Mountain Road. Restaurants till midnight are already essentially approved. We think the question then becomes really a matter of what are the approved lighting responsibilities. What can we do? What should we do? how should the lighting plan be examined, reviewed, constrained, if that's the council's wish, we think that's really the subject. We still, as substantive matter, don't think that there are associated wildlife impacts in this two-hour period. The Colorado Division of Wildlife's comment was, well, these animals are often nocturnally feeding and two hours of additional forage without these lights or operations would be good. And that was about as scientific as the Colorado Division of Wildlife's letter was actually. And my response that I perhaps forward you with, but is included in your packet, includes more specific comments out of the environmental assessment that looked really directly at threatened species, sensitive species, elca's indicator species, and essentially found no impacts. And in the same forest, in the record of decision, required a monitoring and management plan, which included Colorado Division of Wildlife and for a service ourselves in the town, and in that plan, in that management plan, which has been written, put into effect, there are no such additional restrictions imposed in that plan. So again, this has been looked at, considered, reviewed the impact success, the monitoring setup, the management already in place, and no such additional restrictions have been imposed to date because there really isn't a need. In winter, for example, there are no impacts upon the elk as the indicator species for wildlife in general up there because the elk herd is not there. They're obviously at much lower elevations and elsewhere in the valley. During periods of transition they are likewise not impacted here. The calving area is more than a mile and a half away. There are closures in the Burt Mountain area and very explicit restrictions on operations there where indeed there may be matters of sensitivity or impact. So in those areas where there could be impact on calving, for example, there are quite explicit protections. We're not in that zone. We are outside of that zone. We are not subject to those explicit closures. Now, go to summer for a moment. After the elk has in that area on the other side of Burnt Mountain, that heard splits. Half of the herd roughly goes to that area between Buttermilk and Snowmass and summers to the east of us. About half of that herd goes up and over upper elk camp and down into the willow creek basin and that's where that half of the herd is. Now, it's that to say there are no elk in snow mass in the summer. No, certainly animals come through individual animals may be here, but that is not where the preponderance of animals summer, and the EA explicitly found that there would be no measurable impact on elk as an indicator species as a result of the proposal that included the restaurant, music activities that might occur at the restaurant, summer trails, and summer operations. So we think it's an exhaustively studied subject previously covered by a full environmental impact statement in 1984, subsequently covered in 2006 by an environmental assessment. Both cases conducted by the Forest Service with Colorado Division of Wildlife Participation as a contributing or the word escapes me. Well, anyway, as a contributing agency, or referring agency, sorry. So we think there's been exhaustive environmental analysis. And that division of the state, if you will, has participated. Decisions have been made, plans have been set up. Management and monitoring is already ongoing. And we think there is no impact. And we believe the town has previously considered and dealt with this issue in the PUD guide that approved our mountain activities, which was enacted by ordinance, and that gives us these hours of operation until midnight. And we've included those materials and quotes from the EA in your package and in our response. I would more than welcome you to dig into the EA or go farther back to the EIS if you wish or if you feel there's additional information that needs to be brought forward but it's really pretty clear that this is not an impactful difference for wildlife. For us, on the other hand, the opportunity to have an additional two hours of activity at night may be very important. We will just stand on that. Can I say how many evenings we would contemplate that we might go from 10 to 12? I couldn't tell you today. And I couldn't quantify that for you today. Well, I guess you could say, like in Aspa Mountain, you how many of those do you have to go from 10 to 12 on one of your other properties? I don't know. I don't know if Victor knows. Yeah. Oh, a handful or if't know. I don't know if it's good news. Yeah. Yeah. I'll be careful. Or you know. Yeah. Yeah. By more of a special event. We're talking probably in the dozens rather than the, you know, scores of events. Certainly. Yeah. Last year in your paper, the Ashton Times, whatever, when you have the moonlight events on the mountain once a month or so, those seem to be fine. I've made my way up from out on those, but usually get down before that. But I have been to a few weddings that tend to go on a little longer. But in Kevin's letter, there are statements to possibly keeping the sound inside the building. Are those things that were considered in the EA. And I think in the record of decision, which is quoted, I believe probably in page 57 of your packet. The record of decision in the notes that small scale musical events are proposed to occur in conjunction with the operation of the post-alcamp Guest Services Facility Periodically during the summer. That was considered and in the record of decision, again, they found no significant impact. Was it? Did Kevin reference this, the EA report at all? He referenced one question. Kevin, would you mind the approval of the microphone here? the EA report at all. He referenced one question. Do you mind the proposal to the microphone here? Because as I was reading his letter, and then of course I was sitting on the planning commission when we did all of the work on that part of the mountain and built that whole ski area. And I will remember reading through that exhaustive study, it was like, why? What happened here? So I'd be interested in. Do you have any response to Kevin to the questions we're talking about with the music? After hours, 10 to 12? The EA study. Can we get you at the microphone please? I know you. You know, the division's not denying, you know, what we said in the ROD or the snowmast EA, I've been through that time again, Randy Cote was the officer at the time that did a lot of the negotiations with the expansion of the burnt mountain and everything. So it was, you know, there was previously approved to go to midnight. No questions. I'm not going to deny that at all. You know, it was a long exhaustive, exhaustive negotiations when the expansion went under burnt. Obviously, ski code didn't get everything they wanted, the division didn't get everything we wanted. With that. So whenever I guess I'm given the opportunity to review a project and offer our comments that can minimize impacts of wildlife, I'm gonna do it. So that's what I did. We're going now from, we'll go back in time when the skier was just a winter resort to it, not an old seasonal resort where we had all the activity on the mountain pretty much on the western pod. Now we're also pumping a lot of people and everything onto the eastern pod when there hasn't really hasn't been that much activity before. And so with that's going to come impacts. And I think that's, I don't see how anybody can not deny that there's going to be impacts the wildlife there. So when you start pumping people as the gondola and as the notoriety of the elk camp area, which is a wonderful facility, gets promoted more and more. You're going to start pumping more and more and more people up there. And you've got activity now going. It's going to be from morning until night and all of a sudden you're going to push it to midnight. I guess basically the one's wildlife is going to get a break. So that's where we're coming from. I'm trying to minimize the time when wildlife is most active and they're most active during that dusky and night times when they need to go out and forage and so yeah my opinion now would it be would it minimize those impacts you bet? Are there a lot of elk right in that area or? There's probably not going to be a lot. Yeah. From a population standpoint, from like your entire population in this unit, is it going to make significant difference? No. I'm not going to try and pull the wool over your eyes saying, oh man, this goes until midnight. We're going to have dramatic impacts during elk up there. No, I'm not. As most of them were over on that other side of burnt mountain, my question was that's going to be in terms of how what is the distance that an elk can hear? That would cause this. If you start looking at Dr. Knight's study on zones of disturbance, the zones of activity around home sites and stuff, it's at least over a quarter of a mile. When you start looking at the elk logs road symposium and all the impacts of roads that have on Alcats, it's very definitive that pumping activity into an area has an impact on Alcats. Alcats and the indicator species for all other species. So yes, will I have an impact? Yes it will. It will be localized. It will be for those individuals that are used to use in that area. And again, we're pumping at a whole bunch of human activity in an area that hasn't had that much activity before. And so our efforts is to just try to minimize that amount of activity. Is that going to eliminate it? No. Musical events, when we start talking about the musical events, the division has been consistently asking and have yet to receive a definition of small scale music events. What is a small scale music event? We have ASCII code and we have ASCII for service to define that. It has yet to be defined. Is it amplified music? Is it not amplified music? What is it? Is it a concert? Is it small scale stuff for weddings? What is it? I think that really needs to be defined. And when we have been looking at all this stuff and trying to come up with our management plan for that area, we have asked throughout the time too that if there is going to be outside music, that at least if it's amplified or the music be faced away from Burt Mountain, so we don't force that music up toward there. I mean, there's really simple things. If we're going to go into nighttime with music events, and that is the time when most wildlife is active, why can't we have the music events at least inside the facility versus outside the facility to help minimize those impacts? That's all we're asking. You know, we're not, I'm not going against the restaurant or anything like that. I think it's going to be a great minute for the town for Spicco. I think there are things we can do to help minimize the impact. And that's all we're doing. John, welcome. Well, in your letter Kevin, you mentioned that you have a negative impact. Now, what kind of negative impacts would happen on a herd of elk with music? I think you're talking increased stress. You're talking increased disturbance, displacement from that. Everybody believes that our local population is a really good healthy, strong population. I'd say it's just the opposite of most. Our calf calracials, which is an indicator of herd overall herd health, is down to low 30s per 100. We ought to be up around 48 to 52 calves per 100. And so there's something going on. Can you put your finger on and definitely say this is the exact reason why this is happy? No, it's a combination of factors. In our mind, that's coming in lower in these calf collar ratios as well as dole fond ratios. I mean our deer population is lowest it's been in probably 20 years. I've never seen it this low. I've been here 27 years. Have never seen this deer population this low. Haven't seen the dole fond ratio this low before. So we're having a lot of impacts and a lot of that comes down to habitat. Winter age especially, or winter age conditions, are really pathetic in this valley. We're also coming into what I really see as a strong impact, or while populations is recreational pressures. We have recreational pressures in our health production areas and fonding areas, from hikers, and mountain bikers and everybody going in these areas. We've definitely proven that with a note study in VAL. If you're going to disturb a note production area or reproductive success, it drops off the wall. We have cross-censure skiing, hiking, dogs, everything else in our winter-range areas. There's places that people can cross-censure ski and snow ski and snow shoe but they don't need to do it in winter range but that's happening. So all these factors are coming in and we cannot support the populations that we used to have. I'll play it in simple. So you know the impacts of wildlife is from habitat and it's from recreational pressures. It's also from loss of habitat to do the development. Well how many deer and elk died on our highways last year? It's my understanding, it's over 4,000. And how many deer and elk were? They're not highway 82. Well, no, in Colorado. And what's the annual hunting? How many deer and elk are taken out during hunting season? That's a management tool. Well, yeah, but it's no major. I would say those are major impacts on the deer. Carb- Harb-C is the one way that we can try to control the population to what the habitat can support. And you'll see that with our last data analysis management plan or DAU plan for Neil Deere, we have actually lowered our population objectives because we cannot support the number of deer that we have? I mean, to accuse the recreational users of the National Forest is degrading your herd for management. I think is there's other ways to do it. Limit hunting, bring back natural predators, ban hunting. You're doing a good job with the highways, but I just don't see how music is going to have such an impact on your herd as much as the other impacts that do happen. That's your opinion, John. I appreciate that and I respect that. But what we're seeing is recreational pressures in this valley are having a tremendous impact on our wildlife populations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've had two extensive studies that have said that having nighttime activity up at L camp, up at the new restaurant or Kathy Suzanne is not going to impact or hinder L-Curt. That's incorrect. Okay. There hasn't been no specific study looking at nighttime activity. Nighttime activity up there is all part of the package when the negotiations for LCAMP and BERT-Mountain, everything were done. There's been no specific studies to say that a nighttime activity here is going to do this or this. What happened with ROD and the snowmf.e.A, it's a bunch of negotiations that goes on. It's a give and take type situation and stuff. And I don't always necessarily agree with what the EA say. So what was the methodology? You're saying it's a negotiations. If you're going to produce a scientific study, there has to be some methodology to a study. We're not going to be assigned to be studied to base. There's no way the division or anybody else for ski clothes should pay for a study to look at nighttime activity at Elkham. It's not cost effective to do that. I'm not and I have never said that the nighttime activity up there is going to have a significant impact on the entire population. Again it's not. I have never said that it's going to be. It will impact the individuals and those animals that try and use the L camp area. So from a population standpoint, the entire herd? No, it will not be significant. Okay. Thank you for your time. Any other questions with Kevin Wally's? I was just going to say in your letter it points out a couple very specific requests I think that you would make in terms of a compromise from the application. Sure. Which are to point speakers away from Burnt Mountain during day time. And also that activities after a certain hour be taken inside. And I assume you're speaking specifically about amplified music, things like that. That would be- Specifically amplified music, yeah. Just did me- if you're going to have a music event after darkened animals or most active- Yeah. It would, it would help to move that activity inside, at least the music, because that building will help, you know, dusting that music outside. So if there were two points of compromise that you would wanna see, it would be those primarily. I think that's a couple simple things. The point music away from Burt Mountain, if it's after hours, but to put the band inside. I don't think that's too much to ask, help minimize impacts. And I guess the clarification in my mind is your request about after hours to move inside. Are you thinking maybe 10 o'clock on? If you're going to have music have it inside? I'd say as soon as it becomes dark. I mean, that's, you know, obviously. And like I said, we're not trying to deny that it wasn't approved previously in the ROD or the SNOM FDA to go to midnight. It was. Obviously, and like I said, we're not trying to deny that it wasn't approved previously in the ROD or the SNOM FDA to go to midnight. It was. It's right in there. It's black and white. I think it also gets into if the elk aren't in that area, and the elk are, that area is well over