you you you you you you Okay, welcome to the Snowmass village town council chambers. Today is September 16th. It is 4 o'clock. Welcome, Megan. Roll call. Council member Fredstein. Here. Council member Morrell. Here. Council member Shank. Here. Council member Gustasen. Here. Mayor Madsen. Here. Thank you. Okay, our first item is our consent agenda. And we just have our agendas. Anything that needs to be added or brought to our attention? I just question, I mean, I know it's at the out Creek roundabout, keeps moving around. It's supposed to be on today's agenda, but it's not. So what's, and when are we gonna talk about that? We're gonna be giving up on it. We're not giving up on it. But I needed to gather staff conversations and there was some vacations going on. So I'll have that regroup of the staff and then we'll bring it back to council. I have the images, I just need to put it all together So near future So October 7th are we expecting we can okay? All right, so let's make sure we've got the roundabout on the October 7th agenda Anything else on the agenda? I know on the 10th we did the lighting we talked about the lighting code but it just didn't know when it was gonna come back because I had some people ask me and I wasn't sure. I think I can answer that if you want me to. We've met with the consultant. We've also put it out for review with our Public Works Department. We met with their consultant and we are making changes and we've got to mean this week with the consultant. So we've got a few reviews to go through internally. I'm guessing that's going to be a month to two months out. But it's not scheduled as of yet. OK. OK. Anything else on the agenda? Motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Okay. Anything else on the agenda? Motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Second. All second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, moving on to our policy and legislative public hearing. We've got ordinance, the ordinance regarding our AEU. This is the second reading. All right. Yes, we've continued this, I think a couple of times, and Jim will give us the update. And with that, continuing some public hearing, there hasn't been that many changes to ordinance 10, other than some revisions to dates. And there were no official changes to the red line code amendments to the AU section of the code that we heard of so that red line and the final version in your packet is still the same as it was back on August 19th. We did receive a letter late Friday that didn't make any of the pack, but I think it was referred to you from the US NMS Design Review Committee. They had some similar or some additional comments to offer regarding for your consideration. staff also prepared a summary matrix in table, which we think might facilitate the discussion because it basically represents some of the major changes or net differences between the existing code and the proposed code might be helpful for review. But that's all I have for now. OK, great. So why don't we start the conversation going through your table and you can help walk us through that? Well, first off on the first page, the first two columns, we kind of stated it before. Maybe we got our nomenclature confused regarding our existing single-family housing stock and our housing stock for all residential, which includes multi-family. So the first row kind of refers to, basically put the percentage of all our AEUs and ACUs according to the last comp plan up they measured against just the single family housing stock which per the comp plan is 1,000 and 5 lots. So and we realize some of those there's a few of those that are probably undeveloped. But under when measured against the single family housing stock, combined as far as accessory units who have 10% that would be 1% for 8eUs and 9% for 8eUs. So another proposed code we don't know what the percentage might be, but we're hoping that it would be maybe a 50 or 100% increase, up to maybe 15 or 20% of the total housing stock. So we feel that change would be minimal. And then the second row represents the percentage of AEU's and ACUs against all risk initial housing incident that's about 300, 300, 360 units all together and that's considerably less as far as a percentage is concerned, less than 1% for AEUs and less than about 2% for ACUs. And again, even if it's doubled that percentage, we think, again, that's going to be kind of a mental impact. We don't think it would change the character of the community that much. As far as AE size ranges, concern, that's the third row. Currently per code, the range is 350 to 1000 square feet. Under the proposed code, we're hoping to reduce the minimum down from 350 down to 300 square feet, but the 1000 square feet would be the maximum cap that remains unchanged. That's only about a 5% increase overall in the size range. As far as the AEU bonus is concerned, under the current code, it's a 500 square feet, but it's subject to special review. Under the proposed code, which was reduced by Council at back in August. That was reduced from 1000 down the 750. And that would be for the square footage above the floor area cap. Just a couple comments there Jim, our questions. Just to clarify, the 750 square feet, that's the free area that we're allowing, right? The bonus area, right? The bonus above the floor area cap. And under the existing, you said 10% bonus or on average about 500 square feet is that is that what you're seeing right so most of the A.E.U.s or ACUs have been built are On larger homes of about 5,000 square foot F.A.R. and they got a bonus of 500 Well, I think the smallest maximum floor that we have for most of the subdivisions in town is about 3,500 square feet and that's in horse ranch. But only on some of those lots in horse ranch. The maximum was up to 8,500 on a few lots and two creeks. So the average- I mean, the average for that big column? 