I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do it. you 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. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. you you you I'm going to do it. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to 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. We're on TV. Let's go ahead and start this special meeting. I have the comments from the town council. Brown to roll call please. Here. Here. Butler, here. Here. Board cap, here. Lewis. Here. Thank you. Russ, I am too. Well good morning. Good morning. Just to kind of walk you through the morning first we do have some goodies in the back and we'll have lunch brought in and Take there's some coffee in the corner. So again, feel free get up and get whatever you need as we go through this We'll first start off with a little introduction that'll go through how we came to today and the discussion we had with the Financial Advisory Board and then Fred is here from the FAB. He'll review their recommendations with you and then we'll begin to run through each fund. We'll start first with the General Fund and then rat and anticipate that's where we will spend most of our time that's where we spent most of our time with the FAB and then run through the other funds and again looking for direction from you in terms of how to prepare a final budget for your approval at the next council meeting. Just kind of want to acknowledge the path we've been on and where we've come from in the last two years. Again, you might recall in 2008 that we began anticipating a tough economic future with the rest of the country and the rest of the world. We began developing different contingency plans. Again, one of the things the economic climate is certainly presenting is uncertainty. And you can talk to five different economists and get five different opinions about where the economy is going. So again, the way we've dealt with that is by certainly planning for the worst, hoping for the best, and I think being nimble to respond to changes in the process. We've seen some fundamental changes in our budget and expenditures with you and the financial advisory board. We made some significant cuts. We saw significant change in right revenue, where we were at about 6.1 in 2007, and down to about 1.1 in 2009. And we'll talk a little bit about RET. We're seeing some optimism there, but also continued uncertainty in terms of federal grants. In this process and the cuts we did, and I think, and I do want to compliment the staff, and I think this was also acknowledged by the FAB that we found some significant savings. We found efficiencies. We found new ways of doing things, whether that's looking at landscaping differently, finding efficiencies and how we deal with energy in our facilities that wasn't insignificant in terms of the savings. So in this process we did find new ways of doing things with fewer people and for the most part most of the cuts were done without really seeing an impact to services in the community. A couple of exceptions to that was Route 7 and also arguably the public can see some changes with trail maintenance and care of some of the park areas. But again, we think we've heard a lot of compliments, particularly regarding our park maintenance and we've continued to maintain the highly visible areas at a very high state. We're at a point though that we've taken out the easy things. We've pushed efficiency further cuts, most likely correlate to cuts in services. Again, some of the big variables and these are the uncertainties, you know, the economy and we've been talking to our colleagues and one of the ongoing topics when we get together with Colorado Association of Skeetowns, but we've looked at what our colleagues are doing in other communities. And for the most part, everybody's essentially going flat and going flat and dealing with increased fixed costs also means continuing to get creative in terms of how to cut expenditures to meet those fixed costs. So as we look at the future, we're continuing to be very conservative. As we look at the next five years, we're not projecting a significant rebound in the economy. We're also not presuming that the economy gets significantly worse. So again, that's an area that's going to be uncertain, that we're, I think we're going to have to be nimble in terms of how we respond to. And then the real estate construction area, again, it was a phenomenal statistic. In 2007, the state of Colorado had about $90 billion worth of construction permits in 2009 that went down to $7 billion in construction activity. That has had a profound impact throughout the state. It's had a profound impact on our budget, particularly as we look at building permit fees and as it's associated with really state transfer tax. And obviously this November, you know, it's not enough just to have the uncertainty that the economy throws at us, but we certainly have some very significant variables in the November ballot. And we'll talk a little bit about those. Some of our guiding principles in moving forward with this is we wanna continue to do the very best we can and the services that we do provide granted we may be having discussions about having fewer services. But we want to continue to do the very best we can. We're continuing to be conservative over the next five years in terms of revenue projections and we certainly can have a discussion about whether you think we're being too conservative or not in how we look at the future. $5 million is a fund-balanced target in the general fund that we've talked a lot about in the last couple of years. Marianne has a breakdown of what that $5 million is. It's not necessarily cash in the bank. There's some other things associated within that, and Marianne's going to break that down for you. But again, that's the number that we keep coming back to that feels to be a comfortable, responsible number to have in fund balance. And the reason that's important is, in the last year, we have used fund balance. To offset and mitigate some of the cuts that we might have had to make to create a balance budget, and we are proposing to continue to do that to minimize service impacts, but also at the same time have a pot of money there that if things get worse, then what we're projecting, we have a little bit of fund balance to deal with those potential uncertainties. And again, in this budget model, we're trying to move towards a sustainable budget where ideally revenues are slightly better than expenditures. We haven't been there, and not saying that we're going to be there in the next year or so. But again, that's where we're using that fund balance, kind of measure and balance that. But in the budgets, we'll be presenting to you. We're moving towards, again, getting to a balanced budget. Again, we'll be presenting you with contingencies. We understand and John asked the question, boy, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty that the election is going to give to us. And that's true. But again, I think we can foresee as it relates to November what a worst case scenario would be, and what a worst case scenario would be, and what a best case scenario would be. And I think we believe that having a plan for, again, that best case and worst case is a responsible thing to do so that we're not caught flat-footed with whatever happens in November. And again, in doing that, we are nimble. And again, government is off the accused of not being nimble and being able to respond to change. And I think by doing this and anticipating the various scenarios we can react. And I think it goes both ways. It's being able to react and we have now a set of additional cuts we can make. And also if things were better than anticipated, being able to potentially put things back. One of the things that fell out of the budget this year, and I think this was in June, was we took out the bonuses. Things were significantly better. I would love to be able to give our employees something. We're not talking about a salary increase, but something in the form of a bonus to say thank you in a meaningful way. And then again, as we've done in the last two years, having a set of checkpoints, Marky might call them quarterly budget updates, and they certainly serve as that, but it's also an opportunity to have a conversation with you in terms of how to the last quarter look, how to the ski season perform, and again, are we on track. Some of the budget highlights is we anticipate that in looking at the 2010 budget, as revised in June, we'll do, we'll hit that, we'll probably do slightly better than that and what we're projecting. It's still uncertain and we're still holding my breath for August and September sales tax numbers. June was down. July was slightly up. And it's been one of those volatile years and it really appears to be correlated to what we're doing with events, weather. And so it's still uncertain in terms of how we'll in the year, but right now given the very conservative approach we took, particularly in rationing it down in June, we anticipate we'll hit our 2010 budget. In preparing this budget, we asked the departments to go flat in terms of their expenditures. There's a couple of exceptions to that and I'll give you the assumptions for that and that obviously there are fixed costs that are outside of our control, but we certainly have to plan for. And again, as I mentioned, we're going to show you a best case and worst case in the general fund while maintaining a $5 million fund balance. And I also want to acknowledge that what we're looking at does not eat into the 15% contingency that we've established in the budget. And again, that's there in case things get worse than anticipated. I want to acknowledge Rhett. Rhett's probably been the most volatile fund that we've had. It's seen probably the most significant swing. And there's good news and bad news here. Good news is we're beginning to see some recovery. We're beginning to see a couple of those, a number of red checks come in. And we may do slightly better than anticipated in Rat revenue. However, there is still significant uncertainty here. Within the last 24 hours, we heard about a number of federal bus grants that are not going to be forthcoming to us or a number of other people. And these are grants we've relied on in years past. There are other grant opportunities. But this is an area that you're gonna see the numbers. And I don't know if Mary Ann's had a chance to potentially revise that. We don't necessarily have all the answers today, potentially in terms of how to address what is now, what we've learned in the last 24 hours, is a significant reduction in grant revenue. RoK for 2011, we're gonna need to give you some options if those grants do not reappear in a different form for 2012 and on out. Just a quick question. What were the source of that grant money? Was it federal? Yes. Yes, David? Yeah, I thought it was federal. Okay. For now, we'll get into a little bit more detail when we get into red. Again, some of the assumptions that again we used in the budget to build the initial budget is fuel and utilities increasing by 5%. No pay increases in 2010 and 2011. We budgeted a 14% increase in insurance for 2010 and we're again projecting that for 2011. This is an area where we might be pleasantly surprised. We were pleasantly surprised this year. But again, to be conservative, to maintain our current benefit structure, particularly within medical insurance, we're budgeting 14% and again with sales tax assuming a zero percent increase in 11, 2% in 12, 3% in 13, 14 and 15. And again, we can have this discussion, we had this discussion with FAB in terms of are we being too conservative, not conservative enough in these projections. Planning and building revenues, again, and this was a big part of the discussion in June, saw a significant decline from historical numbers, again 2.2 million and eight, and now it could be as low as 266 and 11. Although interesting in the last month, and I don't know if Mark's in the room, we've begun to see some additional activity coming in. Mainly little things, residential remodels beginning to occur again. Thank you, Marky. And that was a big check. Yeah, we appreciate it. But you're beginning to see projects like that, a big chunk. Yeah, we appreciate it. But you're beginning to see projects like that, which is great. You're also seeing it from some of our lodging product. And they are, again, reinvesting in the property. And again, that $5 million number. When we plugged this all in, as we looked at the budget, we weren't there. We had about a $729,000 deficit. That's not acceptable, and the fun balances were dropping below $5 million in future years. Next slide. On top of that, go ahead. Make sure I understood what you just said. Could you go back to that slide, please? Last issue. The fund balance decrease or deficit of $729,000 is over the next four years. That was the deficit in 11. That's the 2011 deficit. That's expenditures exceeding revenues in 2011. Okay, that's the, from 12, 315, it's around a half a million. Yeah, well, that's next, that is this coming, this fiscal year, this question right now. In addition to that, we were showing that fund balance going below five minutes. I'm sure it goes out. Crazy. So that wasn't acceptable. Thank you. So again, I believe you know the implications of the ballot. And again, there's opportunities and also challenges. Prop 101 begins to have an initial impact in 2011 of $265,000 reduction in revenue and goes up to over 400,000 in 2015. Again, one of the things we've talked about is if 101 passes, I mean there is a whole lot of pain. School districts, we're wondering where our kids are going to school or how they're going to school, fire district, huge implications. So it certainly turns into a significant statewide conversation, but those are the impacts to us. Transportation funding, again, just to be clear, and I've heard a few people ask the drosity and the transportation ballot questions are two separate questions. They're not intermingled. But again, if this is approved, we have an additional $357,000 for transportation funding. And you see this will roughly correlate to if it doesn't pass, about $320,000 in expenditure reductions. Again, if the transportation ballot is not passed. Again, maybe this is too much detail. It basically says the same thing, but it's a good reminder that there's a couple other interesting things if 101 or 60 are passed. There will be a question mark of whether we can assess, whether the GID can assess a milleve and that the GID board is not elected. And there is also another question of the housing fund because it is set up as an enterprise fund may have to pay property tax and that could have an impact of $60,000. So again, we've been very focused on the impact of the general fund, but there's also a little sleeper there with the GID in the housing fund, what we've heard through CML is there probably will be litigation and the need to clarify a variety of questions in this, but there are implications in addition to the general fund. So how did we respond to all this uncertainty? Scenario one, and you can refer to page six of your packet. It's also summarized on three, but page six has the numbers, which we'll show you here in a second. scenario one basically involves, we've got to deal with over a $700,000 deficit. Does not presume any additional revenue. It does not presume 101 passing. So it's basically, we didn't have ballot questions. This is how we would approach it. This is what we're calling our proposed budget, our kind of our baseline budget in this. So that does involve in 2011, cutting approximately $600,000 and $6,000 out of the budget and then additional cuts between 11 and 15. Later in the presentation, after Marianne is done with the general fund, I'm going to show you another scenario. The only difference between that scenario and this one will be the cuts in 11. Sanario number two basically assumes this is a worst case scenario. This assumes that 101 passes. So we've got to take out next year additional and we have the numbers up there. $265,000 in revenue. We've got to take that out. And again, we would need to find additional cuts for that. Still presuming we'd use a little bit of fund balance. CINARIO 3 gets a little bit better. CINARIO 3 assumes that the transportation ballot passes. So that gives us an additional $357,000 and we put back in the $320,000 in cuts that are proposed have because we can put some more things in. This is 101 failing in the transportation ballot question passing. So again, we get the additional 357, but we don't have the additional hit of the prop 101 taking away revenue. So that's the best case scenario. away revenue. So that's the best case scenario. I think that's some of the cuts. We'll go through and characterize based on this final scenario. I'll show you kind of where the cuts come from. But again, if transportation ballot doesn't pass and again we'll describe where we're proposing those cuts and you can tell us whether that's appropriate or not About 320,000 dollars in cuts it does include at least two main routes, but it also includes other expenditures within transportation that fundamentally affect service Then going beyond that again if we had to get to a $606,000 number in cuts and involves other positions, other services, be a lot like last year where you see a sprinkling of positions throughout the town that are funded by the general funds. So again, predominantly functions in town hall. You see some furlough days, You certainly see in nearly all the scenarios some continued deferrals of capital. In the worst case scenario with 101 passing, you know, do want to acknowledge some risks. One of them is a trash truck that's beginning to, it's at the end of its life. We've pushed it back a year and it could go down at any time. And we'll talk a little bit about that and then we have some other miscellaneous items so again, you know like we told the FAB particularly And as we're being televised We can generally as it relates to the service cuts and positions don't want to obviously talk about those individual positions But certainly give you a feel of where those implications and impacts are. The clearest one, certainly, that we'll talk explicitly about are what we would propose if we had to cut $320,000 out from transportation. And again, I think again, a key point of this is continuing to have dialogue with you as we move forward. Again, in December, touching dialogue with you as we move forward. Again, in December, touching base with you, we may have some good news, and we could talk about what to put back. I'd love to have that conversation. We might do better than anticipated as we get more sales tax information. So, touching base with you in December, then in March, giving you a snapshot of how was the ski season shaping up and what was the year end results from 2010. Then in June, again, looking at all of the information from the winter season and touching base with you just like we did this June, and doing our normal budget process in September, October. Anticipate, you know, as we get into the red that September, October, we're going to be giving you some additional information and ideas, particularly if we don't see any new federal funding for bus replacements. Again, we're not going to have concrete response to this reduction in federal funding today, but we acknowledge we're going to have to give you those options in the future. Then let's not go there yet and let's go back to Fred. And before we go there, I'd like to cancel the opportunity with that opening opportunity to have any comments. So staff can be thinking about anything that is worth discussing if you're in here. Just saying if there's anything we want to talk about right now with the after that introduction, one of the things in my mind, Russ, that you've alluded to too, and I think that the community and we all need to know about is that $5 million fund balance that we're trying to maintain a contingency, or, you know, those dollars. And I don't know Mary, I just want to speak a little more about it. The council has over the years tried to really protect that. I think there is, as Arnie had said a number months ago, it was a rainy day and we need to look at how we're using that. I think that's gonna be a big issue today to say at what point does the town really allow you to take care of that? You know, Billy, that's exactly where I was gonna go. I think that is the most critical issue that we need to weigh in on today. And as we begin to get into the conversation, I really look forward to Mary Ann's presentation as to the components of that 5 million. And just the notion of our staff not having any increases for two years. And we're looking- 30, yeah. 30 year. Since a pretty significant message as well, which, you know, I think we need to think about some of those key issues as we go through, but I think the trigger is at 5 million. And beginning to deal with that, it's all very much forward to your presentation. Arnie? You're right, Billy. I did say that it's a rainy day, fun, and I think it's raining pretty hard. Yeah. So perhaps it is appropriate to dig into that or adjust that temporarily. But we still have to be physically responsible. We owe a duty to the community to maintain enough to keep the joint going so to speak if catastrophe occurs. It's raining so far we haven't been hit by a flood. And we haven't got the hundred-year flood yet. Right, not yet. I mean, you may be coming and it may not, but we have to worry about that. So I would hope that we're prepared when we talk about this issue. First of all, to get some feedback from FAB. But there are standards, which are applicable. Reasonable standards for communities of this side. And I hope we're prepared to talk about those standards. Outside standards, which are perhaps if not imposed upon us, at least we're expected to conform to. And I know that our employees here, having gotten raises. But you know what I saw there? Neither has any other governmental section. My office hasn't gotten a raise. We don't expect a raise. We were told to cut budget again. But crime hasn't gotten down. We didn't lose a federal grant, but we are losing people. And I thank God every day that I wake up in the morning and I have a job. So these are tough times and they're tough times for everybody. We can't, in my opinion, go along the way we did up to now. We've got to get rid of that mentality. And we're being told to get rid of that mentality. I hope not too strongly. As others. Anyway, we'll see as we move along. John, welcome, son. Yeah, the only problem I, well, it's not the only problem. It's one of the problems I have. With the dipping into the fun balance, is that we need to have a plan in place and how to replace it. Because if we dip into it, it's going to continue to be dipped into until things turn around. And at some point, we're going to have to pay the price. And do we pay the price this year going into it, or do we dip into it and pay the price in a couple of years? So I'd like to see a plan of how we intend on. You're projecting 3% increases over the next five years, which I know is just a crystal ball, magic eight ball kind of question, but there has to be something in place at some point looking at five years out how to build out their fun balance back. If we use it. And then read and then Russ. And page nine, you've got the list of the goals and how they played into your getting to this budget. And fully the items? Yeah, you've got two things here that just don't, I mean, we can't maintain the $5 million budget. And I guess my frustration is here we go again acting like a government and we're cutting expenditures to move toward a sustainable budget. We need to have a sustainable budget. We need to have a sustainable budget. We need to stop being another one of those governments that spends more than we have. We need to take what we have and use it wisely. And not, I mean, I'm willing to talk about dipping into that fund, but very carefully. I mean, it is not a good way to run a business to spend more money than you have. I can't do it personally, I can't do it for my business, and I don't think that we should be using taxpayer dollars doing it either. One of the other things I'll say counter to that a little bit, Reed, is that in the days that we were doing real well, we decided we need to put some contingency away so that when times do get rough, because we knew times weren't going to be always rosy And so that's why families do put savings away and that's why we put savings away so that we would have the opportunity not to fall flat in our face And you know, but you're right. This is a very big issue And I think it's important for the FAB to help us the staff has been working wonderfully these last few years as we all know To you know protect the town. But there is a reason there is a fund there. So I agree, but I'm saying that going into it, planning to spend more than we have is not really very responsible way to look at it. Understood? Russ? I just wanted to respond to a couple things. One, you are hitting on the most fundamental question. And it's something we've debated, FAB is debated, and you'll debate today. And again, that's why 5 million is important, because we've been using that as a threshold this day. Now, we shouldn't go below that in terms of a fund balance. You need to also be reminded in Marianne. I'll do that in a minute. What's in that fund balance? because it's not necessarily cash in the context of all five million of it that's available. But that's the fundamental question is are we comfortable using a little bit of fund balance to mitigate the service cuts or not? And I think we can respond either way just want you to know the implications of that. But what we are going to present to you, particularly in the general fund, is a plan that does create balance, that does conservatively bring us to a point where again we're in a comfortable position of revenues covering expenses. Does it do it next year as proposed? No. But that's could it? Yes. But that's I think the discussion you're going to have is what's appropriate in terms of using fund balance and not. So I I mean, you fit on the key issue and we are certainly prepared to discuss. One other thing here, just so, you know, ground rules and all that kind of stuff. Let's try to work about an hour and a half of the clip and then take a 10 minute break. We're predicting we're gonna be out of here about what time? I mean, we get through. To five o'clock tonight or just now we're hoping you're out of here in early afternoon and just to share with this discussion is someone like the FAB it's really getting through the question you're just framing right now and then the Rhett question and again with Rhett that's under significant strain and that is the challenge and that is the game plan we had for you in the packet which was how do you replenish that contingency. But once you get through those two items, the rest of it is pretty straightforward. We don't have many capital projects at all to talk about, and that's where we've spent most of our time and years past. Okay. Moving on then. Very in. Fred will present the Financial Advisory Board recommendations. We have. Good morning, Fred. Fred will present the financial advisory board recommendations. We have. Good morning, Fred. Good morning. Good morning. Where are we talking? Thank you. First of all, the FAB wants to echo what Russ said and commend the administration and the staff for truly doing more with less. If there has been a decline in services, most people haven't noticed it. I think the staff has been incredibly efficient and effective and dealing with a very difficult economic environment and we applaud them all for so doing. The only number issue we had was with the Rec Center subsidy in the budget. The Rec Center subsidy came in last year at a below budget at 401,000. This year it's going back up to, it's proposed to go back up to 467,000. If you remember, the original FAB proposal with respect to the budget had that $200,000 that are now going to the dross deep pledge was to go to support the rec center. So you know you're not going to have that $200,000. The subsidy general in the past has come from the red fund and we've heard all the discussion about how difficult the red fund is and how uncertain things are in it. So our proposal to you with respect to the rec center subsidy is that it remained at the 2010 levels at 401,000. We had really two tasking issues that we would propose to you. The first one has to do with the rec center. The FAB would like the opportunity to review rec center, the rec center budget, the revenues, the expenditures to see if both of those are at appropriate levels and make recommendations to you based on that review if you be inappropriate. The other tasking item relates to the marketing committee. For better or for worse, there is a bullseye on that committee. We've people on the FAB have heard it, I am sure you have heard it. We would like the opportunity to review their budget with them in some detail, get a sense of return on investment, if you will. And report to you on that and see what recommendations or changes you would like to make. But we felt since it just become somewhat controversial, it is something that the FAB thought it could be of some help with. Finally, with respect to the $5 million fund, and we spent a fair amount of time talking about this, it is our recommendation to you that you err on the side of using the fund. And the major reason for that recommendation is that the cuts will come in personnel. We have key people here who have been here a long time. If for some reason we lose them, two years from now, we think it's going to be very difficult to replace them, to replace their institutional history, to replace the knowledge they have about the departments that they are running. So we're suggesting that we look out 18 to 24 months, 12 to 18 months, I should say, and make the decision to be sure that key people are still here 18 months from now. If 18 months from now life hasn't changed, the economy hasn't turned around. Our deficit has worsened, then you have to do what any responsible business does and cut people. But we do have an asset, and as Arnie has said, and we couldn't agree with him more, it is a rainy day asset and it is raining. And we think it is crucial that key people be retained, let the time pass and let's see how the economy is 18 months from now. Thank you. John, welcome to the morning. John Wilkinson and Arnie. Okay, the comment I made was planning for replenish the if we go into the Into that $5 million. Did you guys look at what the scenarios