a couple miles from the top of Burnt Mountain and they cab and they split and they go elsewhere. I don't understand why we're having this conversation. It's a move point. There's not gonna be, there's not elk up there when in the July period of time. I'm not seeing there's not elk up there, ma'am. Well, I'm really trying to understand. It's a significant portion. But you, I didn't, I don't, you haven't answered the question. The distance, the hearing capability of elk at night is it one mile, is it a half mile, is it five miles, or what is it? I can't answer that. I do not know. Well, it all depends on the habitat and what's the environment around. And you're all giving, you got the other side and there we're on the other side of the mountain. So it's, there's more sound cushioning. So that's your, okay. So Kevin, you haven't indicated that elk are the only species that you're concerned about. No, there's elk, there's mule deer. You can talk about all the other species that come out of night. Where it be Fox, or coyotes, pine martin, everything else that uses that area. You know, with all the activity going up there, there's going to be impacts. And ski coasts done a good job this summer. I mean, we really have worked together and created a management plan. They've done great. They've done the siding. They've had the patrols up there. You know, I think one of our biggest problems as dogs. And that's being addressed. And Victor and everybody's been great. So we're not trying to say that ski co is not doing their stuff. Like I said, when I am given an application, I can review it to help come up with suggestions, minimize impact, so I'm going to do that. And that's what we did. And like I said, I think a couple of things of definitely moving music inside. It's not too much to ask. I don't think pointing speakers away from Bert Mountain's too much to ask. Your mountain is the most sensitive area up there. Well I can't go to the speakers pointed to it. No doubt. So get Fred and then. Just simply do you know that have you ever do you know that there are elk up there? Yeah I've seen I've seen the tracks I've seen the scat you betcha and there's Mulder. Okay also we've also had links built across the top so there are species that utilize that area. Where the rest of this? In the camp area. In the camp area. Okay., I think covers that discussion pretty well. We'll see how we're going to, you know, come out and recommendations or issues on that. I appreciate your time, Kevin. Thank you. Okay. Other issues that we brought up last meeting that we want to review today. We're John Wilkinson. Yeah, I did take a look at the examples of the concrete walls. The board form really nice actually. It really does add a little bit more structure to them. The board concrete. Just for- Jason, then Fred. Just for a clarification, in your response, in your third bullet related to the concrete walls, you mentioned that one of the examples is a very good example and provides a highly refined example of the technique. Is that the technique you're proposing? No, we, the first bullet point, and I've got a picture represents the level of detail that we're looking to pursue. It's a little bit more refined than what was used at the Rec Center that's got vertical board form. It's not as incredibly ornate as the third bullet point, which is just a highly architectural example that goes above and beyond really anything we didn't see in the field. But it shows how artful you can make structural concrete. Okay, Fred? As I understand your position, you feel that the one open issue that we have to review is what kind of lighting there should be. Have you presented a lighting plan and has planning commission reviewed it? Yes, we do have a lighting plan in our application, both staff and planning commission reviewed that. Lighting plan is designed to meet all of the code requirements. I'm really minimized the lighting up there. We're trying to get people to and from the gondola and the building and naturally what the lighting design up there is about. For both, I mean, we're definitely sensitive to the issue. We are not intending to impose an enormous amount of glare or offensive light on any human or any wildlife that we can possibly avoid. So for both environmental reasons and for aesthetic reasons, our intent is to have very low levels of ambient light. It is certainly not something that we intend to brightly light Quite the contrary Yeah, I believe that you have a lot of guests who would like to go outside and look at the stars up there exactly So yeah, I'm gonna want to Or should I flash right? It's absolutely correct Well, Mr. Welcome to you so you're following her outdoor lighting code Well, Mr. Wilkensky. So you're following her outdoor lighting code. It has a device to your, yes, we are. And there's a Lumen analysis in the appendix of the special review application that demonstrates the code components. Are you going up to that limit on the requirement? Are you coming in underneath the total requirement? To be honest, I don't know exactly how the measurement works, but it's a minimized lighting plan. So we didn't look to push it up to code thresholds. We looked to address the critical safety elements on the building. And then demonstrated through that Lumen analysis that we were within the acceptable range for the town's code. demonstrated through that Lumen analysis that we were within the acceptable range for the town's code. The photometric study looks like the levels die off to practically zero beyond the extent of the improvements. And that's why I designed it. And again, it's really designed to get people to and from the gondola. And then we've got some service lighting on the back of the building for loading dock access for the snow cats, etc. That back loading dock light is one to well put on a timer switch so it's only on when somebody's actually using that area. That'll be a light that won't be able to be left on all night if you will, even though per the aluminum analysis, it's not going to overflow or wash into other areas. Is there a scenario you can see where additional lighting would be brought in for a particular event? And I guess the question to staff, what's the, what do we do about that scenario? Is that, I mean, is that something you foresee? And in the event that that does occur, what happens to the review standpoint? Or is that our response would be that would probably only arise if we were looking at a special event of more than 500 people which would then become subject to special review here again. Otherwise, I don't see us doing it quite frankly. I think the bill made the correct point. The experience that the restaurant is about being able to be outside and really connect with us. So we want to emphasize that throughout our design. Jason, the lighting that's approved is the lighting that's submitted in a PUD. If they want to adapt or provide different options for various other things, it needs to be brought up this time. Will you be going up there at midnight to confirm that these are being complied with? Keep an eye on it. Yes. We have satellite capabilities. They're on the way around. I think the CMD is going to go up there and rely on the gondola to get down. He'll be down by night. Getting back to the discussion we have if you need to go with Kevin right from the Department of Wildlife on the music outside inside. Is that something that we guys can work towards? So you're not going to send the music up Burt Mountain? Or you know? Yeah, certainly. If he is proposing and you would establish conditions that would suggest not pointing speakers or turning amplified music in the direction of Burnt Mountain. Yes, we can certainly deal with that. That's something that we can manage. One of the things that I can't probably say exactly, you know, technically, what does that mean in the sense of exact speaker placement or how would you, you know, position those things or what have you. But if you think of Burt Mountain as being on the bull run side of the building, our activities would be on the other side where patio and the deck are. So just from the out picture, you know, that kind of request not to sort of turn the activity and the impact of the amplification to the east or the southeast more accurately. Of course, that's something that we could deal with. That would not be an unreasonable condition. We can certainly manage around that. That would not be a problem for us. I also don't think we would have a particular problem if we would say that exterior music at 10 o'clock would be wound down and moved into structure or there'd become some kind of stepped level of activity. We could probably deal with that as well. Reserving the right again for larger events and a special review to come back and talk about it in a different context with a particular planner program in mind, but otherwise those minor restrictions are something of that nature. We certainly can deal with and can accept. I still have some issues with a couple of his representations. And EIS and EA are not negotiated documents. I don't care what anybody says. They are not negotiated documents. Those are, it's very hard science conducted by other experts. We do not negotiate what goes into an environmental impact statement prepared by the force. I was like, I'm gonna assure you that. Absolutely agree with you by the force service. I can assure you that. I absolutely agree with you, by the way, having done that. Yeah, so that, and we are held to the science of those documents. So, you know, when we get these, whether it's an EIS or an environmental assessment in EA, we have to live with that science, and likewise, I believe, the regulatory agencies should live with that science. However, the minor request he suggested would be manageable and acceptable to us. So I can certainly live with that kind of qualification. That's something the council feels inclined to move towards. John Wilkinson? Yeah, I don't think it's specific enough when you say you'd appoint the speakers away from Burnt Mountain. I mean, you'd have the opposite potential effect of having the speakers pointed towards L-Pine Springs and the sound bouncing off the trees and heading back to Burnt Mountain. So maybe something a little more measurable would be distance of decibels from the site. You know say that it can't exceed 20 decibels 150 feet away from where the music is. Well, that's, you know, talking what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, the way you had suggested, David. What do you want to do? What you can. But when I don't have scientific rationale behind restrictions, just because someone says, doesn't mean it's scientifically grounded. I was really struggling. I know we were trying to compromise, and how are we're all supposed to be nice, nice. But I think that's between Ski co and what you guys can work out you've worked out very very well a summer how to make events happen and how to do the mountain biking and I don't like to regulate stuff that is not scientifically well same same time mark you I think that people 27 years experience plus you know there's something in more than what science can always show. So I'm a little bit different. I'm a little more balanced in the Kevin side. Well, I'm not saying about a balance, but I'm not going to shut it down. I'm not going to think. But I think you guys have a 12 o'clock deal and all that kind of question. Chris, I was just about to say that the only really exterior area would be the deck and that's the edge of the building if you put if you were To have amplified sound over by the gondola or anywhere there the building would Would deflect any sound that from going in the direction of burnt mountain the issue really would have to be for sound That's placed on the deck unless you plan to have you know outdoor concerts and so forth They were up to the 500. We'd be back on stuff. And so it wouldn't be very difficult to locate using their site plan, the burnt mountain area. And then we simply can draw a line or it would be a little cone who would basically indicate for the record in the ordinance that the speakers cannot be projected beyond that angle. Let's work on that. And so we will work with the applicant on that or you may want to try to develop something. That's the best I did. It is a record that can be checked that it's very simple and everybody's happy. Yeah, I think that works better. Great idea. Okay, yeah. Can work out the staff or you're developing that. Well, is it, you know, I'm comfortable with the way it's present. Markie, I was just throwing out that suggestion because I was again making a specific recommendation on the angle of the speakers. That's, I think, that was even more troublesome. I think Chris came up with a resolution. I mean, it's going to be fairly self-regulatory if they're just having awareness to put the band up in that corner. They're going to be projecting away from burnt mountains. So, I mean, this seems to be very doable. Well, we're not talking MTV's Mountain Steahouse up there. If they put the band over right up towards the entrance into the building to catch the deck on that side of the building by the gondola, that sound will not project over towards the mountain. It'll project up the hill. So I think this is all very doable and won't affect their ability. I'm a former musician. So I know we could do this very easily. Thank you Chris. Appreciate it. And it could be a lot of speakers and it's still not reached. Okay. The Elk on Burt Mountain. Moving on. We marking. It was I thought that you handled the issue around construction pretty darn well. That's not my question. I must have missed it and it's probably in your somewhere about how people are going to be able to ski off from the old Pats plunge and out Turkey truck around to get down to the chairlift. Yeah, if I understand your question, let me get to it. It's kind of John's question last time. I was trying to figure that out. Right here, right here. So if you were indeed, I don't know if you might want to Victor actually to answer, if you want to speak to steer circulation issues, if he's probably more credible than I am. Yeah, we brought the guy all the way out there. Yeah, we'll let him go home. Guys, you have a pointer on your desk if you want to use it. Well, we have a pointer there. You know, Mark, the building is sufficiently away from the old camp chairlift and the trees on the other side. So where your ski now is going to be, where are you going to ski later as well? So when I come down past punch, turkey truck, no problem. No conflict. I mean, no, we're here. Where, um, where I know this patch fund right there top of two creases right there. Yeah. Okay. So where you come down here is the same way you come down now. Okay. And then you can enter the building from that lower end. Okay. Okay, and then you can enter the building from that lower end. Okay. So you're not making any changes to the grading of the runs to access that then. No, that'll remain the same. That was my concern. Right. And unfortunately those times when the snow is really grabby and slow, like stuff for snowboarders, especially if you don't know to keep your speed going. Yeah. We've tried to get that resolved with the forest service and they won't let us create it any further than we have Yeah, I'm page 54 of your letter Chris on the third bullet point Construction workers will be encouraged to carpool from down valley. No parking brush creek intercept lot and drive the site in one more vehicle. So the construction workers are not going to be driving their own personal vehicles up to the site, is that? That's correct, it'll be a consolidated vehicle that's got crew and equipment in it. A consolidated vehicle that's got crew and equipment in it. Do you anticipate any use of the gondola to transport? We don't want to rely on it because the access down below is difficult and not ours to control from a parking standpoint to. We'd rather catch people and carpool them a little further down the hill. Now that said, the Gondol will be running during the hours for when we're constructing during summer operations so we can envision somebody needs a hammer or left some kind of a tool. That's a good way to get down to civilization and be able to grab something and jump right back up. We don't want to rely on it. The gondola is also not configured for material transport and there isn't a good staging loading facility down at the base so we're not able to use that for moving materials back and forth. And as for our construction management plan we're going to look to do most of our material deliveries in early hours So they were away from the publicly operating periods Okay, Fred? No, no Saw your hand up over there my corner my eyes We're going to lose you Okay, John I'm just going to follow up on the parking for the workers. If you have construction workers that are living in the snowmaths village, are they going to have to go down to the... We'll work with them. They built Sam's knob. That was the others. Without the headaches that we're talking about here, the construction traffic and driving to the top of the mountain. A lot of the same headaches. And we're going to use our experience up at SAMHSA. We thought it worked quite well and applied here. So to the extent that we can house people closer to the site then brush creek, that's great. And we'll certainly figure out the most logical way to get them to them