5500? They're all custom lots, it kind of depends on the lot size and the FAR and the code. So it's calculated differently. So what we see most often with permits is a home. Between four to six thousand square feet. So the average is about five thousand. So we use that figure. We think that's a fair assessment. Oh, so that you backed into that. That's not what you found that has been built, the 500. It's 10% you're saying it would average about 500. Correct. We did not go in and look at the square footage. I thought that's what it was. OK. Most of our lots are 5,000 square footer under. There are a few that are higher. Right. Okay. Thanks. So with the bonus from 500 for existing up to 750 above the four area cat, that's an increase of the bonus from of about 5%, which is roughly 2 to 300 square feet depending. So as far as the location on the single family lot, the AU currently is either part of the single family detached home, or it's located above or below at the attached garage. But that is subject to special review. And then under the proposed code, it would be, it could be located either attached or it could be located above below or attached to a detached garage or it could be a separately detached unit. So that last sign would be the new change in the code. So the net difference there would be that it would be modified to encourage. It used consistent with the goals of the comp plan with lower heights, breaking up floor area and resulting mass and scale. And that's a quote from the conference of plan. So I know that the design review committee, when their concerns is that it's attached, the ability to do attached building. But knowing that all still has to fit with the building envelope, right? Building closure line, right? Right. In your experience, because you do this every day, I mean, are these building, what's the proper term? Unvelope or in clothing? Building envelope. Building envelope. Building envelope. Are they usually so large, you could actually get two free standing buildings in there or by their nature of it, by the time you get everything else you got to get in there, the buildings are pretty almost touching each other. I can answer it, but I'll let Jim. Well, I think for certain subdivisions in town, they are large with shallow setbacks, especially in the older subdivisions, like melting ranches. Those unit filings, or would run filings, or other bridge run filings, for example. But then there are other subdivisions that have plated building avalopes, and those include the divide, the pines, two creeks. The pines and two creeks are an East Village PUD. Fuck's run. And then the Hort Horse Ranch has fairly restrictive plated avalopes as well. Did you want to make a quick? I just, I think that most of our lots are built to the very close to within the building of open. There's not a lot of room. There are some larger lots that may have some room. But even if they were sort of detached buildings would be pretty close to each other. But again, we'd want it to be consistent with both whether it's connected architecturally or by offense, that's similar to the declarations that we've read that are now written. Yeah, because you can have, theoretically, two structures be connected by offense and it's one. Correct. Yeah. I think it should be pointed out that some of the older subdivisions have to steeper a lot so they're more constrained as far as where they can locate. These are the data changes. As far as the contents of an ACU is concerned on that last line first page, it's required per code that it have a separate exterior entrance, a kitchen, a bathroom, and sleeping facilities under the proposed, we're proposing to change the exterior entrance because we have seen in the past some combined exterior entrances, so we included in the code, we included in the code that it could be a shared enclosed vestibule. It also includes kitchen standards which may be modified by the Tam Manager that was revised in the last revision. In August, it may include a bathroom with shower and toilet, sleeping facilities, a washroom drawer, hookups for efficiency or stackable illnesses. That last item regarding washroom dry hook hookups was added in this new code. It's not part of the existing. So as far as the net change, we just felt that, and we kind of borrowed the standards from some of the upper valager's dictions, but we thought it should be expanded to define the contents a little bit more clearly for the new AEUs. And then as far as I can see under the existing code, for ACUs, all rentals are to be for six months for AEUs. They need