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. you 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 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 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 go to the 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 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 So, um... 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 start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. I'm going to start with the first one. Start this show. Okay. Okay. I know you're on it. You're on it. Let's go ahead and start off with a regular meeting for Stomach Village Town Council August 16, 2010. I had the first item we had this roll call. These were on the. Mayor Boynow? Here. Welcome, son. Butler. Morgan. Present. Morgan. President. Lewis. Here. Moving next to public non-agenda items. Is there anybody out in the public that has an item which is not on the agenda? Please step forward, state your name for the record. My name is Victor Roush. I'm on P-Trap from the President. And I think I've sent an email to all of you guys earlier in a couple of days, and I think I don't have to bother reading the whole letter, but I will if you'd like you guys to take a look at that and let the appropriate officials Consider whether things things would could be done cautiously and Would add to the safety I won't take your time by reading the whole letters. Someone I can give a hard copy to mr. Ronda over here Thank you, and we saw that and we'll you know look at those Comments and get with Hunt and staff. See if we should do. Russ, OK. Thank you. Anything else? Council updates. You're starting? I have none at this time. Myself. We just had a great party last weekend and had a good event Saturday. So it was a good good weekend. I just want to thank everybody for coming to the town picnic. It was a great success and I wanted to bring Rhonda up here for a second work that you did. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ron, and all of the staff who helped with that, but Ron, to put in a lot of time making that get together. On a more sour note, the donation bucket went missing from the buffet table. So I just want to also mention that if anybody saw anything or would like to bring that back to the police station here, I think that would be the appropriate thing to do. It's surprising that it did turn out missing. I heard you were looking for it in the event. No one saw it move. Okay. Moving on. Item number four, discussion results of the carbon footprint data analysis. Move. Any round it. OK. Moving on, item number four, discussion results of the carbon footprint data analysis. Richard Headey, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tell us what you have. I'll go ahead and introduce a peer to mind. In 2008, the Environmental Sustainability Plan was adopted. And one of the goals in that plan was to determine the town's carbon footprint. So the Environmental Advisory Committee sort of adopted that as their first goal to achieve. So in order to do that we had to call on the pros and we retained Rick Heady from climate mitigation services to help us do that. It was about a three half four month project and sort of the next step once he's presented this to you and we look at the numbers, and natural next step would be to retain the services for a short amount of time and meet with the Environmental Advisory Committee in sort of a work session. Roll up our sleeves and figure out some sort of policies or next steps in ways to reduce the carbon footprint. Again this is one of these reports. We don't want sitting on the shelf. We need to take some action on how to reduce the carbon footprint. Again, this is one of these reports. We don't want sitting on the shelf. We need to take some action on how to reduce it. So we'd like to do some work sessions with Rick. So I will pass it over to him so he can tell us what he found. Thanks, Leslie. Thanks, Council. First of all, since we can't see, perhaps all of the all of these slides. And we have, for example, one thing we wanted to start with was adopt the same emissions measurement protocol that the City of Aspen did for its emissions inventory, both in 2004 and 2007, so we can compare the two jurisdictions apples to apples. Normally in municipal inventories, we include the biggest emitter of all which is fuel use and electricity in terms of carbon dioxide, but we also go in depth into other emission sources such as nitrogen oxide and methane sources. except to say that we adopted the city or town of snowmess village town limits as a geographic boundary. So we captured all the emission sources within that geographic boundary. Cheafly natural gas burned within town as well as some propane and outlawing districts like Wildcat and also fuel used for local transit and local driving. But outside the geographic limit we also included an attributed to Snumas Village, the traffic coming up, Brush Creek for example, or the school bus fleet that services Snumas Village kids. And for that matter, also outside the limit is all the power plants that supply electricity to hold across from which all the customers and some of us are able to buy the electricity. So those are outside the geographic boundary building, include them in the conceptual boundary. Third item outside, the physical boundary itself is landfill emissions from Pitten County landfill, which we attributed maybe 30% or so, of the total emissions, chiefly of methane, but also some electricity and fuel use at the Lentill. So in brush, in broad strokes, that's what we include, and focused on electricity, natural gas, and propane. And we've discussed most of these items already. But we got data from Holy Cross that detailed both residential and commercial and other major uses of electricity within the town limits of Snamas Village. We also based fuel use and emissions on traffic counts at the bottom of brush creek and at the other side of allocrieks that we could measure the amount of traffic passing those points. And we use a standard application for vehicle types that would pass by those traffic counters. A certain percentage of heavy trucks, for example, transit buses, large SUVs and trucks and smaller vehicles. So we're going to calculate for that distance driven what the fuel consumption and the emissions would be. We included Aspen skiing companies and Snowmass Mountain is within the town of Snowmass Village town boundary and we got their electricity and gas and propane usage as well as their diesel and gasoline usage for snowcats and snow and be able to et cetera. There are lots of things we did not include without which Snowmass Village would cease to exist and grind to Holt, whether it be wine imported from France or skis from Austria. A lot of things manufactured and produced elsewhere and then shipped here are not included in terms of total footprint. That's typical municipal and corporate inventory as well. We have to draw the boundary somewhere and I think we have a reasonable boundary already drawn. So first we start with the energy consumption, about 90 million kilowatt hours of electricity consumed. Now it's notable that Snomest Village consumes a lot more electricity per capita and per household per year than the average American or the average American household. For example, the Snomest Village homes use 30,000 plus kilowatt hours a year, and the average US household uses 11,000 kilowatt hours. Now it goes without saying that the average footprint of Snowmass homes are larger than the US average. We also use a lot of natural gas for home heating and water heating, as well as snow-melt systems both private and public. And most of the homes, or I should say all the homes in Wildcat are heated with propane, so we include that as well. The electricity consumption converts to 80,000 plus tons of CO2, equivalent because we also include a minor amount of methane associated with the mining of coal to power the power plants from which we buy electricity. Now there's some thousand or so customers in Snowmass Village, sorry, not a thousand, but a hundred or so customers in Snowmess village, sorry not a thousand but a hundred or so customers in snowmess village that buy Green certificates from Holy Cross energy And also number of customers that have photovoltaic panels on their roof That adds up to about a million kilowatt hours that we credit back towards the total footprint of snowmess village So the green certificates of the wind power wind Wind power pioneers from Holy Cross, as well as local generation, cheaply-followable techs. Holy Cross's emission factor is, you see, 1.8 pounds per kilowatt hour as delivered, which is somewhat higher than the U.S. average, and substantially higher than the Aspen Electric Department, which runs Rueda and some number of other renewable facilities. So a total building sector is chiefly from electricity and the column on the left, which you can barely see on the screen, followed by natural gas and a small amount of propane, and then applied chart on the right, showing the distribution. For transportation, we- Well, that microphone closer to you, please. I'm sorry, Arnie. I'm having a little trouble here. Thank you. OK. Thanks. So we also measure the fuel used in commuting vehicles. I think there are some 6,800 vehicles passing by, brush creek traffic counter on the average day. The details, by the way, are in the packet that you were distributed earlier on. There are a number of worksheets with comments on how the inventory was done, where the data was gathered from, who to call back, what the basic consumption data was, and how we convert consumption of electricity and natural gas and transportation fuel into CO2 emissions. But going back to the fuel, you can see on this list here that driving in town is so, relatively minor compared to all the commuting that visitors as well as employees leaving down Valley used to get to and from some of them. We included tourists driving to and from snowmess as well as towns old, own transit system, school buses, county vehicles, small portion of that, the town's own vehicle fleet, police cruisers, etc. And the skiing company's use of diesel fuel and gasoline on the mountain. And then off-road vehicles, construction equipment, moors and snowblowers and all that kind of stuff. So it's a substantial number of gallons of fuel, 8.8 million in a year, which converts to 85,000 some tons of CO2, and comprises 27% of snowmess village total. I'm pleased and dropped if you have questions as I go. I'll be able to explain. Just like we did for the Aspen, the mission's inventory wanted to capture the emissions for all the visitors, second homeowners, locals, flying elsewhere, flying out of not only Aspen but also other regional airports. Excuse me? Recaptured the amount of fuel used for all the passengers we deemed originated or came to Snowmass Village over the year as a percentage of all the flights and the passengers using Aspen, Pitham County Airport. Not only by commercial air travel but also all the private aircraft using Aspen as a base. Without regard to where they were staying. No, we attributed a certain fraction of all the air traffic in and out of Aspen, only 20% of which was attributed to snowmess village and 60% or so to Aspen itself. As well as the general aircraft using Aspen on a annual basis, that comprises 26% of snowmesses total. As I mentioned earlier, we included emissions from the landfill. In about 30% of the landfill, waste flow originated in snow mass village, so we attributed the methane emissions that result from the decomposition of biological materials into methane and then are vented to the atmosphere. And also snow cats and mowers on the miscellaneous fuel users. So the total you can see the major users, electricity and the red column on the left, natural gas on the blue. Ground transportation is the largest pyramid. Air travel somewhat less and generally aviation less again. And here is the same chart both by tons on the top and percentage distribution on the bottom. So if we look at the major sources in a table format we can see the percentages on the right and over the chart and I'm sorry you can't read the left hand. The top is electricity, the natural gas and propane, ground transportation, air travel and aviation, miscellaneous uses, landfill is 10,000 tons, nitrous oxide from application of nitrogen fertilizer to golf courses and athletic fields, within the town of Snowmouth Village and a small amount for refrigerants and appliances and automobiles. And this footnote on the bottom just highlights that the town's owned own snow melt system using both natural gas and electricity comprises 1.1% of the total inventory for snow melt road and the other town-owned snow melt systems. And when my compare, although it's difficult to compare, inventories between jurisdictions, but we can make some determination, at least what the tolls are and what the per capita emissions are, although every inventory is different, except for the one I did between Snowmass Village and Aspen. But it is difficult to consider what the residents and the visitors' number are in Snowmass Village or Aspen for that matter. We have some sense of tourism numbers, but we don't have a good sense on how many visitors or second homeowners are in town and a week or in the year on average. But if we just take the number of residents in snowmess village, we get a pretty high emissions rate per capita in town. We're reduced by more than half if we assume that there are 4,000 people in town on average throughout the year compared to Aspen, Frisco and Boulder for example and for that matter the global average. So in total we have 310,000 some tons attributed to snowmass village and all the activities we've discussed. And minor percent of course in terms of U.S. emissions. And if we convert it to energy terms we would see nine large gasoline tankers delivering fuel to snowmass village every day if we roll all the emission sources into one energy form in the gasoline or for that matter for three or so railroad cars full of coal every day. Any questions on the protocol or the results so far? Not really. I guess one of the things we were thinking about when you said we're comparing aspirin to snowmass. Snowmass would be built inside of a hill and we have a snowmelt road and we have a lot more electrical use in any other country than anybody else because of that. That's true. Yeah, we haven't gone into the causes, but you're absolutely right. That's a number of your households are facing north. It's colder on those slopes. Require more snow melts, more space heating, and larger homes as well. Is there any other ski resort that you work with that is far more comparable than using Aspen as the top? that is far more comparable than using aspirin as the comp? Well, I think it's better to compare to aspirin because we're in the same geographic zone. Well, we may be in the same geographic zone, but I'm talking about the topography of snowmass compared to aspirin. I mean, steam moat or...? Well, even the population is going to skew it. It's more efficient when you have a larger population. Yeah. Well, that's true. And the big unknown is how many visitors tourists or second homeowners are here on the average day. And we don't have good data on that. Are you? I don't have any questions about material. Very straightforward about what it is you've used. I have more than questions. I call into question the assumptions that you're making. I called into question when Aspen first announced that it was going to do. It's carbon footprint analysis, try and include the airport and people who fly in and out of God knows where, for God knows where. And when? And I think it's just as much folly to use it in ours. A question, for example, if you go back a couple of slides, as I understand it, if I look, and you don't have to go back that far, go ahead. This one. You've compared Snowmass Village at average 4,000 residents plus visitors average per day per year. We have what, 1, 1800 residents in Snowmass Village. How are you going to get it to 4,000? Well, there are some 1800s rental units as well. Yeah, but there's nobody in them. Well, lodges are occupied. And average of $4,000 people per day. Throughout the year, they would be sending up flares and banners. It's just not real. On top of which, you're talking about a community that has 1800 people comparing it to Aspen, which has roughly five to six thousand and which is a ratio significantly different than two to one and your comparison ratio is roughly two to one. Well in both cases. Morgan, we're using actual consumption data. We have some, we have accurate data on how many visitors fly into and out of Aspen. Some 300,000 passitors a year. We attribute a reasonable portion to Aspen and a much smaller proportion toomach Village. To determine, in my opinion, to determine Stomach Village's carbon fluke, village's post-JPS carbon footprint, not what it is creating for the rest of the world. I mean, why don't you figure out how much of those people are going to Europe and attribute some of that to Europe's carbon footprint. I understand what it is you're doing. And I understand the assumptions that you're making. I just don't like them. I don't think they're appropriate to determine our carbon footprint if we are doing this for something other than to say, oh, what a terrible group of people we are. Because one assumes that we're doing it so that we can make some changes. That's the correct assumption. Frankly, we can't make any changes into who flies in and out of the airport. There may be some folks in our community that think we ought to be able to do that. I'm not suggesting that you want to aim at reducing air traffic, but we want to measure the climate impact of the town, the Somas village and its business. It's a resort community as well as a residential community. If what you're doing is for the purpose of being able to make change, then that's a measure that, in my opinion, is invalid. If what we're trying to do is just figure out what the whole works is by simply existing, then I think that it's perfectly valid. But. existing than I think, you know, that is perfectly valid. But, and that's what I would hope that we're doing this for some useful purpose. That's the purpose, Arnie. In terms of doing this, the purpose was to get a baseline and be able to then isolate the various sources. We've talked to Rick about this. It was common for other communities to look at their major transportation functions in and out. So you're absolutely right. Is that an area that's actionable? Probably not. I don't have a problem with our transportation function. And you look over at our transportation function and you see its peak. And you need to look at that that certainly is something that tweaks your interest in trying to accomplish something purposefully. Right. You know, so that's why again Rick isolated the major sources and some of those are actionable some of them are probably not. Like I said, I understand what it is that's being, I understand that the numbers, I understand where they're coming from, I just don't agree with their inclusion into a report that we're paying for that we, I hope, are doing for something other than an exercise. Right. The next step would be then to evaluate this and see what is actionable and what could we meaningfully change. Okay. I just needed to make that comment. Anything else right now? Continue on. I would agree Mr. Morkin that where Snom S Village wants to focus first, or the sources that it has largest control over, towns on building and vehicle fleet, snow melt system, but also reaching out into the community, not only people who live here, but people who drive here, and depend on Snom S Village for work or for skiing. Clearly, and those are all actionable. We can do things about that. And you've already done a great deal by supporting Raffta and putting people on buses when they come and go from here. And also years ago, we probably had to do this, but our snowmelt system didn't we put in more efficient boilers, the number of what is it at the time? The system needed updates and the other we need them like a phone too. Anyway, we looked at some of those over the years and we're going to continue to do that of course but I think the point I was trying to make was we had more usage of natural gas you know years ago with an inefficient system but as Hunt said there may be more things we need to do or could do. Okay. Let me also say that it's pretty standard practice to include or attribute to an entity whether it be a corporation or a municipality, sources of which it has less than optimal control. It might be a company that leases trucks to deliver its product. Those are typically included in a corporate entity's emissions. Same thing for air travel for corporations. That goes for municipalities as well. Doesn't all always include just the ones that you own or manage or can control locally. Clearly, the air travel that we use is attributable. That's not where we're diverting. Well, I mean, that's not it at all. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. We're doing. portion of our travel. Well, what you did is you did it by percentage. There's no way to know. Correct. And if that's an unreasonable percentage, I'd be happy to adjust it. But I think 20% is not unreasonable for the total number of passengers flying in and out of Aspen Airport. That's what's unreasonable. Not the percentage. It's not the percentage. Well, they're flying in and out of the percentage. But unreasonably, you don't know, first of all, people who fly private aircraft, we have absolutely no control over. In fact, we don't have any control over people that fly in the neighborhood. Absolutely. Okay. And all I'm suggesting to you is that what is important is to focus on what it is we can do when you expand to what's happening in Lithuania and attribute 4% of that here, it detracts, in my humble opinion, from the impact of your report. Because somebody looks at it. That's silly. I would suggest that it would be silly to ignore air travel for a resort. Okay. I think the point though is we now and we will be looking at the areas that are actionable and that we can once. I think that point is clear. Yeah. Can we turn our attention to those? What would be, and is Rick, is there more in your presentation you'd like to highlight? Well, mostly open for discussion about what might be done down the road in terms of the town's own buildings and transportation systems. I hear that the snow melt system has been upgraded, so maybe that's handled. It isn't handled, but it's working on it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no system has been upgraded. So maybe that's handled. That's handled. It isn't handled, but it's working on it. Yeah. Right. To be interesting to know what it is, there's some thought about what are you going to do at the town transportation system. It's an offset. The community has decided that into assist in keeping private vehicles off the road, to assist in making sure our community is in gridlocked by everybody driving four cars up the street. We've got a transportation system. Now, obviously the transportation system is, because of its nature, it does not run on electricity, is going to create a carbon footprint. It's going to use energy, and it's going to spew some kind of material into the atmosphere. It would be interesting to see, first of all, what the calculation is in comparison. If you took that away, what would you have? Is it going to move people somehow? Right. Well, in the transportation system,, doesn't service the entire town. Well, that's also another problem. Yeah. So it doesn't serve up wood road or far away. What goes up, but not far enough? Not at all. So, but what you've got, what ideas, if any, do you have you developed or thought about? What could you do with the transportation system? What are other communities doing with their transportation system that would be practical in this community? We're obviously not going to string overhead electric lines and make a lot of choices. No, but Rafft has already doing a good job of bringing a lot of workers to town by public transit. You might think about offering some incentives to companies that employ them to offer free bus passes or to improve information on car sharing, for example. OK. Or van Pools. But maybe also share to your observations in terms of residential usage. Again, when you looked at it on a per capita basis, our residential usage, and this is not dissimilar to other resort communities, it's high. And maybe share your thoughts on that. Well, it is high, and I'm sure there are lots of opportunities almost in every household in town to cost effectively invest in reducing electric intensity as well as natural gas intensity. I know that this is a cold community and we need more energy than the average U.S. household. But we use 11 kilowatt hours per square foot of residential space in Slamas village and the average is closer to five. What is it in cold climates like this? It's conserved in less than Slamas village, not all. We have the average. And within that average, it would be extremely helpful to know when the average temperature in the winter time, let say is 15 degrees what other geographic regions is similar to this and then what is their consumption? That would be interesting to study what the intensity is and I haven't done that yet as for future about analyzing the housing stock in some of the villages and what the opportunities might be. We've just looked at total electricity consumption and not divoted into households other than the large per average that I give you. And obviously that varies between electric condos that are in the shade versus a home and horse ranch that faces the sun. We do know that older condos are electrified because that was the means of heat when those were built in the 60s and the 70s and late 60s and 70s. Many of them have installed gas appliances which is just trading off a different energy source but I think a more efficient heat energy source. That's correct. But it would be very interesting to see, and I think more telling, more informational, to know, I mean, okay, it's a fact that we use more than the average community in the United States. The average community in the United States probably doesn't have the kind of temperatures that we have for the long period of time that we have. What? Of course, when you put the per capita number in, you've got to figure out what the per capita is. And tinkering with that will change the per capita number. Well, on a household basis, we have a pretty good sense because we know the number of households, condos, single family houses. Yeah, the interesting difference is that when you compare them to, let's say, Detroit or Denver, then, well, yeah, but even Denver's warmer. But you know, you know, figure out some really cold place, Minneapolis or, you know, someplace. Steamboat. Steamboat. Well, but that's also a resource point is that that's there you're more occupied than you are here and we should be per quote household close quote less because these units are less occupied and if that's not true that's an area it seems to me we might be able to make some inroads in making sure that condo associations It seems to me we might be able to make some inroads in, making sure that condo associations went through and turned down heat. I can remember, because it's not too long going to have memories in that bit, but going by units in the crust will wear the doors open. In a middle of a winter and run around it basically closing doors because either they blew open or somebody left them open and checked out at one o'clock in the morning or the maids forgot to close them anyhow or you know, a myriad of reasons. Now obviously that's just trying to heat up the outdoors and that's so. And I was suspect it's the case that unoccupied units, whether they be single-family households or condos, are still substantially heated. Even if the heat is turned down on them, the water heating is still running. Research, research, recirculation systems are still operating. All the appliances are still plugged in. And there's a lot of opportunities in empty households to reduce their electric intensity, as well as their gas. So I think the huge stuff is hard. And talking to Rick is, you know, there might be a project with our part-time homeowners advisory board, you know, with an educational program. Because again, we're seeing electrical and utility usage in our part time homes on par with homes that are being used year round. And again, maybe a little education in that area could go a long way. And really what we wanted to do today was simply present a baseline. And I think here you'll add and clear, we can just aggregate that baseline and look at it by sector. And we can have the date about whether or it should be in or out or just put it off to the side. And really we just wanted to know do you want us to take the next step, have a chat with our Environmental Advisory Committee about what would be some tangible next steps and actual things we can move forward with. I certainly would think it's a good idea to take the next step and have a chat with the committee. That's for sure. And I like the idea of the part-time homeowners. Yeah. I don't even want to talk about the number of drive waves that are far away that are heated and people aren't there. That's disturbing because I know even for in the more recent past when we've approved heated driveways there are restrictions on you got to turn them off you got to be on a timer they got to be on this and that and all sorts of restrictions and it's disturbing that well they may fly out to Florida for a week so you say okay well there may be a major snowstorms I'll leave it on but it is very important it's very important. It's very important. We get some education going. And since some of these private snow melt systems were installed years or even decades ago, they're old. They're perhaps not maintained. They don't have modern controls to sense the temperature and moisture. And they're on more continuously than they need to be. And many of the homes on facing north are electric baseboard heat. That's a problem. It is. So you're absolutely correct. We would need to look at the building sector first and understand more about the variety of buildings and their heat and electricity use. Well, certainly that's something for the second homeowner is advisory committee. It would be interesting to somehow develop some kind of surveys. How many second homes, we don't care whether this second or first home, how many homes the snowman has a village some kind of a device that restricts the use of the snow melt at times that you don't need? Has the sensor on them. Yeah. Yeah. Either a sensor or even if you have a device that allows it only to operate, let's say an hour or two hours at a time, at least it comes off. And you have to consciously go back and turn it on. And if for the example, you go to Florida for a week, you can't come back and keep turning it on. And so it's going to be off. So I wonder if some kind of a survey could be done, get that kind of information. And then, yeah, electric base board heaters for homes. No one here is going to know this. But I operated energy conservation companies for 15 years and I've retrofitted approximately 100 million square feet of office hospitals residents as high-rise buildings and I am sure a lot of systems have automatic systems in place and in almost all cases they're going to be having overwritten and redesigned by mechanics and electricians and people who know what they're doing and not doing. And I'm certain that if somehow out of this committee and these studies if a simple primer could be a handout can be developed. A simple one that says there may be ten major energy hogs, you know them better than most people, and we could distribute these people and tell you the cost benefit analysis and carbon would be one of those benefits. But obviously cash would be another benefit and an easy motivator because you can't generate carbon without spending money. So I'm sure that we could try to distribute that if something would be done. And I don't think it should be complicated. It should be simple enough that Jane or Joe Homeowner can do it when they leave Sunday. They had a hard day ski and they turn around and shut off or adjust three or four devices, turn their heat down to 50. Whatever the heck it's going to be. And I think it would have tangible effects. But give us some tools and we'll try to get it out there. Please, great. Do I hear consensus from council to take the next step and at least have a chat with our EAC and our time homeowners? I think that's appropriate. That's what we're hearing here. I don't want to spend a whole lot of money at this point in time. But I think that there should be some discussion. I don't think we need to spend any money. I think we can throw around some ideas. And this is a good start. Great. Very good. Anything else? Not for me. Thanks, either. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, thank you, Council. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on. This is item five, which we have before talking about our transportation items. We're going to get into that with the Marianne and Russ here. Actually, it's 5, 6, and 7 in it. Yeah. And 8 and 9. Yeah, we'd like to give you one presentation. We have a little cheat sheet in front of you. I just wanted to say a few comments Mr. Mayor and then probably are some other people in the hallway that may also want to speak. We have this in our packet only. You do have this. I just reprinted you know just as staff was talking out. We have five different resolutions in front of you. Could you point it? You make that little box go away So we just wanted to keep this up here as a point of reference as we talk about the various resolutions And I know we have it, but maybe you could refresh where this was in a supplement a little packet we put in I believe it is towards the end of this packet If you go cast 2027 2829 29, 30, 31, yep. It's okay. Great. Yeah. It starts off with a memo dated August 13. Maybe recommendations. Russ, could I please remind everybody in the public to sign in and the back if you haven't done so. Thank you. Yeah, it's a number, but it's there. Great. Anyway, saw that at the packet got put together. So that's, it's a number, but it's there. Great. Anyway, saw that. I added that for the packet that I put together, so that's why it's not. Right. I just wanted to make sure because it's helpful to see. It's in the council packet right before the resolution. Right before the resolution. No. Go to the resolution and it's just a few pages before or right before you go flip past the The map in your packet The map Map yeah, it's it Starts out to help So Marie you could help Miranda We have a meeting on August 2nd. You can get out from Ronda. I've got it. Hopefully we caught your packet. Thank you, Ronda. Maybe it isn't that packet there. Right here. Summary of resolutions. Yeah. Can we find it all? I got it. Very good. Just as a recap at the meeting on August 2nd, you received a recommendation from the Financial Advisory Board at the same evening. You also received a request from Pitkin County to support the Drostee Purchase for approximately 2.5 million. You provided direction at that meeting to create three ballot questions, which are in your packet and identified. And again, I'll just continue to refer to the slide in front of us as resolutions 27, 28 and 29. Again they deal with a transportation funding question, a parks and recreation funding question and then a bonding in Mill Levy for the Drowste open space. So those three resolutions are in front of you. Since that meeting, and more specifically last Wednesday, on August 11th, the Financial Advisory Board met again, and reviewed their recommendation and light of the DROSTY funding request. And their recommendation is also in your packet and summarized in the bottom table on the screen and front of us. Several points staff would like to make. I believe Fred is here to speak from the FAB and I staff will over the next couple of months be presenting a five-year budget to council that will show approximately a half million dollar shortfall over the next five years in 2011, as Mary Ann has already summarized, it could be as much as 700,000. And we kind of, developing a recommendation to you, really wanted to ensure that we were providing all the options to you to support our core functions within the town. And over the last year, really, for the, with the exception of Route 7, we've made cuts. We've certainly felt them. But again, from the public standpoint, I don't believe they've really been seen by the community except for arguably Route 7. We're now at a point where to really hit these financial goals of eliminating about a half million dollars over the next five years, we'll be talking about cuts that most arguably would be seen by the community and felt by the community. Also, one of the things we've been looking at is in the economic climate and with multiple ballot initiatives, we've been receiving a survey from the hospital, to participate ballot questions from the school district, from the fire district. We really believe it's important to not overreach in our requests for ballot support from the community and funding support and really focusing on the most critical issues is important. And we'd recommend that the transportation question really is the most critical question that helps ensure the financial sustainability of our transportation system and also indirectly helps the journal fund. We also believe the Drostee property is a strategic piece of open space and the FAB and their recommendation from last Wednesday's meeting also recognizes that. The recommendation they have does include a meaningful contribution to that project and there may be some other creative ideas tonight to discuss. The FAB recommendation does not include a valid question regarding the Recreation Center. And if it feels like the numbers have evolved over the last three or four weeks, they have. Over the last three to four weeks, we've been in our budget process that departments have given us their numbers and their projections of costs and revenues over the last four the next five years. And we're seeing a little bit better picture with Rhett. We're certainly not out of the woods by any means. But we're seeing a slightly better picture with RET. And our thought is that that is not yet at a point where although we would love to have a sustainable funding source, it doesn't rise to the same level of priority as the transportation question and potentially the drostee property. So based on that, the FAB is presenting a revised recommendation, including support for the Jostee property at $200,000 for five years. And that is a change from the recommendation and all that Fred speak to that a little bit more. And also funding for a transportation mill levy of .52 mills for five years again continuing to live within a .81 mills and again .81 mills is retiring this year these would be too new funding measures if supported by the community for these two purposes Marianne is here and she could also highlight, again, and summarize any key points with the general fund, but you might want to just mention the RET fund. Is there anything else you see in that that you want to highlight with that, Marianne? Is this on? Yes. Yes, okay. The RET fund we did in 2010 use about $225,000 out of the $2 million contingency to maintain a balanced budget. In 2011, that drops down to about $1 million of contingency. So we're using a million. We have a million remaining and based on the current budget numbers, we keep that million dollars through 2015. Of course, if Rhett comes in better than projected over those years, then those funds will go into the contingency fund so we can build that back up to two million. Hurry and relative to the RET, Russ commented that we're seeing an uptick on RET. And you commented also that we had a million dollars in contingency and it assumes that RET stays pretty flat. Have you looked at what that uptick is so far? Well, we had originally budgeted $689,000. We revised that when we came to council, I think in June, up to a million dollars. Right now, we're at $1,150,000 through August. So I've revised that number the first time up to $1,264,000 through the end of the year and then next year a million 250 and then I jump I think to a million five after that all the way up to 2 million come 2015. So there may be some opportunity is what I hear you saying with the uptick to really fund the deficits to an extent for the rec center. If we can, yes, if we continue to be above the million dollars that we last revised it to and then the 1.2, then yes, we can put those funds into the million dollars towards the million dollars in the contingency fund. So in summary with that, so I understand what you're really saying, is that you believe, in Rust believes, the town believes, our town staff, that we really don't need to focus on the red relative to this tax issue or the no-level issue, that we've got some uptick that we've got we've got some uptick we've got a little money here we just keep our