from the site. What was your access to SAMHSA? Not the snowman's ability? Which way did the construction? Did it go up Wood Road to the road? Yeah, okay. So it's pretty much the same thing. It's just now going up to the Alcambor road. Yeah, right. Take a left turn instead of a right at the top of Wood Road. We'll pack a few more homes, but there's still, you know, there's a few. Can can pull up the rest of the way. Any other questions we have, staff? Clarifications, you need on our underlying areas, are you? Chris, were you also going to develop language around amplified music hours as a hospital condition. Well, David said something about being amenable to the 10 p.m. restriction on amplified music outside. Outside. That's right. Yeah, that's it. Okay. Let's work on that. Any other conditions? No? I think this was a good project. Why I just yet getting completed. A few people that haven't been reading this, you're going to be keeping cafey Suzanne open. And tell this one is ready to open. Yes. And it's playing, but I figure a few people might be watching this thing. And that was really a biggest question I have of people. Can I be it? Well, I'll be still be able to have meals up there while they're doing this and Yeah, that's the plan. Yeah, they're not gonna shut down themselves to you know and make you go somewhere else because That's how the hill doesn't have much going on for it What do we want Chris? What's next up? You're ready we could draft the Resolution for the next meeting but I'm not certain you you're ready. We could draft a resolution for the next meeting, but I'm not certain you're ready for ordinance on the minor PD amendment. No, he'd be a part for you. Do you want to go ahead and proceed with that as well? What can we do it? Can we do it all? I think we would prefer to do it all at once and then we could condition that they update the third inventory list in 2000. But they were saying 2015 was a date but they were thinking about the inventory list being complete by. Planning commission had suggested 2015 on the inventory list. Specifically, we've proposed with staff or we've proposed in our PUD amendment application some clarification language that would. We think ease the interpretation and use of PUD guide itself. We're fine with proceeding with presenting and discussing that application at this time. If council so. Sure. We'd like to see that. Let's do that too. Yep as well work in the whole. Kid and Caboodle. So you'd like a resolution in the first reading of an ordinance at your next meeting. If that works, I don't want to push our staff to get moving. They can't get done. Sounds like that's the preference. That what you know, that's what this key company would like to have of course. That that's our plan. The kind of revenue other I'm trying to pull you along I don't want to push you think we want to put a bow on don't don't hold a Spank yeah yeah well I think you've done a lot of work it's very evident between Skateco as well as our planning department Jim you've done a fabulous job work you've done already on this so thank you you and all the clarification emails. There's some glitches but I think what the up goes proposed kind of clarifies, you know, what uses in the inventory lists are regulated by that 120,000. That's great. Okay. Sure. All right Chris. Okay we'll go through review. We've proposed as far as the PUD amendment. I think that subsequently we've reviewed most of that already. We're proposing to make three changes. First, we'll update the restaurant table that's in the PUD. Got to reflect the current or the post-elk camp state of being. So we'll have the new Sam's non-restaurant in there, the new El-camp restaurant in there. In a minute, I'll show you that table and how that would look post-revision. The second change that we're proposing to make is to add some definitions into the PUD guide that will better clarify the cap, the commercial cap of 120,000 square feet. The reason that this came about is Jim and I, when we sat down to start to update the inventory list, realize that the PUD guide speaks to a 120,000 square foot cap on commercial space, but it doesn't provide a definition as to what that commercial space is. When we looked at all of the space on the mountain, and that was our first assumption was, well, maybe that applies to everything that's built on the mountain, we saw that the inventory list that was provided at the time of adoption of the PUD guide exceeded that 120,000 square feet by a considerable amount. And from there we started to infer what we thought that commercial cap of 120,000 square feet ought to apply to. And the simplified version is the restaurants on the mountain and the areas for the retailing of goods. And so we've sought to create and add some definitions that more specifically define what those commercial areas are and then subsequently defines what else is on the mountain that's not of commercial use. Together those two definitions, ski area commercial facilities and I think Jim we've come up with a slightly different definition for the other one but basically ski area facilities that aren't commercial together comprise the entire inventory of everything built on the mountain. We would keep our update of that inventory and periodically update that as a reference tool for the council for staff to look at. But we think that the really salient thing to consider that the PUD guide speaks to is that 120,000 square foot cap on space. So we propose to, again, better to find that and provide a more specific inventory in the form of the updated restaurant table that would allow for a quick and easy comparison of what buildings are on the mountain that apply to that cap and how much space is that. Instead of what we found to be a very clumsy 5, 6, 7 page inventory of every single facility on the mountain, some of which apply to the cap, some of which don't, and becomes a pretty difficult document to wade through. And then finally, the third thing that we're proposing is some cleanup language in the PUD guide that will get rid of some redundant language and get rid of some no longer relevant language as to facilities that were required to be built several years ago. So that's what we're proposing. And as we've already talked about, we're not proposing to change any of the caps or change any of the uses that are already in there. We really see this as definitions and administrative cleanup. And I'm going to apologize to this. This is probably going to be pretty hard to read in detail. But I think you don't want to illustrate what we're looking to change. This tiny table is pulled out of the PUD guide and it's a list of all of our restaurants when they were constructed and how big they are, how much seating. This is directly from the 2005 PUD guide. The next slide shows the changes that we would propose to make and don't get scared because it's got everything crossed out in there as well. But essentially we're just looking to bring the new restaurants up to snuff and that would include the El Camp restaurant proposed. And then also on the bottom of the table, restate the 120,000 square foot cap. So it's very easy to see list of all of the facilities that fall under that cap and compare them against what the cap itself is. That would then result in a new table that looks like this, fundamentally the same as what we have. This information, by the way, is in the special review, application notebook that we provided. The definitions, this was our definition for the ski related commercial facilities. Again, we've worked on this with Jim to make sure that it works for both of us. It clarifies the language and it also fits perhaps better with the snowmask code, the rest of the code and how the code defines things and isn't as specific or unique to the mountain PUD. So we would propose to add this definition and two additional ones. The previous slide was the definition for commercial facilities. The companion to that would be non-commercial facilities on the mountain, if you will. My slide calls it ski-related facilities. Jim has pointed out that that term is used elsewhere in the code, so he's got a slightly different definition, but he would still fall into that same categorization of what isn't a commercial structure. And then finally, the third definition we would propose to add is commercial service areas. That's actually a bringing something over from the town code into this PUD guide as more of a technical means of calculating FAR. There's an allowance in FAR calculations to exclude commercial service areas. In our PUD guide, those areas aren't defined. So we've looked to try to put some specific definitions in there. Again, for clarity of use going forward with any future buildings that we might have. Fred? So the commercial service areas, would that be included in 120,000 square foot cab? Technically it wouldn't because FAR is used as the square footage number. That's the basis for those calves. Jewell? I had another question, too. There's a couple of structures on the mountain that I was just kind of curious about how you account for them as the trestle in some of the tunnels that you've constructed. Is that, would that fit under the ski-related facilities or how do you address that? Well, it's not addressed currently in the PUD guy because it's not built square footage or defined as occupied or heated square footage. So it's with respect to the caps, the commercial caps or the mountain caps. It's not a part of that. So we haven't included it in those definitions. So these are the things that you and Jim, Chris have worked on. I was just going to say Jim did a great job working with the ski company in 2005. We really didn't have a full documented knowledge of what was on the mountain, the types of uses. They did an extensive list of the various types of uses that they could envision for the mountain to find whether they were going to be approved uses by Ryder, needed special review. So it was a pretty significant effort in 2005 to try and improve the time what we did have previously as the zoning perimeter definitions for the mountain. As they were approached us to work on submitting for the L camp that we sort of mutually agreed that it wouldn't be a good opportunity to try and clarify some things that are a little ambiguous in 2005 PUD guide. And so there's a lot of clarification that's occurring and then also we needed to amend it anyway to adjust for the subject of the LCAMP submission. So it really makes for a better instrument for us going forward. And it came about because we both usually agree that we get enhanced the 2005 PUD guide. Okay. And what made it ambiguous in 2005 is that the PUD guide borrowed this skier services facility, it's definition from the code at the PV guide bar of this skier services facility is definition from the code. At the time the Rec Center zone was created for the ski mountain. And that definition included restaurants. It just bundled everything in one definition. So we're just breaking it out. Very good. But I like to acknowledge Victor Gerton. He was an extreme help put in the PVD guide together. Back in 2005, he was primarily responsible for that. And I think Chris has been extremely helpful this time around trying to clarify it. Okay. So our next step on this amendment to the PUD guide is a separate item, of course. Bring the first reading for an ordinance. Okay. That's the zoning part and a special views or resolution very good council having a couple just in the question because a lot of these structures don't exist anymore that are in the beauty how do you account for that how do you manage that in this actually I neglected John to provide one additional presentation piece and that's some of the cleanup that we refer to that remove some of those references to obsolete or no longer applicable structures. So again, the adopted version lifted from the PUD guide and then we're looking to cross out some of the references. For example, we've got a requirement about the size of the snow making compressor building. That's been done, moved on, et cetera. We would also, per the Planning Commission condition, update the existing inventory list and bring that up to date. And so we would then remove references to obsolete structures, add any additional structures that have come on since that point. And well, we talked about a 2015 date to do that by, we can certainly deliver that much sooner than that. Really, what I would like to do is get our new restaurant in place and then update it through the L-camp restaurant because we think that's gonna represent our significant construction activity for the near future. I'm fine with it. It looks like the total net amount of structures taken away is about 2000. Press, you can read that, John. He has classes long. 2,500 square feet or something like that. Oh, and that was just a reference to the snow making compressor facility that's now been built. So in our inventory guide, we'll put the exact square foot of job that facility. We didn't think it needed to be referenced otherwise in the PUD guide anymore. Good, OK. Any other comment from the public? At this point I will close, continue the public hearing until the next meeting which January 18th. January 18th. Be time to Chris. Did you prepare a disc of your presentation? This is the same presentation that we used at the last meeting. That is all in the previous question. That's correct. There are no changes to this presentation versus the one that we did on December 1. Thank you for providing that disc. I will go through that instead. This is much. So good job. OK. Maybe on staff needs. So good job. Okay. Maybe on staff needs. I guess one question and preparing the ordinance for this minor PUDM, I'm not when council receives the updated, or when the town receives the updated inventory list, who should be the review authority to accept it or approve it and adopt it as part of the final pd. You got with town council want them? No. Responsible in here. If you guys have a planning commission. I mean Chris. John? Where should we be? Yeah, be Chris. Yeah, and then we'll put language in there that if disagreements arise it cannot be resolved in its staff level Right, it can be that appeal to you as final that works Anything else Russ? Okay, thank you see you on the 18th of January. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks That's a that's a Tuesday Monday's MLK Day. Great, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. Let's take about 10 minute break. Back here about 10 minutes. One of the things that it also provides is that there are service fees for false alarms. You get a number of free malfunction false alarms, I guess, is what you say. They don't penalize you the first time you have that because what the goal of the program is to incentivize compliance. We don't want to respond to false alarms that that's a depletion of resources. God forbid a false alarm. Somebody's responding to it either the police or the fire department is something else happens. So it's not intended to be a penalty. It's to incentivize compliance. And we feel that we've come up with reasonable ways to do that. The other point I want to make to you is that the service fees that are charged for false alarms don't cover the expenses of making the emergency runs. This is not okay cost $52 for the police to go out and check a burglar alarm so we're going to, it's a it's more expensive for a medical or a fire false alarm. So that's the overall reasoning behind the program. It isn't existence. The town administers it. And the fire department approached us that because they are the primary responders to fire and medical alarms, that they should, if they are false alarms and they have to go out, they should get the service fee for that particular run. They like the way the program works. They're not talking about changing the number of false alarms to trigger anything. They just want to have that share of the service fees that are attributable to the fire and medical false alarms. This is after the thresholds crossed. We discuss that with the chief of the police department and he's fine with it. We talked to it with the administration people that administer it and also the finance department to make sure that the terms that will contain in the IGA were appropriate. Basically it sets out that the $35 annual fee will be continued to pay to the town, the town will retain all those funds and that will cover all the administrative costs of the program. And we have verified that between the record keeping and financing the record keeping in the police department. That those numbers are roughly equal. In other words, the annual permit fee was based at $35 to cover the cost of that administration. And then you get to the false alarm service fees. And I think I put in there a room of approximately $1,800 over the five years is the average that would be paid to the fire department under this program. And that is, they fluctuate, I don't want to say wildly, but they fluctuate from year to year. And that was the best way I could see to give you an idea of approximately what you're talking about annually. So John does the snowmess well kept fire protection district? Do they have a mechanism for charging for these? No, they don't charge. They operate under R. Emergency alarm program. There's nothing to prevent them from doing so. Would this agreement perhaps prohibit that from happening then if we're