to be employed in the town or county, a minimum of eight months. Under the proposed code, we don't have the six or eight month provision, although that could be included in a restricted housing agreement, but the qualifying test was that the AEUs must be occupied by qualified employees, caretakers, caregivers, senior citizens, which would be greater than 65 or disabled persons. And when you say qualified, Jim, do you want to just expand on that? We've expanded the definitions within the code. Okay. I think we have a couple of things we did with the council asked us to do was to expand those definitions we worked with the town attorney to do that. We also made it easier so that you could do the smaller kitchen facilities with the smaller units. Those are two of the changes that we made when we first started looking at this ordinance a few. Okay, good. Funds back. But those are by qualified, we're saying meeting those definitional standards. I assume that's the same definition as is in the housing regulations. Is that correct? That's right. That's the reference to qualified employees, the qualified employees is the one that's in chapter 17. As far as the vetting of occupancy is concerned, that doesn't really change between the existing code and under the proposed code. They're proposed to be vetted by the owner of the property, as well as the town to make sure it meets the standards of the code. And then for parking, we require one space, one on-site space per bedroom, which may be tandemly arranged for the current municipal code. But under the new code, we're actually inserting that maybe tandemly arranged, even though it's allowed under our parking code, just so it's a little clearer. But they're both the same. Pretty much both the same. As far as the restrictions are concerned for ACUs, I'm going to address the existing code first but for ACUs, it's required that an initial registration only be provided if the ACUs within the floor area cap of the lot. And under our current code ACUs, all ACUs have to be under the floor area cap, but we only require an initial recorded registration. And then for AEUs, the recorded initial registration and annual renewals, basically, I'm sorry, they use allow for the 10% bonus for AEUs, but subject to special review, but we do require a recorded initial registration, as well as the annual renewals for that currently. And then under the proposed code for ACUs, we have two qualification standards. One is if it's within the Florey Area cap, it only requires a recorded initial registration. But if it's beyond the flora area cap, cap up to the revised 750 limit, then we require a recorded deed or covenant that runs with the land, as well as a restricted housing agreement with the town. So basically the annual renewals go away and we have a deed or covenant and a restricted housing agreement for a use that are over the floor area cab. We think this is more enforceable over time because it's set by agreement. And would that restricted housing agreement be annually or based on a lease term probably? No, the restricted housing agreement was set up to five years, but it could be, I think the way the code is currently written, it has to be modified every five years. Okay. And then on that second, the last line, as far as restricted sale or short term rental is concerned, it's not specified in the code, but it's controlled by the code or zoning or PUD for the property. For the proposed code, there's a stipulation that there not be any restricted sale or short term rental and accessory units. So it's generally the same standard. Short term rentals are not permitted under either code. Easy to say. Nice question. If a homeowner builds one of these and then moves into their AEU, can they rent their home and live in their own AEU? As long as they are employee of the town? I think. And then short term rent their home? I think if they meet the standards, I think that's an option for them. as long as they are employee of the town. And then short term runs their home. I think if they made the standards, I think that's an option for them, yes. I don't know. So there's nothing in here that would prohibit them. No, I don't think we want to. Just from using the short, the AEU is a short term rental. The short term rental of the home would be, we currently have restrictions and so forth on short-term rents in the town. If they follow the parameters of short-term renting, they can short-term rent their whole house and live in their own AEU. Hey. Good. Just to clarify, we sure got this right. If somebody builds an AE AAU but does not ask for the bonus area, right? They build an AAU within their allowable FAR, then they can do whatever they want. They can rent it, they can move into it, rent the house. An AAU cannot be used as a short term rental. Regardless of whether it's under the Gloria cap or not. If they don't declare it as an AU and they remove it as an AU under it. The only way they could get like a separate kitchen and all that is a call an AU and it cannot be used for short term rental. It okay. And it's still subject to the covenant or deed restriction and the restricted housing agreement, whether it's part of the home floor area or above or both. Right. Okay. All