our hands folded and we say dear God help us out here is that what we're doing that's what we say okay okay it's also my name I mean I still add to that that I think right it will continue to be a volatile fun yeah it will be it can go up it can go down just like we've seen for the last couple of years so would we love to be a volatile fund. Yeah, it will be. It can go up, it can go down, just like we've seen for the last couple of years. So would we love to have a dedicated funding source for an ongoing operation, such as the Rec Center? Yes. I think what we're seeing now is we're feeling enough optimism that we feel a little bit more confident we can live within our means, which is always a good thing to do with the Rec Center and maybe it doesn't rise to the same level of importance. And again, when we get to our budget discussion, if we did have another $357,000 supporting transportation, that will make that discussion about how to maintain critical services a much easier discussion to have. Okay, I will come back and ask some questions about the general budget the operating but I know my colleagues have questions. Did you take there is one pretty significant sale this year, which probably was close to 10% of the rat fund contributions? Did you take that into consideration? Have we already received it? Well, I think we did. Yeah, then it's already in here. Okay, but I just, that was a pretty large chunk for one transaction and whether we usually have one or two of those large chunk transactions within a year. Okay. So we need our realtors to really start selling. Yes. The other thing is resolute to I think during the budget process one of the thoughts I think fuel is have is to have a dedicated number for the wreck so we don't go over I mean if you're as well we were spending 650,000 and my thought was let's just make it, let's find it a lower number, maybe like a half million a year. That's all, we're not going to take more of it. If we get better, let's talk about that during budget. But I think those are the kind of things we need to look at and try to get a handle on it. Arnie, you know this is just explanation, really, for why we believe without hearing from FAB until we hear from FAB, why they decided to suggest the funding go to Drozdi and transportation and let the wreck center do what it can do. Right. And that's really all we're talking. Yeah, let's go ahead and... Good segway. Good. Fred? You're talking. Yeah, let's go ahead and get sick. Good. Fred? You're welcome. Thank you. Several weeks ago, when you asked us to look at the town's budget and the town's finances, several things were perfectly obvious. One is we just stated, town was going to run close to a $750,000 deficit next year and run deficit time out through the next three years. Town was also running fairly lean and as stated, if that deficit was there, services would be cut, citizens would feel it. The FAB said, what can we do that is tax neutral and debt free to help the town with this issue? And the first proposal that we put to you represented our best thinking. Then we hear about the dross deep property. My phone with all due respect started ringing off the hook. People said to me, what in God's name is this council thinking? Don't they understand what is going on in this town, in this county, in this state, in this country? There's a taxpayer revolution going on. And this town is thinking about asking the voters of this town to go into debt $2 million more than they already are by Open Space. You didn't ask us to look at the question, but we decided we would, because we thought it was important enough for us to do it. We had the same guiding principle. That is, let me start off with the premise that I don't think anybody argues that open space is good and that the dross d property would be a nice addition to open space. That is to give it. We said, what could we do? How can we reconfigure this to make some contribution to the trustee property and still stay tax neutral debt free? And that is basically our second recommendation where we said, instead of what we said was, let the town pledge a million dollar to the million dollars to open space. Pay off that pledge at the rate of $200,000 per year, which is what would have gone to the rec center. We thought that was responsible fiscal policy on our part and on the part of the town, and that's why we made the recommendation. And that is our recommendation to you. From here on out it is Fred Cooker talking it is not the FAB although I will say that a great the vast majority of the members of the FAB would agree with what I'm about to say. What we didn't realize at the time what I didn't know, but many others knew, is that we had already spent $5 million on the drulsie property. We already had a debt for $5 million for the conservation easement. So now we're being asked to give another $2 million. That's $7 million of debt that this town is, the voters of this town are being asked to give towards the drulsie property. We think that's fiscally responsible. I think that's fiscally irresponsible. I stay at fiscally irresponsible. And I'll tell you what my concern is. My real legitimate concern is that the voters of this town will know that you had a fiscally responsible proposition before you. And if you elect not to do it, if you elect not to accept the FAD proposal and put all three ballot and put the debt issue on the ballot plus our other 80 point 81 millage recommendation. The voters are going to say with just cause, if this town council won't act in an fiscally responsible manner, we will and we will vote everything down, including all the other ballot initiatives that will come on. I think that outcome will be tragic. Number one, you will have nothing for the drossity property. Number two, you will be putting this town in financially dire straits. That outcome is a result of poor governance on your part. When I was a kid, my father had an economic principle that he drove into me. It was a very, very simple one. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Meaning if I did have ready cash, already asked us to acquire something, I shouldn't acquire it. And I sure as hell shouldn't go into debt to acquire it. There were two exceptions for that. And our family, they were called debts and necessity. Number one, a mortgage, out of house, the house my family. Number two, a loan to a business, so I could support my family. That was it. No other debt. I submit to you that asking the idea of putting another $2 million into the drossty property by having the taxpayers of this town go $2 million into debt doesn't come near anywhere near being a debt of necessity. It's a debt of like, it's a debt of nice, but it is certainly not a debt of necessity. It's a debt of like, it's a debt of nice, but it is certainly not a debt of necessity. I urge you for the good of this town. I urge you to follow the FAB proposal, follow my father's advice, and have this town learn to live within its means. Thank you. Thank you, Fred. live within its means. Thank you. Thank you Fred. Don't sit down. Arnie. A couple of questions for you. If we're going to be, how did you put it, debt neutral and... Tax neutral. Tax neutral. Debt free. We're really not debt free because we're extending that. We would have been- Oh, you're gonna be tax neutral because the tax that if you do, if you do our recommendation, tax peers bills with respect to what they paste out of Stone-Ass village won't change from last year. Right. It's neutral in that sense. Right. They would have gone down. Absolutely. It's not quite neutral. But I understand what you said. But the point was given the circumstances the town was in, we thought that was the fairest thing to do. But I want to ask you about the length. The initial FAB proposal, if I recall correctly, was to extend it for an additional four years. And that's because at the time we were presented with a budget deficit going out four years. Okay. At our last meeting, the budget deficit goes out five years. Okay. So that's the comfort level. So the budget deficit goes out for five years. You're not uncomfortable, you don't think our community would be uncomfortable and you're commit. Your board isn't uncomfortable with saying, well, we thought four years would be enough, but it's okay to go five. Well, and only I will say there was one member of the board who didn't, and it was to be fair. But what we didn't know is that the deficit was going to run out five years and it turns out I mean rather conveniently That it gives you the flexibility of making a contribution to the to the drosty property of a million dollars and My guess is all candor is that that property could be bought for 18 million It could be bought for 17 million and I'm sure open space will be great negotiators to knock that price down a million bucks. So this town does, so the voters of this town don't have to go into debt. Well whether they can or can't that's really not the issue the issue is what we propose to get. Now one last question about this. The concept is allowing the voters to decide. And I understand with ballot measures and tax ballot measures, you can't like put 10 of them. Okay, when you go for $2 million, how about a million five? How about a million? How about three-query? And you know, choose one voter. You have to come up with a number and go to the voters with that. and go to the voters with that. But there are obviously a number of people in our community that we've heard from and some on our own council here that feel the appropriate number is too many. You're suggesting a million and frankly that's where I was when I first said it. Last council meeting But how do we get It's not our real decision you you the voters the folks who are gonna cast their ballots make the decision how how how can you Help us with that how do you reconcile my belief is that you run a very, very serious risk. If you put up the dartboard and see what sticks, that is not good governance on your part. And if you lose that risk, and it's a high one, you have, as I have said before, you have put this town in great jeopardy. I think it is incumbent upon you to do what is financially prudent and not simply say, let the chips fall where they may. That in this environment is about as important way of governing as I can conceive. How can you help us understand why $2 million is financially improved in our given our community. I mean, it may be improved in Chicago or New York or some other community that doesn't value open space, et cetera, the way we do. We seem to value it more. And I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to get my hat on. Because to get $2 billion, you have to go into debt. That's the improvement. There is no reason for you to go into debt to contribute to this property. Okay, so that's the concept. The concept is you don't have to theoretically go into debt. No, no, this go theory about it. If you want to give $2 million to the drossty property, you're going to have to go into debt. There's nothing theoretical about it? Or readjust this one. Or do what the FAP is recommended. Yes, that's exactly right. Well, you could readjust the transportation fund. Well, talk to Russ and see how much you need the money. Yeah. But that's creating another problem. Larger than anybody. That helps. Thank you. We appreciate the passion of the financial advisory board. I appreciate what you do and I think everyone in the town does as well. I am on the $2 million side of things and want to throw an idea out there to see if maybe we can come to something where we're all pushing for the same thing. I appreciate you re-looking at the whole situation with the new information. I am comfortable with the resolution 30 and 31 here. What would happen if we were to just lengthen number 30 for 10 years? Then we have the $2 million. We haven't really pushed ourselves into debt. We're still on the neutral thing that you're looking to do, which I agree with. I think your dad and my dad would probably get along in the same roles. And would the financial advisory board and the rest of the town be comfortable with a 10-year? I mean, obviously I can't speak for the entire financial advisory board. I can tell you one member would not be because he was not comfortable going out five years. Because he said, you know, what's to prevent the council from saying, well, let's go out six. Let's go out seven. Let's go out eight. You know, what's to prevent that? So he's strongly objective to even extending it another year. And so that's the only person I can actually speak for. I guess I don't understand why you need the extra million dollars when it will. It will extend something that doesn't need to be extended. A million dollars is a more than adequate contribution to purchase the, of our contribution to help purchase the trusty property. That's a matter of. Yeah, I guess I'm on the other side of that fence as well. Well, I look at it as- All I can tell you is what I have heard from people, they've said basically $7 million is too much. And that's what we've got at it. That's what we will have in it. And I think you run a terrible risk if you're wrong. I think the consequences of your being wrong are much worse than sticking with the conservative fiscally responsible way. And that's a bet. If I was sitting up there, I wouldn't make. I guess I'm on. I guess the way I looked at it was yes there has been money invested in the past and the the surround and it's not just that chunk but the surrounding pieces here there and everywhere up and down the valley including the money that we spent to underground the power lines. I guess I look at it from the point of view is it okay so it is $18 million and maybe it should be 17 and hopefully that can get negotiated. But say it's 18 which it sort of is right now. A $2 million contribution for the benefit that I think our community gets. I feel like we're getting a pretty decent deal based on the fact, the proximity to snowmage, the fact that we're getting all the help from Aspen, from Pitkin County, hopefully from the GoCo fund. I just, I don't know, I know it's hard times and I do want to be responsible, but I also would hate to see 13 bridges crisscrossing up the side of that valley. And I don't know. I haven't talked to as many people that are against it as there for it, I guess. What if you're wrong? What if you're wrong? Then we'll have open space and we'll figure out our finances. Then you what? We'll have open space and we'll figure out our finances. Then you what? We'll have open space and we'll figure out our finances. No, if you're wrong, you're not going to have any money for open space. If you're wrong, if we pass this fair... If the voters turn this down, you think the majority of the voters want this. What if you're wrong? Well, what if the FAB is wrong and a million? And they voted down. You're making a big decision. I think the question is, you're making a very reasonable contribution and you're not imposing any more burdens on the taxpayer. Well, we wouldn't be by really. Oh, yes you would. If you by running ten years, it would be. Well, that's a different issue. Okay, I'm sorry, I wasn't dressing that? Could you address that please? I think I guess you personally it's not one of those you're going to have your FAB had on I guess. Well if I. Okay. Oh. Another consideration would be to just continue the point eight one mills for two additional years That would get you another half a million per year and you'd be done with the drosti in seven years What was that Mariana? Because you You've got the the drosti going out for five years that gives you a million. You've got the transportation going out for five years. That goes away. So in the sixth and the seventh year, you do point eight one mills. You get the whole five hundred and fifty seven thousand for two years, which gets you another million dollars. Just one more thing to throw out. Well, I want to ask you a question, Marianne. When we talk about the .29 mill and the million dollars, I'd like to boil it down to the common person because I don't know what .29 mill means per month. Well, per year for residential of a million dollars a market value is $23 per month. Well, per year for residential of a million dollars of market value is $23 per year. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars. For a million dollars, $22 of your house is $2 million dollars house, it's 46 bucks. Well, you know, that is one of those things that we, I think, have to really. Well, yeah, and you know, I guess it's a real debate and I look forward to hearing from our open space about the history and all those types of things. I don't know if it's a million or two million or three million or what have you in terms of fairness and we had this discussion in our last council meeting. I think two million is a number where we need to land. That's what we discussed, what we voted on. The question is how can we get there? And I do think that perhaps that number has been put into other documents at the open space and other organizations know about already. So a million, two million, length, I would be helped. What if people started listening to that marquee with all due respect to see what if every other public taxing body starts thinking the same way and these res, and all these resolutions go on the bond issue and voters say you know it's just the way all these other bodies were thinking a million or two million was right was wrong with difference to make it's only 23 bucks a year or 46 bucks a year. But every other taxi district says the safety, we're not imposing that much on you. But you know how I look at that friend. What I see here is a discussion of preservation of our open space and preservation of the beauty of the valley coming up brush Creek Road and preservation for that beautiful landscape. And if you haven't been up there everyone needs to go but it's historical and I look back at the stuff that Roosevelt, the do-do he we went through back when he was protecting all of our national parks there is nothing more beautiful than standing in Yosemite that was never developed and we were we we had all kinds of financial problems at that time. So I harken back on the Drowste property as just as important as a national park, and perhaps it will never have a national park designation, but I consider that wilderness some of the most pristine in the United States, and I really think that 2 million is a bargain for it, and I'd like the voters not to think of operations. What I see the transportation is, is a bridge loan for operational support. And then I come over here and I say, well, what is this million or $2 million, whatever number we land on, what are we doing? We're doing preservation not only for our children but our grandchildren. I would hope that all of those that see all these other little ballot initiatives think of something about something they're doing for their children. I'm not sure the transportation is doing a lot for my children, but I can tell you that that open space for my grandchildren is someplace where they can go. I've got John Dresser than Russ. I just had a question for Fred and his role is chair of the FAB and the two proposals. One we've heard from Markey of extending that .294 ten years and the other one we just heard from Marianne is to keep the .A1 to go for basically seven years, being divvied up the first five years and then the balance. Isn't, aren't both of those suggestions consistent with the FAB's philosophy of tax neutral and debt free? I was going to get there, John, I'm glad you brought it up. And they are. They are, they are consistent with the principle. Again, I can't speak for the FAB in terms of extending the time out, but there is no argument that they are in conformity with the principal. Okay. Russ? I was going to ask the exact same question and just focus on the fundamental principles that the FAB discussed. The other thing I think, I mean, looking at one of the situations, it looked like we were going to pay $900,000 in interest over the course of, I think that was the 20-year loan or whatever, but I would hope that maybe what we could do is just pledge a flat $200,000 and not be involved. That's what's being proposed here. Okay. Our buying is, again, the FAB's proposal is a pledge not not right. He got a check tomorrow after a bond issue. That's that. So it's a pledge that's honored over five years, seven years, as long as it's an accordance with the fiscally responsible principle. I don't understand that. Yeah, because I think it's cause the county is behind us here. You have bonds. You have bonds. That's what, no. That's what, no. No, no. No. It isn't, Arnie. All we're doing is extending the mill levy. Not the bond itself. OK. We're not bonding it. So we're literally, you know, January 1st or whatever it makes sense when we get the male levy, we would be cutting the check to the county. It does require the county to potentially finance it up front. Right. Okay. But they're probably at a better position than we are, I'd say. Well, they have a full. Well, it assumes interest free on the part of the county. Right. Right. Well, it is our pledge. Nobody charges you interest on your pledge. You're exactly right. You're making the pledge. That's exactly why we're suggesting a pledge and not a bond. You don't believe a bond's OK with it when you take the property taxes directly off of your federal. It's the debt that you're asking the voters of this town to occur. If our principal is tax neutral debt free. No, we don't agree with the bond. Okay. Thank you Fred. Any other questions Fred at this point? Well, I had a question for probably Mary Ann. Well, let's go ahead and let you. Mary Ann. Okay. We're talking about the five years. Fred and the FAA have been recommending the five year on this debt free. And then I hear at year five it looks like we're coming out this budget crisis right now. I just, we're only going to run the five year number. The budget only takes us through 2015. We don't know what happens beyond that. I thought you were in the Crystal Ball that you're acidic. And I said no. In year 2015. You were a year if she did. It's a deficit of 451,000 in 2015. OK. I myself please that these are projections. These are projections. Taking the assumption that the economy is going to be as rotten as it is now for the next five years. It's pretty much status quo is what we have budgeted. I think that's how there are 15 assumptions. The glass half fullers and half half of it. Yeah. I would... Do we know whether or not the county is willing to... I know. Well, we have a lot of county folks sitting out there. We haven't passed that by them yet. They're all sitting right there. You may not see this. Is there anybody from the county that would like to discuss what we're talking about? Yeah. George and Jack, please step forward. I don't know if we can all just share it. Please do that. As long as you speak in the microphone. You can do it. And if you need more than one, we'll grab a couple more for them out there. Hello, George. Thank you very much for the rec. Is this on? Yes. I'm George Newman, Picking County Commissioner. With me is Jack Hatfield, Picking County Commissioner, Tom Oaken, Picking County Treasurer, and Dale Will, Pick and County Director of Open Space and Trails. Thank you very much. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time in terms of opening remarks. I think Margie has expressed our concerns as well as anybody from the resident and the council person from Snowmass. But I just want to sort of go back in terms of a little history in Alhavdale, really answer some specific questions on terms of what we feel is a fear. Hold on, the work is turning. Sound booth is turning up up dials. Yes, he's going to adjust that. Right now. It's on. There's a green light. Anywhere I was saying is I'll have Dale answer your specific questions in terms of what the contract really entails. There were some questions in terms of what lots were involved, what lots were not involved. The appraise value, which we feel is a fair value in terms of what the purchase price is. I'll have Tom Oak and really give you some other ideas in terms of how to address this issue, to get to $2 million that we feel we are really looking forward to your continued support as you presented that to us last time. And I think some of the ideas that were brought out this evening could address that. Certainly, the late term is the opportune time. But I think that really the key issue is, you know, the county has looked at this property for many, many years and we've valued this as open space, primarily for its wildlife habitat, the importance of the elk migration and the winter habitat there. And that's always been our interest in terms of making sure that it wasn't developed up there. The city of Aspen quickly came on board when this proposition came before them because they saw the great recreational opportunities as they presented to you last time. The recreational as well as the connectivity between Aspen and Snowmass. And that was for not only the Equestrians, but also mountain bikers and hikers. And that in itself in terms of open space and trails is a tremendous economic indicator in terms of promotion and adding dollars to any community. And that's Dale can give you some numbers on that. But that has been showing time and again in terms of the value of open space and trails for any community. You know for you for you you you not only are aware of the benefits for the wildlife habitats for the recreational opportunities but also just for the pure open space because what you're what you're not having to see is a road scar going up through that drainage you're not having to see is a road scar going up through that drainage You're not having to see nine McDonald's homes and all the impacts that's gonna have on that would have on the community and you're not gonna See any negative impacts on terms of the night sky So those are all tremendous assets for certainly the town of snowmass in the community here Again, we'll talk about the appraisal. You know, the Open Space and Trails Board is that does very due diligence before they purchase any properties. We have appraisals done that are done by license designated appraisers. And even after that step, it goes before the BLCC for further scrutiny before any any contracts get signed. So I believe that the open space and trails and BLCC has never overpaid for any property and it's always gotten a fair price in terms of the no-cuting terms of negotiations. The CD of Aspen has committed $1 million to this project, to this acquisition. I think it's going to be hard. My goal is to have the city up that a little bit. I'd like to see them come up to two million as well. I think it'd be very difficult for me to go before City Council and ask them to up their contribution in the town of Snowmass and it's only contributing $1 million. This is your, as I said earlier, last week. This is your entrance to your community. It's the gateway to your resort. It's really a legacy that you're going to be able to pass on to future generations. When you start seeing the numbers that actually Margie talked about, you know, sort of an idea of $45 as an idea per person based on a certain valuation, you have to sort of ask yourself, where can you get so much for so little. This is really not a tax burden. What it is, it's really an extraordinary opportunity. And we hope you'll see that and continue to support that for the $2 million that we're really looking for. Thank you. Pat Field, Commissioner, a Mu District Commissioner. Does this also work? Just get it within like six inches. Speaking to this. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity to share our thinking and all of us will have some things to say. I do apologize for not being here two weeks ago. I was on the couch sick, but I watched every moment of a very thoughtful meeting. And quite frankly, I came out of that thinking, having watched that, that there was a commitment. And then we were going to talk about the challenge of how to fund this $2 million. And we are certainly consistent in continuing to ask not the two and a half, but the $2 million where you landed. Just as a point of background, we get a little research and from 1995 to 2005 for three seven star purchases, Kozy Point, two conservation easements on Drozdy, we collectively have spent $17 plus million. That's a lot of money in this quarter. We have about according to Northwest Cog 2008 population for the county is about 17,000 people and we know snowmass has about 1800 now this is we're talking permanent residency of course so We have a responsibility greater than just snowmass village and that's why we're trying to parlay our dollars and we're committed $10 million that was not even in our budget because this wasn't. This was a discussion point as Dale has elaborated numerous times, but there was we didn't think we had an opportunity. Well, this is that opportunity. This is Fred uses a certain term. I would call this really a debt of opportunity because the way we are going to present this really boils down to according to needs and cash available, we are looking at a bonding question. And we're going to have further discussion and information about that. But for example, and something important, because we've all communicated a little bit at the picnic and individually. And I understand every one of you all have been up there. And I would certainly invite, I'd love to see the FAB to get up there too because it's an important asset for the greater community of Somas Village Aspen and Pickham County. county. But when we purchased in 1999 for $7.2 million, the original large conservation easement, which is the valley floor and about halfway up, some S village came to Pick and County and Pick and County open space and requested $2 million. And that was basically on a $7.2 million purchase and Picking County came through. Now we have an $18 million purchase before all of us, because it's all of our investment. And we're asking for still the two million dollars. The difference is 11% of the total, so mass paid the first time I understand if my numbers are correct. Oh, the other way. So 28% is what this, the $2 million represented? Is that right, Tom? Yeah, okay. So the 28% quite a difference. This is only, and George is right. I mean, we're not trying to derail important recommendations from the FAB, but George is right, this is a small amount in terms of time. FAB is a very important recommending board as we know both to the county and the town. As an individual commissioner, I assure you I will only appoint very conservative individuals to the FAB because I want to know the bottom line and that's what the FAB gives us. But as elected officials, certainly we are not bound by that recommendation. We take all the facts in and then make decisions. And I very much appreciate what we've heard both previously, unanimously, and now tonight that two members have thus far spoke for $2 million. And that's very important and we'll explain why. History tells us that opportunities sometimes come once in a lifetime. In 1988, I don't know how many are in this room, that was at this meeting at the Snowmass Conference Center, we as a town had the opportunity to buy all of the FDIC land and take total charge of our future and we had a very vocal group of second homeowners who were very concerned about that responsibility and the council chose not to follow through. That was a lost opportunity and we pay for that today. This opportunity is here. The market is down and that's why we have an opportunity to purchase less than a praise value from the best appraiser in the state. I please ask you all to continue because everyone has worked on this and been discussing it and thinking about it. I ask you all to please figure out a way to make this happen to give the voters. And I speak not only as your commissioner but as a citizen of Somas Village. Give us the opportunity to make this decision whether this is too much debt for what this purchase means now and for the future. There's no question that there are some who are very concerned about this purchase and looking at the financial state of our town. But I have heard from numerous, numerous people, including some of our older residents that this is a great idea and let's make it happen. Please, council, make this happen at $2 million. Thank you. Thank you, John. Would you like to help us out with a little feedback or a day? Probably Dale first. Yeah, okay. Thank you and thanks for having us back in. You know, I'm just really here to kind of fill in some of the technical background. I've heard some chat, I don't know how much of it is serious, but let me start with the appraisal. We hired Huntsberger and Weston to do this appraisal. We spent $15,000 on that appraisal. They hired an engineer to look at the cost of the infrastructure. They calculated the absorption rate of those lots, their likely market value, and they came up with the value range of between 19 and $21.5 million, and I'll take that appraisal to the bank. We've got the landowner under contract at less than that amount. And although I appreciate the suggestion that maybe they go down, I've been in that trench with that landowner. And I don't believe that to be the case. I firmly, basically, the contract you've signed a contract into the numbers 18. So there's really not any. Catch the number. That's the number. It's not open for negotiation. That's the number. Now let me tell you a little bit about the contract. In order to talk these guys into designing such a thing, the contract is not simply, we'll pay you 18. The contract is a three-step option sequence that is designed to enable us to raise the funds so that we can build up this acquisition as we go. The first step is $500,000, which the open spaceport of the county and the county commissioners on first reading have approved to set the ball in motion. For that half a million dollars, we will acquire approximately 108 acres, which will connect the Cozypoint South property up and over just behind the Aspen airport radar and down to the Alcreec side. And we pick up an equestrian easement that was missing on the first round that was part of that $7 million package to connect the Cozypoint stables up to the rodeo ground. And finally, we obtain the right to proceed to step two in this sequence of options. Step two is slated to close on December of 2010 if we feel that we have the funding in place for an additional 9.5 million. Now in total we'd be up to 10. And for that we will acquire five of these lots and five nights of the total acreage with them. And that's configured to include the entire ridge line. That ridge line is almost three miles long from seven star all the way down to Kozy Point and that's what we hope to achieve by the end of this year if we feel that our open space fund can sustain this thing given what we're able to raise from you and know Aspen and GoCo and we're also planning to go out to the private sector once we really have this thing up and rolling. Finally, step three in 2011 will be to acquire the remaining four lots which are over on this end and are kind of down off the ridge until we complete that last lot, the landowner retains the right to build that three mile road, which will snake its way up the side from brush creek. So, unless we get this entire package, we'll still have the specter of that scar on the land. In any event, that's the structure, the contract, and I invite you to ask any questions you might have about why we put it together and what the nuances might be. Well, I could hear the murmur in the audience and it raised something in my mind too. That's kind of dangerous. I'm wondering what safeguards you've had built in. The first one's pretty simple. I understand it's basically for several months and in the end of this year is when the hammer falls on that second issue. But do we have an option or is the contract such that during this period of time before we strike on the third purchase, the remaining four lots that that can't be built or they can't be sold. Correct. They have to preserve the property during this two-year option period. We are allowed to visit the property. We're allowed to take tours up there. We're allowed to maintain the road that we were all on when we traveled up there. Essentially we have the run of the place when we traveled up there. Essentially, we have the run of the place through the end of 2011, as long as we keep meeting these thresholds. So the owner can't go off in 2000. January 2011 and build the road, because we haven't. Not as long as we make our second step, in December of 210 and pick up those five lines. Tom, with our discussion you're hearing tonight about $2 million, no interest, we're pledging $2 million and seeing what that can do for you. I think we need to hear something as much as we can. Yeah, it doesn't really work as well as it sounds. If it's $2 million over 10 years now or $1 million over five years, we need to pay $10 million by the end of this year, or an additional nine and a half. And then we need to pay an additional $8 million by the end of next year. So getting $200,000 from you next year and $200,000 for four more years after that doesn't really meet the cash level needs here. And that would require the county to actually finance that in the market. And as a result, we end up paying interest on that because we've had to borrow it. And on a million dollar that diminishes essentially the present value of that million over five years is only $890,000 because 110,000 gets paid away in interest essentially. Or two million over 10 years is worth about 1.6 million dollars, present value, because you're paying 400 thousand away interest. So it may be zero interest to you, but it's diminishing the value of the county and, you know, doesn't work for our cash flow. So we still would prefer that you bond for $2 million, as was proposed for a 20-year term. Yes, that is going into debt. If, I don't know, if we could get back to what was up there before. At least time talking about a bond. I don't know where you're at. But essentially you're, you know, as I understand that, the FAB proposal was a .52 mills for transportation for five years and .29 mills for drowsty for five years, which was going to generate a million dollars over five years. Now the original bonding proposal, which you have a ballot issue for and you packet, is estimated at 0.24 mils, but for 20 years, to generate the 2 million up front when we need it. So you could stay within your point eight one mills by levying the point two four for that. And the point five two, actually it would be more than that for transportation. So you could slightly increase your transportation funding. The difference is obviously 20-year term versus a five-year term. And yes, you are going into debt. You know, Fred was saying for his father's advice, the only two reasons to go into debt are our for your home, and for your business. And I would, frankly, consider our surroundings here to be our home as well as our business. I mean, what attracts our visitors here? What is core basis of our business is the attractiveness of our area. Our open space. So I think you would meet those criteria. our business is the attractiveness of our area. So I think you would meet those criteria. Okay. Tom. We have a question for you. Tom and Mary Ann, both of you financial wizards. Mary Ann made the proposal that 0.81 and seven years were done with the transportation and five and the balance to go for the drosity property thereby getting us to the two milk. Does that work in terms of everybody's math? We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We stay within the point. We I think the fundamental decision is are you bonding on our P.P. That's where our numbers are accurate in terms of looking at it. I'm sure it is without checking its math. No, no, I'm sure it's accurate if you look at it in context of present value. It's actually it's your, oh, that is, but your math is in the packet on what the bond is you cost. Right. Okay. Well, refresh us, Marianne. If we were to bond this, go into debt. What are we paying in addition to the $2 million or how much interest are we paying? The ballot question that's in the packet allows for about another percent of tire and interest rate. Currently, the rate that we would get today would be about 3.57 and that would be about 850,000 in interest over the 20 years. The valid question is higher because if interest rates go up between now and November, we want to make sure that we're covered. So they might be less and maybe higher. Yeah. It's probably somewhere between 850 and it won't be more than 1.1. And that's over 20 years? Yes. And what is it over your seven? Well, this proposal would have no interest. I understand that. But let's say it does. Say we've got a 0.81. It's a bond. Now what you want to do is compare the lack of present value to the interest cost. Yeah. Well if you assume you suggested over five years I think wasn't it it's about a million eight instead of two. Yes. And over ten it's about a million six, so over seven, it's about between there. Yeah, it's about 300,000 dollars worth of interest, 200, 200, 300,000 dollars of interest, that tells us what we basically