doing this? No, there are government unto themselves. Excuse me, Tom. Matt, please. Sure. Under just down the alley, snowmissed fire department. Under Colorado statute, special districts cannot charge for additional services. That's originally why the building has been going through the town of snowmissed village. I believe we are allowed to do hazmat and also for extrication expenses, but certainly not this type of fee So would could you just explain to me how we're gonna share the the fee is that you know if we have our own place Department responding and then you guys are responding and we have these fees in place. Is it pro rata among the departments or is it you audited it at the end of the year to determine? John man. Sure go ahead. Okay. We basically keep track of the false fire and EMS calls and we send them to the town on a form. And basically we keep track of them. I want to note that real calls and the first three false calls to anyone residents, there's no fee involved at all. It's, once again, it's our intention just to make sure that the fire alarms and the items are working correctly. But we are spinning our wheels on that type of a call. Do the alarm companies have any kind of penalty or any kind of fee that they charge? I don't know that. I don't know. Okay. No, any questions, Council? I'm Jason. I just have a couple. Definition of false alarm in this event. What constitutes a false alarm versus a real alarm. And then also when you talk about the exempt, first three, if we have three false alarm calls that are responded to by the police department, then the fourth is a charged service and it's responded to by the fire department or vice versa. How does that get dealt with in this scenario? We just decided to, if that fourth one is a fire call, then they would get the revenue. If it's the first three are fire calls and the fourth one is a burglary call, we would get the revenue. If it's the first three are fire calls and the fourth one's a burglary call, we would get the revenue. And we just figured it all even out in the wash in the end, we're not talking about tremendous amounts of money here. So we just figured that was the way we did it. Jason had a question on that definition of a false alarm though. How you decide what gets? Why don't you give it for fire? Okay, I'll be happy to. First of all, I believe that the parameters are quite liberal. Any type of a cooking false call or an unwanted call, you burnt your toast, those go into the right category where they're not considered a false call. We want to know about those type of errors and actually. So it's typically the consistent broken device. It's the consistent steam shower. When we get to that point, we're also trying to coach them to, let's move the device if it's placed in the wrong place. And typically, this, on a new construction, we would catch this fairly quickly before they install it when we do plan review. So these are older residents than all of a sudden. So I hope that clarifies it a little. If I can go one step further, the carbon monoxide town ordinance has added, well last year alone we ran about 40 extra calls to that. 12 of those were false calls. So the program's working because on the other calls, we actually found high levels of CO and we think we've averted an emergency on those aspects. So the plan's working. We just kind of want to share the cut to help us with books and things. So what's a false call? A false call in a burglary alarm would just be any call that there is no indication of criminal activity. So if there's, I just happens to be a door that might have been blown open by the wind, that might be considered a false alarm, but if there's some sense that there was four centri than it would be an actual alarm. And I think it's pretty consistent, I know, in the criminal side that at least 99% of them are false. Fred, any questions? No. Motion for approval. Okay, resolution number five series 2000. We will open, moved by Markey Butler, second by Fred. Any further discussion? Just this language under number one approval, if the proposal of the pro- to propose IGA of picking counter that that what we want that to say. No good catch. Two USB. Could you do a need of motion to amend the resolution? I was just going to make one more comment on the IGA, language, item C, false alarm service fees. It says in the event, I think that's the second sentence in the event. WFPD responds to a false alarm, including false alarm from carbon monoxide detectors. We don't want to limit it to that. Should we just add language, including but not limiting to if it doesn't matter. I don't know what these. Sorry, under item C in the IGA, third sentence, in the event they respond to a false alarm, including false alarms from carbon monoxide detectors. I guess it's implicit that any other false alarm is included, so never mind, disregard. Okay, any other changes or comments? On favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right Now we've got another little change here. Let's do the item of the manager's report that we have a few people in the audience for. It says they changed everybody, even the grassroots guy in the back. I didn't know. A little hint on that. Russ, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, David is joining him and we have a number of people from the neighborhood joining us this evening. At the last-home council meeting, we had a number of residents from Grush Creek near Homestead and across the street from Homestead come in and ask about the termination of service. But what has been an informal bus stop about 200 yards downhill from the Sinclair brush creek. A bus stop, David has prepared a memo on that kind of explaining the rationale. This is one where we always like to look for a win-win with neighbors and residents. We've had a couple opportunities to chat with the neighbors, bouncing around a couple of ideas that I was hoping maybe could have got us there. But at the end of the day, I spent some time with David, his staff, all the supervisors and transportation transportation and then chatted with the police chief. And again, the communication I got and the input I got was that this has many concern from a safety standpoint for some time. One of the ideas that we explored was, you know, could we leave it to the driver's discretion if it's a snowy day, a bad day, for them simply not to stop and move forward. And that has been the direction at this stop for the last couple of years, given the nature and the customer service orientation of our drivers. It's very hard to stop or not stop when you see a customer standing there. So at the end of the day, I don't see a basis for myself over turning the decision of the transportation department. I think we've certainly talked about communication and internal and external communication in the event of any other service changes and doing that differently. And David, you might want to just quickly hit some of the highlights of your memo and I have any answer questions. I know some of the residents would certainly like to share their perspective with you. I think the memo speaks for itself. Basically, we're concerned about the ability to get out of the roadway and a particularly sort of nasty piece of roadway within our community. This area is subject to shading. It has a rather high traffic volume, 9,000 vehicle trips a day in the peak periods. Again, these stops have sort of informally evolved ever since the development of homestead condominiums. There was no assumption in that land use application that there would be bus service to homestead. I just sort of grew over time. Again, as Russ said, out of drivers trying to do the best customer service they could, I do think it's kind of a matter of not only the vehicle, it becomes a target, if you will, in that location, but also because it starts to constrain the traffic lanes that it also adds another element for the general public driving through the area. We have identified that in roughly 600 feet, basically there are two very formal, fully established regional bus stops that are there for the general public to take advantage of. A council asked about a couple of issues, which is on the second page of my memo. Basically, we didn't talk about this during the budget process because there wasn't a budget ramification. This was more an operational issue. And we were trying to address what we thought so as a safety concern. The difference between this location and other locations is basically the condition of the roadway relative to the traffic volume. Again, there are probably roughly in the peak period, 9,000 vehicle trips a day in this area, traveling up and down Brush Creek Road. Some of the other locations that have been used as examples of where we don't have formal bus stops. Those are in the roughly 3500 to 4000 range. In a manual that speaks to and provides guidance to rural operators on how to establish bus service and bus stop locations in rural areas. Basically, it's recommending that once the vehicle average daily traffic volume goes over 4,000, that the vehicle get completely out of the travel lane to safely board in a light passenger. So that's sort of where we have taken our direction from. That I would consider an industry standard. Basically, sort of the change evolving circumstances here are as much as we've kind of seen a decline in activity in the resort due to the recessionary trends that's not translating necessarily into reduced traffic volume on the same degree or same percentage. I think that suggesting that the background traffic volume is increasing. And so when we get back to a peak period, you're going to see probably a significant increase in the traffic volume in this location. So we're being proactive rather than reactive. Also back in the old days, we had smaller vehicles when we used to provide service to homestead. Now we're being, moving, buying vehicles that we can find that are more industry standard and more available for quality vehicle at a competitive price. Most of that is pushing us to 30 feet in length and eight and a half feet as a width dimension. So we're using larger rolling stock, trying to service the rodeo lot parking ride at this location. So the type of equipment has evolved over time. Again, we note that the industry standards are usually using a quarter mile distance as basically a pref-guide line for the separation between transit stops. It's also looking for major trip generators. And obviously, this is a very limited number of people by comparison to other bus stops that we have within our community. So at 200 yards away for a fully established bus stop, we thought that that was a reasonable, reasonable compromise and justification for a consolidation of two stops that were within 200 yards of each other. We spoke with the public works director a little bit about the condition of the trail network. It's sort of kind of a catch 22. It's purposefully left a snowpack so that it has better footing than if it were a pack or ice glazed ice situation in the freeze-thaw cycle. So it's looked at as a better walking service for these trails that are going around the golf course than something that's tried to be fully maintained and ends up as packed sheet ice. So that's sort of where they're they've been coming from and historically why they've maintained that stretch to the degree it has been. We don't really have any formal information on how many people use this location. All I can say is I don't think it's a big number. Let me put it that way. Thank you, Dave. John. I got a question for you, Dave. You're standard on the, I understand that 200 yards, but I think one of the significant differences of this site is the 60 feet of vertical, which is equivalent to a six-story building. And so you're walking up or down hill with ski equipment and ski boots, it has more of an impact on just the pure distance, because I can see on flat ground where that makes sense, but we are vertically challenged here. It's a Catch 22 there, was well, John, that great separation is what puts a vehicle pulling off the side of the road there at risk. That's one of the things that makes it a tough situation to serve. Now, do you have a difference between the uphill stop or the downhill stop, or do you view both as being equally bad? From a purely dimensional perspective, I think actually the downhill side at the driveway for homestead is actually probably narrower if you're trying to get something without going in there and taking out some more landscaping. It's probably narrower somewhere at eight feet for a bus to get over there. So that one probably doesn't meet any design standards and it's probably a little bit shorter than the uphill side. The uphill side is hard to dimension because it's basically a shoulder over road. So you're going, well, what can you drive on until you hit the culverting or the drainage ditch on the side and how far can you go, how far can't you go? And so there's no asphalt,'s no nothing there that that kind of prescribes a width but I would say that side is probably 12 feet so you have to use a driveway to board in a light if you're going to try and be fully out of the lane of travel. With gravity being your friend or not your friend having the pick up at the bottom to get them up the hill versus dropping them off right across the street. Because walking down is a lot easier than walking up with a ski equipment. I would agree with that. OK. So today, I guess we're still in that position where the homeowners have a desire for us to stop there. I think, you know, a few of us have talked with Dave and I spent some time talking with Dave heard from our bus drivers and supervisors that they were finding out at other conferences that there are accidents that happen and attorneys somehow get involved in a mix again and can make a nice play for you know you knew that this was a problem intersection and you still allowed it to continue when you had a bus stop 200 yards at the road. Before that, I was more into the client of saying, guys, let's make it work. Let's do something. Let's try to get people either as you have been doing when times are good, whether it's clear, roads not icy. Go ahead, let's try to stop there and make it work for these folks. And I think, you know, a few of the neighbors that said, you know, we'd be glad to work with that. You know, they'll see in the mornings and in the afternoons or whenever they're coming home that it's a nasty condition. But then you leave it up to a subjective driver and, you know, then you might be getting the arguments. Why didn't you stop today? You said you might, when I got there, it wasn't what I felt safe. Maybe I had too much traffic on the road at the time. So unfortunately, to me, it boiled down to listening to my staff and going forward with their recommendation. That's where I'm going to end up today with. But again, this is a more of an operational thing and I don't believe it's necessarily something that I can push my attitude and my feelings onto my operations group. Jason, I was just going to ask, is there a scenario where maybe just the smaller buses can stop there safely? I mean, if you're just talking about Route 8 that takes typically that smaller bus. Maybe just the smaller buses can stop there safely. I mean, if you're just talking about Route 8, that takes typically that smaller bus. Well, Route 8 is routing up Meta Road and Downsing Claire or vice versa if it gets demand to go to a drop off. So it's bypassing this location entirely. Oh, that was an idea. So it's a go. Yeah, so the vehicles that are serving this predominantly are route four big buses for the free park and ride. They're carrying significant they're one of our highest ridership routes. So that customer service. Yeah, I agree with you, Bill. I think if we've got the transportation people, the bus drivers and the police department saying this simply isn't safe. We've had accidents there. I think if we continue to try to do it, we do subject ourselves. You're welcome to come up and speak. But just let me finish. You've come to the microphone though. I think when you've got that many different perspectives on the situation, it seems to me that we're sort of duty bound number one from a liability standpoint and number two from respect for operations to go along with you. I'm Miranda Basil and before you make your, if you haven't already, I would like to have the homeowners have an opportunity to express some concerns that we have. Because I think what you're hearing is that this bus stop was eliminated because it was unsafe, but David Peckler specifically told me there has never been an accident at this bus stop. You cannot make every bus stop perfectly safe. I think that's the nature of a bus stop. You have a vehicle coming in and out of traffic, especially on our roads that are steep. They are not perfectly safe and we cannot make it so. But the fact that there has never been an accident. I think you're getting some misinformation because that was very clear and my conversation with David, I've asked him point blank. Has there ever been an accident at this bus stop and he said absolutely not. Certainly there have been accidents on that roadway in that stretch. It's a difficult stretch. We've seen cars go off that corner and into the golf course, but that is not our bus stop. So if you think it's unsafe for buses, what do you think it is like for us to bring kids across that