right. But I just declare, I mean, they could remove it, remove the kitchen and it's still under their floor area, then it would just be a normal expansion of the home. No, I understand. But if they wanted to move into the smaller piece or rent the big piece, they could only do that. They could only build that smaller piece. It was an AU. They could only get a permit for it as an AU, correct? Correct. IE, Two kitchens. Two kitchens too fast. Right. Okay. And they would have to qualify as a qualified employee. Correct. Or one of the other standards. Or one of the other occupants. Right. Two. Okay. And then the last row kind of just deals with the mitigation or penalty fees for removal. So for ACUs that are under the floor area cap, the town requires that they would submit a building permit to remove the kitchen and release the initial registration because duplexes aren't allowed in the underlying zone district. So, and then as far as AEU's are concerned, the same standard applies, but a little bit tougher restriction. A building permit is required to remove the kitchen. We also need to recalculate the floor area if above the floor area limit, plus there's a penalty fee for utilizing improved. Basically a penalty fee which is calculated against the improved value of the lot and the existing residents together, which actually calculates to a higher mitigation fee than a standard floor area excise tax. So the mitigation penalty fee for removal under the proposed code, and again, there's two qualifying standards there. One is if the accessory unit is within the floor area cap, a building permit is required to remove the kitchen and release the initial registration under the same assumption because duplexes aren't allowed and most typical single-family detaches zones or beauties. So if the accessory unit is beyond the Florida cap, up to 750 square feet, a building permit is required to remove the kitchen. We also need to recalculate the floor area, if above the floor area limit. Plus the mitigation fee, you'd be allowsing the value of the improvement value as well as threefold the resulting amount. So that's, it's like three times what the excise tax would have been if they just bought F. That's an easy way, right? Yeah. Good. So I'm sorry, it's the mitigation for utilizing the value of the improvement but not the land value like under the existing value. Oh, the improvement but not the land value like under the existing. Oh, it doesn't build the land value. Okay. But we just have to be a simpler way to calculate it, but it's threefold the resulting amount. Okay. Question of somebody wanted to build an ADU and they got the 750 square foot bonus area. Could they also buy some additional area through excise tax? They want to have a larger ADU? I would say no because they'd be over the maximum permitted for that that lot but well they're already I mean that's what excise tax does right right loves you go over the what's permitted by only by 500 square feet They'd already be over by 750 and they will have already Oh, so you go up to 500 feet with the correct what do you would 500 it's 500 or 10% 10% It's just 10% so okay And so that's not they're not additive no The bonus theory is that clear in what you guys have written in the code that you can't do both? We can modify it to make it clearer. I don't know that it's in this ordinance. I believe the floreary excise tax provisions only allow you to be up to 10% above your floreary of max. If you had what I'm saying is that with allow you to be up to 10% above your floor area max. What I'm saying is that what this should be well over that. But is it clear that you can't do a mad at it if you can't get the 10%? I think we could make it clearer. Yeah, I think it's clear. Okay, I think we could make it clear. Yeah, let's just make sure we have it really clear. But if there's an ace For instance an excess a new it accessory employee in it under the floor area cap I think that would allow the applicant to purchase the was under yeah, I'm not worried but it's I don't want people to take the ball I'm saying only if it's over. Yeah Okay, but the max would still be 750 square feet, right correct Yeah, if it's an a you right But the max would still be 750 square feet, right? Correct. Yeah. If it's an AEU, right. Because I think that's what Tom's getting at, right? There's see if you can make it bigger. I just want to make sure people can't then get the 10% plus the 750 and come over 1250 or just in 50 or something, right? I just want to make, I know that's the intent. I just want to make sure the language is clear on that. They could probably use previously purchased floor area excise tax and convert that to an accessory employee unit as well. Yeah, but under this the bonus of, right, okay. That would be a reach. Under the floor exercise tax, you're only allowed to go 10% above. If you're already over that, I don't think it's either the percoli or the heavy. I'll review it with the provision. We can read the provision. Okay. Maximum floor. I don't have it. The AEU shall not cause the resulting floor area of all improvements to exceed the maximum floor area for the lot except however the maximum floor area for the lot may be exceeded by an amount not