would be to replenish that fund? We did not John. Okay, that would be one thing I would request and I would strongly urge your FAB to take a look at the marketing special events budget. I didn't know that you didn't, so I would be supportive of that. But Fred, just to be clear, I didn't hear the FAB saying go below the five. No, I don't. I have a million with still a good number to plan to. Well, if you don't have anything to do, we are always on. No, no, we are recommending that if, that you do dip into it for the next 12, 18 months to retain key personnel, because as I say, our fear was the cost of replacing key people and bringing new people up to speed would be greater than dipping into the fund to keep them. That was our recommendation. And just to clarify, they did go through the marketing and the group sales budgets. What this is referring to is they wanted more communication with the directors so that they could learn more about the function of their budgets and ROI's and things of that nature. We've been asking, we asked last year for the marketing committee and the marketing staff to put together an ROI for the amount of money that we're spending. I don't think we've seen that yet. Have we? It's pretty hard to. You've had several discussions with them that have shared what they can measure and what they can. But I think that we need to, it's a pretty large budget. We can't. Arnie? Well, I applaud the financial advisory board people at a working time giving us the input they have so far and looking at some of this stuff. And understanding that key people are, first of all, you've they got to be key people because they've been here a long time and you support that and you reward that even if the reward is only you still have a job but that's a reward today that's a big reward aren't you? It really is. But I want to talk for a moment about financial advisory boards activity with marketing and special events. Hey Fred why don't you take a seat? Marketing special, yeah come on. Come on. Sorry. No reason to stand up. Marketing special events and group sales. I would remind us that unless we change the current statutory parameter of the marking special on group sales board, some of which we may and some of which we may not be able to change without a vote. There really isn't anything you can do with the money. With the money comes in, it can stay there, but you can't use it to support RATCH, you can't use it to support General Fund, you can't use it to do a lot of things. Nor does it drain any of those funds. It's a self-sustaining, incestuous group, so to speak. So in a lot of the analysis that goes on there is a policy analysis. We think you ought to spend more money in the summer than winter. Obviously, what they do with their money has an impact on how you bring people to the community, which has an impact on sales tax and other things. And I recognize that. So I'm a little, I have some concerns, so to speak. What are we going to be doing? Now, I'm glad to hear that at least in terms of budget and then a budget analysis, FAB had been looking at that. And maybe this additional observation, if you will, our communication certainly is always good. But I think a lot of what goes on in marketing special events group sales is policy question. And there's only one organization in this community that sets policy. I think that's this five of them. I can't if they're November, who are going to be here. So that's a query in the line. Absolutely right, Ari. And that wasn't our intention at all. Our intention was to get a handle, if you will, on the benefits we're getting from their expenditures and reporting that to you and having you deal with that issue as you see fit. But the comments that you have heard that people in the FAB have heard that are, I think rampant in the community says, these folks get a lot of money. How are we the community benefiting from that money? How is the town benefiting from that money? How is the town's revenues benefiting from that money? How is the town benefiting from that money? How is the town's revenues benefiting from that money? And that's all we want to do is have them tell us, show us to the extent they can, and I absolutely agree that some stuff you can't measure on return on investment. Some is smiles on people's faces, which are important. And we certainly acknowledge that. not investment, you know, some of the smiles on people's faces, which are important. And we certainly acknowledge that. But there, anytime some, and entity is given $3 million or something like that, there ought to be some accountability for it. And all we want to do is take a look at it and let you know what we find. Yeah, and accountability is very important and I think that having another set of eyes, so to speak, on that and another group of brains looking at it is certainly, can't be bad. It's got to be good. But just needed to say, you know, we've got to be. And that may be something that, you know, we just, the community needs to be aware of again and have that discussion, you know, houses made up what happened before the SRA, what were the concerns when we tried to form this group, that people were concerned about in the group that was paying a lot of those funds. So, you know, we should spend a little bit of time, you know, reminding ourselves what happened and how that committee was formed and what the council's roles were for the hands off other than the budget process about that. So Fred, just I think stay there because I think there are other things that your discussion has brought up that I think we should talk about a little bit right now. Anybody on the rec center in my thinking, I believe that we need to set a an amount appropriate for an annual subsidy. Over the years, I've seen it go from what 650,000 down and up and play this little game. And I have to do that sometimes, but is there a way that the community can say we believe that an appropriate amount is $500,000. Period, that's all they're going to get even in the good years, bad years. Is there some appropriate amount that the community can get a grasp on and say that's enough of a subsidy? Or how should we really look at that? Because when budgets go up and down, hey, it's a great year. We're getting all this money coming in. That's okay. We need to use those for transportation issues to, you know, get the tourists, the locals moving around. So I think there needs to be a little bit of a discussion about where we land, where the community lands on what appropriate subsidies are for the Vex Center. Or isn't that what? Yeah. Well, I think that, you know, my thinking, personally, is that right? I'd rather say, we should say, yeah, we should set a number that we can try to maintain annually, you know, because this year we're at a low point. In a few years, I think we've been, you know, higher, but so I don't have a disagreement with maintaining the 2010 levels, but I think that should be something that is an ongoing community, the FAD, we all say this is an appropriate number. Mark. Well, I'm going to agree with the fact we do need to hit a number and land on that number. But in order to land on that number, we need to understand the programmatic elements of the Rec Center. And if it's 400,000, we know exactly what is the program we're going to get. It's $500,000, we need to know what we're paying another $100,000 for. But I think as we go through the review today, that's another area that I totally agree and I know the FAB has got a recommendation that probably will land on their recommendation. But I'd love to really go through the detail of the Rec Center as well. Yeah, Russ. Just on that, you know, we had this exact same discussion. We began jumping into it. And then I said, well, you know, we really need to have a thoughtful discussion with Haunt and Andy in the room. So you understand what those trade-offs are. Yeah, right. And so that's what I think they're recommending is to have that discussion. We're prepared today in terms of looking at 2011, but I think what's presumed here is that before we go another year, we have agreement on what is that appropriate target. So we can begin that discussion today. That's not the proposal. The proposal that they be is it's not before we go another year. It is this year we're not going to fund or it is recommended that we don't fund the $467,559. I want to know. There's two proposals there. The first proposal is that. I said that's the only real number proposal we recommendation we're making. Our second proposal is the tasking proposal, and that is task us the responsibility of sitting down with folks at the right center, seeing what the revenues are, what their expenditures are, what they were able to do this year for 401,000. How many services they had to cut back, what are we missing out of that? Do you need to add something to that? All of those questions and come back to you with a recommendation as to what's an appropriate funding level. That's for another time. Correct. Today we're talking about how many dollars are we going to fund in the federal level? Well, I want to know about it. But I really want to- And we're prepared to have that discussion today. Yeah, okay. Because I want to get into the programmatic elements. Yeah. Anything else on the Wrexner discussion? If I could just make a kind of a general comment. I face something that we're seeing here. I was not in Colorado at the time that happened. It in fact was my job as a result of what happened in California, which was the top 13 thing. It's a voter revolt, right? And if you believe some of the polls is an awful lot of voter revolt out there, hopefully not enough to pass some of these draconian measures that are currently on the ballot. But we may see that. But we in this body, in all government has to recognize that we are subject to the voters. Those are the folks that give us our marching orders. And if they say, we're passing all this stuff, then we can't run around saying, oh my god, it's going to cut services because, yeah, that's exactly right. They're telling us, cut services. Now, where they're cutting some of that stuff, it actually even tells us where to cut it. Because it's targeted. But that's what it's telling us to do. So although we have this great rec center, getting it back to what the topic at hand, we have this great rec center. And if we had money that nobody cared about and we could pump it in. We can have all these wonderful things. That's we were a community of 1800 people. The voters of this community, I believe, are telling us that's enough. And when more is needed, either they're going to pay for the service or they don't want the ones mode as much anymore, or the roads fixed as much, because they want to put it in a recce. Well, that's their decision, not ours. The law is mode as much anymore or the road's fixed as much because they want to put it in a recce Well, that's their decision not ours and we have to be beholden to that In cognizant So we should go forward on that discussion Anything else on the FAB recommendations and not this point while Fred's seated there Everything looks appropriate Okay Thank you very much. Thank you Frank and thank the board Everything looks appropriate. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Frank. Thank you, Frank. And thank the board. Moving on. Probably I'm just going to answer your name. Sir Ian, how do we want to proceed now with your... Well, I'm ready to get into the numbers, but before I did, I just wanted to see if anybody had any questions on the budget transmittal which was pages 8 through 17 in your packet. Read. This one on the page 11. The efficiencies thing the second one down. Do we have a central purchasing unit or person or? We do not. We have a purchasing policy that all the departments are supposed to be following. And our department tries to check departments to make sure that they're following that policy. So when you in finance need a remodel paper, you call Sandeys and then the same thing happens over at marketing and the same thing happens over in building. She does all the copy paper. I'm in charge of 99.9 percent of all the supplies on paper if you're out there. And copies of items. So there is some, that is sort of, that's, that's function sensitive. Thank you. Okay. As in the phone. I just, that's the type of thing that I think it's good to really pay attention to because it doesn't seem like a whole lot dollar here dollar there but that stuff add up quickly in a large organization. Yeah, the specialty items are what each of the departments will purchase on their own. Okay. We cut that budget from six to two thousand in the last two. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, on page 12, the ski corporation contributions, you protected a zero change. Is that zero from this past season? Because it was an increase from the year before? I think it was 617, skier visits. And so I used that same 617. And then there's a formula that increases the amount per skier, which is a 2%, plus the estimated CPI, which I have in there at 1.5%. That's a 3.5%. Okay, so what is, how do you determine, and skier days and that on dollars paid for lift tickets or ski school or anything like that? It's based on skier visits without employees, they're employees. We didn't draft the contract. I don't know. But what would be the impact if there was a sales tax on lift tickets? I do not. I do not. That would go away. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. You're asking is we post a sales tax on lift tickets. How many dollars would we get? Right. Versus. Given that number. Right. Versus what we're getting here correct Absolutely horrible thing to put forward. It's gonna make us look bad compared to everybody else in the ski industry That's not even though any further with us. Well, are you kidding me? No, I mean I'll get a contract there and sales tax on why why not have sales tax on lift tickets because of perception and Mr. Dresser do you have any comment? Well, just to answer John's question, it depends on the rate of the sales tax. I don't think there's any way Mary-Anne can answer that question to compare it to a solid number that you have a contractual basis for that is based on historic data of the number of ski days, which is, okay, there's a number, there's a escalator, that was negotiated with this key company as part of their mitigation for our transportation system, and to say, okay, how does that compare to a sales tax? What are the parameters of your sales tax? It's an impossible question to answer. You could put your sales tax rate so it exactly matches what you anticipate getting from the contractual, or you could raise your sales tax to double. So I mean to answer your question and ask staff this question is nearly impossible. The assumption I think is that- But I would just suggest Mr. Mayor that this might be a separate policy discussion but in terms of looking at 11, we have John raised a good question because people have said we don't have those. And I think we do need to look at that and say, hey, what happens with the rest of the world? And is this an appropriate thing to talk about changing? Yeah, it's just kind of a new policy question. And if you want to discuss that. There ain't a question on the number you actually have here. Increased 2% based upon the increase over the base from 2009 to 2010, correct? That's that increase. It's not based on the dollar amount. That's a skier day on skier visits. Arnie? Correct. On my back. My phone. I'm sorry. Thank you. OK. I was leaning back too far. I'm sorry. OK. But this year, the skier days not only will go up or stay static with reference to that number, but we have what is it a week in addition? The ski season is a week longer. Did we calculate that in at all? No. Okay. So assuming that we don't have the same number of skier days just over a week longer period, we get some boost in number of days total. There would be kind of a little kick there soon. Should we help? Okay. Is that over a week longer period, and we get some boost in number of days total, there would be kind of a little kick there soon. Should we help? Okay. Is that number audited? If the end of the season, do we rely upon ski company to provide us with those numbers? And at the end of the year, we recalculate. It's nothing in the agreement that allows us to audit them. I'm sure they would not have, I mean, there's nothing in the agreement. Their numbers are audited. They're not hiding anything. That I don't expect them to hide. But we could ask them for an audit of some kind. I think it would be appropriate. Mark, do you think they're there? Yeah, I do. Over on page 15 on marketing and special events and groups. I'm very aware. I'm on page 15. I'm on page 15. I'm on page 15. I'm on page 15. I'm on the marketing and special events and group sales. Marketing, we're showing an increase of 32,000. And it says mainly in summer marketing. I thought our emphasis last year was on summer marketing. When we go through the marketing and special events fund, I'll show you where the major increases and decreases are. Will this be some new events? I said, what we're going to really see? You'd have to talk to Susan about that. I think we will be here. She'll be here. We'll need to know why that 32,000 should be here for that discussion. Yes. And then the group sales Fund, a little concern since we're so dependent on Group Sales that it's down 66,000. I see a decrease in payroll and I don't know if that's because of the opening that we have or what it is, but I want more discussion if I had my rather as I didn increase group sales and decrease marketing it was mostly the bonuses or commissions that they get if they meet their goal She is if everybody was meeting their goal and then she's real she realized that she shouldn't be budgeting that way So she brought it down to a more realistic amount It's a it's a budget number. It's not a... Correct. Correct. It's to reflect more of what she's actually paying out. That's an interesting policy question, okay? In terms of commissions on sales. We're going to do that a little bit later. But it's unique in that team. Yeah, that's very unique. Well, not unique in the country. It's not not unique. It is common, I mean, within the industry. But for our communities, for our government organizations. Yes, for organizations. Yes. Good. OK. OK, let's go to page 21. And you all know Brandy. She's here to help guide us. Father didn't push the buttons on it. And I tend to talk quickly and move quickly. So feel free to interrupt me and ask questions where you feel you need. Okay, page 21 just gives you a summary of all of the funds of the town, the beginning balance in 2010 and what the ending balance will be. With all funds from the general fund down through the housing funds, we have beginning fund balance of 18,606,000. That increases at the end of the year to 19,779,000. Most of that increases in the excise tax fund. In 2011 and I'll go through those as well when we get to that individual fund. But those are mostly the sales, the finished sales on the rodeo homes as well as the purchases and resales of the country club town home units. We sold our last rodeo home. Any questions on this page? The next page, page 22, shows us the outstanding debt of the town. And we'll call it page 2. The extras. And this shows you that our outstanding balance for general fund purposes where our general government purposes was 9 million and it drops down to 8 million and on the housing funds 5.6 million to 4.6 million. You can see we don't have very much debt for the town as far as general obligation debt. In 2010, we have a bond capacity of $59 million. And right now, if you recall, in the amendment 60, it's going to require that governments stay within 10% of their assessed value. Right now at the end of 2011 will be 1.1%. So our debt is very, very low for governmental entity. You're saying our capacity is 59 million? That's correct. But as we creep up towards it, does that change our bond rating? If we were to take out more bond debt, would that happen? Yeah, I mean, we would have no essentially, as we have less debt to our assessed value than, I don't know that it'll change our bond rating. I mean, we're pretty high as we are right now, but it certainly helps when they look at our financials. Okay. Page 23 is just a chart. Some people like to look at charts, graphs, numbers, so I try to show some things in different ways. Before we go to 25, where we're going to talk about the different scenarios and the fun balances, why don't we go to page 33? And this is going to give you the breakdown of the 5 million. So that when you see it, you'll know what we're talking about. And these categories are also on each of the sheets in your packet. In the green I have whether it's restricted or unrestricted. And inventory is 130,000. That number fluctuates from year to year. It depends on what we have in our gas tanks down at the shop. It depends on what we have in parts and supplies. We do an annual inventory at the end of the year. So this is money that's in a non-spendable category. Why? Because it's already been spent. We would have to sell the gas and sell the parts and supplies in order to turn it in cash. It's a number. It is, and this is what Russ was alluding to earlier. When you talk about the $5-million fund balance, it may not all be cash. Correct. And this is the breakdown that I'm going through. Okay. The money's not restricted, but you can't spend it because nobody wants to take a carburetor instead of dollars. And you'd probably lose money from what you spend tonight. But it's really not a restricted fund. It's just not spendable. It's not liquid. It's not liquid, is it perhaps the better? It's an accounting issue. Same thing with the next category. Repaid expenses. It's when we pay. Yeah. Same thing with the next category. Repaid expenses. It's when we pay for expenses in 2010, and it'll be expensive in 2011. Not very big numbers of the $5.5 million. In this appropriation, just so that you know, and I guess I should clarify, when Russ went through all of those scenarios, in all of those scenarios, in none of those cases did we drop below $5 million in fund balance in any of those scenarios. So I want to make that clear. If we decide to not make some of the cuts, then it would just depend on how many of those cuts that would affect the five million. And that's keeping a minimum of five million from 2011 all the way through 2015. Are we talking five million or five point five million? Well, at the end of 2011, using scenario number one, it's five point five million. But I'll go through each of the scenarios and then you'll see that it just depends on, it adjust based on if 101 passes, it adjust based on if the transportation funding passes. I think it's a big difference. It's half million bucks right there. But the number that you have been tasked by council is not to go below is five minutes. That's not a point in the financial advice report. That was that was the number you're not. So we got a five we got a 550,000. Well, but they cut. Don't know. Okay. And remember, whatever you do in one year, you may only have 5.1 in 2013, so take 5 million now than that year drops below. I think that of the plan of replacement too. We're going to get to a summary slide too. Okay. Good. Draw on. I think we'll have to answer your question. Okay. And so then we have the emergency contingency. That's the table contingency. That's 3% of the general fund fiscal year spending. This year I broke out the Holy Cross enhancement funds. I've always been part of the funds available, but they're not really available because they are restricted for spending within the Holy Cross ordinance. So I took that money out separately so that now you can see it on the balance sheets. And that's, you know, we spend 220,000 of it this year on energy conservation type projects. Maryanne, under the emergency contingency for table, it says it's sadicide for emergency contingency reserve under what terms can you use it if we're putting away? It's pretty strict. The uses of a fiscal year, bad economy, they don't allow you to use it. If we had probably a massive fire, we could probably use it. I guess that's a question that we'd like to address some clarification. What is that language that says? I can get that maybe at lunch. OK, and then the capital expenditure reserve. I put it away if you can't use it. Where you have to? How was the way you got it? Douglas, what's the point? That's right. Oh, no, I know. You're putting it away, but at what point can you withdraw? Yeah, where can you use your dollars? I believe you got it. Whenever you do that, you just put that away and then you just reserve and then you don't, you can then, then go into the fund. It just, it adjusts based on the fiscal year spending. And so you take your fiscal year spending, you back out, like transfers, you back out, grants, and, you know, it's a formula you come to a number times 3% that's what you put away by the end. And it's a one it's a it's not a building fund. No. Right. It doesn't accumulate. It's it has to be there in a fund on a manual. Whenever the analysis is done whatever the date is that they require. Correct. You tell me what happens if you don't comply. Well. Can I take this away? I don't know. They'll take me to jail, John. I mean, I'm just just wondering a little question. Has it been tested? No, no, no. Okay. You really want to know? Yeah, I really would like to know. There's an action that any citizen can bring against the town council and you have to replenish it. Oh, so it's you guys, not me. The problem with me. Oh, good stuff. It's completely wouldn't be you. The problem is that the plaintiff gets their attorneys fees. So. Good cost. It's a pretty bad. It costs you a lot of money. There's a lot of discussion amongst the municipal lawyers right now about whether that has to be a cash reserve. Cash consistency or whether, for instance, we could put up the equity in this building too. Maybe that's what we could use the carburetors for. I think they're down now. I mean, Mary and I have not really discussed how this contingency is funded. But I mean, my advice would be take the conservative route and keep it in cash because then if you do need it, I mean the situations that table allows you to use it under are drastic and that's why they want you to have it there. So if you're, if there's a catastrophic, I mean if you have your emergency contingency fund for table as the equity in this building, and this building gets caught in the wildfire, you're effectively not allowed. Exactly. So I mean. You can have insurance to cover. Well, I mean, those are all the policy questions. Well, there is a quite. You can't take the insurance proceeds and fund your contingency fund, you have to replace the building. So I am waiting. Then under capital equipment reserve is this where you would pull the dollars from in case that little trash truck absolutely dies? Yes. Okay. Yep. That will be important later in this discussion. The town hall COP reserve Cougar Canyon, that's it, 630,000. Last year at budget we decided to use 90,000 that we were putting into that fund each year. We decided to use it in 2010 and 2011. I've run through the numbers and I have a slide if we need to go to it. But based on the current budget numbers, at the time that the COP is paid off in 2026, there's $360,000 remaining in that fund. And Arne, you had asked this question last year. And so in the contingency budget under scenario one in the years 2012 through 2015, we show using that $90,000 over those next four years because this is the time that we would need those bonds. And so then at the end when the COP is paid off, that fund would be zero as well as the the COP payments. And then the contingency fund, that's 15% of operating revenue. That's, aren't you going to ask this question earlier or that's standard. That's the GFOA, the government finance officers recommended amount, is 15% of your operating revenue that you set aside in a contingency fund for rainy days for low economy. And when I originally set this up, I pulled all sorts of cities and counties throughout the state. And some of them were as low as 5 or 10% and some of them went to 20 and 50%. It just depended on the government. We stuck with the GFOA recommended amount and then we also have the funds available which is almost the 15% as well. So if you had those two amounts, it's 30 percent that you have available for rainy day or something that may come up. Is that in cash? Yes. Is it, are we earning interest on that money? Very little. Yeah, that was zero zero zero zero. Exactly. The other question in talking with the towns about the use of their contingencies What did you find in terms of ski towns or resort communities? Are they still 15% or they're dropping? They are still 15% I've had a lot of interesting conversations this week with other finance directors, because we're all struggling with the same problems. And it just depends on the situation of the city, as far as we talked about personnel and a number of us let personnel go. And there's been some talk about possibly employee sharing in communities and whether we have to start going to that in the future, especially in planning and building areas. There's also, there's some optimism from some of the finance directors and I don't know if it's just hope that there's Hales Texas go up or whether they actually see something differently than some of the others most of every mostly everybody is budgeting a 0% increase in sales taxes. There are some that are doing some slight increases from 1 to 3%. And then there's another town that also has a budget contingency plan showing up 6%. Arnie? I am a little confused about this contingency. Okay. It's cash fund, according to your figures, that's $1.7 million sitting someplace that you don't use. In investments? Whatever, but you don't use it in part of your budget. Is this a cumulative fund? You don't put $1.7 million in it every year. No, it's just said at 15% of the outskirts. Same as the table. Yeah, okay, so you got this $1.7 million floating around that you don't use and you can't use and you're actually taking out of our general fund. Some number it may not be if you've already got 1.7 in the bank, I guess it's nothing, but at least you can't use it. Doesn't go into our reserve or does it? It is the reserve. This is part of the $5 million. Correct. It's part of the number becomes the same if you say, okay, let's dip into the reserve. You could say, okay, and we're dipping the part of the reserve we're dipping into into is the contingency fund, because it's now contingent. And that was a discussion that both Russ and