have to pay in addition to the million dollars and too many many of whatever the number. Can I get your space bar there if you would? I think it went off. Maybe not. We're out of the ticket. So it does have one. Okay. Give it a minute. It loves it. So what I hear is the county is not willing to do the debt free because not which they heard. Do you heard is they rather not? Oh they'd rather not I heard they said it's not going to work. Nobody said well saying it didn't going to happen that's not it may not work right in that we have to raise more up front. And you know, the 1 million versus the 2 million is a large factor in that as well because we would have to be either the commissioners would have to be willing to bond for that and use 2 million of their bonding authority for open space that otherwise could be used for some other acquisition, or we'd have to come up with two million from another source, or two million less, 200,000 from another source in order to make our closing next year. It seems to me I read somewhere that I think it was in the paper which automatically means it's probably wrong, but. That County Open Space had, I knew I was going to, I was waiting for the groan. County Open Space had bonding capacity. Now, is that different than the bonding capacity for the county or it's really all the same. We have voter approval for bond issuance against the open space levy and we have remaining approval for a little over 20 million dollars to bonds that we can issue over 30 years 30 year period. Well, there are other things that they have. But okay, it's different than the county's otherwise building a facility. Right. That's different. It hasn't been authorized yet, but we could issue more debt than that. But open space trails has already has that capacity. Has has voter approval already to issue that amount of debt? Okay, and that is supposed to last us through 2020. Yes. Yeah. Wow, the paper was correct. So if there was a hybrid thinking here that we did something to the effect of taking resolution 29, which is a Joseph the open space, including the debt at the point two four for the 20 years. And doing just resolution 31 for the transportation funding for five years. So that it is a total less than the point eight one. Right it is. That would one protect the corridor, get the drowsy, get bonded so you guys have the cash flow, protect our area, and give us the money. And give us the money. We'll have to tighten our belts on recreation and other things down the road. At some point after four years hopefully the economy's come back and we've got people coming. Is that something that Arnie, you can look at? Well we can look at it. I've voiced this before and I'm very concerned about it now. I think we can be very altruistic and understand that this is our home, is it suggested? It is our corridor, not Aspen's really. And we want to preserve it. That's a good one. and we want to preserve it. That's a given. But to do that at the risk, and I think I personally believe it's a major risk. I don't think it's quite as simple as we think. At the risk of having the whole works go down to defeat, I have a lot of trouble doing that. Given the fact that the county open space and trails has the capacity to generate the upfront money albeit it would cost a little more. I would think that we would be a safer. I don't know whether I would be willing to say more fiscally responsible because I'm not sure that one is more or less responsible, but certainly safer. Certainly following FAB's concept of no-new tax, of basically choosing the suggestion that Mary Ann made. And that is if we feel hell bent on the $2 million, we can support it more, I think, forcefully by saying, okay, we're going to extend this thing out to seven years. We're not going into debt. We're going to pledge $2 million that's going to happen in that seven-year period. And that's what we can afford to do. And how much we'd like to do more. I think that's what we can afford to do. So that's more where I would be more comfortable in supporting than going 20 years on a debt. Could I seek clarification? Can I ask you a question? Yeah. On that seven year, so we would be asking Pitkin to use their bonding capacity, bond for us. And we, some way, we're going to come up with a $200,000 a year deal a little bit more than that for seven years to get to the $2 million. We're not asking them to bond for us. I mean, this is our proposal. No, this is Hittin County's proposal. I think it's a good proposal. I think it's worthy. That's not the problem. I think it's our proposal. Hey, we go get the bond. Yeah, they have already voted approval for that founding capacity. They don't have to go to the voters, they say, well, here we're in terrible We're going to want you to pay up. I'll go do some more money. That's already done. Yes, it means that their ability to spend that bonding capacity for something else, which may or may not be on the horizon, we don't know, would be curtailed. And yes, it means the cost to the open space trails board or the county or whatever is going to be slightly higher. But I think it's compromised all the way around. Yeah, you're simply making the crust has been made and you're deciding what do you want to offer as a ballot question that would support this deal. We don't have an obligation, we're not making it. Now my understanding too, and Mary Ann and John could jump into this was if this was offered and for whatever reason the transaction did not go for it, my understanding is the town is and for whatever reason deal was no and void. The town is under no obligation to collect the mill. Right. And we would have to pledge. Hold on a second. We would have to pledge as a council and I think I don't know that it's binding, but certainly we would have to pledge as a council. We wouldn't just go ahead to the bill, every willy, nilly, and put it in our pockets or find some other way to fritter. What? And if you hold on, Fred, I'll need to recognize you. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Fred. It does say in the ballot issue for the purchase of the trustee property. Okay, so that's all it can be for. That was intended for an email. Right, so there you go. You or a future council. Yes, and that solves that problem. Anything else before you do the favor? Fred. If you do that, what you have just suggested, Arty, I will tell you that I will take the matter back to the FAB because I think it is the wise thing to do and I will ask the FAB if they will come forward with an approval of that suggestion. Thank you. We have a timing issue. Should the council so desire to hear from the FAB? But I just wanted to be from a timing standpoint. That requires a special meeting of the council. But nobody's saying we're going to wait. But the FAB suppose it is. It's important to get something passed. nobody's saying we're going to wait. But the FAB support I think is important to get something past. That's what we're talking about. Yeah, from the county's point of view, if you're then asking us to finance the $2 million over that seven-year period, there is obviously interest that we're going to be paying. And so really to match the cash flow up, we'd ask you to contribute more like 2.4 million, 400,000 of interest over maybe an eight year period or whatever you need to do. Except for you within your... Just miss the fact that we went from 1 million to 2 million. So I guess my polite thing to say is be happy with your 2 million at this point. So we all hope that you have it. I'd be happy with it. I'm not... Just more happy. Trying to scale it out. You could be happy with it. Trying to extend the rationale on that basis if you are reimbursing the interest then the county is more likely to use its finding authority. If not, then they are actually making a greater contribution into the acquisition or have to find another source. That's George. I think if I'm correct, and if the time you can correct me from long, but to answer your point, we're really not going from 1 to 2 million, but from 1 to about 1.6 million. Yeah, about 1.8 million. In present value. Yeah, we'll figure it out. Right. Yeah. I do. I think the goal should be to try to figure it out. John Vester? I just one point that I think I know the answer but it's probably good to get it out to our constituents that aren't here. One of the questions I've heard is aren't town of snowmass village residents pick and county residents air go their pain regardless and then the town as town residents their pain again. I know that you're I know that you're every seed day all racing for the microphone. It's true that the town residents are also picking county residents. We have not been able to do any of these big projects without partnerships and without layering. And probably the most comparable project in terms of the scope and the significance to a municipality to what we're talking about tonight is this Muggler Mountain purchase. That we split with the city of Aspen. That was $15 million for 270 acres. And the city felt that was such an important part of their city and their recreational world that they split that with us. So I grant you the point but we just recently partnered with the town of Assault. The same thing could have been said there. We simply can't do all these open space preservation projects without these partnerships. Okay. So let's see, we need a final thought on this tonight so that we can go forward. You might be some public that wants to meet our own. Okay. Yeah. Good idea. Yeah. Good idea. People in the public would like to make a comment at this point. Please step forward to the microphone. Stage your name for the record I'm a still blesses. I'm Live on Oak Ridge Snowmass village the town has put five million dollars previously into a conservation easement for drossty We pay as property owners a line item to Pitkin County for open space millage which they're using for funding I would assume. We also pay a line item to Pitkin County for General Fund Millage, which I understand is something that they also can direct towards open space if they choose or not. And I understand that you need to go to other partnerships for funding. But I think to come back to the property owners and the citizens of this town at this time and ask for a third source of funding for the same piece of property is for the same piece of property is not only fiscally irresponsible, but it is not the time to do it. I know you think that as Theodore Roosevelt created the park system, It may have some parallels there. But I also agree with Fred from the FAB. We are going to the well too many times at a very difficult time in our history and in our economic situation in this town, in this county, in this state, in this country. And people are going to say, no, you've got to live within your means. And if it means you buy this, but you don't buy all of these, you have to make choices. You can't have everything just because you want it. So therefore I oppose any contribution at this time or commitment of one from the town of Snowmass? Thank you. Any more? Please step forward. Thank you. My name is Monroe Somers. I'm the leaseholder of the 170 acre cozy point ranch property and also the leaseholder of the 30 acre cozy point south property both of which bracket brush creek road at how we ate two at the entrance to this resort place. I've been the leaseholder of Cozepoint Ranch for the last 10 years and I've just signed a new lease for the five year, another 10 years for that property and five years for the Cozepoint South property. So I'm intimately involved in both the equestrian community and the stewardship of open space at the entrance to this valley. I did a little homework the other day. And going back over my records, I determined that in addition to the dozens of animals that we keep and we own and the dozens that we lease during the summertime for our summer camp business. We have entered into 677 different long-term boarding agreements with the citizens of Pickin County over the last 10 years. And that would be someone who is keeping a horse at our property and using the facilities for six months or better. And this is not just individuals, but this is actually 677 picking kind of families that have you to last our facility, many of whom are still utilizing our facility. So I think I can speak for a large segment of the equestrian community at least and the upper end of the valley. When I say that, I think this is one of the most important open space purchases, if not the most important open space purchase in the history of picking county, at least from our perspective. The biggest problem that we have is we have a lovely piece of property. We have absolutely no legal access or safe access to any of the surrounding open space parcels adjacent to our property. So we have to confine our activities to that 170 acres. This would provide us with a tremendous, tremendous advantage and benefit to the equestrian community and the people that use our property. I just like to encourage you to make whatever strong commitment that you can to find at this project and be an immeasurable value to those of us in the equestrian community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Monroe. There was a cartoon I guess it was last weeks, last weeks snowman's son that basically conveyed the okay now we bought it but we can't afford to put the trails in or anything else and And Dale, I would like you to speak to that for our listeners, especially and maybe for some of our audience who weren't here, last meeting where that was discussed. Thanks, Arnie. Well as I indicated at the last meeting, the Pickin County Open Space Fund is managed pursuant to the terms of the outline in the Pickin County rule charter, which provides that of all the money that goes into that fund, only 75% may be spent on these acquisitions. The balance of 20% must be spent on trails, development, and the remaining 5% must be spent on maintenance of the properties. So, unlike some jurisdictions which have found themselves in a position of buying land that they're not able to care for, the voters in Pitkin County foresaw the need to save funds for that management and that recreational infrastructure that you need to have in these places. And we are prepared to take care of that side of this if we're able to acquire the property. Okay. I'm going to move this motion so that we can move this a little farther and see how council feels about it. I would move that we pledge, like numbers are off the board again. That we put to the voters an extension of the mill levy of 0.29 for the purpose of open space for seven years of 0.52 for transportation, funding, and open space. We'd have to somehow word that appropriately, because we're going to in the second, excuse me, in the sixth and seventh year use it all for open space. So I'm not sure how to board the ballot measure. But so essentially take resolution 30 and 31, run them out to seven years, pledge two million dollars to the purchase toward the purchase of the Drozdi property in kind of in two balances. I second that. Okay. Now discussion. John. These are motions for direction to staff. You're basically rejecting the five that are in front of you because I'm sorry. You're basically rejecting the five resolutions that are in front of you because none of them conform to that. Right. I'm suggesting a. So this is a motion for direction to staff to prepare questions or resolution, right? For a special reason. This is basically the sense of council about where it is we'd like to go. Okay. But rest. Just a second. For clarification. Yeah. You mentioned a couple things. If we again, if you go. Check out. Let me do it. Okay. You mentioned a couple things. If we, again, if you go, pick up. Let me do it. Okay. What he's saying is, five years at point two nine for open space, and then same question will then escalate to point eight one for six and seven, and five years at point five two. Yeah, I don't know how to word it, but for transportation. Transportation is going to be basically only at point five two minutes. Right. For transportation. Transportation is going to be basically only at 0.52 minutes. For transportation. Only one question. The second question will be five years at 0.29 escalating to 0.81 in your six and seven. Yeah, six years and seven years because it comes out to the same thing. And that's just the technical way to. John, given that his resolution 31 doesn't have essentially do that? Well, except you. No, there's a fine. If you stand it out for if you limit resolution 31 to transportation, how are you going to spend it for drosy in your six and seven? Yeah, number 30 would have to be rewritten. Right. So 31 to be state, it's the same. No. 31 can say the same and we rewrite. The rest is until you pass a revised 30. It's too. Understood. So I guess, Chancellor, you know, are we the position tonight to say $2 million is the right number? We have to get the motion on the floor. Second on that. Too many dollars in that manner. In that manner. Yeah. Question? Can you do a little first? Markie. Call the question. Oh, OK. Anybody else want to post too many by? No? No. Just a second. No? OK. I'd like to see the resolution. We're not that much of a question. Well, I have to have a special meeting, I believe. You know, because I really want to look at that interest and all those. Well, there is no interest in this. No, I know. It's not bonding. I know, but I want to know what it is. Is there going to our county is going to incur in terms of interest? Sure. I think it's a fair thing to do. About 300,000? Yeah, I know it's about that. Jane, dresser. I have a suggestion. We have these questions prepared by outside councilor Bonn, authorities in Denver. And while I think I could write what you're doing here in this meeting, I would like to suggest that we continue this meeting to a few days from now, which will allow Tom to run the numbers under the proposal that's out here. We can come back and then Tom could, I mean, it might just be in the form of an email of what it's actually going to cost the county to receive a pledge like this and then still be able to fund. Obviously, there's a loss of the present value versus. Well, and they're not going to proximate. That county isn't pledging to us tonight that they're willing to buy this property based on that. This is our offer to them. That's your offer. Right. We're not asking for them to make a proposal. They would have a chance to run the numbers. Yeah. We would also have a chance to make sure that an escalating question, so to speak, is acceptable with our barn council on them. and it may not require escalating question You just rewrite 30 is was suggested for long I'll get out for seven years for you in Submarine raised the yeah figured out male levy escalates right and Well one of the things we have to decide or wouldn't be asked the future council to Which we might consider is an additional pledge on down the road to pay back that interest. So yeah that's where I was going with that. If we have some additional rep monies or yeah. I think simply what you're saying is this is the FAB recommendation but in your six and seven you're adjusting the mill levy for the drosty for the purpose of the drosty property Probably generate a half million dollars per year from additional million. Well either that or you say You're gonna knock the whole works out to seven years and you say in 31 That for the first five years it goes to transportation and for the sixth and seventh year it goes to drosty It's just your limitation on what transportation and for the sixth and seventh year, it goes to trusty. It's just your limitation on what 31 is and bond council have to make that decision, which is the better way to word it and which proper and legal and I don't profess to have any idea. So, Steph has an idea of what we're... Well, we have a motion. It should be a motion, I don't know if I heard a second. Yes, you did. We already thought of the question. I don't know for a second. Yes, you did. We already have a question. Oh, we had to call it. John, for discussion on the motion. Thank you. Discussion on our motion would be good. Here we have Marquette Combo. All those in favor of motion made by Mr. Marchin, so you can probably say aye. Aye. Aye. So if I have a say aye. Aye. I was opposed. I guess when we get the calendars we'll figure out a team. To continue this till Thursday. You got to continue the whole meeting or this issue. I don't do until Thursday. We'll not be here. The meeting, okay? The meeting. So at the end of the meeting we'll continue the meeting. Right. We'll decide when we can do that. If the council calendars would do. Right. Although, if we can- It might be nice for the people in the room. If we can say a Wednesday. Yeah. Is there a date that we can sort of agree at this point? I know. Based on kind of the previous performance, this won't take long. I'd like to have tomorrow to work on it with Bonn Council. That's underneath. four o'clock on Wednesday is a time I can be here. We can go somewhere else. We can do it simultaneously. Well, if you have a group of people in the room. That can be. Okay, I'm okay on Wednesday. I can't make okay on Wednesday. So can we make it? I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. I can't make it on Wednesday. nine o'clock. So we're in here at nine o'clock. How long is this going to take? I can't. I have a nine o'clock meeting in Glenwood Springs. Okay. Eight Thursday shot. Thursday shot. I'm not here. Friday. Oh, that's worth. You're gone. Yeah. So Wednesday is Wednesday's the day. It looks like all four of you. I can do mornings. I can't do morning or we could meet at the liquor store I can't meet in the morning at all 8 30 no I got to be in glim with for nine o'clock meeting okay I can do whatever time you want on Wednesday or what's the date it's not so next week. It's Monday. Can you do like seven on Wednesday? That's the 23rd. I could do seven. If you want to do seven o'clock, that's crazy for me. On what day? Wednesday. Wednesday. And I'm not really. A.M. But seven a.m. Monday. Can we do Monday next week? Monday. Monday at five. I am in occupied from 2 4 35 o'clock. I could do it earlier. We do Monday at 1. How about early in the morning? Early in the morning. 