to exceed 750 square feet and not be subject to the flora area excise tax provisions. Okay, so that, no, that says you don't have to pay for flora excise tax. Correct. What? If it's an AAU. Can we add something there so you can't do both? You can't double dip? I won't word smith at now, but yeah, but okay. So if we approve it, I just approve with that. And that's not the provision I was referring to. I was referring to the existing floor area. Oh, I think it's clear. I gotcha. Yeah. All right, that I think is clear. And that's like in general. So if they've already paid an excise tax to increase their floor area and then they want to add an AEU. You can't do both. Or can you then add an AEU that's 750 square feet in addition to? No, you can't get the bonus. What I'm hearing is, and I believe it's already in here, we will check it in words, Smith. In fact, I could do that if I had a couple of minutes. But no, you're trying to not to do both. Under the Fourier X excise tax provisions. You're only about 10%. If you've already gone over in order to build an AEU, you couldn't add on say you build 200 square feet over and then you get a 750 bonus. Now you're 950 over. Let's make sure it's tight so a clever lawyer like Paul Tadun can't figure out how to get around it. And to Bertha's point, I think you're saying, if you're, if you've already paid the excise tax to get your 10% additional, what can you do from there for, for, with an AU? And I think the answer is you can convert some of that space to an AU. But they, let me know if you disagree with this, but let's say they're at five, it's a 5,000 square foot flurry and maximum, they're used, they're purchased an additional 10% 500 square feet for the flurry or excise tax program. We allow for a AU of up to 750 feet square feet, could they then say do 250 square feet of a bonus or convert some of that existing space plus up to additional 250 square feet as the bonus? Yes. So the max would be 750 square feet over by bonus or a combination thereof and I think that we could very easily modify that language. Good. It's in the code that Jeff just read and if I had some time I'd look up that. I'm not finding it. It's a good issue spot and one we want to make sure is clear. Yeah. I had one more issue and then I'll shut up. It was I'll express several times. I am worried that it could, by giving people 750 square feet bonus on a smaller FAR lot, say the house, you're allowed to build 3000 square feet FAR. You build some 150 square feet as in the EU. You've actually increased the bulk by 25%, which is substantial. I wanted to see if we can get some guardrails on that. I mean, currently the code is we give people a bonus of 10% basically through special review of the FAR. What if we said, and say me we're more generous because we want to encourage us, say we, it's 15% of the allowable FAR up to a maximum of 750. That way people with larger lots could build the 750, but people with smaller lots couldn't build this huge AU which would sort of overwhelm the scale of the neighborhood. The way FARs are established is to create scale in a neighborhood and this could be abused to on a smaller lot to really overscale the house. So I mean for my example of a 3000 square foot house 50 percent they could build a 450 square foot AU which seems about right you know for a 30 thousand square foot AU. If you got a 5,000 square foot allowable, you could build 750 square feet. I think those comments are reasonable. I think a 15% war or 750, whichever is most restrictive on the lot. Right. What are other people think of that? Well, it just helps maintain the scale of the neighborhoods. Well, right, but I mean, I mean, you really have to look at it a case by case basis, right? Because you can't just generalize the size. Well, you can, because the FAR is when people do a subdivision and it's approved, the FAR establishes the scale of what can be built there. That's all purpose, floor ratio. See, I have a lot that's say 40,000 square feet, and I'm just making up numbers. Your ratio is 10 percent, then you can build a 4,000 square foot house on that. And that's sort of a basis of urban planning. That's a really important tool. And I'm just concerned that we just do a blanket 750 on smaller lots in neighborhoods with smaller lots. You could overwhelm the scale of the neighborhood. And so, I mean, the code was 10%. Let's bring it up to 15%, which I think is doable but still not overwhelming in that way you don't get people permission to get you know build another 25% of what they're allowed which is a lot on a small lot. I mean I'm just trying to get a balance and get in the code so that people know what to expect and what can be anticipated. But a 450 square foot AU is a nice AU. For a 300 square foot house, you don't need much more than that. It's a small one bedroom or a big studio. I mean, would there be many lots where a 750 square foot, like if you had a lot that was a 3000 square foot house, would a 750 square foot add on even fit? I mean, are there many lots that would accommodate that? I mean, that's why I asked the question earlier about lots eyes. I think in, I mean, Jim and Dave know a lot better than I do, but I think on some of the smaller lots, which are, you