I had, because it is a rainy day. So when we look at it and we say, okay, we're, we have a deficit of 728,000. We cut 606, we still are short, over $100,000. Do we take that out of the contingency fund, or do we take it out of the funds available? And the funds available is unappropriated dollars. And we said, well, it's really a shell game. Why don't we just take it out of the funds available? Keep that contingency at 15%. Because it's not only physically conservative, I think that when you have to show your financials to bond rating companies, it definitely does. All right, that's interesting. Thank you. Is the funds available set at a percentage of your now? It fluctuates every year based on whatever's left over. That's the number that'll fluctuate as you see these scenarios. Okay. So, first thing we do is we set aside all of the amounts that belong in all of those other categories, and then whatever's left over is what is funds available. How fast would we ever need to get to that money? Oh, we can get it today if you want it. But I mean, would it make sense to put some in like because the interest rates are so low right now Would it be better to have it in a CD for six months? We have them in CDs. We have a government pool There are as we all move orange County I guess there are certain ways you can invest money. I know you were in a business. No you were in a business. No you were in a business. I was there when it happened too. That's an option. I like to sleep at night. So Mary and the question I would have then, under the restricted inventory and prepaid expenses, why would they be appropriate to have in this fund and not into a separate, since we can't use it anyway? What did you say? It's a fluctuating number. If I didn't separate it out and tell you at the end of the year, that's what you have. I mean, this is in our financial statements as well. It's said that it's already spent. You can't spend it. If I don't put it up there, separate for you to see. It'll end up in that funds available and you'll think you have that extra money to spend when really you don't. Well, I understand you know, that's why having it as a separate subcategory, but I guess it is. It is, it's category, yeah. Otherwise we call out and spend the car barators. They don't make car barators any more. Oh, okay. You know, and the government accounting standards boards. They're always giving us new rules and new regulations that we have to change and update every year. And this one, this is another new one that they gave us this past year. We didn't need to do it until 2011, but I did it in the 2010 financial statements is how you categorize what you have in your fund balance. And so they took us from the restricted, the unrestricted, to spendable, non-spendable, committed. So now there's all these new categories that we have to how we split up all of the funds. So, back to 25. Page 25. In all of the scenarios, 25 through 32, everything above net operating revenues and expenditures, everything above stays the same as far as the revenues, operating revenues, operating expenditures and capital. The only things that change are highlighted in different colors. Like on scenario number one, the expenditure cuts under scenario number one. So you can see for 2011, we have a deficit of expenditures exceeding revenues of 728,000. And then we're showing you that, well, we're trying to cut the budget, cut that expenditure down. And so we have $606,000 of cuts in order to try to minimize the amount that we're using out of fund balance. And then if you go on page 26, you see that that carries across all the way through 2015 so that you can see that we are getting towards is read had asked a sustainable budget. And actually I want to Go to any slide. Okay. What I heard you say on scenario number one on page 25, we would have a deficit of 728,686. If we do nothing. And however, then you still maintain the fund balance at 5.5. No, we have the cuts in the orange of $606,000 that gets us 5.5 in fund balance. Well, that gets into the philosophical. Are we talking 5.5 million or 5.5 for fund balance? We're going to continue to be consistent and say 55 million is the threshold that we want to stay over. Because it changes based on every scenario we show you. We're not forcing it to get to $5 million. Well, maybe we should. Well, that's what you say. If we do that now then in 2013, 2014, we are way below. No, that's what she's saying. If we do that now, then in 2013, 2014, we are way below. No, that's not what that shows. What I'm going to do is it goes 5575, all the way to almost 6 million in 2015. And what we're going to do is I'm going to talk you through each of the scenarios so that you can see the fun balances. And then we're going to go through all of the general's finder. And then we're going to go through all of the general's finder and then we're going to come back to the scenarios. I'm going to show you is given the FAB input what we've heard from you something that keeps it a little closer to 5 million versus see the fun balance here going to 5.9. 5.9 almost. So that was a little a-ha. Yeah, that's a not-ha moment. Yeah, talking to Mary-Anne and we're going to show you another scenario that keeps it a little a-ha-ha-ha-on. Yeah, talking to Mary Ann. And we're going to show you another scenario that keeps it a little closer to five. And the difference will be it defers 2011 personnel cuts. Good. Just to give you a preview. Thank you. OK, he's the other boat. Can you put this one up? PJ. We're on page 25 and 26, Tony. Right. I'm going to pull up just a slide to show you. I'm going to pull up a set in our packet. No. Can you make it bigger? This is just going to show you down at the bottom you can see on the blue line the negative 728,000. So the original budget that we started with, that line shows you how much expenditures are exceeding revenues in each of those years. So you can see 728 in 2011 and then 514, 412, 444, 449 in 2015. When we did this budget, that's the aha moment. Gee, we've got to make some changes. Something needs to be done to balance it. But knowing that in those later years, anything can happen. The economy can change. Sales taxes can be up. So we're prepared if everything was to stay according to this budget, we want to make sure that we can show the public that we're prepared to make the changes that we need to in order to make a sustainable budget. If you go to the pink line up above, that is based on scenario number one. So if we have the 728 in cuts or in the deficit and then we make 606,000 in cuts, we're still going to be using 122,000 out of funds available in 2011. In 2012, it drops down to only 25,000 and then 13 through 14 were sustainable again. We're actually putting money back in to the fund balance. Okay, I wish you had one other line on here. And that is, 2011, the minus 122 that you're going to pull out of funds available. But at the end of the year, you still wind up at 5.5 with your fund balance. Yes. And just an hour and a half. That's a critical question is throughout this the fund balance continues to grow for the next five years up to that 5.9 and you've got a deficit of 122 with the cuts and then my question well We'll get into this a little bit later. Yeah, but you know where I'm going with this. Yeah, something for you Yeah, okay, and you know the other thing too is again like I said without knowing What's happening in those later years in knowing that in this budget session? You may want addbacks you may not want any of those cuts You may want addbacks, you may not want any of those cuts. That's exactly. Then if we had not made that sustainable throughout those last years, you wouldn't be able to make any adjustments this year. So that was our intention was show a sustainable budget throughout the fight. I am confused on this issue. Council told you maintain five. You're maintaining 5.5. Not less than $5. Not less than five, just so that we're clear. We did not want to drop below five. This is the five five. It didn't, just how the numbers. We've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've, his story for the last couple of years, we've been over five. Yeah. What we've said and what the policy direction was, don't go below five. And it goes, it fluctuates. So in this, we saw the opportunity, particularly when you get to 2015, we saw 5.9. We said, we got a little bit more balancing we could do. I'm not, I know we need to project budgets. I'm projecting more realistically what is today? Today, you can project out to 2015 and for Slob who gets fired next week, says I don't care what 2015 is like. I care what, you know, I gotta move out of my house tomorrow. So I really wanna talk about about that half a million dollars that somehow is a number we work in so hard to keep when that's not a directive from us, from anybody else. And in fact, FAB says go even below that to sum them. Well, we want to get you grounded in this scenario. And then we've got another one to compare it that brings that fund balance closer to 5.9. But this was our point of departure, and it led to another idea that brings us back to 5.9. I think it's a very good representation or any of that 728, you know, then you did a 728 cut. Then you got another $122,000 deficit to maintain the $5.5 million. And that's the reason why I made the last comment I made because in Rust came back and says he's got a scenario for us it gets this closer to that five and I think the philosophical discussion that we should have after we go through the scenarios is this issue around the five because I am not happy with a five five now going to five nine if we got a rainy day and that's where you are. Yeah, it's a bad year for them. Let me walk through these scenarios and we'll take a break. Our intention was to get through the general fund, but I think you guys probably have a pretty good understanding of the general fund and you, I guess you can just answer questions after. So I'll go through these scenarios. You can do your scenario and then we can just say any other questions on these other general fund pages. Okay. We just want to make sure that you had an understanding of each of these before. Okay. So 25 and 26, that's what we call scenario number one that just shows for 2011 the $606,000 in cuts. In 2028, that's scenario number two. So if you look at the column for 2011, you'll see it has the scenario number one cuts of the 606,000. It assumes that Proposition 101 passes, so in 2011, we're going to lose revenues at a minimum of 265. That's our projection. Once this passes, could be more, could be less. So we keep that in mind as well. And we show additional cuts, again, to try to maintain revenues, exceeding expenditures as best we can of $202,000 in cuts. That's where the trash truck is. H-27 is scenario one plus the passage of 101. Correct. Okay. So you're cutting 800 and some 1000? Yes. Correct. Yeah, because you're still cutting the 600 and so on. And some of them are cuts and some of them might be delays in the purchase of capital. Oh. So we pull them out one year and then we put them back in. Put them back in. Yep. And are we ever going to talk about that? What type of proposed cuts? You know, we've done around the $600,000 and $1,000. And we don't want to bring it to that as specifically as we can. There. Scenario one, two, and three is again the combination of the cuts from Scenario one. It's 101 passing and those cuts and then it's the, if the transportation ballot question passes, that would give us another $357,000 in revenues towards transportation. In the scenario number one cuts of $606,000, there's $321,000 of transportation cuts. And again, we can walk through what those cuts are, what routes, what services. But we would add all of those back in under this scenario. Okay. And that what you just said is kind of significant because it shows us at least the direction which you still haven't been very clear about. The $606,000 with a cut of scenario one. The $606,000 with a cut of scenario one. 300, just using round numbers, $300,000 of that is transportation cuts, routes and other things that you'll tell us about. Okay, and then the next scenario is we're saying our best case scenario. That's we make the cuts, $606,000 under scenario one to balance the budget. The transportation question passes and we add back in those transportation cuts. And 101 fail. Yes, and 101 fail. So total cuts are 900 and 21, 27,000 or something like that. Well, it's a net of 300 because we cut 600 then we add back in 322. Okay, but then you still have a fund balance of 5.5. That's correct. That's correct. Well, problem is installed. Now you've cut $300,000. Yeah, but you're good. A fund balance of 5.5. Oh, sure. Sure. Yeah. Okay. That's a transportation passes. Okay. Are you ready now? I think they want to hear it. Well, hold it. I got a question then. Have all these scenarios you have, which one are you going to ask us to adopt? Is a budget? Are you, because we're going to have to make a vote to adopting one of these budgets, you know, we have this great presentation on the different options. Right. But are we going to adopt the best one or one or I mean let me take a step back. We're going to get to that in terms of the recommendation budget given what we heard from FAB. And it addresses the issue you're raising of you know, Y5.9 versus closer to 5. It also addresses the other thing we're trying to achieve is having expenditures below revenue. So we will do that and let's go to that slide. Which one? Well, the reality. Russ, the reality is we cannot pass a budget on the assumption that 101 fails or I mean that 101 passes. And now that's a ridiculous budget. You can't do that. So let me kind of go through and I think, Mark, you don't want to waste. This was all of the numbers that are in here for the general fund are based on scenario number one. Right. So you scenario one, let's you do that, is the point of comparison. And what you did with scenario one is you said, OK, we're upside down by $750,000. Expenses over income. We had to do something. Yep. So RIO 1 says, okay, the something that we're going to do is not $660,000, $600,000 out. Still have a deficit of $100,000, so what we're going to do. Right. So, again, let's take a look and I think Brandon just passed it out. Okay. So take one step back without any changes, any cuts in the, just went out. There it is. 728 was the number we were trying to work with. And again, you saw the fun balances if we didn't do anything. Those were the fund balances. If we didn't do anything, those were the fund balances. Going out to two, fifteen, scenario one, which we've just reviewed. Again, you recognize that $606,000 in cuts. And that gave you these fund balances as you went through 2015. And again, you notice the number we just looked at, which is 5.9. So what we said was how about we throw some things back in at least in 2011. So we did, looked at two things. Well, before I go there, let me look at the cuts. This is under scenario one that we've just reviewed. We had $321,000 in cuts and transportation services. And I think we should read that. Personnel reductions of $227,000. The FTA revenue cut, Maryann, could you explain that real quick? That is if we have cuts in some of the services, then David gets operational funding for, we may lose some of that funding. Why is it in a bracket that the council adds back to him? It reduces the amount of the cuts that are showing. It's revenue. It's revenue. You just said he may lose it. He may lose it. So you take it out of the cuts. You have to cut an additional $77,000 is what it's saying. You have to cut an additional 77,000. And then capital purchase deferral 13455O. Good chunk of that is deferring police car purchases. Is that 100% of that, Mary? Yes, that's not the truth. That's five police vehicles that would be pushed back to purchase two in 2012 and three in 2013. So that gives us a total of 600 and six. So the two questions I asked was operationally, we were trying to figure out how do we deal with the uncertainty of whether this transportation ballot passes or doesn't pass. And I asked, and again, the two major lines, and we probably need to describe this, we were proposing elimination of eight, and route two. Route two, David, connects. Go to page 22. We're just now focusing on just the transportation cuts that make up that 320,000. You said page 22? No, she's handing out a sheet for you. Thank you. Okay, so now we're going to talk about the, how you got to cut 300,000, 200,000, $21,000 out of the transportation. Correct. You're going to have to refresh my memory where all these routes go. Right, he goes to horse ranch and two goes up. I know, goes up on clay. Let's just pass. Go ahead. Go ahead. And describe these $320,000 because we can articulate this proposal very specifically. And David, if you could maybe run through that quickly. I wish I was sitting here under better circumstances. Because I know this is difficult and we all at best. All right. So what do these proposed cuts entail? Route eight service you know is the bus service that connects the mall to the rec center and horse ranch homes. Also includes Milton the subdivision because there's a way to not be dead ended there by going up Metro Road and coming down St. Clair Road. I'm going to just going to touch in these real quick. When a route service after nine o'clock, and let me one more caveat is that these are not in priority. These are just the way that we studied them. So it's not our recommendation to say 1, 2, 3, 4 and I'll get to that in a minute. When our service cut after 9 p.m. Basically is saying okay, a service cut that we can probably do and it would affect some of the least amount of people. So routes 1, 2, 3, 8 would end service in the winter season after 9 p.m. Creates a big hole, a lot of issues with people that are going to restaurants to have dinner and then trying to get home. Now they're driving, now they're not riding a bus. So it comes with some pain. When to route two service? When to route two service was chosen basically based on the lowest level of utilization if you will in an efficiency analysis. Route 2 is a core service that predates most of you even coming to this community. So this is a significant service cut and to a historical route structure. But in some of it is, Route 2 is the closest proximity to mall and base village, which makes it at least somewhat pedestrian friendly to commercial zones and to the ski area. So that's some of the thought process in that recommendation. Okay, where does Route 2 end? Route 2 ends at the Crestwood. It also does demand responsive service to the multi-family residences of Woodrun Place, Woodrun Five Chamony. Okay. That's my question. Then the summer floater is a very significant cut from an operational perspective because basically what's that what that is doing is it's preserving route 8 service to the rec center basically Along brush Creek Road and route three service along Al Creek Road to snow and the snowmass club and all the employee housing on Al Creek Road housing on Alcreek Road. But all the demand responsive service to the top of the village is Crestwood, Woodrun, Mountain View, Fairway, I mean the Timbers and Ridge condominiums, Route 1 properties of Woodbridge, Snowmass Mountain, season four, it strips that entirely out of the system and just gives you a fixed route system running on Brush Creek Road and Al Creek Road. Giving you 15 minutes service from the center to the mall, maybe one going up the outside to service the employee housing and the other coming up the inside to service base village. So know that that means that's every once every half power. This is a significant cut because it hits 20% of the staffing level in the summertime. So that begins to have ramifications on our ability to say do a Thursday night concert or a special event on the weekend because your staffing level has been cut significantly. But again, it at least leaves you with a core service on a fixed drought structure stretching from the cent rec center and the snow mass club area to the mall. Springfall floater cut, one of the simpler ones or easier ones, it just again strips away any demand responsive service to any other property other than those that are a long brush Creek road or Al Creek road. It's sort of an extension of the summer service cut. Cut the winner dialeride program. That's basically the dialeride program that is a subsidized cab service to all the properties within snowmass village that have a service starting and ending within snowmass. So if you want to go from the top of Wood Road to the Krablinek, that can happen for you and you don't have to have a car to make that happen. The last one is the cut to the winter late night service program. That was basically the 1 AM to 2 AM, trying to get people from the bars home safely so that we don't have any accidents with people that may have had too much to drink. To the village. It says, cut winter late night service to the village. It's from the village to the village isn't it? Yeah, it's all within the village. So that's yeah. So that said, all of these come, all of these are kind of rubbed, Peter pay, Paul a little bit in some of the ramifications that happen to the goal if you will for the transportation system within Snowmass Village. And if I can just back up a little bit, basically in the comp plan, going back almost to the creation of the community, there was sort of a Mendoza line created that we are not gonna allow traffic volume to increase and clog and congest our roads. We want to preserve the rural character of our community. Now that's subjective, but basically that meant we don't want gridlock, we don't want streams of traffic that go on forever and ever. Mechanism to accomplish that was we're going to manage and aggressively control the amount of public parking that exists within the community. And as one constraint, and then as the alternative, we're going to expand and increase the bus system. Now the bus system has grown over the years to address the growth within the community that has happened. And you can start thinking about subdivisions that have been added to the community since maybe you've come here. There's been the divide, there's been horse ranch, there's been pines, there's been two creeks, there's been expansion in the residential subdivisions that existed. There have been increases in multi-family residences throughout the village. That's Derbrook, Timbers, the club has expanded significantly. There's multi-family units associated with two creeks and pines. There's a homestead. So there's been a litany of multi-family housing that has been added to the inventory of the community that is not associated with the core area. And lastly, employee housing. Employee housing has grown as well. Mountain View has been added. All the crossings, daily town homes, there are employee units that are spread through commercial developments that you're approving, have approved just recently. There's also one of the key areas is the club villas. Even though it does not have direct onsite bus service, it is impacting a number of routes. And in a lot of cases, that was originally planned as very transit dependent employee housing. And so if it goes back to its historical use, plan as very transit dependent employee housing. And so if it goes back to its historical use, then it's a very big trip generator that is a pretty far flung from the core of the community. So that was sort, that was the goal and that is the growth that has happened and is impacting that goal for the transit system and for the community's values. As it relates to these service cuts, these all come very with a heavy heart, if you will, and I'm going to give you a quick shot of what I see as them as priorities. And I'm going to break them into three tiers, because that's the simplest way I could get my arms around it. In the first tier of cuts, we're basically looking at cutting winter-der-eyed service to the subdivisions. Cutting the late night service in the night. And then cutting the floater in the spring in the fall. Staff please that these three service cuts are probably have the least amount of impact to the activity within the ski area or the economy of the resort activity and still believes enough core service to our main charge. And let me back up for a minute. We are for efficiency sake, we focus on multifamily residences and high density. Bus service into a subdivision generally is less productive, but if you can conserve high density areas, you're more efficient. So that's the driving overall thought in a lot of this. Those cuts equate to about $75,000. The second tier of cuts that we would be recommending would be cutting And Raude again has the downside of being it is subsidized by federal funding that is for admin and operating assistance. We have not gotten a response from the state on what are you going to do if we cut services and how do you view that? They're getting the same request from many, many municipalities that have admin and operating grants and they're all facing the same situation. But the projection of 77,000 revenues is out of your $190,000 that we get in admin and operating subsidies. And we just use the service hours as sort of the basis for what they might look at and that is highly likely if they are physically constrained as well. So the two second tier of cuts route eight in the winter and we preserve route eight in the spring in the summer and so we save some of our grant funding. The second cut we would propose is cutting the night service in the winter from 9 p.m. on. Again, focusing on this is probably one of our smaller user groups. There's more capacity in parking areas because day visitors are gone, et cetera, et cetera. So there's a lot of rationale for that. But it literally means the service stops at 9 o'clock. Those two cuts represent $145,000. The last two proposals are in order would be cut route to in the winter. Because again based on proximity access to the ski area with ski and ski out access and pedestrian connections to commercial areas. And then lastly, the summer cut to the floaters. And that's the last one we go to because we're trying to grow business in the summer, not shrink it. And in a lot of ways, this is downsizing to prosperity. And I don't necessarily buy into that, but that's what it sure feels like. So we're trying to preserve the services that would be there for the group business or commercial guests that are coming to the community in the summertime. And most all of that is run by demand responsive service, so those are the floaters. Should be noted that once the fixed drought service ends at about seven o'clock, there is no service in snowmass in the summertime. This is one of the, one of the brow-Peter pay-pull things. You've created a lot of employee housing. You've trained a lot of employees. God bless them to ride on the bus and not drive their cars in your community. And now you're kind of taking a big step back from that. And that is why that service cut is kind of left to the very end because we're still trying to promote business within the resort community. That service cut, those two service cuts come to $170,000. All told, this is a service reduction, theoretical, if you will, based on hours of service, hours shift hours and miles, and this comes to a total of about $389,000, $390,000. So there is a little bit of play in it within the goals for the transportation measure, but bit of play in it within the goals for the transportation measure, but you have a lot of places where you have to backfill just to make things sort of palatable and still function for the community on a basic level. Let me just explain to a certain extent why you see some of these negative bracketed numbers in here and why the 321 doesn't add up to 350, 350,000. Basically, a lot of the capital maintenance elements in our budget proposal are subsidized out of rent. And so rent reimburses the general fund to a certain extent to offset, to maintain capital. That's gas, oil, parts and supplies, vehicle repairs, et cetera. So when you reduce these services, you also reduce the flow of funds that are being transferred from the red fund to the general fund for that capital maintenance. And that is what those kind of reflect. Questions for David? No, no, no, no. Good questions. John Wilkinson? Okay. Now, my philosophy has been that when we're making cuts, we make cuts equally across the board. And it looks to me that we were still maintaining three times an hour service on route one, four times an hour on three. Route four is continuous in the winter time in route five. We need to take a look at cutting those back to once every half hour in lieu of eliminating routes. You're talking about eliminating route eight. You know, I have to admit, I live on route eight, but it services a lot of the people that live in our community that work on the mountain, that depend upon that route. You know, if we're going to have pain, then I think pain needs to be shared equally across all routes. I think you I don't think it's as simple as dividing the pie and serving a slice to everyone. I think you have to look at it from a resort commercial model and where are dollars and where are where's the bed base, where are the efficiencies. And that's what I think you have to kind of focus on when you're looking at this kind of perspective. To take a driver and say, OK, you're going to make one run to route one. And then you're going to make one run to route two. Let's just use that as an example. Depersonalize it for you. Basically, it has been my experience that the success of this service is based on frequency. As an example, a route one person will stand there and if they see a four, they'll ride a four and get off at Al Creek Road and then climb up a very difficult set of stairs because frequency is the motivating factor for them. When you start thinking about our guests coming, skiers coming to the mountain, then you start saying, okay, they're tolerance to be able to climb those stairs is very reduced. So that's not a viable option for them to find the bus at that location. And they're very sensitive because they are not bus users in their own environment, that they are very sensitive to the service matching or being at least as good as a private vehicle. Also with that, again, the targeting for multi-family complexes is to boost the efficiency of the system. But there's also another benefit that happens to all the other residents of the community. When you can take more people out of their cars and don't have to build parking for them, the better off you are. So the density within, let's say Route 1, which is Snowmass Mountain, Woodbridge and seasons 4, and