road? We frequently have children staying with us and to walk little children across that street up the bike path and then across the street again, just to get on the bus is so it's three street crossings on brush creek for a round trip. What we heard was that the town would like to improve the bike path across the street from us and I think first and foremost that's impossible unless you snowmelt it. It's really steep and we do regularly have a two inch sheet of ice on that bike path. If you're trying to hike up and down that on your ski boots, it just doesn't work. The other issue we saw in David's memo was the possibility of installing another bike path on the residential home side of Rush Creek. And the town just spent $100,000 putting in landscaping there two years ago. I find that that's not a planning, that's not a way to plan anything. Take out all that landscaping that you just put in and then go back and try to put in a bus stop or a bike path. I think this traffic issue is a problem of the town's own making. I was on planning and zoning commission when town park was in front of us and the town reduced the parking down there at the intercept lot and we know what that means. It means that people are driving up brush Creek Road. Skier traffic is driving up brush Creek Road and brush Creek has always been intended to keep the skiers down at the rodeo lot and not up at the base. So I'm sure you heard of whispering in the back here because the road in front of the homes has been widened by the town. So there is a pull out there. There is plenty of room for a bus, and the town improved that and put it in over 17 years ago. We've lived there for 17 years. So the issue there is if it's not wide enough, let's make it wider, let's make it work. The issue is not, let we think it might be dangerous, let's eliminate it, let's figure it out. One of the things that I would suggest before you make a decision is we would love to have a site visit down there. I would welcome every town council member to show up in your ski boots with your equipment and walk the bike path with us. Thank you. Thank you, Ronda. Just a state-of-the-record, please. Excuse me. My name is Bob Campbell. I've been a homeowner here for 26 years, and I've been a homeowner. I've been a homeowner instead for 17 years. The thing that I'm concerned about, I think there's some number of statements that have been made in my opinion are not at all accurate. I'm not familiar with any accidents in the 17 years that I've been there. The other thing is the perception that the current situation is unsafe and you're directing us to a safe situation. I would ask you as the lady before me just suggested, try walking up that path in the winter. The blue roof stops are not a safe alternative for the people in Homestead or the folks across the street. And when you say there's only a couple of folks that are impacted, Homestead has 14 homes between owners and renters. You're talking about the potential 65 people plus the folks across the street. I happen to walk up there today in ski boots. You can walk under crunchy snow, not a problem. Try walking back at the end of the day. Every day between now and the end of the ski season, you will find that there's no one aside the hill melt, goes across the sidewalk, and re-freezes. And I've fallen there several times walking my dog. So you're not transferring it to a safe situation. There's one other point I'm going to ask Mike, Mike and I are directors at the Homestead Association Board. We just had a manual meeting and we just for the first time heard about this subject. Mike made some measurements today. There's another misconception I think we have to bring to your attention. My name is Mike Estes. I'm the president of the Homeowner Association of the Homestead. I've been there for 15 years and used that bus constantly in the winter time. I've also tried to walk up down that hill in regular shoes and you slip and fall trying to do that in ski boots as ridiculous, particularly trying to carry skis along with you as well. David made a comment earlier about the width of the area there. I happen to go out today with my tape measure and have a lot of time to do it, but I measured to stop up at at Singular Road. I got 14 feet from the edge of the of the black top into the full inside of the area. There were more than 14 feet at homestead and the homestead driveway and at least 14 feet on the other side pulling in. I constantly when I'm coming down that hill pull out of the traffic lane before I make the right hand turn down into the homestead area. I'm completely out of the roadway. The drivers when they come down there before they stop for us to let us out. They're off the roadway. There's plenty of room there for that. And so I, you know, I think we need to be accurate in what we're talking about. We had an annual meeting just last Thursday. And with the first time that this question had been brought up that the bus service would just continue. And all the homeowners at the meeting were extremely upset and asked me to come and Register their complaints with you about the discontinuation of that. We believe it's an unsafe for the people To force them to walk up the road what they're gonna have to are doing putting their cards on the road as well and increased the amount of parking That's taken up up on the hill because they're not gonna walk up that that icy way on the way up in the morning and IC when they come back in the evening. Thank you. Thank you. And that is, I think for the Minister of the ourselves, we need to recognize what's going to happen here is that after trying it once or twice, people will revert and go back to their bottom of the hills. And that's certainly going to happen. And at the foot of Brush Creek Road right on 82, there's a flashing sign down there that says, ride the bus, reduce your carbon footprint. And I understand the rationale behind your decision, behind safety and liability. But if you continue with that, that's going to be exactly the opposite of what that sign is. Thank you for inviting us. Thank you. Fred? Tom Mark. Just, you've, correct me, but I have, in the memo that David sent to us, he says. And I'm just wondering. The town, in addition to town manager met with the TD supervisors and confirmed that there have been accidents and issues with loss of traction along the stretch of road, one accident involving a bus being rear-ended at the downhill stop at Sinclair before the new bus stops were completed. So, I don't, if that's misinformation, perhaps, David needs to correct this. What that was meant to say was that at the Sinclair intersection on the downhill bus stop side, that's where the bus was rear-ended. Before it was wide. Before. That's not our bus stop. Before it was wide. But the point isn't, is to say that this stretch, as noted, with vehicles going off into the golf course on the downhill side with regularity, as well as our accident experience at Sinclair Road in a through traffic situation that points to that being an area of concern as well as every the police don't log or note when vehicles lose traction and the roadways compromised by a stock vehicle in the roadway. And that happens with where they were. Yeah, and I just wanted to confirm that that's the bus stop. They're trying to direct us to and that's where the accident occurred, not at our bus stop or either of the areas where they stop in front of our properties. Thank you. Mark? I mean I said it. I feel a little bit more comfortable. Oh come on. You can sit there, sure. What the heck? I try to keep it short, but I do have a page. I ask you to now. I'm moving the microphone towards your face. I can't hear you. I'm going to sit there. Is that better? That's much better. Thank you for I'm going to sit there. Is that better? That's much better. Thank you for letting me sit here. I appreciate it. Feel a little bit more comfortable. I asked the town council to consider reinstalling the existing bus service we had at Homestead. A list of items for this reinstatement. I have prepared here that I'd like to read to you of reason being. I'm not sure when the decision was made, but it became permanent that this stop be eliminated the week of December 1st. Without consideration or alternatives to the short and long term citizens of this community that uses stop. There was no communication to myself prior to or after this decision was made to the citizens that are directly affected. For over two weeks no phone calls, no emails, no communication whatsoever, from a letter I sent on December 3rd. Only after we brought this issue to the town council on December 20th was there then a meeting to be held that was then requested by the town council. At this meeting only then was there in writing the reasoning for this decision of the elimination of the homestead bus stop. Apparently then we were told of a manual description that outlines a bus stop, rule and urban. Not sure where this came from and is only a use recommendation as it appeared to me. What was presented is to be of a properly bus stop. This should not only address the homestead bus stop, but all other stops in the snowmast village area should be looked at as well according to this reading. The other item was a 4,000 vehicles per day. That amount of traffic for each day of the winter season seems very high. We were not provided with any documentation of that. Of these two items, they were the main source of the decision at this time. The follow-up consisted one week later, consisted of more for why the decision was made and not for any type of bus service to be allowed at the homestead. The town police were then asked for their opinion of this stop. I ask if there is any proof of the accident in this area ever pertaining to bus usage here. The area works quite well to write speeding tickets I might add. We've seen several police there. We were then totally alternative way to the bus would be to use the walkway and they will let parks trail crew know if they can provide a better walking area to the Sinclair stop. And now in most recent letter this past week for consolidating this stop with the Sinclair stops. In my profession I repair a replaced problematic issues of building construction and I have looked at this issue into the real cause of where it starts and repair that item from there. Looking at the root of this issue, I think there is something different for this bus stop elimination and not what has been presented to all of us. Yes, there may be a safety issue at this stop, just like all the other stops have in the village. Yes, there may be 4,000 vehicles a day. But I think the real issue started here amongst the veteran and the seasonal drivers. There was a conflict of interest on the service to this stop amongst the newly seasonal drivers and the long time veteran drivers. In order to repair this among the drivers, a decision was made to eliminate the homestead bus stop entirely and not have this issue among the drivers any longer. This decision was made an apparent haste without any follow-through of replacement or continued other service provided to the tax pay and community for the stop at this time. I asked the town council to reinstate this bus service as it was for the past 17 years. Council to reinstate this bus service as it was for the past 17 years. The bus route still says homestead on the overhead ticker. Open the doors at this stop, I ask. Don't let a haste decision be made that resolves one issue and leaves a taxpayer with the consequences of the eliminated bus stop. Thanks. Thank you, Mark. Okay, so it sounds like someone else who wants to speak. Tom and I'm back to the bros 39 or 30 brush creek. Been a resident of brush creek snowmage village 33 years and I'm familiar with the traffic on brush creek road and been riding a bus for 17 years or compliment David on his presentation. The thing of it is, when we first raised concerns, no, this was brought out. All of this came up after the fact. So they're going in and reaching down and getting all the information they can and they're presenting it to you in a very informative way. But the decision made to discontinue the service was made before all those factors were brought out. We haven't had any problems for 17 years. The bus has been stopping. I asked for specific complaints about stopping and didn't get any answer to that. So I would ask that you restore the service back. I see no more problems there than other bus stops. And they agree that we've got other bus stops that are equally problematic, but they're looking forward to changing those in the future. So he made a wonderful presentation, but he spent a lot of time working those facts up to fit the circumstances. The fact remains that have been no accidents there. I defied the police to come up and tell us that they've had no accidents there. I defiled the police to come up and tell us that they've had a problem there and they have been a lot in no accidents. So I say I would ask that you restore our service and thank you for your time. Thank you, Baxter. My name is Tom Todd. I live at 3887 Brush Creek Road. My wife, Rhonda Bazin, went first. So I go last. And Bill, I've got to take particular exception to your comment or criticism about lawyers at the top of this discussion. Why? Rhonda and I are both lawyers. But, you know, I'm rearing up the law and liability and safety issues. I'm not aware of any law out there that holds a motorist liable for getting rear-ended. It's people who cause rear-end collisions are usually the motorist who's trailing behind is going to fast and doesn't allow enough breaking business. And I think that's why the safety and general liability issues are a bit of a red herring here. I would instead suggest to you that this is one of the safest stops in town because Rush Creek Road gets plowed first virtually before anything else. And I crossed that road a couple of times a day walking my dogs. So I know exactly what the road conditions are and I know exactly what the trail conditions are. And all those cars that are going off the road at 20 mile an hour curve, they're just going too darn fast for conditions and they slide right off. It's not about bus drivers taking unreasonable or unjustified risks pulling in and out of our stops. So please bear that in mind. The other thing I wanted to give you some guidance on is the town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan. This comprehensive plan is replete with references to this being a transit-oriented resort town. It's not a big city. These references to these so-called industry standards, I think are great for downtown Denver, or maybe places like Boulder or even Aspen. But this town was built on a hillside. And you can't talk about distances without also talking about grades and vertical travel. So please bear that in mind. The last thing I wanted to point out is you go to the last appendix on this comprehensive plan that shows the transit routes, it shows all the transit stops in town. And the bulk of them are closer than a quarter mile apart. It's just that they're built in areas of high density and on steep slopes. And that's exactly what we've got here. So I would ask you to reconsider and direct staff to take another look at this. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Okay. Marky? I have a question for you, Dave. Okay. Marky? I have a question for you, Dave. We heard a statement at this 14 feet at the edge of the, or probably that yellow paint line, going back into the shelter for the blue roofs. And we've heard that there's more than 14 for homestead and I would assume that's pulling into that driveway. May I ask what would take if we were going to do a formal bus stop there? What would that cost? I think when we were looking at Metta Ranch and trying to make improvements to at the school site and being very simple while there was a retaining wall. We had a retaining wall, but I think your 35 to 50,000 is what it takes to do base prep tapers, et cetera, et cetera. Well we do know that that walking up that surface is no fun. I mean, it's one of my training areas when I trek. And I can't imagine trying to walk up it when it's really icy. And so, yeah, and I have on my yak tracks. So I think the question is, where we want to rest with the safety issue. Safety for the pedestrians or safety for the buses or where we draw a line in my thought is if we can possibly do perhaps a modified bus stop that would add additional cost that's going to cost money. But can we find some way that we can solve this problem without putting our citizens at risk to walk uphill or cross-brush creek a couple times as Rhonda has described. I mean I guess one of the areas and you know talked about is can we go back to the point and say going downhill, use that area that we've been pulling into the homestead. Uphill I've heard that we do get some sliding and you know I didn't see that there's asphalt over there. Maybe we have to do a little better job with our road crew to clear off an area. Whether it be on the uphill or downhill but if we're going to do anything, you know, I would like to try to find a way to make this thing work with just, you know, going the downhill side, just say, you know, if someone's out there, please stop if the conditions are appropriate, pull in off the roof. I do believe I haven't measured it, but it doesn't look like it's kind of wide down there. And if your homeowners are in the homestead, not going to get set for a bus sitting in front of them for a few minutes or a few seconds, if there's any way we can make it work day, I just, I think it would go a long way to pick people up on the downhill side. Let's just say and, and leave it as it is. Let's not spend, you know, 30,000 to try to enhance it at this point in time. Maybe he is. They suggest that we do need to stand out there and watch this happen sometime. But I'm not sure that's going to change us at the end of the day. Anyway. Mr. Mayor, if you allow me, I have pictures that I took today. The May help. This is the uphill time going uphill. And then this is the area at the at the homestead. The 14 feet that I measured there was the same 14 feet that I measured in the exact same space. What's the bus stop? Oh, you got to be in the microphone. We get you in front of the microphone, please. Sorry. It goes to Ronda for the record anyway, but thank you. But yeah, I guess. Russ, I guess, you know, anytime we're dealing with a public safety issue, it's difficult. I think there's an operational issue here, too, which, you know, we're being completely frank. That was part of the transportation department's consideration as well. And terms of improving efficiency of effectiveness. But the first issue was safety. And, you know, again, I get apprehensive talking to insurance companies and lawyers. You know, when our staff tells us we have a safety issue. So, you know, if you said, could you make it sick? Or is there an operational solution that would make it safer? We haven't fully explored that at this point. I think that's right. But again, I think there's still the issue of, there's the slope there. It is an area granted, there has not been an accident that we're aware of at this exact location. But it's an area of road where we have seen accidents. So again, if you want us to look at something, we can. John Wilkinson. Yeah, Jason. Question for you Dave. Now the dimensions that they're showing us here, are they pretty much standard on normal bus stops in the village? I mean, the pullout. How do they compare mean the pullout. How do they compare to the pullout that we have currently at Sinclair? There's a lot more asphalt at Sinclair and Fresh Creek Road intersection just because of over the years there were turn pockets, et cetera, et cetera. So it's from center line, it's not the same thing. But we were designing them with 12 foot pull out lane, a full pull out lane for the bus to rest then you had a 4 foot sidewalk for people to walk and get their equipment off the vehicle and then where they gather a weight you allowed some space as well in the form of a shelter. So it isn't, we get part of the issue of the grade at that point. It's in Claire, it's flat and... Yeah, the grade, it's in Claire is flat, et cetera, et cetera. You're at the crest of the hill where you can bend some line of side. Well, and the other issue on this in Claire is that that's wrapped up as well. So they require a little bit more space. Okay, well let's take a look at the bus stop that's up by Mountain View. Because that is not a wrap stop. How does this dimensionally compare? Mountain View bus stop is built on again the 12 foot lane. It has the sidewalk in front of it and has the shelter. And it's pretty steep there too, isn't it? Fairly steep there. Yeah. Well, you know, I like to think we live in a community that does support mass transits, and does use the buses, and that we are different, and that we can accommodate people that really have a demand for bus service. If this was Denver or Chicago, and these guys were asking for a bus stop. They'd be saying, you know, they're getting me to 100 feet, no big deal. But around here when you are vertically challenged, and, you know, I go back to the 60 feet of vertical difference between the bottom and the top. I think I think us as a community can respond to, you know, very vocal interests. And interest in having this stop, and it's not a constant stop either. I mean, you may say 65 people use it, but I would doubt it if more than five to ten people a day would use it. But still, those are five to ten people that are in our transit system. And you know, we never asked for a raft to stop there. That's for sure. But you know, with our smaller buses, our local operators, now that's the thing, that's the cool thing about our transit system. You guys do accommodate and you do work with the public. And I'd like to see if it's tried to figure out some way to make it work for them at that location. Jason? Generally, I agree with what John's saying there. And I think in general, I have an issue with characterizing an elimination of service as an operational enhancement. I mean, that to me is totally contradictory. I think Sinclair is not a viable alternative for the folks that live down here. It's a really difficult path. I wouldn't want to do it and be asked to go use that spot. It seems like history is saying that this has not been a problem. There haven't been a large number of accidents. I haven't seen a bus stuck there. Haven't been here for the last five years. Seems like our buses have chain functionality that would help them get up that hill. And it seems like kind of some of the things that we're citing as reasons for not using this are inconsistent with a lot of stops that we have throughout the village all across Meadow Road. I understand there are volume differences, but in some of the complexes, seasons four and we're stopping in the middle of the road to let people out. I understand the volume differences here, but what these guys are showing with their photos in terms of the dimensions that you have to pull out, it seems like an adequate amount of space to do that safely. And so I'm in favor of trying to make something more to continue this service that's been going on historically. I think the question was well phrased by Russ was how operation could we make it work? And we need to explore all solutions. That's where I want to land on it. I think I always support, I'm always a believer in supporting what is presented by the staff and what we're hearing from the staff. I think in this case, I really hope that we can find an operational solution because all we're doing is shifting the issue of safety. Oh well, we'll let the pedestrians bear the burden of safety versus the town. So I think we really do need, I think we can find an operational solution that will work for all. Yes? Hopefully. I'm kinda reading the tea leaves here. A tea leaf? After hearing from versus you saying start the service just the way you've done before, kind of respecting kind of I think the legitimate concerns from Transportation Department, the police department. I wonder if a more responsible maybe next step would be to bring back some parameters for how to make this as safe as we possibly can. You know, I'm almost rushing more inclined to say put it back into service. Ask the road guys to make sure they're doing a very good job as they always have maintained those edges of the roadway and I don't want to spend extra money right now but maybe it is something that we have to look at if we're going to maintain this you know we have to do it right now is the rough time of the year it's the coldest time it's when you can't I've felt down this time of the year. No, but still it's something that you know Hearing the plea from the neighbors, you know, we are representing the community I think it's probably I'll I'll sway back to the side with a few of these other guys and let's let's Put it back into services best we can. Maybe it's only downhill. Well, just wanted on that, David, if we're told to put the service in, is there a difference between uphill and downhill? I think we would tend to lean towards, well, okay, just know the decision you're making. So you've got the information. So if you're going to go again, the Foundation Department, if I'm going to get that grain, then basically I would be suggesting that you pick up on the uphill side because I believe that the public works director went out there and checked both sides of the road. In his calculation, we can all debate this ad nauseam, but his calculation was basically that there were about 12 feet in width on the uphill side. And there's because of the tapering and stuff on the homestead side, that's more like eight feet where you could get completely out of the roadway for a 30-foot vehicle. So you remember you can't just put 30 feet over here, you gotta get in there to be over to come back out. So you also have gravity kind of working as the friend and an ally in the uphill section. If somebody comes around the curve and is pulling up on you then They can stop with a little bit of assistance from gravity Obviously the biggest accident issue here is people growing off the road in the downhill lane You know into the golf course so that in my mind says that's the more dangerous side of the road is the downhill side because people carry their speed going up to the Sinclair stop or Sinclair road intersection and then they come over the hill and are carrying that speed going down. Whereas when you're coming up you've come around a curve that's 20 miles an hour. It's pretty difficult to carry much more than 20 miles an hour, it's pretty difficult to carry much more than 30 miles an hour speed through that curve. So if it were me, I'd like to reconfer it with my staff, but I would be choosing the uphill side to do the pickup and get out of the roadway as much as I could with the lowest speed of vehicles around me on that uphill side and then use the Sinclair intersection as the downhill drop-off. And then I would also have to say that when it's icy and bad and you don't like to do this because it puts the the driver and why didn't you stop for me? Well, it was too icy for me to stop and that's going to be the issue that's going to develop here but at those cases we're going to have to deny Service at that time. So if the pullout isn't Why maintained wide enough if the roads are icy and we're already seeing cars losing traction there It's bad business for us to add to that problem. And that will contain laws and effect or whatever. Yeah, whatever you pick for the condition that triggers that we can't really safely get going from that point. Because we really don't want to run chains all the way down to the rodeo bus stop. We'll tear up your whole. And some of the buses are most of the buses. Don't you have the road of trains on those cars? want to run chains all the way down to the rodeo bus stop. We'll tear up your whole room. And some of the buses are most buses. Don't you have the road of trains on those? Very awesome. Those where they work. Yeah. With that in that location, that could be dice. All right. What do you, thank you, at least come forward, Mark. I appreciate the fact that you are at least on the table considering reinstating. Thank you. If you do reinstate it partially and you put us on the uphill for pickup only then you are forcing us on the sinclair back on the walkway that we don't want to be on to begin with. And the momentum of a bus is much easier to crawl out on snowy roads, dry roads, etc. going downhill than it is trying to start at going uphill. If you're going to reinstate it, I ask at least let us get on at homestead on the homestead side and let us get off on the homestead side. Thank you. You're not making it easy on it. Sorry. They can compromise might be in order, but but rest is work it out. Yeah, I guess you know it's easy to say let us work it out. But I think we've got to you know make up. I can't tell us go downhill or uphill. I mean to me it looks like there would be more area in that homestead parking. I agree. I mean pulling in for 30-foot bus. When you look at the picture, you'll see that between the two driveways for the private residences, there's been sort of a shoulder created. And that's the length that gives you the rectangle that's big enough. On the homestead side, you have about a 24 foot wide access road if that and then you have the tapers that connect it to brush creek road and so that's why you can't really get totally out on the downhill side but you have the space possibly on the uphill side. Oh, if you haven't solved the problem for then you're still walking across the road. Right, well, if that's't solved the problem for them, you're still walking across the road. Right. Well, if that's another issue here, I think, crossing the road in this location with the service says it is not a good scenario. Is there anything? So inevitable one way or another, if it were to go back to the way it was last year, you were crossing the road one way or another. Right. So crossing the road is kind of a by default now Walking up or down the grade. I guess if I had my children in tow I'd rather walk down and go up right well Let's let's take one further step Being that we've had a lot of accidents by people coming down brush Creek road Linusites poor at that area for a bus stop down brushfield road, line of sight's poor at that area for a bus stop. Does it make sense to try to reduce the traffic speed going downhill? To where one we're going to prevent hopefully sliding into a bus or sliding over into the golf course. I think you got to, you got to, you should consult John Baker who's more familiar with the manual on uniform traffic control devices than I am. It's been a while since I've dealt with that. But you generally do not try to, you usually, if you're going to set the speed, the recommendation is to go out and find the 85th percentile and then set the post speed limit at that because that's reasonable for what the drivers are doing. And those drivers are going over the edge and going off the road. Well, the 85th percentile is making it through the curve, the 15 percent dollar and one's going into the golf course. It's much like when you post 15 mile-an-hour speed limits and met a ranch and then you got everybody driving by at 25, 30 miles an hour and you're going, why can't we control the speed here? It's an issue of trying to be reasonable to the motor. So I'll go there. Please. I'll just make one more comment. And now, this first of all, I'd like to express my appreciation also for you people, least willing to consider reversing the earlier decision. And I understand you're wrestling with potentially re-implementing a service that has been accident-free for 17 years to the best of our knowledge. I mean, that's what we're asking you to do this particular season. If there's a way that it can be improved upon, that's fine. But Dave is describing in great technical detail about how accident prone to stop in front of our homes could be. And in fact, nothing yet has happened at that point in time. So again, we appreciate your willingness to consider. All we're asking you to do is reinstitute a service that's been there for a number of years that hasn't had an accident. And in the meantime, if you want to look at something that even to increase the possibility or the safety of that area, that would be fantastic. But if you look at the area, it is larger down there in front of Homestead than it is, it's simpler. Can we get your associations help? Maybe if we look at something too. Absolutely. We will be glad to help. Funding and on talking sometimes too. I understand. Okay. OK. Yes. Even if it's a matter of we have probably a plowing service, we'd be glad to go up and plow it into that. If that would be of help, we were informed by folks that you know, long wanted to take care of the flowers there in the summer. So we've taken that on. We hire somebody and they maintain the beauty of it so it would be glad to work with you. Please. There seems to be some discrepancy in terms of what the width of that pullout is on the downhill side. You know, I know because I pullout in there all the time, it's plenty wide now. However, if it needs to be wider, the area between the sidewalk or the trail and the road has always been maintained by the town until last year. Last year, the town told us all over the town property homestead would have to maintain it. If we need to take that out to make that a little bit wider, make that pull in a little longer out. That's fine with us. That's less for us to have to keep up in the maintenance area. So we can offer that. Certainly as another alternative. That makes it that stop a little bit safer. Thank you. We're not looking to have this reinstated just one way either going up or going down. We're hoping to have the whole stop reinstated. I think maybe a compromise that would work for both the transportation department and us as residents would be to say if the driver does not feel comfortable making that stop, we'll understand, we'll ride the route back up and take the stop on the way back, but to have it reinstituted fully, except in a situation where they feel unsafe. Because if you're going to feel they can always drop you off at the top and force you to slide down the hill. Get our skis on and ski back down, right? I understand what Rhonda saying, but to be clear, when I propose that idea that's been tried for the last couple of years and really is not effective or fair putting the driver in that position. Let me understand something. If that stop could be reconfigured to make it standard with every other stop that we have got, would that make it safe? Would you be comfortable with that? As both sides of it are. I think you still have the issue of when it's really, really