know, zone for, say, a 3,300, or 300 square foot house, which some of the older lots are, you could probably really pack it in there, you know, and it wouldn't look so good. But you know, when the planning, when, you know, Jim and Dave are looking and reviewing projects, they're not looking and saying, you know, whether it's good looking, if they have to say whether it fits the code. And so I don't want to give somebody who's aggressive an opportunity to use the code to do something that we'd all be unhappy with. Good idea. I think that when we entered into this and started working on it, you were going from the goal of the comprehensive plan to be as flexible as possible in allowing for accessory units. And so we drafted it to that. Whether you end up with 750, 500 or some percentage, I think that's a policy decision. I think the way it's written is to allow for that flexibility to encourage accessory employee units. If the more you tighten that, the more you tighten. I mean, that's more of a policy decision. I don't disagree. I'm just saying that's why. But it's not like people come in, you have a conversation with you guys, agree what are we most appropriate. I mean, we're establishing a code, and people will comply with the code. And they'll come come and say, and you will vet whether they complied or didn't comply. It's not like, well, you know, maybe that's too big. And they're going to say, the code says I can do it. I want to do it. Well, they do have to go through the snowmass design review committee for approval. But they also have to go by the guidelines. You know, they can't be totally subjective. That's the purpose of regulations. So I think what I'm saying is whatever square footage you end up with, we're okay with, but why we went the way we went. No, I didn't say that. We looked at what makes an appropriate unit, what makes a livable unit. And we... Well, we already established that 300 is the minimum correct so we allowed for 15% that would be on top of a 2000 square foot home and we don't have many of those I'm not disagreeing I'm saying that's you can do whatever you want to with that but didn't you say most of our homes are between three and five thousand square feet yes oh the maximum cap cap is. Yeah. So, for the gap to 15% up to a maximum of some 50, it seems pretty reasonable. So, I could compromise. I feel a little more case by case almost in some ways, because it's contingent on the FAR in each neighborhood. So, it would almost help to address that. And Dave's right, I mean, we're trying to follow the specific policy, which got him under the couple of times back in 2018. And also during the periodic review back in 2021 and the comp plan amendments in 2022. But the specific policy states demodifying the current accessory caretaker and accessory employee unit into a single accessory dwelling unit program to allow it says and I think that word maximum was asserted to allow maximum flexibility while creating units that are more likely to be rendered. And I think that was changing one of the policies to be created, could be increased the, which could increase the private sector contributions toward meeting our employee housing demand. As well as providing so much needed housing for seniors, senior housing. And it goes on to say that standalone units or units above lower beside a garage would reduce the mass and scale of a resonance by breaking up the floor area and they also be more easily rented out. I mean I understand all the gym. I'm a question any of that. I just think that we also have to keep in mind. You know what makes this town great is the beauty of it. And we don't want to have make mansions, I'm using the term incorrectly, but houses that are overscaled for their lot and their neighborhood, we don't want to commit that. I mean, we want to get it more moderation. And I think Keep it in scale with with with with the neighborhood seems appropriate. So I think 15% is a nice bonus Free bonus. I'm just thinking about I have a friend who built an 80 units backyard in Glenwood Springs and He used to have a nice backyard and I think it's 80 years 500 square feet. And I was really surprised that it's 500 square feet as much more livable than I had originally envisioned. I think 300 square feet is really small. Well, that's a, that's a, that's a small. Yeah, it's a very efficient challenging. What do you guys think? I mean, I, I feel like that our housing crisis to me is more critical than what few lots might be overbuilt because of this. So I'm inclined to provide more incentives for more workforce housing because that's sort of the goal of changing this. So I'm fine with the 750 as is. And I just I feel like there's not as many lots that would be overbuilt in that scenario and I want to offer as much of an incentive as we can Give a sense of how many Undeveloped lots are left in snowmass village. Oh very few Developed you have any idea what the number is? Probably. I think it's less than five. I think it's less than five. Yeah. Yeah. What is the thoughts? I think what Tom said is interesting. I mean, I think one of the things that we've continually heard the whole time is just this sort of nervousness about over building and making it not feel like