the number of units there, represented as cars that now would have to drive or would drive because they don't like the bus service of every half hour. They're coming to your numbered parking lots and you don't have the capacity there. So you have to be very judicious about what you pick and cut and what you pick not to cut because it will have a very significant impact on the infrastructure of the community. I'm not asking to cut the routes. What I'm asking is how much will we save by cutting back to twice an hour service? And I agree with your statements, but having four times an hour service to on route three to the club in three times an hour on these other routes, if we were to make them all twice an hour, how much are we going to save? That's the question I want to know with the answer to. Actually, it won't save anything because the driver is the driver. So the driver can make the driver under the best circumstances. This is how it's structured. This is why we're moving to low-floor technology and vehicles, et cetera, et cetera. The headways for these routes by congestion and demand are starting to be eroded. Route one runs on a 20-minute route. One man driving in 20 minutes, getting any hamsters as fast as he can go. In the peak hour, it fails, and we back it up with other services to keep departure points on time and that's how we make that work. Now wait a minute, hold on. The point being is that to say just go there once every half hour isn't going to save the manpower. He would have to then go, let's say go to route two. Do half our loop to route one, do a half an hour loop throughout two. Quite frankly, I'd almost tell you you maybe just shouldn't run the service. Because at a half hour service in a winter condition is not going to meet your customers' expectation. Thank you for nodding your head. Marky, read then. I have a real feeling. I don't understand, but these guys want to jump into the same conversation, I think. And then, Aron. Okay, I'm going to start Dave with committing you for the hard work you've done on police together. I think it's, you've spent a lot of time at summarized on one page, but it's very significant in terms of the cuts. I will not sit here and have a conversation about cutting service and trying to maintain a $5.9 million fund balance. So I think that what we need to say at this point is we're not interested in cutting $321,000 at all, out of the budget to sustain a fund balance of $5.9 million. So that's where I am on this issue. Let's go back to the previous slide then. There's other rail. That's all very nice, but some of us may not agree with that. I was just going to say I agree with Marky and I also feel like we're kind of going about this, maybe my brain works differently, but I feel like we're kind of going about this, maybe my brain works differently, but I feel like we need to decide if we're going to dip into that money and then we're going to figure out where it's coming from rather than the other way around which seems to be the exercise that we're currently involved in. Great, Arnie. Well, I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that there are some things one could look at that might make some adjustments here, not necessarily as drastic as you suggested, but might make some adjustments. Let's talk about route two because it's the one I personally know most about. So I lived at the Crestwood for 14 years. It seems to me that, and I understand the historical significance of that, but that historical significance, it just when the Crestwood was basically the only piece of property over there, and there weren't that many properties on the other side. And we didn't have a base village parking lot, we didn't have a base village parking lot, and we didn't have a base village complex, and we certainly didn't have a skittles running up and down the hill. It was extremely painful when living there to see the bus come through every 20 minutes, and nobody on it, and nobody getting off. And that's significant during the day. It was also painful when you see three or four crestwood vans parked in front of the office there and you go down and you say hey can you take me over to the mall or the center and they say well the bus will be here in five minutes. So what's happened, and this is really the point I want to make, is that some of these properties that we're supposed to and do have transportation for their guests and their residents have shifted that burden to us, because we're supplying it. Isn't it nice? I mean, you don't have to put somebody in a van They can hire one less person perhaps Certainly pay for less gas Thereby it looks better we're in trouble I think we can look at some of those kinds of things I think we could look at route to and say and I don't know if this would even work but okay from and say, and I don't know if this would even work. But okay, from eight o'clock in the morning or eight 30 in the morning. And the other thing, by the way, let me just dig rest room in. The other thing, by the way, is from seven o'clock or whenever the thing starts at Route 2. What are we? Who are we transporting? We're transporting the employees that are coming up the valley on the raft of us and using our bus to get to their job. That's all very nice. But what's wrong with Crestwood going down and getting their employees? Again, shifting the budget. So I'm wondering whether you can, on these terribly inefficient routes, like Crestwood, like the route too. Like Crestwood. Like the Brow 2. Cut it to 7 to 9 in the morning and 6 to 9 at night or something like that. And save some money, you're not cutting it out altogether, but you can save some money, you can put somewhere else. And then you don't have to make the drastic cuts in some of these other places. Because just because we're going to dip into our fund, or not maintain the 5.5 million, go to 5 million, doesn't necessarily mean we can't look at this and say, you know what, hard budget times, we need to make these adjustments anyhow. I don't know what the numbers would be. But I think there's some something we could do. And back to John. I mean, even dipping into the 5.5 or whatever number we have, we still don't have a sustainable number going forward. So we have to look at cuts in some manner. Let me also remind you you've got a ballot question for 357 for transportation. And again, you know, it's to preserve transportation services. These are essentially the services that we're suggesting that certainly would be preserved through. You may have different ideas, but you want us to go back to another page. We'd like to go back because I don't think we've given you now the building blocks. I haven't answered your questions. We'll take a break. We'll take a break now for 10 minutes. With that. I think I'd like to go through this one final scenario that gets to the questions that I think are being framed. So again, as John was just saying, we've got a $728,000 issue if we did nothing in 11. In the base case scenario, scenario one, we were looking at 600 and 6, included the 321 that David just discussed, through 27 in personnel, and then 134 in capital purchases, and then the 77 in revenue change. So given the reasons you just said, we said, okay, what can we do, particularly in 11? And we looked at two things. One, taking all the full time personnel that were proposed as cuts and taking them out that 20,246 still includes one part time person in the winner. 2546. One part time. That's one seasonal winter position. Okay. That would still be proposed as a cut. The 155 that's saying let's continue to run all our bus surfaces through the winter season, take it through the end of the ski season in April, and then begin the cuts at that point. There's a cost to that. There's a cost that's certainly not making the personnel cuts, but then looking at the fund balances. In 2011, that takes us to 5.1, 5.2535455. You could argue in your next statement could be, well, could you throw a little bit more in? You could throw a little bit more in the context of 111-77. If you just wanted to look at the 5 million, but these seem like prudent fluctuations in terms of giving us a little bit more time to look at what the economy may do. Still getting us and again you want to emphasize we're trying to get to a sustainable budget of dealing with that 728 in preserving basic services through the winter season and hopefully from a personnel standpoint giving us one more full year to say is the economy getting better. So this modified scenario one is what we would propose as a budget. But that does not take into account that if the bond measure passes, the ballot measure, excuse me, passes, you don't have to make the $105,000. Correct. So, let me good question, Ernie, if the transportation would pass, we wouldn't need to touch that transportation services. That would not be a cut. Likewise, if Proposition 101 did pass, there's one additional cut that would occur here that would be a trash truck for $171,000 that we would defer for one year. Now, Hunt, I don't want to talk about that. There are some implications. That's a truck that may go down at any time. And we probably would then would suggest there's that vehicle replacement in the general fund to you. So again, this does a couple things. I think it gets us to a sustainable budget. It allows us to keep people run the bus service through the winter. And again, I think is still financially prudent. The personnel cut without, I don't know who it is. What kind of service are we cutting? We're losing. What isn't the community getting that it would have gotten if it didn't have this? You know, are we talking about, okay, we're not going to write as many parking tickets or are we talking about, we're not going to have a police chief? No, I mean, it's more obviously the point is not more related to. But more in the category of fewer parking. Okay. Okay. Okay. So how does Council feel about this modified scenario one? Can we take a break and come back and discuss it? Okay. Good place to go, too. Ten minutes. Let's try it. Well, actually, let's try to get back here at 10 to 11. So eight minutes or so. Yes. And in the spirit of honoring the FAB recommendation of that 5 million, we're still sitting at a fund balance of 5-1. We're delaying the issue around transportation until we see what the ski season and have greater data points as to revenue coming in, more excise tax, all of our sales tax, etc. That one part time seasonal person I'm fine with that and the capital delay if something happens we've got a capital fund that we can pull out of as a contingency. So I think it makes the most sense. And if you look at it over through 2015, you're looking at maintaining that fun balance given whatever happens all the way up to 5.5. So I think the staff has done a great job just really revisiting this. So that's where I am. It took us a little while to get there, but we wanted you understand the building blocks. I think I agree with Markey John Bultison As far as well, we'll talk about this scenario one. How do you believe should we be looking at this? Even more modified or different? I just have a concern about the sustainability of the long run, even at 3% increase in revenues over projected over the next few years, we're still going to be in a whole trying to pay back some of this backfilling that we're going to need to do. And, you know, hard choices are going to have to be made at some point, even at a 3% increase in budget. You know, I'm willing to accept what Mark and Reid agreed to at this point and wait until a future date, but I'm afraid waiting just pushes off the hard decisions to a later date. Question for you, John. I just want to clarification. You're saying replacing. I guess the fundamental question behind that statement is why are you replacing when you're maintaining the fund balance greater than 5 million. Is our goal to get it back up to 5559? No, I'm afraid it continues a downward trend. Just because at some point, we're going to have to buy the police cars. At some point we're going to have to. Have a comprehensive agency. We can close it. Just to be clear, all the cuts, you know, we've simply in 2011 and this, we've pushed it back the significant personnel related cuts and a portion of the transportation are still there in the out years in scenario and modified scenario one. So again, we would still, if nothing changed in the economy and we were having this budget discussion next year, we're still looking at those transportation cuts, we're still looking at those personnel cuts if the economy doesn't improve. So that discussion is probably going to happen in March as we look at this to say, OK, April 15th coming up and 14th and we're not seeing the trend going up, I think we're comfortable with this scenario in 2011. Right. The issue with making coming to John's point is that if nothing improves, or nothing fundamentally changes, we're still looking at cuts in 12, 13, 14, 15. Yeah, but, but, but, but, well, and it's compounded. Oh, it's not, no, it's not, not always, it's not compounded. It's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it We've started out pretty well. You've increased this fund balance by $30,000 and you're still $200,000 over where we said you should be. Right. Plus we'll know what's going on with all the ballot stuff. Right. So you have $489,000 where the cuts that you need to make. You have $200,000 more in fund balance than we've told you. We want you to have. So your cuts at best is 289. And who know, and if in fact the ballot question passes, you don't have any. The same is true about the 2012, a 13. And in 2014, in 2015, you're actually going to have a positive. I mean, it's a good discussion of what you could put back in. And that assumes just a very modest change. Right. So I don't agree, John, that we're putting it off for a later. I also did all in with the marquee reading. I guess, Arnie, that this modified Staria 1, I think, is the appropriate direction to take on. Yeah, but I still think that we need to do. We need to look at the transportation departments. Yes. Activity. I think we picked up Slack where, or maybe, you know, what was, you know, 50 years ago, it was really important to run the bus out to the ranch that was out the end because they couldn't get in and all that sort of stuff. But today, that ranch is empty. But why are we still running the bus out? You understand the analogy. Okay. So we had more presentation discussions as we go as we always do it. Great. So is that a consensus of consult to move forward? Do we need a motion on the last model? No, I don't think we need motion on this. Okay. We're just looking to draw on the total. Okay. So I'm being the total budget. Two things before we continue to move on. I do have August sales tax figures. August is up 3.39%. So we're still below 2009 actual by 0.88%. And sales taxes. The second thing is the emergency contingency. I'm reading here and it says- This is the table language basically. This is the table language. The table language says emergency excludes economic conditions, revenue shortfalls, or district salary or fringe benefit increases. It says there have been diverse interpretations proffered by various legislators ranging from the most strict emergency should only include sudden and unexpected acts of God to the most creative. Emergency may include events such as the turn back of state mandates by local governments. Ultimately, no definition was included in the bill at all. Mostly due to political impasse over how to treat the issue, apparently the state will determine in declare emergencies on a case-by-case basis. The state will declare it. I think for that. And then we'd have to determine our emergency. We'd have to declare an emergency. It's emergency. Okay, so then, I guess are there any other questions on any of the pages that we have in here on the general fund? Okay, we take the page 41. Thank you for the pay for the one. No, yes. The only other thing that I should probably point out is, and it was in the budget transmittal too, was we did reduce, if you remember last year, grants for health and human resources, we had them reduced from 61 to 40,000. And we left the 40,000 in through the remaining budgets through 2014. So I left it at 40, but if you want to go back to 61, that would be a change. And where would they come from? It would come from the remaining $5,177,000 leftover and fund balance. You know, it really does. Under the modified. I'm going to cut the bus. I would say we go back up. I would probably be different. I'd probably say maintain the 40. I'm agreeing with Mark Ely and his times, these services are more necessary than ever. Before I would go there, I would like to hear from the Grants Review Board on what the implications are because it is. I could go there, but I want to hear more from the Grants Review Board on exactly what they could do with that money, what it would mean to the community. We heard last year when they went down to 40 what the impact was. Obviously, it's going to have an impact, but I would say at 40. Yeah, because we are cutting salaries, we're cutting things and the grant, we're not given raises. And my priority, I think, is personally taking care of our people. We don't have to go out and find grants for them. So I understand everybody's hurting. And I just don't feel good giving away more another 20k that we used to be able to do. One time's a better, you know, and it's hard. I think we have to take care of our own for a bit. I think that money does go to some of our own. They are using these services. Good. Yep, I can echo that. Good. So how do we want to proceed with that discussion? That's up to you guys. If there's a consensus to put it, put back in the additional additional 21,000 we'll put it in before budget adoption. John, what do you know? Are we? What do you want to do? I'll go with the 40. Okay. Let's do the 40 for now. I disagree. Okay. It's three to two. Okay. Okay. Okay, then are you ready for the real estate transfer tax fund? Sure. Okay. Okay. Okay. Then are you ready for the real estate transportation? Sure. Okay. That is page 43. And I was going to open up this with talking about the federal, the FTA funding. But then yesterday we got the answer that we had to make some cuts. And so the budget before you assumes that in the years 2012 through 15 we were going to receive 238,000 in federal funding, plus an additional around 44,000. Now it's been reduced to a total of 100,000 in all of those years. In 2011, we had to cut the whole 238,000, because we know we're not going to get that. But Dave does have some other grants in there and it's a possibility that we might get some additional grant funding. So I'm not sure that it's worthwhile to look at this fund. What's in your packet right now. I put together what it's going to look like with the reduced funding. Do you have that, Brandy? And again, this is just recent information we got in the last 24 years. Yeah, this is as of yesterday. But hold on, I'll say why aren't you good? Brandy is passing that out. I don't miss this question. Although it affects the red fund because the red fund pays this now and wouldn't have to pay so much, the fact is that someplace we're going to have $200,000 less money to spare. I guess you could say, okay, well we got to cut that out of the transportation budget, we can go back and cut out Rude Aid again. Or we're going to put the red fund further in debt. Is that what our alternatives are? All right. Go ahead. You know, I think, you know, we had a budget here that was getting to balance, still using contingency last year or this year and next year. But now we've got a kind of solution to that. Do we have the solution today? Probably not. But the variables are, do we get more revenue than anticipated and read? That's an easy one. Or are we reducing expenditures? And again, that could be, you know, there's three things that this funds, essentially recreation programs, parks and trails, and then the third capital replacement for buses. So you have those three areas, essentially look at in terms of reducing expenditures. And the third thing that I've already asked David, and he's been already thinking about it, is you can defer bus replacement. Again, the other part of that is when you defer heavy equipment, you've now increased maintenance issues and potentially increased the risk that you don't have a vehicle to use. So I think between those three, we would need to bring you some solid solutions. If you had thoughts on it today, we certainly would welcome them. But given this recent change in the last 24 hours, don't presume to have a concrete solution to give to you today. But we owe you that solution. So those three variables you're looking at to fill that gap. So this just shows you that we're still balanced in 2011. And if you go to the next page, Brandy, we're still balanced in 2012. In 2013, we're showing a negative 42,000 in funds available, 2014, 120, 2015, 794,000. What we can either, before adoption, take a look and say, okay, well, we're just going to show the buses as cuts. Or to make it simple, we can just say, well, we're just going to reduce the contingency for now while we're trying to figure out so that we do adapt a balanced budget. Which means that the contingency in 2015 would drop down to 175,000 and then the funds available would drop down to 30,000. We would still have 540,000 in capital equipment reserves, so we could also use some of those funds to fund a buses. So we have options, it just that at this moment we don have all the answers, and we will over this next year. The other thing is, as far as real estate transfer taxes, we started out with a budget of 689,000, an adopted budget number. In June, I increased that number to 1 million. And for this budget, I had increased it to 1,264,000. We are right now at 1,327,000 so we are through today exceeding our budget by $64,000 in real estate transfer taxes. So again, if pardon? More than that, isn't it? No. And so we know that we'll end the year, hopefully with some additional funds, whatever we received from now through December. My budget next year is a million to 50. So, you know, I was basically going flat. The FAB was, they approved our revenue projections and even at the time Rick Griffin said, yeah, you'll meet your budget, but we didn't know we would exceed it by now. So. We're having trouble falling. Where's the 1.2? I'm not saying. Where's the 1.2 oil? Yes, it's 1.3. Well, can you go to the extras slides? I have the breakdown of revenues and expenditures, which brings us all up. Well, it's not the breakdown. We just can't find it. They're not in the packet. Not in the sheet she just gave out. Did you handle? No. That's the summary. That's the budget summary. Did you see the budget in this number? That number, we just don't know where you're talking about. No, yeah. Okay. So here, this shows the 2010 budget. You can see the red revenues is 689. I increased the budget to $1,264. In 2011, it's $1,250. And then 2012, $1,5,2,2,2, and two. Well, that doesn't match what you gave us. Yeah, that's true. I don't understand that. Okay, look, in 2011, according to this piece of paper, the budget summary you're talking about? Yeah. It says revenues, $ paper, the budget summary you're talking about? Yeah. Yeah. It says revenues, $1,321,000. $1,321,870. That's what it says. You want to take a look at what they're doing? Yeah. Maybe that's why we're having all this trouble. We're just not talking about the same numbers. Let me look at that. We're not. Not even close. She just... It's just $70,000. What's that about, friends? I want to be your friend. Yeah. I like to be my friend. $470,000, I will be your friend. No, I know what he's looking at. I'm just trying to find why that. Why it's different. Yeah, why it's different. Because it should equal the backup. Oh, I'm what we handed out because it's without the FTA money. Okay. Which is without the FTA money. The budget summary that you have that Brandy just handed out shows that the FTA money is not in there. Okay. Well, that's even worse than because the revenue 2011 of $1.25 million. I'll see that. That's $1,559,000. Did you hand out these backups? OK, this is for the budget that's in your packet now. OK. So now the budget summary that we just pulled up is without the federal funding so that I wanted to show you that the opposite. Because it's 1 million, right now it's 1,559,000. And in the revised packet, it's 1,321,000. So it's without the 238,000 federal funding. It's a bottom line number. Are we looking at the same thing? Now it makes sense. Okay. Well, this thing is useless. But any event, the current proposed 2011 revenues, not proposed, but assumed revenues that you have in the budget, is one without the grant is $1.3 million. And you know, but you don't know, but if trend continues, that's going to be a little more. Because you know that in 2010, you got some $60,000 so far over. And if you use the same budget starting point. Yeah, the fund balance will increase. And so will the very next year. Right. Hopefully next year. Yep. How did you land? Okay. Okay. I really want to understand the 1.3. How did you land on that number? What scientific methodology did you use or did Rick Griffith say well that's just what we think is going to have? Well the 1.3. Go back to that slide please. Well the 1.3 included if you look at the revenue sources okay. So for 2011 it's 1,250. In order to come up with the 1,264 at the time I did this budget, I used what we had received to date through July, which was $1.1 million. And we were averaging about $159,000 per month in real estate transfer tax revenue. So I said, okay, if I- I think over a month over a month or was it a trend? Per month, just on average. On average. On average. So I took the 1 million one divided it by seven months, came out to 159. And I said, okay, if I assume 150,000 for all the remaining months, that got me to 1 million six. Okay. Okay, now just in terms of satisfying my mind in terms of, and I understand why you did what you did. And it's conservative, but did you see, so you had seven months and drew the average, but within that, when you first looked at it, did you see a print line? So it was almost zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, in January, February, March, April, May, and then all of a sudden you started to begin to see a... Well, they actually... They started out slow. In January, it was 76,000. In February, it was 30,000. March was a big month, but it had that 100,000 in there. That was 335. April was 225. That had a big payment of 90,000. May was 124,000. Nothing really big. Just a number of sales. And June was 137,000, again, just normal sales. And in July 171, there was a pines of 90,000. So to me, it's normal because it just kind of fluctuates. We usually have some big sales throughout the year. In the past, it seemed like I was budgeting not only resales, but I was also budgeting for new development sales. But this next year is basically just resales. That's what I have budgeted. And again, I always hope that I'm conservative and that it comes in better Still optimistic but you know Okay, it's good assumption and you've talked to Rick about the trends of real estate sales and how in the fall sometimes they don't quite you know Matching and so you know again. I'm or I've already exceeded budget I know that. Yeah, and so, you know, again, I've already exceeded budget. So if we had no more sales between now and the end of the year, I'm already there. For $20, 10. For $20, 10. If you have another one in the mines coming up here in a few days, then that's not $20, 11. That's not $20, 11. But $20, 11 is based on $20, 10, is that right? That's correct. It's based on it's it's even a little bit less it's like 14,000 dollars less than 2010 I just rounded Yeah, because it wasn't really like 1,264 How did you come up with that? What's the size behind that? That's why I rounded it. Okay now we with those Okay, move on Well that's the income side. There's still the obvious route here that you're not seeing anything from base village. So again, we that's conservative. And you're projecting that for a couple of years. All the way. I do not have anything. So again, if we can. We'll be fine now. So page 45. Yep the little chart you have for us here. Yes. It's showing that number has not changed. Buses account for 42% of the budget or $1,38,000. Transfers out for transportation costs, those are what David had spoke to earlier, those bracket numbers. The rep fund reimburses the general fund for operating and maintenance costs of the rolling stock, and that's parts and supplies, vehicle gas and oil. They had accounts for 24% of the budget or $593,000. The transfer out from the fund to the general fund for landscaping costs, that's 10% of the budget or $243,000. The transfer out that covers the recreation facility and the recreation program. That's 21% of the budget. That's 514,000. And then there's some additional transportation expenditures within the budget. And I can go through that detail with you. That's 2%, that's about $60,000. So if you were to lump all of the transportation costs, the capital costs, the rolling stock costs, and then their miscellaneous costs. They expend 68% of the total expenditure budget, and then the remaining is 32%, which is recreation facility landscaping in the recreation program. So I guess my question is, is that sustainable? If we're spending 2448 and, can you go back to the summary? We only have the revenues of that, or is there money already there? I don't, I'm just not seeing a chart that makes sense. Yeah, we're gonna go, she's gonna pull back up the summary. Okay. Yes. Yeah, we're gonna go, she's gonna pull back. Which one is that? Oh summary. It might be interesting for us to know in dollars because we can't talk about percentages and as much as it's really spread over two different funds. One's the general fund and one is the red fund. But what the heck is it costing us to run this bus service in this town? Dollars a year? Actually, I have a slide. You can do that. I assume you can. There's a 68 percent rat. That's a whole big chunk. And then it's a big chunk out of general fund. Remember, though, the red is a general fund. Well, but it's relatively small number, relatively small. Okay, now this is just for operations. This doesn't include the capital costs of the buses. And I'm making the whole work. Okay, so we're at expenditures of 3 million and say the buses are anywhere from 800 to in 2015 it goes up to 1.5 million. So for 2011 it's at a million dollars to the 3 million so about 4 million. And that's a net number because they pointed out that there's a transfer. No that's gross. That's gross number. If you look up here, here's the revenue that we have coming in. But if you were to really look at it, the real estate transfer tax, the priority is for transportation capital. So that revenue source for the million dollars in expenditures. So if you add the million dollars for the buses to this, you really have to add in a million dollars from the real estate transfer tax because that's for that purpose. But- That's not the question. The question isn't, is that where it's supposed to be spent? It clearly is supposed to be spent there. I want to know, how much is it costing us every year? Four million. We have- Four million. 