icy, you don't want to stop. You shouldn't stop there. And just not stop there. Because of the grade. And the either trying to slow down to get into the pullout or accelerate from the pullout. So it's begging that you add more maintenance on a regular basis to make sure that that'll happen. And you know how it is. I mean the plow trucks cannot be everywhere simultaneously so when that fails you know that's when the driver's going to say I can't stop there. Is the stop there is the grade there any worse than the grade at metal at Mountain View? I'd have to ask, huh? I guess what I'm driving at, if there is, these folks have offered money, it sounds to me. And if there is a cost to making that, that stop, standard with all the other stops that we've got, and they're willing to pay for it. I think my question was will they contribute? I don't think so. They've offered money. That's all I heard. And because this was never meant to be a stop, correct? I mean, otherwise it would be wide and it would be a standard stop. So if they're asking us to do something more for them or to reinstate the service that they have always had that has never been a standard stop and To make it safe we need to make it a side of a standard stop and they are willing to pay for or contribute significantly to it. Does that work for you? On the face value of it sure from an efficiency Perspective I kind of go how far do you want to go with this? I mean, what are the parameters that say every 200 yards, I'm going to stop a bus? And then at what point does that service? Remember, there are a thousand people a day that ride the rodeo bus, okay? They're coming getting on the bus and drove of 20s and 30s at the rodeo parking ride. And they've given up their car and they're trying to get the snow masses fast as possible. So if the bus is making a stop every 200 yards, you're going to have an impact on it. It's not realistic, is it? I mean, because we have had a... I know you were saying, but we haven't had that issue. I don't believe that's fair, really. No, that's... That is. That's about 17-year-old. We haven't had a 70. We haven't had this kind of issue. We've got to stop for 17 plus years that we're now taking out. Okay. We've had up, what, route four up the metal ranch that we've stopped when people's driveways. Route eight. And so, you know, we have been like, you know, these guys have all said and we've said we try to take care of our people who live here and who are paying, helping pay for this service. So, okay, I'm just making you aware of that this isn't in a vacuum. There are other people that are impacted by the decision. If you stop at St. Clair and you stop here, you stop at Meta Road and you stop at Alcreek Road and you stop at Far Away Road, that starts to get a long ride to get from the mall or base village to the rodeo grounds. Just know that you're making... You're saying if you would redesign your entire system. Right. You probably wouldn't have done that. You wouldn't have it there. No, that's not a good idea. Nice guys, and like you said, trying to be high customer service. That's what a deed goes on, punish. But you're stepping for the residents of Snowmass Village and it's slowing down the people that are driving up and parking at our rodeo lot to go skiing on the mountain. I mean, I tend to weigh heavily towards the local taxpayers. Yeah. Backster. So is the desire of a...'s let's the neighbors got a pick his argument either there's a lot of people going down hill and ask can get off or there's not many earlier we said well it's just not many people involved it's only on demand yeah so when we're going down hill it's only the people who want to get off or on what they're not standing out there waiting for the bus the point is as we all move at the same time. We don't move. You have to bus stop at home, stay at every time down hill. No, but it's usually in the peak hour. That's why it's 25 to 30 people. That's why he's making all the stops because it's the peak hour. We all move at the same time. Is it possible to track the number of lightments and he's not worth it? No? No. So let's see what we can do and make something function. And I would probably lean into where they're leaning, of stopping on their side of the road, on the homestead side of the road, not back to the side. Sorry, mister. Sorry for your concern. Sorry, mister. I, back to the side. I appreciate your time. Are you asking us to reinstate the service? Yes. Is that a will of care? Yeah, yeah. You make it work. Consensus is. Make it. Well, but wait, wait, wait. Just reinstate the service. No, no, no, I'm not in favor of just reinstating the service. Absolutely not. This is clearly a problem. I mean, you've got three different town agencies telling you this is a problem. If we do reinstate the service, it would be my belief that we should make it a standard bus stop just like everyone else. And so it may not be 100% safe, but it's certainly going to be safer. And the cost of doing that either comes totally from them or a significant portion comes from them because we're doing this for a specific group. So yeah, there's not a free lunch here. And that's my belief. There's not a free lunch here. And that's by belief. Council, how do you feel? Well, I think we need to reinstate it on both sides. But we have to work towards trying to figure out a safer solution. And it may take some finances to make that happen. But I think we need to try to figure out something. And we have the time to work on it. I mean, but the issue with accidents maybe there not has been an accident there ever, but statistically and I've had a few accidents. That stretch of road. Yeah, and when we have somebody hits up, somebody coming across there. No, I understand. What I'm, you know, so again, my recommendation and again, across there. No, I understand. You know, what I'm, you know, so again, my recommendation and again, take it or leave it. But, you know, you're asking us to do something that we wouldn't advise, but we appreciate where you're coming from. You know, I think the most responsible approach would be for us to come back and say, if you do X, Y, and Z, it's a safer scenario than it is today. That's right. I would say yes to do that, but at the same time, I think we need to bring back the bus sooner than later to stop back to their neighborhood. So in other words, I don't want to wait three months till the spring until we can dig in there to bring it back into position. I think you need to put it back into position, back in place, back in use, and see what we can do in the future to figure out what the cost may be, and go to the neighbors and see what we can do. This is one of the areas that I'm very concerned because we've been, depending on the backs of our employees for the last three years, since they have not gotten any raises, it's too easy for us to say, no, we're not gonna spend the money given the raises, but now we're looking at spending money to do this other stuff. And to me, I'm gonna drive my employees, the people that you depend on, right out of this darn community, if I don't consider the monies and what's going on. So, you know, I hear you guys, I understand my staff, and I depend on them to be, you know, experts and what they're doing. So, let's see what we can do to make it work without coming forward and spending a lot of dollars today, but put it back into place, and let's hope in the next year or two years we can find something to make this thing. Not as, you know, cut the hill down. So it's a great, no. Yeah. Well, it'd be helpful sooner than later in terms of what is the solution that drives us toward a standard bus stop or at least get us safe and then the solution for a true form. Need other departments to help like the road department to do a little more. Well, we got and they're willing to help us. And they're willing to help. Let's try to get it back into place and honestly if we can do both sides of the road, I would like to do both sides but not just one up and down. If the road's not safe and it's icy and the chain laws in effect, then they're going to drive up the hill. Yeah, I think that's fair. Yeah, we're trying to get a sense of how the group is. I agree with trying to reinstate on both sides of the road. The idea of trying to drive people to walk across for one stop and then there's a lot of other things. They're coming down those fast driving. you know, really unsafe situation that we're promoting. Not in favor of new expenditures at this time to reinstate that. Do it as safely as we can. It seems like we've been doing it for 17 years without experiencing an accident or significant safety hazard. I mean, that's what the evidence is showing and go to what they're saying. The definition of an accident is somebody sliding into a bus. I mean, that's what the evidence is showing and go to the saying that the definition of an accident is somebody sliding into a bus. I mean, just that nobody plans to have an accident. Nobody, it's that thing that's in the wings. Right. So just know the decision you're making. That's the reason why we have to drive sooner than later on. What is the safest thing we can possibly do? Really make that a safe area. Again, I've been favor of reinstating it now. the safest thing we can possibly do. Really make that a safe area. Again, I've been favor of reinstating it now conditionally. And the condition is that this summer, whenever we can do construction, that that be made into a standard bus stop in the safe of manner as possible and that the cost be born by them. I mean, I'm afraid I can't go there. Well, you know, we don't say you don't want to rate you do people have gotten races and this is going to be $30,000, $40,000. We don't know that much. But let's look at something, try to figure out John Wilkinson, where are you? I mean, I want you to consensus and understand. Yeah. Well, I think we need to take a look at it. Me not need a full blown bus stop, but having a certified pullout dimensional area that is standard for the road. I think that's what's that's where I want. Yeah. You know, we don't need a shelter. No, I don't know. No, I'm talking about the road dimensionension so that it is the same as everything every other bus to dot not with the shelter that stuff It's not gonna close that much and I would be in favor of maintaining the caveat that it's driver discretion on the safety issue I mean if it if the roads really are too icy to stop or it's just an impossibility to get back going well, I think when the chain law goes into effect, boom, you just can't have the service. Yeah, see, that's unfair to the driver too, because you're putting a burden on them to make that decision. So the chain law thing? The wrong in that decision, if they say that conditions were warranted to not stop there, and they did stop. You know, I mean, it's was that a quickiquest? Yeah, well that's the thing I think we'll have, there'll be a little more discussion about this gentleman, lady. I think in the meantime we can. I think, you know, again, the real question is you asking us to reinstate it tomorrow, yes, or as soon as operationally possible. And then I think it would still be our responsibility regardless. We're going to bring you recommendations in terms of how to make it as safe as possible. But is that what you're yes? Yes. Are all our heads nodding yes? Yes. Yes. Yes. we will. As long as we have your contact information. We do now. Thank you very much for your time. Now. My little few minutes on that one didn't it? Thank you. Yeah, you did. How do we have five minutes from that? Yeah, probably. Okay. Now moving back. Let's see. Where are we? To the next. I say. Okay, now moving back Let's do the item 10 Resolution six series 2011 authorization to sell a country club bill is number 210 and remove all these restrictions Second John dresser All those in favor hi any opposed? Passage unanimously. Well, you made up 15 minutes now. Now I'm moving back to discussion for appointment of the I.T.A. Discovery Committee. I move. I did. Okay. I second. Thank you. Okay. Russ. Keep this brief again. You've pointed everybody except for two positions. We asked some questions. You got some great responses and the question is who do you want to interview? What is on our table? I can't read the name. Yeah, I was trying to figure it myself. I saw that when I sat down and Ronda, do we know? Ronda, do you know? I saw that. Carlville. Carlville. Carlville. You're asking to throw it out again. OK. Citizen at large. You also discussed having potentially a part-time resident and a full-time resident at the citizen at large. And you actually got a couple good people that could fill those. All right. So we have the decision I guess to make up. Do we want to have a citizen at large from the community and a citizen large from a second Okay, either I'm just yeah, I'm really confused about something Go ahead and mark you as always I'm confused who is John John, don't laugh so loudly. I'm sorry. It must have been the peanut dust. Yeah. Sure. Is that oil? Uh, who is the part-time representative? Colleen? You have, we have made one. You got me in the decision. No, no. You said there was several. And I'm calling. The thing would be an example of a part-time resident. How, you know, I see that she's a citizen at large. I know I see her all over the place with P-Trab. And then there's a statement. Here's Snowmass Village has been my community for over 30 years. I've literally grown up. How's that qualified? I think a lot of part-time residents might say the same thing. What qualifies on a P-Trab? She's a part-time resident. She maintains her family. Which means she's later more than six months a year. Right. It's supposedly you're supposed to be a property owner. And I think what I understand was her family owns property. And horse ranch. She used to own something. But you don't have any limitations like that in the context of this group. That's right. It doesn't really matter. But she's probably more of a part time homeowner, regardless of the legal definition for Petrab than a full-time resident. So the statement to you is probably 100% honest from her perspective. Sound like she was full-time the way I read it. Okay. So I guess the question like Russ said is we've got a few people that we need to interview. And do because we've cut everything else out and we've already made the decisions, we want to take the easy road and just say we'll interview all the people who've come forward. Or do you just want to pick one? Interviews. Well, part of my challenge when I went through these, and I'm sorry. Go ahead, market. Was some of the individuals I do not know? You might write good responses to questions. I'd like to know how to take a guess. So I'm going to be written very well, aren't they? And then you go, huh? It's the benefit of interviewing somebody. I wonder if, in order to narrow down, having said that, what I suggested, does it have to be all five people from council to interview, or could we assign the task to maybe two or three, come back with the best three? A task force for the task force. And that's how you do, that's how you do interviews for jobs. You narrow it down to two or three finalists. And then, sure. What does that mean for a council? That's a full day worth of work. Well, it's probably a couple hours with a full. Yeah, you've got a couple hours here with these people. You have more than six hours Fred in looking at these I I guess I'm sort of a believer in the biggest bang for the buck I can get. And I'm just talking about the educational people. And two of these people bring more than themselves to the table. The Sandy Jackson brings CMC and this Sarah Schmidt brings. Right, this is. Asus. I like that. I think all of these people have got pretty good qualifications. But these two stand out to me because they bring more than just themselves. And I mean, if we want to start narrowing, and if you want to interview everybody got speed but it would be my thought to at least interview these two because of what they bring to the table. I'll go back to Andre Willey from the high school. You know that's part of our school system I think it's important to keep our schools involved. You know the one I thought I'd been having on all this is that we're going to need to have them form subcommittees. And I think at this point it would be good to pick one person out of this group to chair the task force. Yeah, the educational subcommittee because I want all these people involved. And they wouldn't be at the task force level, but they would certainly. And that may need to evolve, John. I mean, right up front, there might not be a task for a subcommittee. But I think that could evolve in the discussion. Well, but looking at nonprofit type board structure, we are going to have to have a development committee. That's, you can't have one person running a development. You can't have just one person doing marketing. So I see a lot of... What can I say too, the step in front of this room is really to develop the business business. Exactly. A couple of minutes. Right. Now to get the good luck and get the money, although that might have, it's to create that business. I would suggest back to what Fred is saying is perhaps we bring the three of them in to interview. Sandy, Andre, and Sarah. Good go for that. Now Lee Wilson is also saying that he's a CMC faculty. Education or teachers classes geology. As Sandy