8 8 8 8 8 5. Monday 8 AM. Monday August 23rd at 8 AM. 8888. It's fine. I'll do it. Monday 8am. Monday, August 23rd at 8am. OK. When we get to the end of the meeting, we'll get to the meeting to that point. Check up, you'll. I just use the microphone. No, you're waiting to check. Microphone please. I'm not familiar with the exact timelines to meet state requirements for ballot questions for the fun, you know for this coming November Is town staff familiar with the dates so we can have first reading second reading? That's for the first reading those deadlines. That's for the first reading. There's only one reading resolution by our own. Oh, for a res. Oh, okay. You guys. Councilman out here. You think you know that. Hey, you got you changed the rules since I've been a councilman. That's in the charter, baby. Thank you. Okay. So we can take a 10 minute break. Eight o'clock. Thank you 8 o'clock 23rd thank you Jack in the session here Grasping is on Honda you ready? I'd like to reconvene the meeting and Mr. Dresser has a comment on this last item I'd like to revisit your motion for direction to staff because you know I'd like to revisit your motion for direction to staff because you know, a break discussion that I had with Tom Oaken, the Pick and County Financial Advisor, he wanted to point out to us that if we adopt a mill-evy-based question, which is what we were directed to do in the last time, it's pretty much guaranteed with the next reassessment by the county assessor that the middle-ever you adopt will not produce the funds that are projected in the memo from staff. It's pretty much certain that they will go down and point 29 will not produce the 200,000. And he suggested that we adopt questions that adopt a funding number and have a mill levy that will support that number. Now, I think that with what Fred said, we could still get, and the continuation date that you picked, that we could probably still get some FAB input on it, but understand that would not necessarily comply with their philosophy of tax neutral debt free. In other words, it could go over the point eight one. I would like to see staff so that we can preserve that issue. I'd like to see staff develop two resolutions. One, the fixed amount, one, the, it goes mill levy and then we can spend the time a week from today discussing it, top to whichever one we feel is appropriate. Okay. So one would be fixed in the middle levy at point 29 with the escalator in year six and seven to produce whatever that produced spaces on the AV of the two year assessment period. And the other one would say we wanna produce $200,000 for years one through five and a half a million dollars in year six and seven. And that Mill Levy will be whatever it is to be to generate that amount based on the then current assessed value. Because year six and seven maybe twice as much as it is even today. We don't know what it's going to be. We don't want to over tax. Press. might as it is even today. We don't know what it's going to be. We don't want to overtax. Press. I just want to make sure that there's consensus in here. Yes. Yes. Mark, can you do it? That's fine. Okay. Let's see it next week. May I help you get your stuff from them? It does, and of course, now I'm going to throw your curve. If you wanted to absolutely stay between the eight-one, you could make the transportation amounts subordinate to The adjusted to the drowsary. Yeah, you could address the transportation So the two questions together would have a cap of 8.1 And then it would produce the 200,000 for the year one through five Whatever that took and then the balance would then be I could go to the transportation I mean, I'm complicating it but I'm not. I mean transportation would terminate though the way it's framed now in your five. It still would but it would it would produce a fluctuating amount depending on the assess value because first of all you're prioritizing 0.81 mils to produce 200,000 and whatever balance of whatever mill-level you need to produce that, the balance of that would be to transportation and it would be a- That's very significant compromise because it allows us to do both, allows us to- We have control over transportation. We don't have control in what Tom was suggesting is they need the support. They need to know that they're getting this number of dollars so that they can then par away that into the other areas. So perhaps you should draw the third one also. Well, I suggest where I would lean. I want to see it as Marky wanted to see him, but I like that one as well. I think that puts a cap on it, which the voters are going to enjoy more. I think that does it as well, and it's also consistent with philosophy. I wish they were here to hear this. Maybe they'll see it on Granicus. We can point out to the FAB people. Hopefully we can get those questions drafted quickly and maybe have an ad hoc meeting with them. We can at least email it around. Yeah, and go from there. So we'll, I'll talk to Bonn Council and see what we can get drafted along those lines. And I think that gives the county a little more confidence that the pledge is meaningful rather than tied to the assessed value and the set middle of it. Thank you. That's the consensus of all council members present. Thank you. Seeing this how we've taken 45 minutes extra, we're going to cut everything else out. No. Dave, please start off with your transportation. Thank you, council, for your time today. I'll try and be brief. Basically, we're bringing back a parking agreement that you've seen every year between the various players that manage sort of the day parking within the community. The agreement attempts to establish and define a couple of key things. First of all, the distribution of the day access parking within your community. In the agreement you find that on page 73 item 1b, you set the permit prices, which is probably the greatest departure from last year's agreement. We're suggesting that you raise the permit prices and I'll get to that in a minute, but that's on page 74. That's one C. The next item to the last two minor things are the duration of the enforcement. And the numbered lots we're talking from eight to one, and then in the lettered lots, and that's eight to noon. And then in base village, that's eight to four p.m. That is on page 75 of the old packet. And lastly, it's the maintenance responsibilities or described who's maintaining what lots. This agreement has been reviewed by the new representatives of low who are managing base village, as well as the Aspen ski company has been part of this discussion. We are not proposing at this time to be charging in the rodeo lot. Everyone considers that a little bit premature given the current economic situation that we little bit premature, given the current economic situation that we find ourselves in, trying to encourage visitors to the community. So that is not part of this discussion. It's not part of your suggestion. Yeah, not of our recommendation. It is part of the discussion you may bring that up if you so choose. I did on page 70 of the original packet sort of give you what staff is suggesting as price increases for the various permits that we administer. Basically our goal here is to sort of bring our permit pricing sort of in line with sort of a day rate that would be consistent for the value of the parking that we're offering in our facility. For example, if you take a resident one permit and you say you park 20 days a year, which would be one day a week in the ski season, the value at $80 is $4 a day if you will or a visit. So that's the kind of rationale that we applied to the valuations here and trying to merit that to the day price for parking in two creeks in Lot C, which is $15 on the weekends and then inside base villages parking structure, which is up to $25 on the weekend day parking rate. So we're still being very considerate of the residents investments in the community that they've already had historically and we don't see these totally out of line for a season pass. And with that, I'll open it up for your discussion. Well, now let me ask you, Dave. Resident one and two. So one of the things that concerns me about a 20% increase in price, which this basically is, is that for those of us who have no bus transportation at all, of far away and wood road, now we got to pay more for permits, whereas people that live on the southern side, houses facing south, have bus service. So perhaps we ought to make an exception for those who live up wood or far away, keep the same price as last year. I don't, I'm not getting really excited about paying more money for parking. Can I piggyback on that? And then those of us who live in, say the willows that have no other option for parking and somewhere along the line The in the whole agreement thing originally there were parking spaces for each of the Condo complexes there and that somehow got lost along the way I have nowhere else to park so I have to buy that and that's driving it's going up 25% for my permit And I'm not like Markeykey I'm not happy about that. I don't have another option. I can't. I will not. Let me jump in. I will not vote in any way, shape or form to increase the resident parking beyond what it was last year. I just don't think it's appropriate. I agree. This is just not the time to do that. And I don't think it's appropriate agree This is just not the time to do that and I don't think it don't think just cuz it's easy. We stick it to our residents So we can just do that I won't do it So you're suggesting or any that or the council that the resident numbers You've maintained as previous years. Yeah, the page 70 and I think it's falling to businesses that are failing that have to give employee passes and oh by the way it's going to cost you more. Goodbye. On the senior pass. Oh my god. To raise those rates. Oh these two. Figure out where you can get it from some place else. It's still. Premise behind. I mean, we obviously have beachfront parking. And it's a policy call. Do we still want to keep that affordable? And it's extremely affordable, as it's made. Yep. But the citizens of this community bought it. They paid for it. They own it. You charge it in the parking. And I understand the rationale. There are a lot of good reasons for it. And you can compare us to Vale. And I don't care who you compare us to. I'm just not willing to do that. So it's a gut reaction thing. I'm not good to. Are you suggesting that we stay the same. Say the same with all the parking numbers. Yep, yep. Yes. Would that be? Okay. But the lot numbers. Yeah, these permits basically are we going to. I can't. I don't even own a permit. I don't park in the numbered lots. Didn't last year. I don't park in the number. But you have a bus train. So it's not a personal thing. I don't park in the numbered lots. Didn't last year. I don't park in the number. But you have a bus train. So it's not a personal thing. I don't pay this anyhow. I take the bus. I got it right across the street from where I live. You're lucky. Yeah. But I am lucky. And that's the point. That's too far away. So as far as Dave's thinking about the next year, do we want to give him any direction on it? 2011-2012. I think maybe we need to have, you know me and my not liking committees and consultants, but I think we might need to sit down with a business owner and somebody who's here for 20 days a year and actually talk some of it out because I think this kind of gets done in a room sometimes and it looks good on paper and you're going to balance the budget which we want you to do. But the small nuances get kind of overlooked and I think that we might open it up to more input before we jump on a 20 to 35 percent increase. I thought last year we talked about this. We said, first of all, we wanted to institute pay parking. There are good reasons not to institute pay parking this year. The economy being what it is, et cetera, et cetera. But we wanted input in the beginning, not the end. And once again, here's what we've all thought about as we just suggested in our little closed room. What do you think? I find it disturbing. I would like to have a discussion of give and take, input, little more discussion then. Well, we've sat down and they all agree, and I realize we have the final say, but I don't feel like. Didn't this the time we were trying to have that discussion? I mean, we're trying to have discussion based upon staff recommendation, staff recommendation. And maybe collaboration. I don't know. Yeah, but I don't see. Yeah, but. I understand. What's the collaboration with us first? Then go collaborate with partners. Well, I think the collaboration with the partners is to make sure that the coordination of use of private property is in accordance with some of the directions that you've done. So I'm not saying that I cut a deal for permit prices with a private sector. Oh, I don't suggest that. I don't mean to suggest that either way. I don't think you did. Okay. Billy is absolutely right. I bring this to you now to get your input. Whether you like it or not, that's your choice. I'm representing to you what I see as fair market value. If I was to go into Aspen and park on Main Street Aspen, which the taxpayers of the state of Colorado have paid for Highway 82, and I pay to park on the street, it's going to cost me somewhere around $25 a day to park on Main Street Aspen. And that's whether I live by a bus fare or whether I don't or my house's next door or not. So what I'm suggesting is fair market value you can accept it or you can not. That's quite all right. But I suggest that you can park in this parking structure and ask me to do it every day just about for $5 a day and take an elevator up and the Galena Street Shuttle is right there. You get five bucks a day? That's right. Because if you park regularly and ask for it, the parking will rise. You can buy a fifty-dollar ten-punch. Yep, a little. Oh yeah. And as I said, an eighty-dollar permit for the entire season if you used it 20 times is $4 a day. And you're absolutely right David, please. Okay, just I didn't do this to get in your pocket somehow. So it wasn't my intent. Okay. Again, it's legitimate that the policy direction is to keep it status quo. We just again feel looking at it from a market standpoint. It's low, but that's the policy direction to keep it that way. We certainly respect it. Until we're overcrowded, I don't think we have a problem. Council, I think it sounds like the council would like to keep the status quo. That's quite all right. We can read it. I have one other request. And that's on the page 71 number four, the hours of enforcement parking. Yes. I'm I would like to move that back to noon. I know there are a couple days during the season, specifically probably Christmas week and maybe president's weekend and are a couple days during the season, specifically Christmas week and maybe President's weekend and maybe a couple Saturdays here and there. But the window, back window of the liquor store looks out over those lots and there's a lot of times where it's just empty all day long and I'd like to encourage more people to come ski our mountains, shop at our shops, eat at our restaurants. And I've heard from a lot of folks from Down Valley that used to come up and they could come up by noon and park for free. And they don't bother anymore. That one hour makes a big difference. All these subtle tweaks are gonna have probably significant ramifications when you do things. The residents of the community were insisting that when they were coming up in the afternoon, they were not finding parking in their lots so that they could have access. And that was the motivation for the pushing back to one o'clock because we were hearing a human cry from the renewables. I mean, you know,, it's what was it? Yeah. Well, basically that. No, no, what was the time before you said to pushing back? It was noon. Oh, OK. So we're moving from 12 to 1. Well, we've been one for a couple of years. We were at 12. Yeah, we spent 12. This year, we went to 1. How long have we been at one? I think two winners now. Okay, so that's really status quo. Right. And what reads suggesting he wants to go back to 12? I don't know, what are you? I'm believing that I was one of the ones pushing for later on enforcement. And I think it works and it gets to people who are the locals who do come up to shop, you know, space up there so they don't have to drive around circles as much. I think reads right, but I think I'm looking more at the locals that I want to take care of, versus somebody from down valley. I agree with you. I mean that should be our first priority. Maybe, I mean I'm also speaking, coming from the business side of things and it's tough when people come up and they're like, well, I'm never going to snowmats again, I can't find a spot to pop into the stores for a half hour, 20 minutes, an hour, whatever. Would we ever consider adding another that's the lower half of five to timed parking to help keep things moving around in the in the general vicinity of their retail. So our general experience at the lower half of the village is the prime still remains the prime parking area and to a certain extent base village exerts a little more pressure on particularly lots two and three to a certain extent because they do give access down Anderson Lane to base village. So our sense is that the lower village is not a place where I have a lot. Lower five I think he was. The lower half of upper five might be what he's suggesting. There's a lot of people that might say that is highly underutilized parking and maybe the parking you're referring to that you see out the back of your window, but which is already 90 minute parking is available in both lower six and upper five. Up or half of upper five. Right, I'm saying add like the lower half of five. It was 90 minute parking. That's 90 minute part. That's 90 minute or hour or something. It's something to look at. I see the cars there and a lot of it is the folks that stay at the Pocolotti or perhaps the Willows or wherever, but they pull in on Friday and they leave the following Thursday night. And it's stuff that turnover would help the economic climate here a little bit. We can take a look at it. I'm, my hesitance should be telling you, I'm not sure that you wouldn't be looking at more empty spaces, but that might be my opinion. This is the time to try new things, because if we don't, we're not going to have to worry about even worrying about checking for part-in permits. Oh. Both. Oh. Oh. Okay. Uh. Uh. This does not take into consideration the free parking that is reserved in base village does it? Because I remember when we pass base village there, there's what is it? Two hour free parking so that the merchants could have people come in and out. Is that done by, was it supposed to be done? I think base village volunteered that to help facilitate the free. Yeah, that'll first hour by their, by their standard. By their graciousness is going to be free to allow that steer drop off in activity. They're not, it is free in the summertime. But in