4 million bucks. For 2011. I'm going to go back to the summary. On the summary page, and I think you've got it in front of you, you can see that we have the contingency line in there. It was 2 million in 2009 and when we adopted the 2010 budget, we had proposed to use $225,000 out of those contingency funds. We also had proposed to use more of that over the next five years, just keeping the basic service that we had in our 2010 budget throughout 2015. And I think it had dropped down in the original budget down to like $300, $400,000. When I put the budget together before the news from yesterday, I said, well, rather than have it fluctuate every year, I'll just keep it at a million throughout the years and see if that's sustainable. And it was. So when Reed asks, how are we paying for it? It's the contingency in whatever was available and funds available to hopefully get us through this rainy day period. Thank you. Hopefully get us through. And in 2011, you're proposing to use three quarters of a million dollars of that. That's correct. Okay. So it brings it down there. Okay. Okay, so really one and one of the things we need to talk about here then is the rec center. And Hunt is here and he's prepared to talk about that. So again, FAB, two parts of their recommendation. One challenging us to look at. Could we operate it at the levels we did this year, more closer to 400,000 than it has been up to 600,000. So these guys did a great job of controlling costs, but the challenges could we do it. The other part though is kind of over the long term, and we can begin that discussion, but they wanted to have Hunt and Andy go back to them and talk about what is that number to shoot for over the long run. Right. Brandy's going to hand out another worksheet. It's called the transfer in, Rhett. You know, I put the budget together and then I think, oh, you know, they might want to know this. They might want the detail on this. So then that's what I call my extra worksheets. And you're all color. Colorful. That's why. Well, this one is because it's so many different sources, but this one is going to give you a breakdown of what gets transferred out from the real estate transfer tax into the general fund and for what purposes. And then I can point out the numbers that the financial advisory board was zeroed in on today. So let's go to 2011 proposed column for our landscaping parks and trails program that's in the general fund. 222,761 is being transferred into the general fund. There's no income that comes into offset. So that's the contracts we have for people taking care of graphically, that's the, go ahead. That's the Parks and Trails maintenance. That's two employees, Pam and Christian, all the trail maintenance, the limited trail maintenance that do all of the parks and gardens that they take care of. And yes, it is the contract service that takes care of the entryway currently. And I guess the question I've had from time to time is, would it be better for us to hire more people? And you come back saying no, it's better to do the contracts, pay the money to the contract or then have our own people pushing the lawnmowers. Yeah, I've had this conversation pretty much in depth for the last year and the reason that we have the contract service in place right now is that entryway project was under warranty. It was easier to have them on site. So yes, we can look at that in moving forward with our own staff. I think we'd have to weigh the cost on that. Just in my own simple thinking, it makes sense to me to hire somebody at a you know $15 an hour rate or where you know and have them push the lawnmower versus paying somebody $35 an hour, but then we've got to put on our each year we kind of go through that and actually I think it does make sense to actually an bid our own crew against An outside contractor to see who's the cheapest and if the outside contractor is better than we would choose him. We wanted to retain some staff because we also have this wintertime trails maintenance that we will have one person on this winter with and plus just for stuff that comes up all during the week, it makes sense to have the two people that we have now. But as far as additional services or flip-flopping, who takes care of what, we always would look at the outside contract versus their own staff and actually right at the moment and we'll probably bid it out again. We've had landscape workshop for the reasons Andy mentioned because they were the original contractor of the entryway. We'll probably bid it out in the spring and see if they're the ones or somebody else. And we might change how it all works. It could be that we'll take Pam and Christian or Parks and Trailscrew and have them maintain the whole entryway and then contract. We'll probably look at it both ways. Have them contract up potentially doing all the things that they used to take care of this year, which are all of the gardens. Okay. Long, brush creek road. Kathy Robinson Park, the limited amount of maintenance we're doing in the numbered lots. We call it council corner, but it's really brush creek and out creek that old garden. We might flip-flop it. Just whatever efficient supplies works best. And since we're in that conversation, there's one thing I wanted to mention as far as parks and trails go. Andy and I have looked at this and you can't tell it in numbers because we're just going to manage it a little bit differently this coming summer. This summer we have very limited trail maintenance maybe four hours a week which hardly anybody would notice because the trails are all overgrown. We had a really a great bunch of volunteers out there doing parts of the trails. Last year we didn't have any trail maintenance. So what we're going to do this year is balance it out. We'll probably do less maintenance on parks and gardens throughout the town and the less visible places. Using the same two people, no increase in budget and take BAM and Christian and have them out on the trails more, the trails that would normally maintain. That doesn't count the trails that are on the mountain. Okay. Who handles the paved surfaces? The Fox Red Trail coming off of Fox Red and down to Sinclair is kind of a... There is deferred asphalt maintenance. It comes out of the budget. There's no money in there. There's no money to pay for it. So we've just not done any asphalt overlays on any of our commuter trails that are paved today. We'd love to, but we don't have the dollars. Well, at what point do we tip? So what point because we didn't maintain them, said now cost us a small fortune because we got to go back now and spare them all out. And years you mean? Yeah. I can't tell exactly in years. I know. Well we do that analysis within the road fund we're doing the roads and because as you know once you get let them get to a particular point that to deteriorate then it's going to cost you two and a half times as much as the two years earlier done in overlay. We should do that analysis on the trails we haven't done it, so I can't tell you the tipping point. Well, and along with that, you know, there's some of the parks like Mayfly Park, you know, Mayfly Trail. It's completely overgrown. It's almost unsafe for someone to go in. It is. Unfortunately, we don't have the money to go in and clear that out. And yes, our ne what'll happen is in a couple years when we can it'll cost twice as much. But we just did that. We did it. Those will. And a lot of money. Those wills, well, yeah, we probably created Mayfly Mark maybe six, seven years ago. And we just spent a lot of money. I remember was a couple of years ago, two, three years ago, just three years ago. Three doing it? How long ago was that long ago? Did we cleared it? You mean, yeah. Yeah, we did. We cleared it about three years. Mike Seagrister, you know, when we went back and and Pound footage? Yeah, and or can we do things like establish a volunteer trail days like once a month where we get community members like, you know, not just throwing work outdoors, folks, but have, you know, town must village council day, you know, bring your friends and your clippers and we're going to show you what to cut in. Yeah, absolutely. And Pam and I have actually worked on that. We did one in conjunction with outdoor volunteers. The first weekend in June, it was a high line and low line trail. And yes, we would have liked to done two of accomplished more in the volunteer aspect. But with Pam's other duties, it was kind of hard to put that together. We have it in place, and we are looking to do it. We had a gentleman from the community calling actually ask about Mayfly if he can go down there and pretty much start cutting. We said, yeah, go ahead. We can clear it out for you after it's cut, but that didn't turn out. It was only one guy. Right. So I think if we can schedule those things ahead of time like you know It's our months next year. We're gonna look at the July first weekend We're gonna look at the August first weekend. We're gonna look at and some people can plan Yeah, I think I'd like to push those Absolutely and Pam does do that, you know with with the Christmas tree lighting right, you know the lighting the lights up and the takedown So I do have a lot of people come to me say hey I'd like to help I'd like to volunteer some time. Absolutely. When can I do that so if we can say here's the time you can do that. We will definitely help plan. I think I think that's an excellent point Billy. On the other hand we also need to get at a program for the asphalt repayment because it's getting pretty bad throughout the town. So I think we should task staff with what that plan might be. John, do you have any trails thoughts? Well, I hear people say, come out and help at the end of the day, people don't. We've had a few volunteers out there, including me with my own guest-baller weed whacker and clearing out some of the trails and it makes a big difference though when you do that, it's just it would be great if we could have more people help out instead of, you know, one or two of us out there doing it. We have a very active trails community and, you know, some of the other mobilizing them and getting them to do some of this work on our trails because really the trails are as much a road for our community as the roads are. Right, so it's massive. Yeah, and letting them get to the deteriorated state they have been this year has been difficult and the trail going up from mountain view up to the rim trails has been particularly overgrown. It would be great to get our trails back to a usable standard. So I'm all for trying to get volunteers, but I just know what it's like. I think he said this next year, they're going to look at focusing more time on the trails, not the parks as much what they can do. I don't think it would take all that much work on the single track trails. Because Scott, Gordon from El Pine Bank Invariably, I see him out there one day a week with his pick and shovel and working on the trails as a volunteer. So there's this, in fact, I think having reduced budget had brought back a lot of volunteerism into our trails maintenance program, which is applaudable. So yeah, it wouldn't take that much more work to have some of our main important trails. Once or twice a year somebody go through and just brush them out. I think I see a lot of people in the community and tourists, locals and tourists using those trails, I think it brings them back. So I think, right, we need to focus on time. I agree with the whole volunteer thing and what if I agree that if it were easier to go ahead and volunteer, that would be one method of getting people out there to help? What if we did something like the on the highways where the people you get your little sign for picking up the trash based on different businesses? And I know that the Rotary Club does the nature trail. But what if we had an adopt the trail program to get different groups of people to do different trails? Great idea. That is a great idea. And actually in the plan that Pam and I are working on, it has that in there. We have adopt a trail, we have adopt a garden, you know that type of stuff. Unfortunately, we just have not been able to implement it. No, it's restricted funds. You know, just a great idea a great idea and it was, sometimes just chatting about what Susan about is seeing if we can have more of a coordinated volunteer program whether it's for special events, Dr. Park, Dr. Trail. And it might mean, you know, at the end of the day, we develop a little bit of a package for that and hopefully we're saving significant dollars, but we might have to invest in some t-shirts or something to entice people to do it. So, love it and we'll follow up on this. And the other component to that though is that ski company is spending a lot of money on building new trails. And they just completed the new one at El Camp. Just yesterday I got an email from Steve Rauch. That's another three miles of trails that they're building. So there's that coordination of effort out there that we developed a coordinated program with ski company years ago where we would pay their employees to do the maintenance on the town system and that's been very advantageous. And that still exists, doesn't that, huh? The agreement, derangedment, we have a ski company to do the maintenance? Yes, but it's not budgeted for 2011. Let's go back to our budget here and look at that stuff. Historically, a few years ago when we were flush, we basically budgeted $50,000 a year for a ski company personnel to actually maintain the on-mount rail. So it was about $25,000 in the spring, $25,000 in the fall. That got reduced to 30,000 so in the last couple of years we've been paying $30,000 out of the rent fund to maintain the on-mount trails. Essentially the West Side trails, none of those dollars even this year went to the ones that are in El Camp because that was a part of their approval. It's just the West Side of trails over on the Sam's knob and in the 2011 budget there are no dollars budget. We've had conversations with this ski company about how we might work that out and they're sort of in flux. But we have $30,000 in the budget for trails. Not for the speed company. Not for the speed company. That's $30,000 to be clear what's the $30,000 for. Because I did see a $30,000 place for me at Marker and New York. There was $30,000 in the budget in 2010. But in 2011 through 2015, it is no longer in there. We need to put it back in. Well, there's 10,000 in there. No, that 10,000 was, we actually, a rich, through all of those years, we had it in the CIP fund. And in 2010, we said, it's not not a capital improvement project, it's maintenance. So we moved the 30,000 up into the operations as an annual expenditure for 2010. The 10,000 that's the transfer out capital projects, that was for the completion of the entryway program that had to do with the plaz and deeds and all of that for that project. So in 2011 through 2015 we have a sheet that has all of the detail for the expenditures. The 30,000 is not in there. So we have a short fall with maintaining trails. And I think to create realistic expectations in terms of shifting time from part maintenance to trails, what expectations we just give in that shifting. Oh, well, on the trails, the town is historically maintained. Not the on-mountain trails. shifting. Oh well on the trails the town is historically maintained not the on mountain trails. Right. We bump it from four hours a week to maybe 16 to 20 hours a week with family Christian throughout on the rim trail all the trails the town is normally taking care of that we we don't what we do is jeopardize taking care of parks and gardens if we try to actually take them and go do everything the ski company did they use they use a crew of five you know, per month and a half in the spring and a month and a half the fall. So that doesn't include that. It's just the trails that we normally maintain, but not the ones that we pay the ski company. I think we need to think about the ski company. I think we need to get that 30,000 back in the budget in some manner. Because it's important. You both think we should pay the ski company to maintain the trails that are on the hill? Not where their lifts are running. On the west side where there are no lifts served. Right, right. They're trails on their mountain. They're not strictly for... No, I understand they're not strictly for them, but they're trails up on them. Right, right. Which we've historically for them, but there are trails up on them. Right, right. Which we've historically have done, but they've also maintained the trails off the mountain as well. But the 30 grand, if you understand. Let's make sure we all are talking about the same thing. I understand how to say the $30,000, first of all, isn't historic for the last 25 years. It's historic when we got flushed. How long have we been doing that? We've been paying them for a while, but we used to pay them 50. Now we're in the last time. How long a while? I don't know, 90s. OK. So it is somewhat historic. And the background on that is the town, I believe, and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, is the marketing department paid for that the Berlinling Game Lift. Burling Game Lift to run and correspondingly we also out of the recreation department paid them to maintain those West Side Trails. If we didn't do that then they they wouldn't have run the lift as I understood it. So no one is maintaining the West Side Trails if they're not on to it. No, no, they were maintained. They were maintained this year and a recent conversation that we have with the ski company yesterday. They're going back to take a look at see whether they can do any portion of that or maybe they don't need to do all the West Side Trails, maybe just village bound and cross mountain and maybe connector. So they're taking a look at that. They're not rejecting out of hand that they won't contribute through their own money effort to do that, but that's not we haven't now that in. I would want to encourage them given they this discussion and Steve was recognized he had a responsibility to do that they want to make a buck at the unit that they are hopefully in three years and to see how much will they take and then this is potentially something we may need to revisit. It may be something even with what Hunt has proposing we may conclude, particularly if you throw in the asphalt trails, we're not adequately funding it. And that comes then to a discussion of priorities. Before we got the news on the bus grants, you know, we were discussing about if we had anticipated revenue kind of splitting that and saying maybe half of that goes to trails and half of that kind of goes back to Phillip contingency because we recognize that's something that generates revenue. It's an economic generator for the community and we're not adequately funding it. But I'm kind of interested in seeing if the ski company could take as much responsibility as they can on the mountain for their trails. We'll know about that in the next couple of weeks to a month. I got the sense hot. And if there's a hole, you may want to move some resources. So since we don't have all the data, maybe we just kind of hold this part of the discussion on rep because there's a lot of unknowns right now. This might be one where again at one of those checkpoints whether it's December or March but before next summer you take a look at actual revenue what the ski company is stepping up to the plate for you might even have a discussion on the 18th when the ski company is here. See what they're taking responsibility for and if there's a gap and there probably is is there something you want to shift around to fund? Can we put that on the list to make sure it's not forgotten? We'll take that on our list. Yeah, okay. And then we can now focus on the reccord. Let's hold the vote. Look at the reccord. Okay, well the next section is in purple, the recreation program. And so in 2011 it cost $146,000 to run the program. But we have revenues coming in of $100,000. So the net amount that we subsidize is $46,000. That's for the program. That's for the program. That's not the rec center. No, that is the program. You guys can explain. The way I would describe that, let's pretend we didn't have a rec center and let's say we didn't have any rec centers in the valley. Those are the programs that traditional recreation departments provide, whether it's carbon-dale, basalt, aspen, and to go through the detail. Typically, you always recover enough and and revenues cover the expenses of the particular softball or kids program. You typically don't cover the coordinator and all that handy sports plan that for you. So in the recreation program, the hunt is exactly right. Softball, you know, youth baseball, any type of outdoor program, soccer, anything like that. They do cover all of the cost. They cover the cost for the instructor, cost for supplies, all of that. So they're basically, you know, they're a wash. The $46,000 is basically the recreation program salary. That's all we are subsidizing out of that program. In our case, that's what's done to cover that. It covers everything he does. I think there's lots of other stuff. Okay, but we have a $460,000 budget item. Yeah, that's the next topic, which is the one you want to talk about. That's in the pink section. And so for 2011, the program cost our total of 960,000 that includes any shop labor, any of the cleaning that comes out of the facility maintenance department's budget. It includes their payrolls, their supplies, and all of that. And they can talk about the detail on that. So out of the $6,960,000, we have $493,000 in revenues that come into offset it. $375,000 in pool, rec center fees, $6,000 in rental fees, $90,000 in classes with trainers, and then 22,000 in concession. So the net cost of the recreation center program is 467,000. If you look to your left under 2010 revised, we ran that program for the 401,000. These are the numbers that the FAB is talking to in their recommendation. But the fact is, let me make sure that I'm adding these numbers right. The fact is that to run the recreation activities of the town of Snowmass Village, which are relatively new since we built the Rec Center. It costs basically the end pull. It costs basically, we have three areas of expense. $46,000 for the program. That's the purple stuff. $467,000. $467,000. That's the pink, I guess, the culprit is whatever the culprit is. And a million $100,000 on the pool. Blue? No. Okay, tell me what the, um, because it says, it's a pool fitness wreck program. Is that just a doubling number or is that an added number? Yeah, the pool and the wreck program is the 513,000. 6.99. Okay, so all that is the two numbers added together. Purple and the pink. So what's the 1.1 million number underneath that 46 percent? I think it's the, let's see, maybe the total of the 960 and the 1,046. It might be the gross total of the wreck program, the gross program total is 146,000 plus 960,000, 558, 50, I think comes to that 1,106. So that's the income side? No, that's the gross expenditure side. Okay, so that's not- So 1.1 million dollars in the program for our recreation department for one of the better net. What's the 756? So that's just, well, what's the? The 756 is the net amount of landscaping, recreation, and pool and fitness. We take the landscaping asset cost is $1.1 million. Landscaping for 60-7 is I mean, is that the bill? Again, I believe it's the $467 is the net cost of the rec center. Yeah, but we also run a pool. That is the pool. That's the pool, too. That's the pool, too. That's just the recreation center with the pool. And again, it was 401. 401 was the subsidized amount last year. This year. Yeah. This year at 4,000 and we're proposing 467 with an net increase of 65, 988 or 66,000. Tell me what we're spending the 66,000 on? Also, in answering your question, could we take one step back? It's how high has that subsidy been up to? Oh, God. Just as a point of comparison, it was six on the way. Go to O's. Oh, eight. Yeah, it was huge. Yeah. Back you saw it. I need to. Yeah. Six hundred. Yeah, over six hundred thousand, I think it's in the field. It's a lot out of it. Right. I want to say six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six six salary, well, that's 5,000, excuse me. That's a very, I was looking to variance, it's 5,000. I don't even have a $5,000 variance in salary if it's only one person. What else is getting a raise? Nobody. It's actually, it covers the summer camp staff as well. So we have three part time. Oh, and that's not, that's not a wash. Summer camp staff, right. Summer camp.ercamp itself does cover itself. We also have an increase in benefits of that 14% for health insurance. So personnel costs in total would go up. Okay, back to my- It came back to Marquis. Okay, so here we are. What are we getting for $66,000 that we didn't get last year? Right? Done a neck? That's my question. That's impressive. Let me run through that. I want to put this 400 and 1000, which is in here in 2010, subsidy and perspective. We did budget for $93,000 for that. And we actually had three part-time personnel budgeted in 2010. We didn't hire. I mean, nobody else was hiring. So even though we felt we needed them, we didn't hire them. There were some ramifications that some people saw. It was tough to cover the front desk plus the place was with dirtier. So we didn't hire those people. That's one reason why we dropped it for one. The other reason was, at the back of March, I came to you with a one rate plan saying that if we actually went to a one rate plan instead of that, the resident non-resident, or hope was that we'd be able to increase revenues by X percent. So we picked up 50,000 on the revenue side there. We also picked up 5,000 classes. So between the reduction and on the personnel side there, we also picked up 5,000 classes. So between the reduction and on the personnel side plus increase in revenues, we went from the 493 to 401. And when we look at the 467,000 in 2011, that does include three people that we didn't hire. So if we knocked them out of the table, we knocked them off and didn't hire them. so we can put 2011 subsidy in respect of 2010, it's about, around numbers, it's about $37,000. So if we knocked, didn't hire the three, the three, part time personnel, we'd have a subsidy of $430,000 compared to the 401. And that subsidy at 430 would equal the same service levels that we actually produced in 2010. And the reason why it's costing more is mostly in the benefit side. If we had to get down to the 401, then we'd have to start cutting on the supply side. And the supply side at the moment, you don't, this sheet is in front of you, but I'm looking at the recreation center expenses. We have $129,000 worth expenses, and about 15 line-on most of them are $1,000 or $2,000. They're $2,000, $41,000 for the pool, and $25,000 for supplies and fifths. And the fifth and center plus we have 17,000 and cash purchases. We'd have to cut out of that to actually get it down to the 401. I'll let Andy explain the ramifications of that. I know personally I'd love to be able to live with a 430 number, but that's the explanation. It's just one other question, Hunter. Andy, before we go there, this assumes the hours that we ran last year, which was the Friday night was cut off early if I remember right. We never changed them. Sunday. And Sunday and we didn't cut the morning hours, right? Yeah. So as Hans said, there's basically two line items that if we had to cut down to the 401,000 fitness supplies and pool supplies. And basically that's exactly what they are. They fund the basic operations of the pool, the chemicals. You can't cut those. Yeah, I can't cut them. That's silly. You can't. I just wanted to get out of the pool. You're going to pull what those are. So you can't, in our field, we can't cut those. What we could explore doing is either reduce ours or close the facility on Sundays or close the pools in the winter. We don't know. I'm not telling you. Right, right. But that's where you can cut. It's on the expense side. I don't have anything to cut. Now we get rid of the three-time part-time personnel live with that. Then we'd have to look at look at those things and see what would be the best. Yeah, I guess my thoughts are that we cut the personnel, the part time personnel, up front just unfortunately, we can't hire those new people part time and just make your... And I would say you're not open at five in the morning. Well, before we get there. Yeah, I don't want to go there quite yet, but you know, how are we feeling about the first part? Well, what would you give up in terms of service? You're talking about eliminating three people at this point. No, no, no. We are radically nothing because it would equal I'll let you to enter the same slash. So basically in 2010, not mine, I'm not there. He's there at 630. In 2010, we did budget for three additional front-dasking employees. And basically, it's for the busy times. And as most of you know, if you've ever been in there busy times, we have the concession stand going full speed. We have kids coming in for band-aids. We need somebody there at the front desk at all times. It helps if we have two people there. For one reason or another, people leaving, we did not fill those positions. We basically made the decision that we will cover it with a staff that we have. Just to let you know we have four part-time front desk staff. They work about 24 hours a week and we are open 90, 90 and a half hours a week. The busy times covered by the full-time staff, and as I have mentioned, when the full-time staff does come and covers the front desk, it takes away from their time to offer a program or teach a class or guard the pool. One of those things, we can do it and we have done it. So that's basically the background on those three people. So basically you're saying you didn't hire many how the service level that you had in 2010 would be maintained in 2011 which is less than what you'd like to have but that's different. Can we look at the revenue side then? We looked at opening it up for one rate. Are there any ideas or any opportunities you see out there in the future that we might be able to raise it on the revenue? Because I don't want the expense side. I mean, it's bare bones as it is. I don't know. But if you remember when we came and presented the One Rate Plan, I had an idea of increasing fees at that same time. We knew that that would be an endow. We can have swap over. Yeah, the question's good. That's right. We get the background of when good. We have seen an increase with the One Rate Plan. And I can tell you that there are people in the community and outside of the community that do thank you for that. We had an increase right away from non-resident families joining the rec center. And since you have this new piece of paper in front of you, we can kind of go through it. You saw the 2009 last year. Basically, this is past totals. This is all the families, all the passes that we have, and how many visits they use. I can walk through this entire thing, but one of the things to take a look at is the bottom numbers. 