seems to be bringing more of a representation of CMC. Yeah. Those three too, from a staff perspective, as Fred was alluding to, more of a representation of CMC. Those three, too, from a staff perspective, Fred was alluding to, you're getting more than just the end of it. Right. Okay, why don't we bring those three in? So Sarah, C&D and I. I can go with that for education. But also with the understanding that we wanna keep these other people involved. Right, absolutely. Right. I say I agree with that. Okay, Okay. That's a bit easy. Then moving on to the next. Do we make it large? Do we make a determination now that we want a non-resident and a resident as the citizen at large? Well, you don't have to. I think we said at the last meeting we would want to interview several and maybe one great applicant comes for, maybe two great applicants, maybe one's a part time, maybe one's a full time, maybe they're both. I don't think we need to decide that now. Okay. Let's see what we're presenting. I would like to see, I'll tell you who I'd like to see considered would be Janice Huggins does a fur background. Yeah, I certainly think we have been do we need to go leave. I was going to say you've got to have got to be talking to her. I mean, the scale is passionate about this stuff. I'm in favor of bringing this calling. It's fine with me. Jack Rafferty. You got to do Jack. Yep. And I was thinking Chuck, you know, he's put so much energy into it. Chuck has done it. This is a great. I know he is. You know, I just can't say no to that time is put into it. And then he has him too. I mean, do as you can. And again, we're going to have people that part of the citizens at large subcommittee. So Janice, Colleen, Jack, and Chuck Bart? Yeah, I think so. And I can see some of these people morphing into the Medes versus yeah So it's four so now you got seven interviews. So we got four for citizen at large and three for education seven half Our 15 minutes each 15 1520 yeah, so we'll go faster. Do you want to do it individually? Um, sure. Probably you do it both ways. Yeah. Individual. Probably individually. It's usually a little better. So Russ, when you call back the other people, just make sure that they understand that we're going to, this is an evolving thing. It's a big thing. And we want to keep them engaged and involved in this whole project. Anything else? No. They didn't take 30 minutes. We have 25 left. Someone said that maybe they didn't do anything. No, we didn't do much to read that. Did you crack the hour yet? Almost. Okay. Now moving on to finishing the manager report. Just a couple things. First, we are taking Christmas trees at the Black Sattled Harking Lot until Friday. And then... Do we have any way of getting that information out to the people other than that comment. We're gonna Put it on our website. I think a number of people found out but we're gonna try and communicate A couple of different Some people know where it is Right, well a lot of people get the word out Some people know where it is right Might be simply do funny on our communal dumpsters It's on the communal dumpsters It's on the communal dumpster. We'll try and get something on the paper on Wednesday Our wives at both said get rid of the tree. I am friend of hunts office. Minds and Russ is drawing. Yeah. Shit. This. It's close. Okay. Also, again, email.net. You have spare copies of a draft agenda for the retreat. We're looking in terms of location. Kind of real comfortable space at the community room at the chapel. Kind of different location, it's comfortable. When I saw that, why don't we just do it here? You could do it here if you want to. This is fine, you know. You want to do it here? The seats are comfortable. You know, the chapel seats, so you're gonna, you know, we'll get you out behind that desk though. Yeah, let's do a different setup in the desk, but here's fine. You can want to come listen there. You know, everybody's more than welcome. Do a round table thing. Let's just make it work here. Sometimes it's good to get out. I like the chap. Yeah, I know you do. And we don't, can we be done by guy playing right from Denver? No, because you're, that's me. I know, I know. John, you already started earlier. I know. If we change the date, we won't get it back. I have 90 of them in Denver. If there's any thoughts about the agenda itself, again, basically the overall format, the simple version is, kind of begins with the discussion about expectations. This is a product of one of those discussions of expectations. You want to operate expectations of staff. Then going in Fred, I had a brief email exchange on this about thinking what does success look like and again challenge you, even not by different than what you've done from a not-for-profit standpoint or from a corporate standpoint, but really thinking maybe 10 years in the future at least. Because a lot of the things are going to decide, have implications ten years into the future. But then from a goal standpoint, then you're really looking at the next couple of years. Yeah, and it's interesting, you know, I really have believed it or not, but leaving my way through the comp plan and preparation for this. And one of the first things you see in there is what does snowmass look like in 2025? Right. I mean, so there's already been some thought put into that particular idea. And again, at least my background with ESC and doing strategic plans for not-for-profits, they're really very concrete. They're measurable. They're time limited, and they're concrete, I still the best word. You really understand this is a goal we have in one year, this is a goal we have in three years, this is to go ahead in five years. And it's not something you should be sticking back in the drawer after you do it. Every year you ought to measure yourself against what you said you wanted to accomplish. And I think that's the product of this. It is something, I use the term smart, you know, specific measurable, attainable, realistic, kind of remove T. But, but it is something time limited. That's timely, right. Thank you. But in fact, in the company, but it's timely, right. Thank you. But in fact, in the complex plan. But it's your legacy. What do you want to achieve in the next two to four years? Within the complex plan, if I remember right, the final documents we were putting together at a work plan and an expected timing, which we ought to use that as a reference document looking at 20 to 20. I have no idea. Well, that's the other thing I just want to acknowledge to you that staff is still working on this, but we're going to have it to you Wednesday It will be a document trying to keep it kind of that white paper a white paper trying to keep it concise So we're not giving you everything under the sun that a department may think about I'm really asking for what's important at the 30,000 foot level what are playsetters? really asking for what's important at the 30,000 foot level. What are playsetters? So obviously, base village is one of them, but you're going to see perspectives from the departments on other issues that they find important, but at a 30,000 foot level. And we can't forget that governments are not businesses. Even though we say we're not like a business, governments take care of safety and all the things we talked about tonight We try to It was a business to be much easier make some of these decisions I believe okay Nothing else on the retreat Okay, so we're gonna do it here starts a three. Yeah, that's a three So that solves the problem on the food issue that Barbara and I were talking about. Yeah, we got to get the food to one one the other. Okay. Okay. We'll give you a menu and actually it's a little easier. Have a good one. Good, good. I'm not dealing with that now. Yeah, I'm dealing with that. Are you able to read some maybe? No, not maybe. Okay. So anything else in the manager's report? The only other thing I want to acknowledge to you is that with interim building 7, the full certificate of occupancy has been issued for the building. It shuts you a note on the art question. That's really the final issue. I've asked them not to take any action on that until after this meeting and the final action is payment to the artist. So I'm going to get a request here very shortly I anticipate to release that bond on that building and I just want to acknowledge that to you, let you know about that. Jason? I guess I would just say I have real questions about that art installation and the price tag of that $50,000 with the railing element being eliminated from the final work product and also just in general. But I guess, and this is something I would love to talk about in a council meeting But there were emails shop back and forth that basically gave authorization to that But to hear from the arts advisory board what their thought process was on improving that and Whether we got the product that we were expecting and what the obligation That was in place whether or not that was met. And I mean we don't have the artist here to talk about that. We don't have our advisory board to talk about that. So for us to get the sign off, I'm wondering how we would do that. Did they not, would you say that they completed the artwork based on the plan that we approved? Yeah, the only difference was, this is where I think it is good to talk about, you know, the level of communication and when it's you're being informed. This was one I felt like I needed to inform you. The difference was that instead of a straight bar, you got a wavy bar. And that was the artist's decision, not the developers, not the sureities in this case. The other element that I shot you an email on was the commitment is for $50,000 with an art and the way it was approved. Even if you said that railing doesn't meet my get over my bar in terms of art, you still, and I'm not making any judgment on the art. That was something that was reviewed by SOB and by Council. Yet over $50,000 spent on those sculptures. And the rest was essentially the rest of the funding, approximately $6,000 was provided by the Metro District, in this case. So I think technically fulfilled the $50,000 was provided by the Metro District in this case. Right. So I think they technically fulfilled the $50,000, but because there was a change, I did want to inform you and see if there was any concern. Upon hearing that, I did ask them to hold off on final payment until today. And I don't have a problem with the change of the wavy bars personally. And Jason, the council did get a presentation on the yard and we did approve that it wasn't a sob issue. They brought it to us so we made the final decision. Right. And as I understand it, the change was from a wavy bar to a straight bar. So it's a less dynamic installation. It's a less visually impactful installation. So I mean that's different to me. You know, but it's less impactful from an artistic standpoint. For those artists in the room. It's in space that needs. So I think it's going to be a good get. No release the bomb release the bomb. That's all I have. What you're saying is that all the obligations in the development agreement for inter-building seven have been. Well, you told me here that's something that's going to go. Yeah, I don't know. That's what I guess I depend on. The only thing I know that's left. Okay. That's the I guess I depend on. The only thing I know that's left. Okay, that's going to be in theft. Then that's the only thing I'm aware of. That's what I guess that's the question to ask. Are there any other outstanding items that staff believes have not been fulfilled? Oh, I would say that there was a former councilman that thinks that there's been multiple. He's not here. Escalators. He's not here. Escalators. Some people on staff probably feel the same way. They're not here. I feel it's not included on the specifications for the building. That wasn't a part of that. That wasn't part of the agreement. Okay, moving on. Okay. So yes, I think it's other than that. I think we're okay. Okay, what's next? I prefer the elevator to be escalated with my screen name. We're ready for agendas. Yep. Minutes. Agendas for that meeting. We're of two other items. Right, re-ops off. I'd want to ask that though. Mark Kittle is not here that day. He's a marquee player on that. a whole of our key player on that. Okay. And then two other items, we have an IGA with Pitt and County related to Drosti. This would be a formal commitment now that we've had a transaction on the land to actually pay our $2 million for the rest of the year. And then Mr. Horowitz would like to come back and chat with you about JAS. And Cessie actually really does now want to come talk to you. Very good. This is related to JAS. In the 18th. Just adding to this agenda. Mike, yes. I'm just wondering, do we just want to talk about what do we want to talk about related to JAS? Specifically what I think he wants to talk to you is the town charges back 50 to $60,000 for municipal services. My guess is he will probably ask you for an offset or to waive that fee. Do I understand that $150,000 does that come from marketing? That's marketing. Those are marketing dollars. And the $50,000 is not marketing. Our offset is our employees' time. That comes out of the towns. Yeah, coffers. Coffers for that one. That hurts a lot more. Well. Well, what would we do? He asks us to contribute. He's going to talk to us. I don't know exactly what he's going to do. What does he do exactly when he's going to ask us? What does he do in the past? Is he asked us to contribute our employees time? No, in the past we've charged. We've discharged him. We've charged that. The history though is that we sponsored this event through marketing dollars. And I think that's been as high as 200,000 dollars. Then the organization pays for the additional municipal services that are provided to the organization JS. Okay, so they do pay for that service? Yes, we charge and we charge yeah, basically they What I understand we build them an hourly rate for people's time out there. The fire department builds them for staff that we have to put out there. So, okay. That's fine. Do we build that for the additional cost? Because- Yes, yes. So if we have an officer on duty anyway, and so that's straight time, we have not typically charged that even though that officer may be standing during the event venue. We charge for overtime, we charge for extra officers, extra buses. Okay. So we're not sure what he's going to ask, but that's what you know, we think he's going to say. That's a hint. Transportation may be EOTC should pick in some dollars for that Well, there EOTC helps pay for the winner X games transportation Anything else on the agenda No, okay Approval of the meeting minutes for December 6, 2010 Is there a motion to approve that some of moved. Mark Butler, second by. Okay. Fred? Actually, yep, okay. I have a Thursday change just from Mr. Robinson. He does such a great job. I didn't even bother you guys with him. Thank you. I may sit in the middle of a couple two. I don't necessarily recall directing staff to investigate a shuttle route at Lotsee line 71 age 2 of 10 but I think my comments were more related to the idea of some of the amenities benches and ski racks at that location. So to improve the amenities there, maybe. I think what you may have mentioned Jason was having a stop there by the entrance to see. Could that have been? You talked about amenities. You talked about amenities. Remember that because we did follow that phone. Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't have time to go look back at that. Yeah, we can check that. Anything else? All those in favor, sorry if I was saying aye. Any opposed? Item 14, council comments, committee reports, calendars. Start with Fred. Mr. Wilkinson. We're after next Thursday. This is going to be an interesting meeting. And then I did mention earlier that I was at the Denver Museum and they do have a model in Texas that if we can come up with space, they'd be in, it actually may be entire, entailed driving down there and picking it up. But Kurt seemed to think that he'd like to do that. It sounds like that. I'm going to go pick up a slot. Okay. Road trip road trip To the pain handle attacks that I don't know Are you gonna be able to make the Six of it is the 11 Oh, yeah, it's the 13th. Okay. I have nothing else. Markey? I have a medical staff meeting on the 18th, but I'll try to move that to an earlier time that day, which gets really hard when you work with docs, but we'll see. Yeah. Jason, nothing for me. Russ, one other scheduling just to remind you 27th, the evening of the 27th and then the 28th will be hosting cast. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Do you agree? Do you agree? Yes. January. So we'll have dinner at the Stonebridge on the 27th. And what people want to do. We may go to the X Games afterwards. And then we'll be here in this room the morning of the 28th. Okay. Y'all have a rather long town that we can't. Oh boy. And I'll be on a ski vacation in Michigan. You got it, fun. You skiing in the parking lot? I'll be coming to some evenings. I'll be here. It's really the morning, particularly. I'll be here. For the north. Okay, is there a motion for a journey? Oh, move. Is there a second? Yes. Markey. All those in favor? Yes. Aye. Any opposed? I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the you I'm going to do it. you you you you I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you.