the winter it's a whole different, different matter and theirs they've created their management plan that allows for an hour free parking. I don't believe there was a requirement in the PUD that certain amount of free parking be provided but it did it did get offered during some of the construction management discussions that we had. So as far as reads thought about bomb about five changing into a 90 minute as top of a lot five is. With probably some exception for people who are staying in the poll quality or those areas. What's the problem? No, it's about. It may as well park in lot two because they only get their car once a week. Discussion around that then. I know people just have to happen, see what happens, what happens? I mean, maybe you shift, so it's an hour, you have more hour spots. I mean, don't make it also, it's all the same, mix it up. So it's, you can keep it easy to monitor, but also maybe you shift some of that stuff that's currently 90 minutes to an hour, so it's less. We control a lot. None of the lodges have vested rights to park in the wild. Although obviously we would take them away. There would be a huge cry. But the reason I preface this is that if part of the problem is that our our lodges that are along adjacent to the numbered lots are not managing their guests very well. And so the guests come in a park their car and stay for a week and it stays in what perhaps is prime parking space. Maybe we can deal with it that way and say, okay, we're using Pocolotti, but please don't take this personally Pocolotti. But, you know, okay, Pocolotti, your guests who are staying for a week and you're parking their car or, you know, you've got a monitor and if they don't need their car which they really shouldn't you can park that in lot two and free the space up maybe we can do it that way and get the space free up without changing the time frame just put a little pressure on the appropriate request I'm sorry? More for a request. Yeah, a friendly, pressured request. Or, I mean, the lodges all have the passes they have to put in. Maybe that's good for lots of floor and lower. Yeah. That might be the highlight. Yeah, that's the concept. In other words, we're trying to make more parking for the shopping public to come up and do you want to be? Yeah, just create more spaces where there's In other words, we're trying to make more parking for the shopping public to come up and do what it means. Yeah, just create more spaces where there's going to be a high level of trouble. I guess I need to ask the police and actually what if you can come to a microphone? What nightmare have we just addressed? What are we going to do to ourselves and cause us to hire more people or whatever? Well, from an enforcement perspective, obviously I'm for consistency and it's already very complex system. So I generally don't, you know, it prefer that, you know, we don't add a lot of wrinkles. In terms of short-term parking, we have, you know, five minute spaces, hour spaces, 90 minute spaces. Over the years, I think we've tried to establish what the demand is and try to create the space available to meet that demand. It's my sense, just from the feedback I get from my traffic enforcement people that what we have now seems to be adequate for people who want to use come up for short-term parking. The other thing is, I think, for many years when we talked about parking, the lodge guest, quite frankly, was our sacred cow. The lodge guest was perceived as really the person who's the main driver of our economy here. So we've always been, in fact, I think, probably the best deal that we give out there is for the guest permit parking, or one of the best deals. So I would be reluctant, I think, based on that philosophy to really push the lodge guest around, and even though some do come and maybe not move their car very much, those who do drive or go out of the way to rent a car do do self so that they have that convenience of you know using their car from time to time and most of you. I mean being that we're spending a lot of money with at UTC making a free bus back and forth to Aspen is it something that we in this next couple years or this next year can do a little education of the guests to say you don't need to rent a car, come to snowmass, leave your keys at home and know somehow tell them through our marketing group that we have a great transportation system and reduce their need till they leave or unless they're driving in. That is part of our messaging. We do do that now. I could ask our follow-up question. How often do we keep track of how often those high turnover lots go up? I mean, is it ever an early growth? Well, it really goes almost back to Dave then to hand it back because he does a lot counts. You know, they get heavily used, obviously, but I don't know. I can't offhand say how often they're absolutely at capacity. I think the generally there's always supposed to be some open spaces so people can find a place to park there who are coming to do short-term business on the mall or an hour and a half. That's short-term. I think our sentiment of it is that six and five in the peak peak period probably are at capacity but that's a prime frame that lasts But that's a prime frame that lasts, say, an hour, hour and a half in the morning and maybe an hour, hour and a half in the afternoon. So you're making a reservation of very valuable long-term parking spaces to an event that's happening three hours out of a day. Which is the three hours that people spend money, though. I understand, but as our point it out, the people that parked their car and stayed there and were at the Polka Lodi, they're a customer there that isn't there once, they're there multiple times. So you are robbing Peter Pay to pay Paul to a certain extent. What can we do like this way? We'd rather than putting in concrete this year, that we're gonna make Pocolo E-Fo's parking lot three. Renew our efforts with the various lodges along the lanes there. So please help monitor the parking spaces and we'd like to keep the upper numbered lots, five, four, upper port, four more turnover and if you've got a gas that you know is going to be there and is going to just leave their car, talk to your gas, ask them to, you know, you may go out moving for them, bring it up around for them if you can. We do that. Sure. Naintain what we have. I think so. I mean, we distribute the guest parking permits to all the lodges. Certainly that can be part of our field. Yeah. Do that. The good of the entire book on that little walk again. It'll be okay with you. Yeah, thanks. Yeah. Moving on. Jay. I'm about this time. That's about it. If the distribution looks good to you, we'll keep the prices the same. And do you want to change the enforcement of the numbered lots? No. No. I would like to. Dave, you did suggest in here I remember seeing that some concepts are going to be proposed to AVSC about some bus service kind of thing, van service and that's everything. What did you have in mind? Here she is. Susan, you got to stand in front of a microphone. You can speak, you just have to be over there. Susan Cross with the ski company. We propose that every year to a ski club and they come back with the ski company. We propose that every year to a ski club and they come back with the financial side of it. It's not affordable to them to add any more school buses. Currently they send three full buses up from down balleray on Saturdays. But every year we meet with them and try to initiate that again, which we'll do again this fall. Well, can the user with three buses and just go up and down from the interstop lot? No, they bring 45 kids up from Glenwood, Cobb and Dale, the storm halt, full. The program starts, so they don't have time to go get more kids to bring out. Wow. It'll be a timing issue. You might suggest to them that the meantime council of Snowmass Village next year is going to mandate it. We could do that. So the baby they might think about, I think, in doing their own doing something in the meantime that is the time that's for mandating it. I think the problem we have right now is we don't know the number above and beyond the three busloads that are coming up either from down valley. It's a lot of the village people driving into two creeks as well. Yeah, realistically it's our guys. It is. It's our own folks and asthma. Yeah. John Dresser. Just as someone who has wealth of experience over at the AVSC at two creeks, it's difficult to get to two creeks unless you're on Route 3. Yeah. That.C. at Two Creeks, it's difficult to get to Two Creeks unless you're on Route 3. Yeah. That's true. I think you won a special number 9 from the rodeo over there, but to get from the intercept to Two Creeks, it's just difficult. And if that was simplified, I believe you'd find that a lot of the downvaled people would be just as happy in the intercept lot if there was hop on a bus and take my family to two creeks. And how long was that window between the time they start class? And in other words, was that be five buses for an hour to do that, Dave? It's all dependent on what the demand is. So that's, but it's going to be about a 20-minute round trip for a school bus type vehicle because it's not going to be as nimble as a private automobile. And then the afternoon when they leave? Yeah. That just creates a burden somewhere else. It's sort of the same issue with charging in the rodeo it's right now we have a gap of who's gonna pick up that that relocation of that demand and pay that extra operating cost okay okay well anyhow just a little more proposed it again yeah so as far as your other recommendations they've improved the connection between Town Parklot and the rodeo contestant area. We've done a pretty good job last year. Yeah. I think it's just a maintenance issue. Okay. Yeah. So the rest of them I think they're all good. I think you know use a variable pricing. Is there any other Changes we want to do to the Dave So we will make the edits to page 74 1c and reestablish what last year's permit prices And that'll be the one change to the agreement if you choose to move it So move second any. Any other discussion? Any from the public? Thank you, Councilor. They were saying hi. Thank you, Dave. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Dave. OK. OK. OK. I'm just moving right along here. Wood shingles. Wood shingles. Ah, I like wood shingles. I do, too. It's also really good when you catch them. Yeah, they look great when they're going up. They look pretty good. Yeah, it's flames. They look great till they're going up and flying. They look great as they're going up and flying. Okay, Mr. Kittle, thanks for bringing this forward. This is something we've been. Thanks for bringing this forward. This is something we've been talking about for a little bit. I've been concerned about it as a, where my old fire department hat, which I don't really wear anymore, except for the board. I think it's a good time to make a change in it. Okay. This is pretty simple stuff. Back in December of last year year you guys asked that we bring an ordinance into ban wood shakes and shingles for roof coverings. And I was going to tie it in with the re-op and bring it all in together and that's why it's taking this long to get to you. So basically the changes were in two different codes. One was in the IRC, the International Residential Code, and the other one was in the IBC, the International Building Code, which takes care of most of our commercial and multi-family buildings. Basically, now the way this ordinance reads is all roofing types, will be class A for all construction types. You can replace up to 100 square feet of shingles that are blown off or damaged. You'll have one time exemption to replace half of the existing roof to match the old roof. The one-time exemption runs with the property and not the owner. If more than 50% of the roof is to be replaced then the whole roof shall conform. The reason that we did this 50% the board of appeals thought that in a lot of instances in snowmast the north facing roof usually doesn't get any damage. It's sunlight that gets it. And so 10 years, 12 years down the road, 15, whatever, they could go back, change the south face of their roof to match the existing. And that's a one-time deal. Other than that, they're going to have to go with some kind of non combustible roof, metal roof, composite roof. There's a lot of applications out there now versus 20 years ago. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly the same. They don't burn. They're expensive, but the life is probably three times the life of a normal wood shake or shingle. They do not burn. What was the rationale behind running it with the life of the property and not the owner? Well then a new owner could buy and replace the other half of the roof with the old kind of shingles. So I guess I would rather if you buy it, if you're the new owner, I would rather see, I mean, you kind of know the rules when you buy a new house, you read through your documents and if it's not a surprise to anyone, I would think that, I mean, this could run for years then. If we actually say a new owner that won't run into the perpetuity as much So if you have it is the owner that kind of springs it on them, but if you have it I mean if you have it in the owners Lasting only for the owner you're not increasing the current owner, but because you have a new owner Well, you bought it with that in mind You know you know it's gonna. I mean you're not gonna new owner, well you bought it with that in mind. You know that. You know it's going to happen, I mean you're not going to happen the day that you buy it but you know that when you need to do it that I mean isn't we want compliance eventually because this is going to keep our fire insurances lower. I just think we don't want new stuff being done with the wood shingles. My feeling is you know what Mark as he says, I think we're going to have a lot better. I don't deal with people, I deal with buildings. So I'd rather cheat building. That's a great one. He's actually very good at people. Oh, yeah. I mean, that didn't mean it. That thing's going to talk back as much now. They don't give you much stuff, I didn't mean that way. That's a quote waiting to have in the times. Anything else? No, that's about it. I'd like a staff recommend a approval at first reading and move. Second. Any discussion from the public all Some favors ordinance 13 second public saying aye aye opposed mark. Thank you for your time. All right. Thanks a lot Okay next item up I I'm 10 asked for school district requests for Al Creek Road one one lane road closure. You know, Mr. Mayor, while they're setting up, I happen to make a comment earlier and it was suggested I propagate that announcement. And while before everybody goes to sleep, I can announce that I have been informed that Frontier Airlines will continue service into and out of Aspen through April 2012. Very good. It's a little unclear as to what the service is gonna be like. Maybe we'll all have to get out and pedal. That's good. That's good. Here you go. That's very, very good. Yeah, I talked to somebody in the morning. What really means is my wife has a job. That's good. That's good. Yeah, great. Good news for the community. How about you come out two days from now and say, oh, no, wait. It was a mistake. Monkey, you just want to put some fights. Is it a dis mic? No, I was just going to pull it up. Well, the question is, right, the council, I think I put my divide on a plan, which I, even with my magnifying glass, I couldn't make it. If you can project it, it would be nice, Mike. OK. So do you need this? You got to plug it in. Really? Yes. Yeah. Is some questionable one. Oh, I see. I'm going to get that. Mike's locked. Yeah, Mike's locked and now we get to see a secret. Oh, see. What was the girlfriend? The CEO's friend. The CEO's friend. Oh, see. The CEO's friend. Oh, see. The CEO's friend. Oh, see. The CEO's friend. Oh, see. The CEO's friend. Oh, see. The CEO's friend. Oh, see. 139 I wish I could get away with that. That's a good day. Why we are so hot right now. You better rip off the stage. I just pull the plug. I'm glad somebody thinks we're hard. You should learn to save those in just your document. There you go. It's not any better. Well, maybe you can point it out to us. You probably got a pointer here. You might be able to enlarge it in my show, but if you. There we go. You know. That's better. Thank you, Michael O'Connor and Charlotte Blinsky on behalf of the Aspen School District. We're here this evening at the request of Russ Forest and with the understanding that a lot of the issues pertaining to this project on El Creek Road, the affordable housing needed to come in front of town council for decisions. What we presented in our packet to you is we have done further investigation on the water line and what we have found is that the water line, this is the fifth design. It's not one there in other words. Of our water line. And I'll just kind of walk through this very quickly. We have on the site, this is Building A, Al Creek Road, the parking lot right here. We brought the water line on site to about this point. We came out and pothold in this vicinity I'm hoping to find the water line that was last information we had We went down 14 feet could find nothing But what we did what we were able to do is we were able to actually tie into a two inch copper water line that tied. It's actually this old water line that's represented as being here. It actually shoots way off down the road here. So while we were pod-holding, we exposed this two inch water line. We found that it went down to this point, but it also allowed us to charge the water main. And when I say charge it, it's an electrical current that's placed on the line that allows us to read with the indicator and the locator better than if it's just trying to pick up a steel pipe or some kind of pipe that's anywhere from 8 to 16 feet in the ground. So with doing that, we actually made a couple changes. The water line is now not running up metal ranch. It's actually right in the middle of Alcree Grove. It's at approximately 9 feet deep. So this is required us to do two things with the redesign. One is take the water line, come directly to the shoulder of the road, cut into half of Owl Creek Road. This plan has all been reviewed with water and sand district as well. They have approved this design. This will allow us to maintain from this point, we actually have 27 feet of asphalt because of metal ranch is driveway in the right away, but I'm not going to propose tonight that I can maintain two lanes of traffic around that. It's just a little bit too dramatic of a curve, but we will be able to maintain one lane around that. The other thing in working with Kit-Hambi in the district, this two-inch line that was originally supposed to be here, and we were being required to abandon that. What does abandon mean? Abandoned mean just completely remove it, Billy. What kit in the board from Water and Sand are allowing us to do so we don't have to rip up a significant portion of Al Creek Road is we are now going to place a manhole here. We are going to utilize this two inch carpet line which is in good shape. Place a meter here and this meter in this water which will be used for this projects irrigation will be charged back to the school district so we're still minimizing the impact of the road cut into Alcree Groud which was just repaved last year. So this is the depth of the line is also at approximately approximately nine feet deep. So we're here in front of you tonight. Our schedule is not to start this work until after the summer season. We would begin work on September 7th, the day after Labor Day. The cutting of the road would actually take the cutting of the road to tying to the pipe. It would take approximately four to five days, so the second through the 11th, we would come back that following Monday, we'd bring it up to grade. We'll have traffic control there at all times. Then we'll repay it on Monday the 13th and Tuesday the 14th. And hopefully we'll be completed with the water line issue for this project. So you're not going to take the pipe out that's no longer being used then? Well it's going to be maintained, so we'll use a perigation. Yeah, this here, this here read was only, it was a two inch copper line. That's in good shape. It actually isn't here. If it was right here, we would just shift the over and do it. But it actually runs down Alcree Grove almost over 200 feet. Meaning that we'd have to rip up all of this of Alcree Grove to abandon it. So in talking, in talks, in discussions with Kit and the water and sandboard, they're allowing us to