31,000 compared to the 32,000, and that's total visits throughout the year. That's, I mean, that's a pretty good increase for a down year and also the number of total households that have an active pass, as you see on the top. It went from 2046 to 1410, which when I ran these numbers, I was like, there's no way this can be right You know more less people and more usage, but obviously people had more time in their hands And they can come use the center and we did feel that you know we could we knew that it was busier That doesn't It's the opposite isn't it? I don't understand that Total households in 2009, with 2046, total households in 2010, with your one rate system, is 1,400 and 10. That's less households. Yes. But it's just true. What do you mean by a household? So anybody who has an active pass, it could mean anything. You have a punch pass. You are an active member. So fewer members. You sold fewer punch pass. You are an active member. So fewer members. You sold fewer punch passes. And not that we sold fewer. You know, maybe people left didn't renew their pass. These are active pass. OK. There are fewer households that possess passes with the one rate system. But we don't know why that is. No. Didn't do't know why that is. No. Didn't do exit surveys or anything like that. You moved to New Mexico or something. And with the one-rate pass, the total use increased by roughly a thousand people. Or a thousand visits. It's not people. It's a visit. Which is what? Four percent? Three percent. It's not people. It's business. Which is what? 4%? 3%? It's interesting. Increase in visits. What was the increase in revenue, 50 grand? You're right on. I can't answer all with him. She says, okay, Marty is saying we dropped the third here. We only picked up 30% of news that you're having we pick up 50 grand I don't know Well, he knows How did we pick up 50,000? Well, obviously it was it was the selling of passes and then Getting those people into to take a class or you know buy a piece of pizza You know, honestly, those are the things that that made out that 50 grand So I guess I guess one could argue if I analyzed the numbers right, we did pretty good. We didn't increase the use a great deal. We increased the use by 3%. And we got $50,000 in revenue. That's pretty good. That good, that gain, so to speak. I guess. But that doesn't deal with the issue of what do we do. Did we answer the revenue question? I think what can we do to increase that? We didn't market that one right of all, because we don't really want anyone to spend time to do that. How do you do that? Right now now I think Andy would say most of the increase of what would have come from word of mouth maybe we could do a better job than marketing the one right same time I don't want to irritate the salt carbon deal and I mean I want to get in a competitive yeah yeah besides the fact how much you get hot move forward a little microphone I was back here the fact how much you can get. High, move forward a little. Microphone. Microphone. I was back here on purpose so that you couldn't record it. Okay. So the assumption is, unless you want to go further, but the assumption is, okay, here we are. We have, we're stuck, so to speak, with the revenue side. We can't cut on the expense side supplies. Let's look at something else. How do we reduce, assuming that we agree we're going to not hire these three people we got 30,000 cut out of it and I think that that is the overall consensus. How do we reduce another 30,000 if that's what we want to do. If that's what we want to do. We're going to cut the subsidy. What is how? What what what what could we do? You're back to hours aren't you? Yeah, you're back to hours. We'd have to have to go to the hours either hours of the pool and it would have to be it would have to be the entire facility. You just can't you know piece mill you can't say okay the pool will not open now until three on this day because obviously the staff is going to be your biggest cost there. You know on it look at closing on Sunday. Let's look at, let's look at the, because somebody threw it out and it went really quick. And, and I would like to just kind of go back and listen, what's our winter hours of pool? And what's that really cost us? It seems to me that's got to cost us a small fortune because you've beaten up the world. The winter hours are 10 to 8 and we do hit the pool is heated in the winter. Correct. You don't have to chip the ice away. Yeah. Obviously we don't uncover the pool until somebody comes and uses it. We have staff in the building at that time. So it's easy to operate from 10 to 8. We operate from 10 to 8 until just after spring break and then we increase to 8 a.m. And then that's basically the only increase of the pool hours that we do. To answer Ernie's question though and it's a piece of information you've shared which is interesting, it's not intuitive, that if you turn off the pool, so to speak, in the winter, that is actually now acting as a heat sink for the heating system of the building. It may not realize the savings that I would have thought. If you guys remember that the pool is heated by solar, and the energy goes into the pool, and I'll try to explain it as good as possible. And if Nick was here, he would tell you, and it would go over my head as well. The energy goes into the pool, and the rest of the building draws off of that energy. So we heat the radiant floor, we heat the gymnasium, we heat the aerobics room, with that energy coming off the pool. So yes, Russ is right. If you shut down the pool, let's say in November, you shut down the pool. So yes, Russ is right. If you shut down the pool, let's say in November, you shut down the pool. Well, you're going to have to heat that building somehow. So it's going to have to be domestic and all of that. So you would not really see a savings if you shut down one of the pools. One of the pools, you know, because you still have to do the snow melt around the hot tub in the lab lane. Leisure pool and leisure pool gets probably just as much use as anything else in the winter, which I would imagine. As the hot tub does. And, you know, if we take the next step of looking at a full day closure, what would that save us if we, you know, looked at one of the days? Actually, but you'd have to close the rec center. Right. Right. The order to make a saving. Right? That's basically what you're telling. You can't just close the book and not save anything. We talked about that. It's not like you're going to walk out and turn down the heat and say, okay, see you on Monday. Everything is going to operate the same way it's going to operate. You're going to save on the staff side. Right. Well, what's it going to cost you on the revenue side? Because people want- That's the right- What I would like to know. Yeah. What I'd like to do though is to challenge you to increase the visitation. I don't want to mess around with the hours or the days anymore at this point. I think we've cut back just about as far as we can cut back and still provide a usable, viable rec center for our community. So I would challenge you to start promoting a little bit more. We have a public relations department here. We have a marketing special events department here. I mean, it's starting engaging their expertise and abilities to start getting the word out because so many people many people will show up and say what a great facility I didn't know it existed. I mean we need to let people know it exists and People will come out from Aspen to use it because it doesn't have chlorine in the pool and it's outdoors. I mean it's You know that's a challenge I'd rather give you because you have the ability to increase on the revenue side more than you can Decrease expenses or try to cut costs anywhere else. Let me make one thing clear, we do have chlorine in the pool. It's a state mandated level. And a lot of people think that it is a saltwater pool, but we do create the chlorine on site. So just so anybody who is watching thinking that we do not have chlorine. Oh, different than double, double. Yeah, no, I don't come out with, you know, I still have staff that does it. Yeah, we don't have any chlorine. Yeah, that's the health. Yes. Okay. It's just different. Read and then I agree with John. I think that there's more room and it would probably be easier to figure out how to make another $30,000 rather than cut everything that we've already tried to ratchet it down. I mean, throw a for-profit, but I know a lot of the stuff that we do as a town is often break even or subsidized, but we need to think of these things like a business, not where we're going to continuously get a handout, because we're at the back wall and we can't go any far. Well, I truly agree with what John is saying. And this is probably people may not like this, but this is a wonderful amenity. I love the place. And we do not market it. I mean, I don't even know when what class is starting and what the price is, et cetera. The needs to be marketed. I would say we pull some money out of the marketing budget to fund the marketing for the RIC Center. That'd be popular. Yeah, she just walked out. Yeah. Well, I think we got a lot of alternatives. You got over $3 million budget and you get 30,000 that we need to make up and marketing. I mean that's less than one person. Well again I think we could do more. We've cut their budget or they've reduced it. But yeah I think maybe working with Leslie I think we could certainly do more in terms of promoting it and I'd like to give that a shot. I think that's the right answer. Well, that's the answer is let's see what we can do and I don't have a problem with that. So are we saying that we're willing to do the 431,000 or 33, whatever that number comes up to. Take out the three part time people in the position. I don't think we have a choice. No, I think you know, but do you want to go down even further to what the FAB's recommendation was? Or once? Well, I would like to see us do is to have FAB do exactly what they suggest that they'd like to do. And that is they'd like to sit down and discuss this with the Brexoner. I don't know what, for example, and this may not, may or may not be accurate. But I don't know what we're paying the part time people to work there. I can tell you that if you go to work at the airport, you probably get paid half of what the part time people are being paid. And these are people that are working all the time. They get up at 4 o'clock in the morning to do this. So we may be out of whack. I don't know that. I don't think we should spend the time here, or do we have the expertise but FAB sure does So I you know along with yeah, we're probably okay at a 430,000 round number budget I think FAB needs to come in and take good. I think that's a great idea that allows for the benefit that we know that's yeah Major part of our supplies We have any ideas. We see a pickup from one of the talks about when we were developing the Rec Center was that the Snowmass Club is going to be increasing the rates and we pick up a lot of people that were formally or were members of the club. Have we seen a lot of that or have they adjusted their rates? They're at it. That's phenomenal. Okay. So is that okay with this portion of the budget? Yes. That's a consensus for the FAB. For 30 is the right number. And also to refer this for the broader long range issue to the FAB. Yeah. Okay. I'm getting ready. I'd like to see a marketing plan come back at some point. Okay. Okay. I'd like to see a marketing plan come back at some point. Okay, that's good. Do we have any other questions on the the rent fund? No, I'm good. I'm going to break for lunch. Okay. Is this a working lunch? How long are we... Let's try to take ten minutes and keep going. For the working lunch a little bit or where you can or? Keep going. For the working lunch a little bit at where you can or. Keep going. Okay, page 49 is the road fund budget summary. If you recall, we were at five mills and based on the financial advisory board recommendation last year, we dropped it down to 4.097 that brings in around $2.8 million in property tax revenues to fund the road fund mill levy. We assumed the same amount of revenue from 2002 through 2011 through 2013 and I think we've got a 3% increase in 2014. The mill levy for next year will actually go down from 4.097 to 4.023 because our assess value went up. Our assess value went up only 1.85% for the, for the, for the, uh, towns, um, assess value. The, if you, um, look at pages for 49 and 50, you can see that we are showing a fun balance of 740,000 and 2011. It drops down to 27,000 and 12, 60,000 and 13, 24,000 and 14 and 300,000 and 15. One of the concerns that Hunt had and still has is that by reducing the mill levy, we're not bringing in enough funds to build up reserves for all of the replacements in the amount of road that needs to be completed. And Brandy, if you can go to page 15 on the extras. And I don't know if you want a piece of paper on this or not. I think you can read it up on the screen, but not that. I'm good. This one. The Road Fund, Unfunded Project. So these are based on 2008 cars and hunt You want to go through them or you want me just? Well, I think we suffice I didn't bring the math to actually calculate that but I have a spreadsheet and actually I think Some of the top ones a little bit low because it probably doesn't include Would road would the wood prison would bridge bridge which caused five million anyway. And one other thing I'd add to that list is I've always wanted to fund because it's a failing intersection today as the first Greek out Creek intersection which we've probably replaced with around about and I've had that budget at three million. And at five mills I could pick that up at the four mill level. I was trying to save enough money out until 2015 to do that, so that should be on that list too. But I think what we're trying to say is that with all the things that we can actually take care of in the right-away including bridges, replacing culverts, tie walls and that sort of thing, we could actually use the five mills. But I understand why I work for. Ms. Sanders, I'm going to give you the detail on the revenues and the expenditures for the road fund so that you can see the work fund also transfers in a significant amount of funds into the general fund that pays for all of the road division expenses in the general fund. In that it counts for about 62% of the expenditures of the road fund budget. Can you not get the money? I'll get it. And so on the revenues you'll see 2.8 million in revenues, occupancy assessments. We had originally budgeted 114,000 in 2010. There's been no activity, so there's been nobody coming in to get COs, so we've dropped it down to 10,000. And then these are Mark's projections, Mark Kiddell's projections for occupancy assessments from 11 to 2015. And then the only other revenue line item is the interest income. I know Hunt just took a bite of his sandwich, but do you want to walk through the expenditures for them just given overview of what you did for 2000? Yeah, let's look at 2000, 2010 proposed. At that point, if you look at about four line items down on the expenditures I've we'd anticipated doing annual overlays of four and 20,000 and if you take it out 2011 through 2014 we're hoping to spend $513,000 on annual overlays which we historically have done. So we've preserved that. What happened this year was there were two retaining walls that needed to really be replaced. We came before you with that. One was on dear bridge lane which by the way has been completed. The other one was very nice. On brush Creek Road. You actually don't even know it's there. Matter of fact, when I was doing the inventory I didn't see it. The guys that came in and took a look at all these retainables. So you know this one over here is kind of failing. The best way to describe it, if you come down the upper village ramp from Elbert Lane, if you went, if you were drunk and just went over the hill, it's right there and it's holding up fresh creek road. So they're actually up there today replacing that one. We found another little one on Alcrete Road, as we saved a little bit of money that we're doing. So what we did was we just reduced our annual overlays, and I'm not gonna add all these up for you, but they add up all these roads. You'll see brush creek, this is 2010 revised, brush creek lane, Oak Ridge, Sinclair. We did some overlays and some chip seal work. The two big numbers you see in daily lane and carriage way add up to the Stomach Road replacement we did in the spring. So we only spent about 160,000 on overlays and we used the balance of that to do the tie-wall replacement, which I, at the time, the bid deck come in and I had 495,000 actually less than that, but I'm not going to tell you what the new numbers are But that's what we basically did in 2010 2011 were back up their annual overlays of 513,000 and you'll notice at the bottom On tie-wall replacement we figure we have about a million dollars worth of tie walls that we probably should replace over the next 3 to 5 years They're all the railroad tie walls you see in the replace over the next three to five years. There are all the railroad tie walls you see in the numbered lots, and we have several of them in the subdivisions. And just to you know, the ones in the subdivisions, as well as if we replaced them in last one through 13, we made the decision that in very visible areas we'll use an architectural finish. And if you go up the deer-rich lane, the one we chose up there, we made it look like a rock wall supposed to really ugly shock creek. The one on that on the brush creek here, since you can't see it, it's just going to be shock creek because it's pretty expensive to do those architectural walls. But that's essentially the kind of program that we'll have here on out. There's a drop in 2012. You'll see we have the brush creek wood road roundabout of 800,000. I just keep pushing that every year for Hallhine to hold, not in my lifetime, but I actually hope the resort rebounds and somebody buys that place over there. We basically can take that at 800,000 plus their money and actually redo that roundabout. So every year I just push it a year until it happens. That's why you see other expenditures go down in that year. That's all I had, unless you have any questions. John Wilkerson. You made the statement earlier, Marianne, about the assessed value and snow mass bill is going up what percent? 1.85%. Is that from the major increase we had the year before yes In 2010 it went up by 33% to 687 and now it's at 700 but for the GID that which will do that budget later Not today, but that went up 15% not today but that went up 15% for the big storage area. We're going to be going to another county reassessment here next August and the budget shows Texas increase over the next. We honestly we don't know. We'll adjust it once we know what that assessed value is and will be in next August. Still be able to adjust to that because it may have to yeah, because it may go down 20% Correct, but we know it's gonna be that well, but there's but the percentage is very dependent on free adult to percentage if you factor the county they may even be budgeting Down 20 to 30, but you don't know right really don't okay fair enough While we're here, you know in Hunt brought up the Alcreek, brush Creek roundabout, you know, we really is out there a few years. Is there a window that we need to start doing some like a save and build program to where we do maintain some money so I know it was brought up at the Road Fund Mill-Levy I know it was brought up at the road fund mill of the increase. And it was an unpopular or not a direction people wanted to go. But I think it's something we need to sort of handle on. And I would think we should talk about that again and have some save and build scenarios instead of just build it when it's at the worst time. Councilor, do you guys have any other thoughts, Min? Well, one of the things, have you considered adding a slip lane on Alcrete turning right arm to brush creek? Because I think that would leave a lot of congestion there as a short-term solution. I mean, we could explore that. I just didn't want to spend any money on that intersection until we did the appropriate thing. We did the same thing over here when we finally did. We took us a bunch to convince base fills that needed a second slip lane coming off of Wood road on to on to the on to the current intersection and when the round Two lanes there. I think we just need to take an out analysis of the traffic count down there But I think the roundabout I'll take care of it with a single lane I guess you could do and it is an interim you could do the slip lane But I still think you're gonna have that problem with a left hand turn You'll yeah you the cars will go to the right and you're still going to have traffic backed up, Danerson, ranch taking on that. Do you have a sense of how much traffic count has gone up at that intersection over the last, say you're over here for the last three or four years? No, I don't. I suspect it's going down. I have to David keep kind of keep those traffic counts for what he calls control out here That'd be worthwhile taking it but since we've been our economies down soon the traffic counts down It's just that that intersection fails even at a lower level We just had some new housing and some clear meadows and the So we probably should look at that a little bit closer. I'd really like to see us save and get that thing done. I agree with you, Bill. Ony? So I was speaking about roundabouts. We have roundabout right outside here that in the work, so to speak, although we're not building it, that was our contribution was like too many dollars for that. Where's that in the budget? One point to me and approximately, we've all expended, that was for the bridge part. It was a two million, we were committed to two million dollars, one point to million for the bridge, which was built in 800,000 for the roundabout, and that's what's last. Okay, so $800,000 for the roundabout. Right. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. That's part of it. look at that whole design. Yes. Where's that in here? Featuring. Everything above 800,000 is over with the receiver. But do we have 800,000? Oh, yeah. 800,000. That's a massive. 800,000 is in our budget. Yes, it is. In 2012. In 2012. Yeah, in 2012. Okay. Any other questions on the road fund? Okay, moving on to the lottery fund, huge fund. Pass that. Pass that, okay? Oh, you need to discuss it a little bit. Nothing, I mean, we're just showing revenue coming in. We haven't budgeted for these funds to be used on any projects at this point. And at the- And space and trails. It can be for, let's see, I can turn this down. We've rat this by the FAB and I was curious whether this could be used for real maintenance. Can be used for the acquisition, development, and maintenance of new conservative sites or for capital improvements or maintenance for recreational purposes on any public site. New conservation sites are defined in statute as being interest in land and water acquired after establishment of a conservation trust fund, which this is. Or for park and recreation purposes for all types of open space, including but not limited to flood plains, green dows, agricultural lands, or scenic areas, or for any scientific, historic scenic, recreation, aesthetic, or similar purpose. Good broad. But would you talk about it? It's been the ocean. Well, but you have $30,000 for the trail maintenance program for the summer is significant and I think it would be appropriate to take a look at using some of this funding out of here to do that. I totally agree and I would love to. Can we do some of the layovers or paving some of the trails that are so bad? Ray, would you like to research this? Yeah, what it says for maintenance is means keeping conservation trust fund eligible assets in an original or existing state of repair or preserving them from failure or decline. So yeah, I'd like to look at it. And we have it on our list that we're going to revisit that the $30,000 anyways. And so we'll have that answer for you. And could you combine that with the request to begin to look at repaving some of our trails? Or does that in place? Sure, I can look at that too. Where that plan looked like. So what is the operating income on this account on an annual basis? About 20,000. I don't know. Hey, let's. We found a loop. Yeah, and what are we doing with this in 2011? We proposed to end up with 95,000 dollars, right? Yes. What are we doing with this? There's nothing budgeted. What we did. We just keep it in the past. We accumulated it and then we used 120,000 down at the entryway project for recreational purposes. I mean, is this something we can use to help dress up the pond around there, make it a little more walking park trail thing? Because we cut back our monies from that entryway. But I, you know, but I you know women wondering Is that I guess whatever Mary and researchers research Right it was just a little light bulb went off that maybe we could use this for maintenance Yeah, or it means it's but adding the trail or footpath around that pond somehow Visioning or rather take care of existing resources instead of building new ones. I think we need to use this money. In some manner. Let's figure out where we can use it. Offset some expenses that we have. The source of funding is directly from the state lottery commission. It's from the lottery. It's based on per capita. We don't have to apply for it. It's from the lottery. It's based on per capita. And we don't have to apply for it. So an automatic payment to the tower. That's correct. It's not like a grant. Capita. Cool. OK. Let's see. Except. Russ, in here, I forget. Do we have anything just flashed on that utility fund that we have? Holy Cross. Holy Cross? Yes. Where are those monies? And how much of that right now? It's in the general fund. And at the end of 2010, it's $490,000. And we'll get another $80,000 or 90,000 next year. And we'll build up to 570. Well, we used 220,000 of it for the energy audits and the energy upgrades for some of the town properties. And that's in progress, as we speak. The Environmental Advisory Committee just brought up that topic last night in terms of other projects, other projects to potentially utilize it. We also, Haunt and I had a good chat with Holy Cross to get a little clearer picture because they do have to consent based on a set of criteria to use it. And they gave us some good criteria to use to make sure we're not wasting our time in thinking about projects. But beautification was also a category for one of their uses, so possibly the pond might fall under those funds. What the Holy Cross really knows or prize is they love projects that are visible to the public, that the public sees and can appreciate. So. Good. Good. Great. I think that we need to take advantage of some of our time using, you know. What we should be using is many of these funds consistent with what we're allowed to do as possible. Sitting there with $500,000 in the bank there and $100,000 here, there's a lot of money. Well the lottery in the Holy Cross was relatively insignificant. Now the Holy Cross built up to a sum where we said wow we can really do something. There's still money there to do something with. Okay. It's not even that big of an owl. Let's keep that in mind. There's a lottery fund, right? I'm not even going to be able to do that. Let's keep that in mind. There's a lottery fund, right? It's raining, guys. Okay. Following Russ's schedule, the Xi's tax fund is next, and then he wanted to move the housing funds up after that since Joe was here. Okay. Okay. The Xi's tax fund, page 61, it had a lot more activity in the 2010 revised budget than we had originally budgeted because of the country club, town homes and the villas buying those and selling them. Tell us what the excise tax fund is. Because we got folks at home and I'm looking at it and I can't remember what it is and then when you start to talk about it I think I know what it is. It's crystal clear. The excise tax fund is our funds that if a homeowner wants to pay add on the square foot on the square foot. And it's like 550 square feet. The marquee can be pointed. Supported by Marky this year. So it's limited. They can pay a fee, I think in lieu of going through the variance process. So they have great opportunity to do that. And then the funds have to be used for the rehabilitation or the building of any employee housing. Remember we re-approved it in March? Yes. What that percentage was and it's... Right, and there was actually a vote on it and voters allowed us to take that into... It's a big number. In the past we've re-rece received up to and over a million dollars in 2000 and let's see in 2009 we received 462,000 this number for what they think in variances comes from the planning department. They had budgeted 750 for this year. They've revised it down to 450. And then from 2011 through 2015, they just left it at 550. In 2011, for operating revenues, there's 550,000 for excise taxes. And then there's around 2.150 in sales. Right now we have Country Club, Villa, 1210 that we're trying to sell. We have Country Club Town Home number four, and I had budgeted to purchase two additional Country Club Town Homes between now and the end of the year. If we don't buy them, we don't buy them. But at least if we do, we won't be in budget violation. So in 2011, expenditures, I'm just showing closing costs basically of 170,000 that's paying real to fees or any other cost associated with the sales of any of those homes. So the ending balance at the end of 2011 is almost $7.3 million. When you go to the next page, page 62, which has 2012 through 2015, we, I think if you read the budget transmission all it talked about the CIP. We did not, we just left the projects that were in the CIP. We left them in there. We didn't change what years or their amounts because we're in the process of redoing the whole capital improvements project. So the draw site employee housing was in the CIP at that time. So that's where you see using 2.5 million in 2013 and 2.5 million in 14. So both of those draw site? I was with the draw site. So at this point we don't know where that site might be. We don't know what we would build. But it was just a placeholder. And also in the CIP there was also the only other project was the transit parking structure up at the mall. But in the new CIP which will bring before council after budget, you'll see these projects, different amounts, different years, probably. Since we don't have a lot of money in 2011, I mean, once you get to the CIP part of this budget, there isn't a lot in it. But again, we just want to acknowledge to you and a lot of credit goes to hunt. We're taking a look at kind of the wishes and desires that we've articulated, but also what we anticipate as some necessities, such as we have new buildings, we have new physical structures that are going to need capital maintenance. So giving you really more of a complete picture of, again, here's what we've said as a community might be desirable. But also there's some new physical things that we'll have to do at some point in the future. So we're putting that in a package and we'll be reviewing that with you in the near future. Can you help me understand? 