not within the character of the subdivision that it might be in or just in snow mass in general. And so this might be one way to do that. I mean, the other thing is too is like, I mean, even with my own neighborhood, it's like you could look at one house that's 3,000 square foot house and another house. And one looks so much bigger than the other just because of how it sits on the lot. So on some of the houses houses it could just no matter even if it was the 15% it could still be adverse to some people because of just the way the house sits on the lot. But I think it's interesting. I mean, I don't know how many people will take advantage of it, you know, the reality of it all. But if they did, I feel like the type of people that are going for this housing, you know, are not some of the people that are going to want to live in, like, a single family home, or even in some of the other neighborhoods, because it's more amenable if you have a family. I think for the type of people it might be hitting with this housing that it's acceptable to do it that way. So your agreement of the 15 percent? I think it could be interesting. I mean, unless someone gives a real reason not to, I hadn't thought about that and I think it's actually, could be a good idea because I think it just, I don't know, it limits the fear that we've heard from a lot of comments that we've received and both in here and via email. And I think we have to make sure we're balancing that because the housing crisis is still the housing crisis no matter what we do. We're never gonna have enough housing. And I think, you know think this incentivizes people enough. I mean, when we just moved our daughter into a part-minute school and it's like 400 square feet and two bedrooms and I was like, oh, this actually is very comfortable. Like it's hard to really understand until you go into a unit that size. So anyways. They don't work. They both will work. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I guess like I said, it's a it's a where do you want to put that line? Right. I think the 15% just allows that to fluctuate if you have a. If you're allowed to put a thousand square foot on your lot, your love more. Yeah, so 15% up to the access of 50 right? Yeah, the way I was just so for example, so you're smaller, maximum floor area. Lot where you could do 3000 square feet. You could do a 450 square foot bonus. That kind of is that with that kind of example in mind, is council, kind of the rest of council, okay, with that not to exceed 15% or 750 square feet, whichever is less bonus? Yeah. Yeah. It's up from 10%, which is what it was before. And I think it's reasonable. I mean, it's a reasonable factor trying to get reasonable as a list of set. Yeah. Yeah. There are a lot of people who are upset, concerned about the scale of what this could create. I think this helps moderate that. Yeah. I appreciate it with Susan Sand. But I think that we need to move this along. And I just don't think. I mean, I think it's such a challenging time to be building anyway. I think the amount of people that are going to take advantage is going to be very small. I would agree. So I was surprised to learn that our 10% of our homes have a ACRA you now. That's a big number. That's not insignificant. Yeah. That's a lot. So I'd be willing to go along with the 15% up to a maximum of 750 square feet. Making sure that Jeff tightens up the language that we discussed earlier. But double dipping. And it probably takes some public comment. And then I think we're probably at a place where we can move this along because. We're here this along because we've talked about it a lot. I'm good. I don't think we're ever going to get full agreement from our Home Owners Association. However, the intent is right, but I'm still welcome to any public comments from the public or the homeowners association Please come forward I'm going to ask you guys a couple weeks ago. It's to meet a letter of comments and concerns. We did? Yes. There are. But we're pretty busy with the maze. So Tom has just touched it. I heard this afternoon. He makes really good points. I agree going to a 15% half is going in the right correct. Excuse me. Is your microphone on as green dot on? I'm sorry. There you go. That's better. Thank you. I think we would agree as a committee going into the 15% cap up to 750 square feet is going in the right direction. But beyond that, I haven't heard anybody talk about occupancy and how many people would be allowed to live in that. Right now, I think it's up to four. One of the sticking points for us as a committee would be a maximum of two. We feel that two people is maybe a bottle of wine and a conversation for people who are here on a J1 visa for the winter to party and work for Esquico is a party every time they're home. Well, this wouldn't be open to J1 visas. If they're a full-time employees, how not? Well, because their visa would expire, they wouldn't have the opportunity to establish their working history here. So, if they were here for six months on a visa, they wouldn't be allowed to rent. Well, I mean, you know, the J1s come in December and they leave in March. But sometimes they could be longer. You know, it's just an example. Transient population. We're