leave that. board they're allowing us to leave that. They're allowing us to leave that place of manhole here so we can meter it appropriately also flush it appropriately. It'll be a four-foot manhole and again all this has been reviewed with Dean Rozier and Kit. That day here is you're gonna put a four-foot manhole right in the middle of a creek road. No, no, no, no, that's on the shoulder. Okay, that's yeah, this this I'm sorry, this is the edge number of an edge of out Creek Road. So it's actually in the shoulder. So we're basically down four days probably five days. I would yeah, yeah, on safe side five days to allow us to excavate tie in back fell. And then again, we'd come back that following Monday and Tuesday, Markey and repave to Hunt Standards, which is all part of the permit application and requirements of the application. So we would be down by a balloon fit. About the 14th of September. Okay. I'll then you that plenty of time. Artie? A couple of things that concern me. We're still having some traffic, especially if the leaves are turning then, then we have that going on. So I want to make sure that this work does not go on on the weekend and that it's still plated if it's still open. Because I'm afraid that even if you start on Monday, it's still going to be, you know, we didn't find the line or we're down too deep. So I'd want to, that would concern me too. We would, we would play it overnight. Yeah, Arnie, and then as we backfill it, if we have a, that right now the schedule shows about a dare to between as we backfill it if we have a that right now the schedule shows about a day or two between when we backfill when we pay But it'll be backfilled all the way up over that weekend So you won't be driving over a plate. It'll be backfilled and then The other thing concerns me is What our road What are road department requirements are with reference to road cuts and how far inside you have to feather it back? Yeah, feather it back and basically resurface. I know it's a parade of horribles but I remember what went on on Wood Road and it became almost like a washboard after a while because of all the road cuts to head to be done. So I'm concerned that I'd like to make sure that we have enough on each side other than what you often see. There's the road cut and a patch there and then you go through the road cut. Let's say it's a simple project and the road cuts maybe four feet wide. It's only half a lane width. We require a tee patch. We actually have to take the asphalt out probably two feet on either side. The asphalt would extend over the top of the patch. What happens a lot is the cracks break right on the edge of it. In a situation in who knows until we get into it, where there's a series of patches, then we'll make them basically pave the whole thing, which has happened with water and sand on some multiple cuts. So that's typically how we approach it. I just want to make sure that, because we just did this road. It's nice and smooth. I'm cold. And in the public, in the public area, you're going to clean up too. That's right. That's just cold patch right now. That'll be patched to hunts requirements as well. But again, Arnie, this was not where we wanted to go. I know. It's not. We tried that whole other design to stay out of Wood Road for that very reason. I mean we just don't have enough. We don't have another option. I understand that. So we will absolutely comply with what? It's compromised for all of us. You have to go there. We know that. You picked the appropriate time. We know that. I just want to make sure that when we get through, we don't have a bumpy road. OK. Any other questions? Directions of staff? Make it happen. Go for it. Want to be clear with those browns. It has authorization to process and deal with the right away permit after September. Right. That's the latest on work. No work on weekend. I'm going to work on the weekend. If they want to start on Thursday, that's their problem. Or if the truck didn't show up on Tuesday on Monday, and now they can't start until Tuesday, fine. But weekend, you're not going to work. You want to say holidays and weekends? Well, do we have a holiday in there? I think Labor Day is in there. Labor is after labor. It's after labor. Yeah, this is after labor. So that's not a problem. There's no holidays that I can think of. Okay, I can make up on them. Okay, let's move. I'll make the motion on this. No, we don't, it's the structure of this. No, it's just a direction to staff. Need a motion? Okay. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to beg the bigger question. And I think I may have talked to Ernie about this. I don't remember to whom all I've talked to over the last few weeks on this issue. But this is what I don't understand and maybe this because I don't think about water and sand and Pipes and plumbing and everything else like a lot of men do hope some sorry things Sorry, dear But anyway, I Want to know why Water and sand can't tell us where all these pipes are in this town water and sand can't tell us where all these pipes are in this town. They probably want to know too. I want to get home before sunrise. I think at some point we should say to water and sand, this whole deal was very costly for our school district, and I'm sure there are other issues in our town that has cost a lot of people, a lot of money because we don't know where our pipes are. And I think this town needs to have that conversation at some point with Water and Sand. I think if you have talked about Water and Sand and Water and Sand, maybe a little clarification. Didn't Water and Sand give you an idea that you could have done this electrical thing a little earlier that might have saved you some time and found the idea where the pipe was. Didn't recommend possibly trying something different. Because I mean, since I've been around town, I've been here for 30 years, nothing's in the right place. You know, the only people knew about it were blood Rogers and he's dead. You know, so it has been a lot of times when you've really got a hunt and it's not documented. It was built 40 years ago. But at least got this little electrical eye that can start tracking some of this. There's not electrical eye, but there was a little tool, a little thought that I thought that Kit had mentioned to me that they suggested to Mike possibly could he try to do that would have given this indication, this information a little sooner? Well, not in any of my conversations, Billy. OK. I'm just be perfectly honest. What we do, and I think any other to build or a developer, you develop your plan, you basically require a raspelt from the town. You design a plan around it. We go back and we deal primarily with Dean, the rocher and his group. So we, that's what we did. And we had, you know, we had, like I said, this is literally the fifth iteration of this plan. We had two of them prior to Alcrete being paved last fall. Once Alcrete got paved last fall, that's when I asked if we could tap into Fairway 3's feed. And the problem with Fairway 3's feed was when Fairway 3 was built and the road down was built, they piled all the dirt on top of the old waterline. So that's why we were at 20 feet deep there. We still didn't found it. You could tell something was wrong because the gas line was even at 12 feet deep, which is unheard of. Yeah. So, you know, the, and you're quite honestly believing when we, when anyone digs, you call your local utility companies and you ask them to do the locates. So we did all of that as well. So, you know, the tying of the wire or electrifying the line with something that, when we were there, we had the equipment, we had, I had kit out there. And we just said, let's get a back hole on this thing and we'll just dig up this whole line. I mean, what the hell, digging up everything? Anything else? Yeah, we might as well. So it wasn't, you know, I think as a developer and a builder, you have to rely on the tools available to you. And that's just what we did. Unfortunately, I think enough of us have learned that you can't depend on Aspills. And I've learned to take the next step to a really fine stuff, And I've learned to take the next step to really find stuff, because I've seen this happen a couple of times in my 30 years here. I was putting a garden in the behind the firehouse, and there were lines in there. I had but out there we found all sorts of, oh, there's some things we didn't know were there. Oh, well, believe me, Billy, I sympathize with that. But, you know But again, we took the steps that we needed to, and there's blue dots all over Alcreek Road that kind of show that. Well, I still haven't had my question, Asgard. If this technology is there, I bet if we were under intact God forbid by some other force, whatever that might be. They would know how it wear a water pipe, sir. Well, what they know, Marky, is where their shut-out valves. So if you had something break, there's the ability to turn off a water line. The valving is because your valving comes to the surface. The challenge is if something would break, I'll just use the example that I just used those fairly three. The size of the activation that you would have to repair fairly three's line would be enormous. Because of the requirements, one, it would impact Alcreek road because of the depth. Two, just your OSHA safety standards. Those are the things that are challenging. So you couldn't put a timeframe on how long is it going to take to repair this because it's, you don't know until you find it. But as far as shutting off a facility or a subdivision, that information is quite handy. I mean, they could tell us where they could... You know, again, we went through this whole situation because we know that we won't be affecting metal ranch. We know that we won't be affecting Anderson ranch or Fairway 3. We'll all have water even while we're doing this. But we'll still be giving them all 48 hours of notification. We're asking anything else. Nothing, eh? Mark anything else you need? No. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. I'm sure. Thank you. We'll be going on item number 11, the Managers Report. Just a couple of announcements. We'll leave it to base village again, just a reminder that tomorrow at 9 and 5.30, we Just a couple of announcements. We'll leave it to base village again just a reminder that tomorrow at 9 and 5 30 we will have a public get together at Highlands Park conference room and we'll have signage there tomorrow. Very simple format just an introduction of low and then really a question to Weber is there of what should we think about next for base village. Good. So same format both time are you thinking that's military? Do nine and... Assume depending on the numbers it's probably not more than an hour. Also just want to acknowledge you as you might remember and assuming depending on the numbers, it's probably not more than an hour. Yeah. Also, just want to acknowledge, you might remember and Mark, I believe, you raised this with interim building seven. There was a commitment of approximately $50,000 for art. The surety has contacted us and said, we're ready to pay. If you got an art project, I know there was discussion too about doing some other things potentially with that. I've asked them kind of during their phasing, are there opportunities, are there other structural issues? The issue you brought up, Billy, of doing more of a real entrance to Building 7, certainly more than that. But so their question is, we're at the point. We want to make sure we can cross our T's, dot our eyes. And if you want us to do a check when you have an art project, we're happy to do that. If you want us to go in a different direction, we could. But it is a PUD. I believe it's a PUD department. It's a PUD. Yeah. Yeah. Part of my question was, is there a way to enhance the entrance to the parking area? I mean, specifically, it's the front of the building 7 to allow a thorough new walk by people getting out of bands from town or snowmast bands to use that as a kitchen ride in the front and using that 50,000 plus something else to hopefully make that more efficient for us all. And they said, well, that'd be a puberty change, but that's why I wanted to. Look, Council Noan. John? The planning director and myself met with a representative of the receiver The sureties in there as well We asked that very question and there is an entrance there, but it's for fire safety only it was at the assistance of the fire marshal and the Explanation they gave us at this meeting is that Just that corridor to get people up there means that the entire building has to build to life safety standards which they said was. It's substantial. We're incredibly expensive and the receiver would not be undertaking it. Okay. Certainly more than 50. So I just wanted to give you heads up. I think they're asking appropriately. They have an obligation and based on that I assume we'll look for an art project I think. So I think sob would be very good. The other thing I want to take knowledge was and don't believe this is in the agenda for your next meeting. Vosso John had a in Chris Conrad had a specific meeting on this, it related a facade for building eight. And we anticipate we will be getting plans for a facade on eight. And this could potentially be in front of you at your next meeting. Very good. And where are we with this solar thing? Solar panel. I know we sent it to FAB. FAB did renew it. That was actually their primary agenda topic last Wednesday. And they did formulate a recommendation. And I think we're ready to bring Paul back to you for some discussion on that. Probably maybe bring it back to us before we bring Paul back. That's what would be fun. I haven't seen legal structure in the point of view that I would like to see. Right. There's some more details I think John would like to see. Great. And that's all I had. I know you've been watching the land use code changes and I believe planning commission has that under agenda for this Wednesday. Very good. Any thoughts? Questions of manager. Moving on to item 12. Approval for meeting minutes for July 19, 2010. John get a chance to look at me. He's the one that makes all the change. John. Oh, Wilkinson. John, did you hear from John Wilkinson on these? I just wondered He emailed me with other stuff but not that I just gave Ronda Is there a motion to approve? Some moves? Marky and Reed All of them favor? All right A pose Can you just hand-brown me? Can we go on to the next agenda for the next council meeting? As you requested, we've got the marketing board coming for a joint meeting to recap summer. Depending on we anticipate we'll be in a position to come back to you with re-op fees. We've had one meeting between lodging and Nathan. And if you people, I think one person from EAC, they're going to attempt to get together one more time this week so if they can come to closure. And then we also have a request to be in front of you to have JAS in front of you. Oh. You said JAS? Yes. JAS? JAS. Yes. Oh, J. J? So, Jim would be here. I assume you wouldn't mind talking to him. Oh, we probably should. He'll know what the numbers were. And then, given if we do receive an application, we'll have something on here related to building a. John Dresser? It's not on the agenda. It couldn't be because I got a phone call on Friday afternoon with regards to some of the litigation I'm in and a position has changed. Because of so inclined we could discuss that in executive session tonight or when Rhonda puts out the agenda for the continuation a week from tonight we could do it then or we could do it at your September 7th meeting when you need it it's not urgent but it is something we should how long would take tonight if we decide to I think it would be less than 15 minutes let's do it tonight. Yeah, after this one. We'll get that. Council comments. Read. The consultant that we spoke to earlier tonight, I would not spend a whole lot more money on his non-conclusions. Well, he didn't come to conclusions. He just created a baseline. And I think the next part we can deal with with the environmental advisory committee. Thank you. Yeah, some of the assumptions were. I was trying to do the similar protocol as Aspen did. Not to say that's right for us. Yeah, but the problem is, you could even read this report. I know I'm getting old, guys. I know. Aspen was criticized for this same sort of thing. It was as much folly for Aspen when they did it as doing it here. We're not trying to support environmentalism or lack of growth or anything else. We were using it for a totally different purpose and I felt that we wasted so much. Did you guys talk about the event on the weekend earlier? What a great event. Yes. We should do that again. That foodie thing? Well remember, we'll have take two of that in a couple of weeks. Yes. I thought it was... Rotary wine festival in Blue Fest. Oh right. I cannot wait for that one. I thought it was so well done. I just wish there were not a lot of repeat guest from the Anderson R3NF that I saw there that come up on the ball. So you know, I know that the hope was some synergy there. So I'm not sure it has to be the same. Point of Gmail. Yeah. Oh, people ain't know what Gmail? Oh, did you talk about the run next week? No. There is the big run next Saturday. It's one that Garalka's putting on. It's half trail and half roadie. What is it? 10K or 10K? 10K. Half road. Who's putting it? It's hospital. It's, well, it's Dr. Garalka who is a avid runner and it's a benefit for hospice of the valley and for the homeless shelter. And then the big party will be down at base camp and I know that our owner down there is Scott has some great plans. So. So around snow mass. Goes down Al Creek, hooks up on the Tom Blake trail. If I remember right goes up and it comes back into the mall. So it's all through Snowmass Village. Three, you think? Last couple weeks she may have read that Lance Armstrong, City of Aspen, looking, trying to obviously have a bike race here. I asked John and John had already been involved in it to see if there's anything snowmats can do to be involved, not necessarily, but have a tour of come to here or something like. We had the old days with the Cours Classic. But he's working on that and there are a lot of people dealing with that. So it might work, it might not. I just get back from saying Lewis and a lot of the communities back there are having problems. They're laying off people and municipalities and every department's being affected back there and it's unfortunately still going on. It's just reminded that we have a very good community here and hopefully we don't have to go as far as some of these places are. But it's troubling. Head in. I guess we'll be ready to do it if something happens. Let's hope we don't. If we could send a message to staff as they go through the budget process, for me at least one of the strongest message would be we don't balance the budget on the backs of our employees. We don't fire employees to do that if we can't help it. Totally agree. I'd rather see less flowers and we'll catch up on that. You can't help it. Totally agree. I'd rather see less flowers and we'll catch up on that. You can't replace people. That's why again, you saw a little passion on our part. This transportation even though it is helping transportation, it has a ripple effect. It's a benefit. But what it more importantly does, it gets us to around $170,000 number to manage over a five-year period. That's a very manageable number versus a half million dollars. Yep. So we couldn't agree with you more. Okay. Anything else? Move, we go to the second section. We don't know. We need to continue this meeting. We'll do that after the second section. I've emailed Bill the proper language to comply with Open Meeting's act on our municipal code that needs to be read and voted on by a 2-thirds majority to go in there. Sure. And we have to. You can skip Matt and I continue to say you shouldn't be an executive session. So I think we beat her down. Do the scheduling. The next session will commence at the next session. You can leave that just to length. Town Council will now meet an executive session pursuant to CRS 246 4024 and the Stemless Village Municipal Code Section 2-45C to specifically discuss two items. A, determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, instructing negotiator or pursuant to CRS 246402 for E and S&S Billed Municipal Code Section 245C5. And conferences with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific, legal questions pursuant to CRS 246402 for C and S&S Billed Municipal Code Section 2 five C to is there that's I'll make that motion Is it a second by Ernie all those in favor aye aye aye opposed Okay