2009 our reserves were 3.6 or 3.7 million and proposed for 2011 is 7.3 million which is a pretty significant growth. You sold the... Yeah, I know. The question becomes one, is what should that reserve be set at? What is a good number going forward? It doesn't really matter. Well, I mean, it's a lot of money, and I can tell you a lot of other individuals in this community have talked to me about the whole issue around excise tax and the amount that it is set at and wondering any of them would have considered renovation projects if the excise tax was not so high. But can't they still go through the variance process and not pay the fee? Well the renovation isn't once. Of course it's used. It's not in the ORFAR issue. You want to class it's used. It's not a For FAR issue Right, you want to build a bigger house. It's not to do it renovate. Yeah, it's a bigger house beyond What FAR I can tell you it's a very expensive It is It is it's very expensive Mr. Dresser. Do you have any Comments for I was just gonna clarify that it doesn't apply to renovations. No, but it does for the FAR. Yeah. And it's not a variance. You don't have a choice of going through a variance process. Or nothing you can do. You just pay it. Right. So. But that's the issue isn't kind of a quid pro quo of, well, the issue isn't what's the appropriate balance right the the real issue is should we continue to charge to get a bigger house that's really the issue well and if so beyond what zoning allows yeah right beyond what you would otherwise be permitted because regardless I mean if say yes, this is a way to build up that fund so we can build the more employee housing or acquire employee housing That's a good idea if it's no longer a good idea, then you just cut it off And at that point, you know whether you have the discussion of saying what we don't want to allow anymore changes to the home in the neighborhood. I mean, you could hear it. Right. You could cut it off and say, okay, it's an up, we don't need any more money. Oh, and by the way, there is no way to build bigger than a 3,500 square foot home. What is your own goal? Or a 5,000 square foot home, as long as it's employee housing. I think there's more restrictions, are there not, John? There are. And I just, I wanted to point out to you that this is something that was voted on by the voters. Yeah. So I mean, they have voted themselves the right to do it. To do it. And it's a voluntary tax. Right. You don't want a bigger house, you don't have to worry about it. You elect to pay the tax. This is from a strategic standpoint. A lot of communities look at us, or very envious of this. And again, we're in an economic downturn now, but it will change. And the issue of affordable housing and providing affordable housing will be back. I don't know if it's really ever gone away. And I think the point that Reed Brick brings up is one of the toughest issues I know Joe in the housing committee have been dealing with is how do you manage and deal with people that are retiring? But anyway, certainly has its use. I wanna tee up on that senior housing issue. Does this money have to be used within this community? Yeah, absolutely. So if in essence, there is a PICC in County senior housing CCRC is developed, and we're pretty much landlocked here in Snowmass Village. We could not provide any of this money into that fund to help with this CCRC if that were to come. No way, cheaper for them. You'd have to ask the vote. We'd have to actually build it in Snowmass Village. It had to be what we said, it would have to go. We'd have to change the purpose. Okay. Five purpose. Okay. Five vote. Okay. Now my council vote. Okay. Thank you. Anything else on this? Nope. Nope. Good. Okay. Okay. Um. The next fund is the Re-op fund page 67. Did you want to re-op for the housing? Re-op and then we'll... oh yeah, housing. That's two minutes. And Joe's gone now. He's right there. Right there. That was 81. Okay, I didn't see you over there. So we're 81 in your packet. 81. Okay, for this fund, in 2011 you can see the beginning carryover is $975,000. There are operating revenues of $1,000,000,000,000. Joe is proposing in all three of these housing budgets, a 0% rent change. And for the housing fund, even with a 0% change he is able to have a net income of $68,000, which he uses to fund his annual contributions into his capital reserve fund in 2010. In 2010, if you drop below the net revenues over expenditures, he is using some of his capital reserve funds, 6,000 for a laundry equipment. He is also asking to add 43,000 in capital repairs, 12,000 for the Palisades sidewalk and 31,000 for Brush Creek Foundation Peers. And Joe, did you want to talk about that? These were just some capital repairs that needed to be made because the sidewalks were failing at palisades and we have a building that settled settled at brush creek 300 buildings and it really needs to be stabilized. So I've got a soils engineer looking at this and a foundation engineer looking at it. We're probably going to have to add some steel piers to stabilize the foundation. That's some of the oldest housing in town, if I remember correctly. That's correct. What is, I mean obviously maintaining it for now is a good idea, but what is your long-term plan there? Is that something you've thought about about replacing those four buildings? Yes, I believe, are fortunate because in four years the housing bonds will be retiring And instead of paying the debt service that we're currently paying now, which is like a half million a year a little bit more than that we can begin looking at replacing some buildings or making some major renovations to all of our housing stock up there which you know we've kept up with some interior renovations but we we certainly need to do more outside renovations and even the layout up there I mean there's some other land sitting right there and you could you underground parking and that kind of thing the the brush creek buildings and particular are the oldest buildings. I think they were built in 67 or 68. They were some of the first buildings in Snowmass. We could hit some of our historic buildings. But we've renovated a couple of times over the years and their small studio apartments so they really fill a need for it with the employees that use them. Are you suggesting, Ray, at least take a look at the option of what you could do with a new design? Could you do more? Could you lay it out better? Exactly, especially if it's putting a lot of money. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if now is the right time, but we don't have quite the demand of employee housing. So there might be an opportunity to, I know some of the people that have lived there for, I used to live there, so at least 10 or 15 years, and I hate to displace them, but if you had the option of shifting things around for a year or two, you did a new project that, and then those people would get to move back into the nicer unit and perhaps more units, so there would be additional inventory for the future when we do get busier again. So what we should do is develop a master plan that would be to a replacement. Exactly. Brush Creek apartment or yeah. And then look at the bigger picture. Brush Creek apartment. And then for all the dark brown buildings on the left hand side as you look up on the hill. Because you're going to have the same- Below Palisades, the grey buildings, the two larger grey buildings. And then you're going to have the same situation down at whatever is it, the village north. I mean there's going to be a need to replace some of this stuff over time. My kind of my thoughts right now have been around 2013, 2014. We start soliciting some, well, we put on RFP to architects. And we really need to do some major renovations to some of these housing properties. Maybe we take the siding off and we put stucco on or put new roofs on and Roof some stuff like that. I have covered in a capital annual capital budget, but siding windows doors Retaining wall stuff like that. I do not have that covered in the annual operating But when when these bonds retire we could certainly allocate this money to major renovations or new buildings. I think that's what we're talking about. Let's not look before 2013-14. It's developed a master plan, start developing a master plan now. Right. develop a master plan, start developing a master plan now. Does it make more sense to replace this stuff? Because construction is better and so forth, you can get four more apartments, let's say. By taking what we have down there, just down and building it again, and you get four more apartments, that's kind of a freebie, because you don't have any more land to put it on. And they're all better. Maybe that's really the way to go. Yeah, it'll take a good year to develop a whole master plan and get it approved. Yeah, so. Okay, sounds like there's, it's just going beyond just a capital replacement that we're looking at. Get a big plan. Yeah, a new building, a new layout a better bank for the bike. Well John Wilkinson. Yeah but before we go too far into that I need to know what the useful life or the obsolescence of those buildings are because if they're perfectly good structures just because we paid off the bond as it means they always we got extra money here we can go and build new buildings do you have any idea how far of code these buildings are because you know even though they're old they still have use for I mean yeah that's 50 years there these these buildings are yeah just like you said just because they're old they're still useful and they're functional they're kept up as well as we can with our budgets the the brush creek are the oldest buildings and they're the smallest apartments we have. So if we were to redevelop any of our housing, I would focus on brush creek first, that apartment complex. The rest of the buildings, like I was saying, we could just do some major renovations on those, just like the condominiums have done here in snowmass the last few years just like the free market units. I think think about those buildings are now 50 years old. Just to bring this to a close sounds like you would like us to bring you back maybe it's some sort of process with an architect to evaluate. Here's useful life. Here's what a remodel capital improvements have caused versus a new structure. Which now becomes much more efficient, saving energy, you can find out. You can also find out how much out of code they are. If they were to be built today, how much difference there is between what it was originally built at and what to code to regard to day. Because as buildings get older, it costs more to bring back the code. And so if you have to do a renovation, you have to bring it back to code. It's going to cost more than possibly rebuilding the 88. Right. The only other thing I wanted to point out in this fund is in 2011. Similar to 2010, Joe is looking to do some repairs on the foundation drainage at Creekside at 27,000 and then to do a pull window replacement project at Rush Creek Building for 125,000. That's what the $152,000 price is. Correct. Well, you may not want to do that. $125,000. But hey, just, I don't know. That's correct. Well, you may not want to do that $125,000. But hey, just, I don't know. Do we have any other maintenance Joe that were, you know, need specifically, I'm thinking I've heard that there's some problems possibly over in some of the Mountain View sub areas, whether it be mold type stuff or things that we need to look at so we don't get into like a centennial issue or a larger problem that we can do now. There has been some mold problems with the owners units. That's a four-sale product versus a product that we have. And our rental units, I haven't really had any mold problems when we get a report of mold. We go take care of it right away. Fortunately from what I know about Mountain View homeowners problem the mold is not dangerous. It's not the real dangerous type of mold. So they met with me yesterday and we talked about some mitigation plans and they may be talking to you at some point about this too because I'm not sure they can afford all this but we'll see. I told him they need to try to work this into their budgets first. And if that didn't work out they may come see you. Okay. The laundry facilities we have down there, one of the things I've heard over the last year is that I guess some of the costs have gone up in there or that it takes longer to dry something or is that something you're looking at changing out? Or how is that? Those machines are on a replacement schedule, too. That most of the machines are replaced every three to five years. We did increase the laundry rates because our utility costs were going up. And the rates of the laundry hadn't gone up in like 10 years. And we did increase our wash and dryer rates. And I was hearing that. It was just around like a business. We tried to break even. I really don't try to make money off the housing. I tried to break even and cover our expenses for renovations and operate it like that. Okay. Similar to the General Fund and Proposition 101 in the financial implications. If amendment 60 passes, these employee housing projects will start paying property taxes. And so if you go to page 83 and 84, it shows, and this will, the amount will change, but this is the same throughout all of the budgets. It shows that an estimated amount is $38,000 for this fund. And I asked Joe to take a look and see, can he cut that amount out of his expenditure budget? He didn't think he could. And so if it worked to pass, he is proposing to increase rents to cover those property taxes. And I think Joe was at about 2%. That's correct. So I think that's a good time to, if you live in employee housing and you're paying rent it might suggest the way you might want to vote on this issue And that would be standard. What would happen? Yeah Any other questions on the housing fund Nope, okay Hey, JD9 is the mountain view fund Again, all of these funds are set up similar. This fund is an additional cost. He's going to use 61, but 62,000 in capital reserves. Next year for the replacement of two of his trucks. One of them is a 1997 and the other is a 2000. And so they're on a regular replacement schedule that the shop superintendent goes through with Joe and when they should be replaced. And again, 0% increase and rent budgeted for this fund and less amendment 60 passes. Any questions on the Mountain View Fund? Okay, Mountain View 2, page 97. If he doesn't have any capital projects budgeted for this fund and again 0% rent increase and he has a fund balance of fund reserve of 231,000 and that's it for the housing funds unless you have any other questions for Joe. going once One night I would like to tell the council that if a member 60 fails This will be the third year that we've held the rents the same It's hard to do that. I know Your team and you are working well. Thank you. Page 67 is the React Fund. It's just a one page fund. In 2009, we received 38,000. There was three in Luffy's. We received 38,000. Pa was three in Luffy's paid in that year and we spent 10,000 of it on energy audits. So far we have not received any funds in 2010. Although we are spending the carryover of $22,000, $7,000 was spent on the carbon footprint, $5,000 for core, and then about $9,000 for a smisagording in Mayerbs for the energy audit. And then the membership fee for ICLEI. And then in 2011, the $5,000 for the core membership. And then we run out of money unless anybody pays re-out. Can you tell me exactly what we're getting for the $5,000? It's essentially membership in core. We've had the benefit of being in the core region in terms of getting grants to residents, in terms of doing utility changeouts, Billy, you're on the board now. So we received 90,000 last year as a grant from core towards the solar for rodeo homes. We've received a number of grants from the town but it's you know our residents are receiving the benefit of it. Okay. My question what does it cost us to manage this fund is it something that's appropriate to possibly go back in and work with core. In other words not duplicate services and let core manage these monies because we have been getting a lot more benefit out of the core group than we've been putting into it, it seems. So that's a question I was sort of raising the core board. You know, right now you can see that there's no money budgeted to come in. I mean, if we were getting a lot of re-op fees being paid, then there is administrative cost, but this is... We're... When this was originally discussed, and Jason's in the room, you know, we did discuss court managing this, particularly in the context of if it was an active fund, and it was generating lots of money, we would, in theory, would have lots of requests of people asking for the money. And again, CORE could have provided that service right now. I think it's the town council at the end of the day that determines if somebody does put in a grant, whether it means the criteria. And I guess I was just wanting to say there's some efficiencies that we could go through, but it appears like right now we don't have to worry about that. At some point, maybe something just discussable more. Yeah, that's not my career. It's a very small budget. Okay. Okay, now we are on to marketing and special events. Oh boy. And then group sales Yeah, you got her all excited with that Markey Like at the end of the day Come on, where's down Oh Oh She knows how to speak That's way dessert-wise Oh, everybody was coming Oh, wiki And chocolate It's chocolate. It's no match, little junk. No match. No match, money. How come Dave Petler doesn't think it is? Okay, Barb gave this to you. That would be fine. How much is this cost? I'm page 69. They're free. It's the budget summary. For 2011, we have a carryover from 2010 of 317,000. They're showing expenditures of around 3.2 million and operating revenues 3.2 and operating expenditures of 3.2. The showing is ending the year 320,000 so basically any funds that are coming in, they are budgeting to go back out. You can see she budgets very tightly. She always puts in the 10% into her reserve, but the funds available is $1,700. And so she has to manage this budget very actively to make sure she doesn't go in the hole. And so now I'll open it up to Susan. Let's see if you guys have any questions on this fund. Any significant changes, Susan? No. We had a board meeting this morning. I think this is why I wrote some asking. It's very productive, very positive, and everybody was bought in. Go to the chart on page 71 that shows you the revenues and expenditures. About 20% of the budget is spent in admin, 38% in marketing and 32% in special events. What page is that? Page 71, the chart. I don't give you the percentages. What were the breakdowns? I don't give you the percentage I'm in. What were the break downs? 21% is in admin. 38% is in marketing and 32% is special events. The remaining percentages, which is more, about 10 or 11% is in purchase services like contract services and operating in maintenance expenditures and public relations. Which includes the rebate. Which includes the rebate for the sales taxes. Pages 72 and 73 just shows you the differences from the 2010 budget, what was adapted, what changes, major changes occurred because in all of the budgets, it might be many hundreds of lines, but we pull out the major differences. And so for revenues, we're anticipating that we're going to get a little bit more than what we budgeted. We're anticipating that we're going to get a little bit more than what we budgeted. Culinary arts is being reduced by $20,000 as well as there's a $20,000 expenditure reduction and less donations for the summer. No donations. Just an assumption or you know they won't be there. They're not there anymore. We had one very generous donor and he doesn't live here anymore. No donations. Just an assumption or you know they won't be there. They're not there anymore. We had one very generous donor and he doesn't live here anymore. That's gone. That was $30,000. Okay, question, John. Welcome to. Yeah. One of the comments I've been hearing from people in town is that the money we were spending on special events could be used better to promote the resort entirely rather than having the special events. The comment I heard was that we have a lot to do here already. Why are we adding events to it? Why don't we just promote it until people in Florida and Texas that it's nice here in the summertime? I can tell you everybody thinks differently. So I'm not surprised to hear that. I'm not surprised to hear we should just tap events because those are reasons to come. I'm not surprised at all the different types of events that everybody wants. That's right. Yeah. I agree. It doesn't mean I agree with that statement, but I'm just hearing that. And that's why I wonder. One of the analogies. I won't mention the individual's name, but it's just a good example. Microphone. Brass, microphone. Oh, sorry. You know, there's an individual we know well that works in the ticket office and Aspen. And every time she sells a ticket in the summer of the gondola, she always says, for five more dollars, would you like to also add snowmass onto it? And on days and during periods where we have events, that's a very easy sell. When we don't, it's harder to make that compelling case to come on over to snowmass to that guess that may not know our product real well. But it's something we're redoubling our thinking in terms of what can we do in the summer, so that she always has a good message in a solid product to sell to that customer. And that's just a small little example of the messaging. Part of it is, part of it though, is what we're gonna hear on the 18th. And we just had a meeting with SkiCo about their plans and what else is gonna be happening on the mountain, but we also need to think about what else can we give that individual selling tickets in terms of an ongoing message to come to snowmass. I had a question when we first got started in the executive summary about grief sales and it looked like we were having a decrease of the client. And expenditures. And expenditures. What was that all about, Susan? We had a lot of money in the unappropriated funds that when Griff says was running it before they didn't realize that that was there and it was accumulating. So then the next year we spent more of that to get further ahead in things like website and more interaction out in the field and fans upbound and inbound. This year we don't want to spend as much we want to make sure there's a pool of dollars. In case we had a bad year, I don't think we're going to have an awful one, but in case we did, then there's dollars there to be spent. So we brought some of those expenses down. Some things will be- Not a change in the level of service and commitment to group sales. No, just some changes in strategy as well, moving to some rep firms and that reduces expenses and trade shows because you can purchase paid cheaper. A couple different strategies changed it. From where you sit, what are you seeing in terms of group sales and the excitement, hopefully, to come to Snowmass Village, perhaps not for next year. Next year's probably already pretty well booked, but out into 12 through 15. I'm very optimistic. So you're starting to see some. What are you not, Susan? I love her because she's always got that glass. K2 said the goal is I think too high. I don't know if she knew she was leaving and wanted to give us a number. But last year our goal was 3.6. K2 said the goal is I think too high. I don't know if she knew she was leaving and wanted to give us a number. But last year our goal was 3.6 I believe and we exceeded it. So we definitely needed to raise it. It never should be so easy to attain. This year she said it at 5.6. We're at about 60% of goal at 75% of the year. So I don't believe we're going to achieve it. But right for 2011? Or for? Well, that's a production number. There's two different numbers. Your right. Production is what we're selling right now for. This year, next year, all the way out to 2014. Booked in the year four of the year. Thank you. In the year four of the year 2011 is picking up. 2013 actually looks really good. People are booking further out. So I'm going to give you a really good number at the end of the year that I think you're going to be proud of. They're cooking up there. We only have three sales people right now, and they are cooking it. And I'll just say, especially Jim Malaria, is so hot right now. He's just standing on the left and right. And our strategy now, and part of the reason that we're not going to achieve the goal this year is last year, we really took a hard look and said, how are we measuring our goal? And it's kind of, it's not cheating, but it's making it easy if you don't book multiple years, if you say, okay, I'll just book this group for this year and put it in the numbers and then save the next year for the next year. So, no, let's do multiple years. So last year, the reason we exceeded is because we did multiple years. You won't see then 11 and 12 in the next year is because we already put them. So that's the difference in the number. So really when you put them side by side, we're at power better. And they're also looking in that metric, I think within Susan's message. Not only measuring total business for the team and the individual, but also measuring kind of the new business and the new leads that are being generated and measuring those leads and do those leads turn into a contract at the end of the day. That's right. It's really easy to focus your attention on one market or one activity, but we need behaviors in several different areas, so that's how they're incentive. You can go after Chicago all you want, but you can't ignore Dunder because we have a goal there too. Just as an example. Thank you for the update. And I think it's worth acknowledging that we finally as a community took our summer season to October this year. It was not probably, and we still have a lot of work to do, but I think it is worth mentioning that we kept restaurants open longer than we've ever been able to do it. Stores open longer than we've been able to do it. There were at least four weddings last weekend, probably more than I was not aware of. We didn't have record breaking numbers at my individual business, but to see people around here during the month of September was really encouraging. And I think it shows that we are on the right track and that we can continue to grow is one of the nicest times of the year. So thank you for all the efforts of not just your group, but everyone in town that worked together to make it happen. Thanks, and it was some special events, but it was primarily groups and those were groups that we signed two years ago. So that's a good question. Thank you. Great. Did you get anything out of the recent governors tourism? We did. About 400, 425 people came into town and what was great about it. Can I just share the little piece? Russ and I welcomed the group on Wednesday at a dinner and I wanted to come up with a way to communicate to these people who are tourism organizations from all around the state, who haven't been here for a long time, who are out there maybe not saying such great stuff about us, like, hey, our competitors closed and sending them articles from New Wall Street Journal. That's why this was so important. So in the welcome, after Russ Wormley welcomed them, I asked how many people have been here within the last year. Only handful went up and mostly they were locals. How many were here in the last three to four years? Some more hands went up but there still weren't and not enough. So that means not enough for here. So we introduced Eric Mead and we had this, you all know Eric. That's really cool. And it was fun. So we had 12 different images on a PowerPoint. And there were all messages we wanted to communicate about what's new since you were here last. So Sam's smokehouse was up there and Rick's center. And Eric asked, I don't know how he does this, but he told everybody, pick a picture, focus on it. Don't tell anybody where you're starting, but start anywhere in the grid. So everybody did that. Then he went through a series of moves, moved two boxes to your right, moved diagonally, three boxes, took them around and then he'd stop and say, I don't think anybody is at the rec center, which was built and debted and has a pool and debted it up. So he got our messages out. And I don't think anyone's at 8K, which is in the vice-rate, which opened up last winter and has these features. So we're communicating that. So he took those out, a few more moves, and then the end. He said, so is anybody on the slide? There's a picture of the conference center. Everyone's hand went up. I don't know how he did it. Anyway, it's sidebar, sorry. The nicer, I mean, that was really cool. But it was nice to hear from competitors saying, wow. I mean, they had a lot of really nice things to say, saying that we had all the grading gradients and we were building upon that. So that perception, and earlier the summer, I remember having a chat with Sam Maaman, he was like, Russ, we want to come back to Snowmass, but it's still closed, right? Like, no, Sam, we're open for business. Come on back, and again, we get a lot of positive affirmation from the people that have been here and been part of one of our groups. My peers told me the same thing, grand junction and four Collins and they also had no idea this is amazing and we'll be back and we'll, when we go to Colorado trade shows and we have to talk about snowmats we used to not say anything because we had no idea what was going on. Now they're aware. This was very positive. Thanks for asking. So how long did that presentation take that Eric did? Six and a half minutes. I'd love to know. It'd be a fun thing for town council to see. It would. Because sometimes we focus on the negative in this town. We don't focus on the positive. That was the message of the conference. There is a lot in the afternoon. It's a good brain teaser too. It may not be all bad and then we invite the community here to hear it. We've got it. We've got to start being positive around this place. Well the other positive. I'd love to hear it. The other positive if I might is that we have all our marketing out there a lot of it in Colorado and you know how it works from phone calls and websites. But you don't truly know. And you were sitting at the table with me with Richard Sharf is the CEO of Visit Denver. The Denver Visitors Convention Bureau. And he said, you guys were all over Denver this summer. Really? I mean, I know that. But really? No boards of these. Yeah, he said that we had the second largest presence in terms of billboards and frequency of ads after Blackhawk Casino. So it was really good to hear from somebody else. You know, it's out there, but I didn't see it, and you don't know for sure if people noticed. So it was good. The question is down here. Okay. No more questions for marketing? Well, there was a question raised by FAB. And we should talk about that for a minute. I'm trying to recall exactly what the FAB suggested happened. And that is, as I recall, that they wanted to sit down and have a greater communication avenue with them and a greater lay is not. Is that right? The financial budget board believes that there should be a benefit to having more interaction between the marketing group sales department and the board and the financial budget board prior to the budget process to gain better understanding of their financial operation and goals. One of the observations in terms of why they made that and we discussed that for a while at FAB is that over the last year you've asked for more interaction and more measurables and more communication about what are different investments producing. So you've gotten that, but the FAB said we see a big line item for expenditures, but we don't know what it's doing. So there certainly was an information gap that they haven't received some of the same information you've received or I've received. And thought that could be valuable. Did they think it was just information or was it a meeting with our board or board and council? If it was more at a staff level, if a board member were there, that could be helpful. So it was more, you know, boy, if we could just understand and have maybe some of the same information council has had, they might have different perspectives and ideas on that. But there certainly was an informational gap and I think they were just responding to it. Help them to understand the finances and what's behind the numbers. Same questions you've received. Yeah, they don't have responsibility oversight of the marketing budget. I think we have to be very, very clear. It's informational and better understanding. So they're better informed. We can do that. As we look at the entire budget, that's my understanding. Yeah, but they are also act as the fiscal side of the town council. For us, right. Yes. Okay. I just don't want them to get in all the detailed operations. Yeah. When you do have that communication, because I think we were clear to Fred, the questions of the policy, the buck stops here, not there. They don't get to say, oh, we want to spend 35% more for summer business than winter or whatever. But they just like to know when this is more about what's going on. It would be a good idea. I guess one of the questions, you know, I know you're going to come to us later on, but how has the summer been with Mountain usage or what have you guys seen from comments and people? You're talking about the L camp? Daniel, look. Well, the skiing company is coming down the 18th. I'm not sure that I can see now. You can see some data with us. Some of it is not, you know, it's more proprietary in nature. I think the bottom line, yeah, they knew they were going to lose. And did they lose significantly? More than they thought they would, probably not. They then are looking at how to the enhance that experience for next summer. And so, you know, on a revenue standpoint, they didn't lose more than they thought. And there's two different ways. There's the mountain people who manage it, who have one number they thought, and then there's other people who put the numbers together, which weren't really realistic. Right. So they're about where they thought would they would be in the operation of the facility. It certainly did generate additional activity. I think it gave us something else to offer this summer. And we weren't quite there yet with the build out of the trail system. And I think next year, if they get approvals from this forest service, they both get a solid connection, which is something we need to be cognizant of, and not let go the trail system below Sam's knob. But there'll be a real connection to Sam's knob, which I think is also helpful to them all. And there's more physical amenities up there to, again, give that individual, at the ticket booth, a number of other bullets to share with a guest. Earlier today, we had a little discussion with the Rec Center and part of the thought was, is there something that we, as your board, marking special events, can help with the Rec Center. Is there anything you have been thinking about that not to blindside you with that one? But is there something that we can offer more to a guest or you know use some of that Rex Center building facility? How do we do that? What do we do that? Now how? Can we take advantage of the Rex Center? Yeah do we do that? What do we do that? Now. How do we take advantage of the rec center? Yeah. Do we communicate that advantage? Right. How do we get it to our guests? Right. We promoted it to all of our collateral and materials and websites and such. We work with Woodsy from time to time when he's got a program that we can, well, one was a softball tournament during Chili Pepp pepper and brew fest last year. It didn't happen, but the work was there to get to a point to where it comes to Chile pepper and brew fest and you get to enter a less expensive ticket kind of a thing. We've got something going on there with, I can't say because it's not signed yet, but an event down there next June that we're working on and it would be in collaboration with the Rec Center as well. So we could potentially do more and that's a good point. I think where we got a sense we could do more between the two groups was the summer and vice-regular deserve some credit. They brought a couple of basketball stars here and they worked with the Rec Center. And it was a real nice win-win. We even got some new basketball hoops out of it. But it was great PR and it brought bodies and nice win-win. We even got some new basketball hoops out of it, but it was great PR. And it brought bodies and put them in beds. How fine bank helped on that? How fine bank was a major sponsor? It was a lot of businesses that helped with that. Out of my left field thinking, I was over in Grand Junction last number of weekends. And some of their recreation parks, they have lights. Is there anything that you guys would take and use? Let's say we tried to, I think you done a road that's enhanced the rodeo arena, putting lights down there with the sawp all. Is that something that we should even be putting on our radar to think about? I think it goes on the radar, but right now, I think when we do events, they need to be right by the mall in the base because part of the reason for events is to get people into vicinity of our commercial core If they're down there, it sounds nice to say we can pull them up, but it's not always realistic So on the radar screen when we're so full Then we can put more down there Sporting events bring people in for tournaments and that kind of stuff and didn't know if we have enough room down there to do that kind of stuff. I know, surely from a recreational standpoint, if there was more money coming into red, you probably would see one of the top things on the list from Andy and Hans would be an improved softball field with potentially some lights and with better amenities around that. So, and one thing kind of to that point that it's not there yet and with our representatives from the rodeo here, but it's still and it will be part of this capital improvement, is we still have kind of this unfinished piece which is looking at the rodeo site and it's just an un place we haven't finished the planning and the thinking. I think we're clear about the uses and the thoughts behind it but that's something that still is to be done. Hi. Susan. We had a problem in years past with being able to sell in terms of sales. The conference center. Conference center. We have, there is a facility beneath the mall or beneath the base village that has conference facilities. Are we selling that too? And have we cleared up the problem up at the mall? Right. The conference center, we don't have any restrictions now. We're out there selling even 14, even though officially it's 13. We're still selling it. There's no talk of any expiration date. So that's moving along. The base, to be honest, hadn't been sold since it opened. There were a lot of complications with it. There was confusion as to their identity. There was confusion as to one entity, Brents it, the other one, services it. Another one has the catering for it. There were a lot of complications in Dwayne's to his credit, stood up and said, we need to fix this. And we actually got in a room all together, changed the name of it to base village conference base instead of cat little Hayden. I don't quite get it and it's stinkorship from the one on the mall so little changes like that made a difference and now all the reception for CTO was in capital Hayden so it's it's more available it's easier to sell now than it was before okay so we are we're and we're trying we're trying and you have the facet down there the facet was was down there. That's a perfect example. And we had to go through those hoops to be able to figure out what's broken, to know what to fix. And yes, facet was down there with their meals at Sweet Life. Did it all work out pretty well for them? The back was positive from Julie. That's good. They want to come back. She's coming back. That's a good pilot. Re-up. Take her backstage and give her a couple beers and introduce her to the band and she's coming. Anything else on this portion of the budget? Okay. The next fund is Group Sales page 75. And for 2011, as a beginning balance of $308,000, revenues of 1 million and expenditures of 1.5. At the end of 2010, they had funds available of 207,000. And so in this next year's budget, they are anticipating using some of those funds which is light expenditures exceed revenues by 128,000. They also put away 10% of revenues in their reserve fund as well and in 2011 they're ending the year with funds available of 178,000 for a total fund balance of 179,000 and that pretty much fluctuates around 145 or 125 to 160 over the next five years. So do you have any questions on group sales budget? How many group sales people do we have working for now? We have one vacant group sales director spot. We have three salespeople, one vacant salesperson and one group sales coordinator who also services the entire department. So we have three onboard group sales persons and one vacancy to fill. And the director. Yeah, but I'm talking about the guys' director. You vacancy. You vacancy. Yeah. Three filled in one vacant. And we're waiting for the director to come aboard to fill that fourth one. Or are we working to fill at any? No, I'm working to fill the director's lab. But I'd like them to have a say in the person's onboard since they're accountable to them. We might also look at a contractor relationship for Russ's request for the position. This is kind of pursuing an idea that Susan and K2 had anyway, which is maybe looking and experimenting. This would be on a contract basis. In a market, we're not really penetrating well, like Washington, D.C., where you have all the national associations there and maybe getting somebody on the ground in D. in DC that has connections to pitch to those associations. Part of the reason behind that is it's a lot of travel expense to go back and forth. So to test having somebody in a market, in a very lucrative market, not somewhere where they still have to travel around. But there's a lot of business in DC. New York isn't very far from there. So that's one thing I'd kind of like to consider but would like the new director to be on board with that notion. How are we doing in acquiring a new director? Had one interview so far and have one potentially two others to interview. I was going deep and narrow rather than broadly, like last time I got 100 resumes and 98 were poo. Yeah. Yeah. It's a lot of time to sorry, you're not remotely qualified. Right. Right. Right. Okay. So, so, the, hey, we've had applicants that are qualified in your very three. Right. And we're working on it. And we're not going to settle. We're going to make sure we have the right person in place. But it takes a little longer. Again, we're moving. There's no pause button up there. Everybody is moving along. We didn't even ask Jimmy to be acting director. They're just reporting to me so that we don't take anything away from that momentum. So we'll just keep going until we find the right person. And we're looking for somebody that has an interest in putting some roots here that, you know, is interested in making an investment in the community. Right. That's a good idea. Okay. Anything else? That's not what you're saying. I have nothing else on this fund. You think that that operating revenue line, that 1 million, 12,000 is conservative? I'm saying the light group sales budget summary, the operating revenues of a million. That's not much change from this year. Do you think you're going to see an uptick? 1.1? Yeah, 1 million. Just 1 million, 12,000. Yeah, I did the projections on the lodging taxes. 2009, we ended up with a million 94. Right now we are running around 5% below 2009. And then for 2011 we did the same 0% like we did on sales taxes over 2010 revised. So maybe a little conservative. We hope. We always hope that it's a little bit. Well hope. We're always helping. That's a little mirror. Well, it's flat. And that's. Yeah. OK. It's consistent with everything in general fun, what you saw in the general fun. Are you seeing people just not traveling as much from doing some of these groups? I was like, we used to have years ago back in the oil. Well, I think they just look differently. They're not, they're a little bit under the radar screen in their boondoggle kind of approach that people used to do. So they're still coming. Association still have to do accreditation. So they still have to go somewhere. And the beauty is you can ask them to sort of above the radar screen. Everybody can see it. And so you're afraid to go there. But you can come here to snowmass and you're safe, so we're attractive in that regard. So the pie is not shrinking all that much. It's just more people are going after the pie. Competitors are stepping up, some people would never really care much about groups in the past, all of a sudden they're in our faces. So it's just more competitive. Is there any new hardware we need to be thinking about, or you guys need to be putting in for connecting the remote satellite, you know group conference rooms together or anything like that. We need to. Well, anything we can do that's high tech. I'm going to send you a link to this video that are you familiar with the Did You Know series of videos? No. There's a new one that's just, it blows your mind how fast social marketing is growing. And there's tools that people need to do that. And I mean, No. There's a new one that's just, it blows your mind how fast social marketing is growing, and there's tools that people need to do that. And I mean, you said it too, with social market. It's this video said, if Facebook was a country, it'd be the third largest country in the world. It's that big. It used to take 38 years to reach 50 million people through TV, 13 years to reach that many through radio. Today, 60,000 people update their Facebook posting every single day. 60 million. 60 million. Really find the time I don't know, but I don't need it. I don't know how to do that. So to your point, Billy, making sure that we're technically enabling so that all these people who are living their lives on their phone, every transaction on their phone, that we have the kind of activity there for them to live the way they live today. Are we doing social marketing? No, no, are we providing that service? Is there something we need to do to make sure that we have that service today? Candidly, I'm not educated enough to know what I don't know, and that's the next step and that we presented to our board by sharing the video this morning. We need, we've got Facebook, we've got Twitter, to know what I don't know, and that's the next step and that we presented to our board by sharing the video this morning. We need, we've got Facebook, we've got Twitter, but we're not social marketers with a really strong plan yet, so what I shared with them today is we're going to be at the next board meeting, I'm bringing a really thorough plan about how we need to move some of our print, not get rid of print, still need some, but move a lot of it into this really growing social medium. And when we do that work, I'll find out what we're missing. There are some local companies that are doing very well with that and are kind of at the head of the pack. So I'll give this to you. But I don't think that's what I thought I heard Billy. We always just get in or on. You just mentioned, do we have to have infrastructure and capacity, the infrastructure, whatever it is. Right. Here, so that folks can work with their phone. Right. It does seem to work very well today, but that's besides the point. But are we doing their- Are those investments that we need to be making? Yeah, I'm not saying clearly enough. I don't know what all those investments are until we get into this work. So once they do, then I can go back and say, no, we don't have certain wireless in a certain location. I don't know the answer yet. I'm learning the questions, and I can get back to it with the answers. The other thing I was really driving after is being we have a conference room down here, there's a conference room at the top of the village. There's a conference room over at Enclave. Like breakout groups, is there a way that we can then connect those all into the major conference so that people can work at the same time? I have to think, yes, skyping capabilities and such. Yeah, teleconferencing is, that's easy and skyping and all the things that are in it. Connectivity, insights, we can get larger groups here with smaller breakout. Yeah, and I want to give you a more thorough and more intelligent response so I can do that research. I'll get back to you and I'm sure we'll say we need Skype capability. We need teleconferencing. We need video screens, things like that. We have an individual upstairs and it took a little while for Susan to convince me of the need. And now with the individual on board and understanding what he does. And I probably only presumed to understand a small fraction of it. You know, it's certainly where communication is going. And it's also transcended the group sales side of things too, not just the free dependent traveler. So it's something everybody is learning very, very quickly. I mean, if I'm traveling in my RV, I look for a place that has the Wi-Fi, it has all this sort of stuff. And I would be thinking that your group salespeople are trying to say, hey, do you have A, B, and C, and D, so that people can do what they need to or want to or, you know, so. And let me share a little anecdotal stuff. I'd, there's two conferences in September, one in Breckenridge and one here, as a matter of fact, at the conference center. At Breckenridge, and I travel with the phone thing because I need to be able to see on what ever you call this. So it reminds inside of the phone. But the point is that I need to be in communication. In Breckenridge, the big room, we were all in there being electric too and so forth and I turned to my prices. We got Wi-Fi here. Oh yeah, there's Wi-Fi. They pull it up. But you can't get on it. Because it costs eight dollars a minute. It's like, minute or something like that And you know that was very turning off the room that I was in cost the conference room I was in cost and I just said you know back with you guys I took my phone gizmo in which is why I have it and Went off and used it but it was right it was negative. We talked about a long time ago, making our community Wi-Fi accessible, wherever the heck you were, didn't cost you anything, you just bang, you plugged in. And there were other communities that do this already. We need to be there, and there aren't any lodges in the room, but there are lodges that charge that $12.95 more hours. Infrastructure's not cheap but in but at the same time it's. But you lose business if I'm a former meeting planner and I look for tools that I need for my meeting and if I can go here or here. Right. You give me free. I'm over here. That's right. I would think so. I would think that that's a very important thing and whatever happened to that. Well, you might recall Matt Donald, he and his company brought forward and chatted with Doug Goldfloss and there was an idea on the table and there were a couple other communities they were working in or looking at. Tell you right and what they concluded was particularly for snowmass, and the real issue was the fiber optic to connect certain areas was expensive here in snowmass. So he said, for our company, and they were offering you to do this at no cost, you know, we will come in and we get a certain percentage of the use, and it was free in certain areas and other areas. If you went a longer period of time, then you might pay over 60 minutes per day. So they concluded, you know, it doesn't make business sense for us, but we'd like to come back to you in the future and I'd be happy to chat with Matt and see where their company is. And there are other people to do that too. And it's more important, what's more important, though, it may not make business sense for them, but it may make business sense for us. I mean, we may need to make an investment, whether it's the 10% of marketing special events group sales or some place we scrounge out some money or we get out. Oh, it's fun to run out. Oh, we get a grant or something like that. But that may be something. There's some grants out there and that's one of the reasons they were doing. I don't know if they've expired. Well, that's right. There was a federal grant. Like they were going to pay for 60% of it or something. Yeah. And that grant closed. I don't think we should be. No, I agree in this. I don We'll start saying, well, let's start eating up this budget. We do have this up to 10% capital improvement. This would be the kind of thing that makes more sense than a bus stop from a marking budget. Right. Okay. Okay. Think about those things. Okay. So you'll talk of Matt and some others. Okay. Because I don't know what you're really going to do. Mary, where are we now? The final budget. Page 105 and 106, the CIP and ASI explained earlier. It would have been really exciting to get it. Nothing in there for 10, 11 or 12. In 13, it just had the 2.5 million for employee housing. In 2014 was the 2.5 for the other 2.5 for the employee housing and then 13.4 for the transit facility. But these numbers are all going to change once we bring you a new updated CIP. There's nothing there that I need to worry about though for 2011. No, for 2012 at this point. Okay. That concludes the budget show. I need to worry about that for 2011. No, or 2012 at this point. And that concludes the budget show. Thank you. Could it be helpful for us? Let's be prepared to summarize kind of the key actions. I can do that. Council, would that be helpful? Yeah. I'm sure that we're on the same page as they say. Okay, the notes that I took is, on the same page as they say. Okay, the notes that I took is, one is if the fund balance does drop below $5 million, we need to have a plan on how do we finish the funds. The question came up, what would be the amount of sales taxes if we were to have a sales tax on lift tickets? The question came up. I don't know if we're all agreeing. What? What? What? What? What? That's one. It was a meeting, but I don't think it's. It wasn't, uh, yeah. The question came up. What would be the amount of sales tax as the town would receive if we had a sales tax on lift to tickets versus the way the contribution agreement is. I don't wish to spend time on that. No. We figured it out. It's 5.2 million versus 975,000. There you go. There you go. Okay. So we don't need to do anything about that. There's a fast 4 million bucks we could get. The answer is no. Can I take that out? He'll use that much. You know, at least. Interesting. Hold on a second. Raise the very, very, very sailing point about that. Even if you could do that, all you'd end up doing is force business to ask for or down the road to keep all the intercepts locked because all you'd have to do is sell the tickets there unless you did it in some manner of a use time. It wouldn't be a time. So in fact, not a good that, did you? You kind of counter tax. There wouldn't be a tax. So a fat lot of good debt, did you? You could be the most expensive and available. Counterproductive, wouldn't it? Kind of like sales tax being over 10%. Yep. Yeah, kind of like that. Yep. We answered the question on the table emergency contingency transportation. To have them continue to evaluate looking at their services looking for additional efficiencies in some of the areas that they pick up. Grants Review Board leave it at 40K. Develop a plan for repaving trails throughout the town. Develop a volunteer trails program with a set schedule in advance. Adapt a trail program. Re-visit later, the 30,000 for the Mountain Trails maintenance. Cut those three part-time people in the recreation center. Look at how to increase past revenues using marketing to do this, starting with Leslie Fursif, we can market a better market the facility. The FAB, it's okay for them to go ahead and do a review of the revenues and expenditures in depth to see if the subsidy or what the subsidy level should be, what would be a good level that we should be trying to achieve. In the road fund, we should talk about building reserves for the future road repairs, the 25 million that he had in unfunded projects. And see if the middle levy is enough to fund these future projects. For the lottery fund to research, what we might be able to spend those funds on, can we use it for the ponds, for trails or foot trails, paving trails, the ski company mountain trail maintenance. To also look at the Holy Cross funds, what beautiful, beautification projects would they allow to be, these funds to be used for for this category? To do a master plan on the creed side apartments, start it now so that we can determine future implementation including building code concerns. It's OK for the marketing department to do a budget overview with the FAB and to make sure that the FAB understands that they should understand that the buck stops with the town council. And then it's purely a financial review. It's not getting into the program. All right. It's not a program. And to research, Y5 in Snowmass Village. Can I add something to the Brush Creek Review? Can we maybe also, it could stop at Brush Creek, but right next to that is Palisade, which is younger, but it's still, if it made sense to do a bigger project for, if I have the support of everyone else here, I'd go. I think the response would tell you,. I think I would say that I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would say I would Yeah, yeah, so that's all sold. It's got nothing to do with the town Some of it it's split and those four buildings or five buildings. Yeah So we have some apartments up there too The ones closest to the curve are owned like employee owned and I think there are some agreements in some of the lower ones with some businesses still. But there are some rental ones in the first three buildings. Okay, but we really don't maintain that building, except to kick into the common area of fees, whoever owns that. But if we're looking at, maybe we should look at the whole thing and see what, I mean, I don't know if I live there and I could get a brand new tea bedroom for my, two bedroom or three bedroom for my tea bedroom, my my vote to move out for a year. Not moving out isn't the problem you'd have to pay for. Right the cost to build it. Well I understand but if we're going to master planet maybe we should really. Well it's never a bad idea to master plan the whole work I agree with that. So again it's looking at those rental products that are at that 40, 50 year lifespan and just evaluating. Is there a better master plan as there are a return on that investment versus some high-speed roasts and will incentivize the people that own it to want to do it themselves. I mean, who knows. Yeah. Yeah. I know all in the library. And then one thing you did not say is the summary was to move forward with Monopheids scenario number one. Yeah, absolutely. That's important. Yeah, budget wise. Absolutely. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? Move. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Man, I just, again, want to say thank you to the staff and Mary Ann. Oh, yeah. They're hard work. She worked her buttoll. Thank you. Thank you. You did a fabulous job. Thank you. She had to speak to every question. No, are we off? I want to make sure we're off. I have the discussions I carried out over lunch. We're worn off. I'm going to do it. Thank you.