not. We're wishful thinking to think that all these people are going to rent these places. They're going to be good citizens who are here to establish long time routes. The house I bought was a notorious party house. There were marty-garalt beads in every tree. It took me two years to pick up the broken glass in a residential neighborhood. So what we don't want is conflicts with neighbors, because there's four people living in an apartment next door that we're never there before. So we would think we agree that two people would be a max. I think it's a consideration that I haven't heard discussed. I think you guys seem to think about that in a little bit more detail. A question that came up since I've been here. If someone builds an AEU. or they required to rent it. Or could it's an empty? I actually have that same question. Do we have a bolster there? Do you want to take public comment? I want to make sure they're directed to you. So yes, I mean if it's got a restricted housing agreement, it's going to be more restricted to that. We do not discriminate on who's, who the homeowner, or, you know, puts into that unit as long as they meet our requirements. We don't discriminate now. I don't think we want to discriminate on who's renting. But it has to be rented. It has to be rented. It has to be rented. But the bonus. If you take the bonus. If you're taking the bonus. If you're taking the bonus. If you're trying to rent her, they have a certain time frame to get it rented within. If you're not using it for that purpose, I don't know. I don't know that I've come upon the problem that somebody's been trying to rent. The only issues we've had is when they've don't want to rent it. You've not had a situation where someone said, yeah, I've been trying to rent this and I'm trying to rent it in affordable price and I just can't do it. I don't think we have that situation. But I think the situation we see is that accessory units, employee units being used for a different purpose, not that they're not being used at all. And when it's used for, that's usually how it becomes more on our radar. But yeah, you know, we've, with the accessory employee units, there'll be the annual registration. And, well, if it's a deed restricted, you've got restricted housing agreement. It's a reduced rent. Well, there's no annual renewals anymore. No, it would be a deed or covenant, a court and plus a restricted housing agreement. But the restricted housing agreement could include like a minimum, like the time for our agency as well. We took that out of the existing code. That's in now. We just decided to. Are you on. Are you? Are you on? So, so just to clarify, and the, the length of time for like, Ace use and eight use was six months and eight months, respectively, in the current code. Under the proposed code, we decided to eliminate that, but it could be addressed in the restricted house and agreement, but under the new code, we just have restrictions for occupancy. We want to leave a little bit more flexible for people, but at the same time they got to do a covenant and the restriction that's recorded and a restricted housing agreement. So Jeff, do you think the way to do that is in the housing agreement? On the occupancy limitation or the requirement to rent? The requirement to rent, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I guess it could be done. It could be done under both. I mean, the occupancy or the restricted housing agreement can largely incorporate the requirements of the code. Yeah, I guess we could add that minimum eight-eight months provision under the occupancy standards. If that's the concern, we could do that minimum eight-eight months provision under the occupancy standards, if that's the concern we could do that. Yeah. Instead of leaving it at the will of staff to include that in the restricted housing agreement. I think that'd be appropriate to include in the code. Okay. I'm not clear what we resolve. Appropriate to do it. Occupancy has to be at least eight months. You have to rent it for eight months. That's what I'm saying. And then currently we allow to occupancy per bedroom with a maximum of four. Well, no, maximum of two bedrooms. Maximum of two bedrooms. So that's four people. Well, let me just say that I think this code may have been written before a most recent legislation legislative session in which the State Legislature adopted a new law that basically said that local governments can't impose limitations on the number of persons that can occupy a unit unless it's based on an international code or a fire code or something else for a safety standard and so I think the intent of this is to be consistent with those fire code standards, but It's going to be more restrictive. That would not be it's something that the state has preempted. That's not something we can regulate I mean as the reminder, the use of these units has layered underneath the town code and then, at least with respect to the Summoners Association, there's restrictive covenants which are not subject to that law to which there could be occupancy limits. And then of course you have the homeowners who are renting these units that could or not subject to that law. So there could you know choice in tenant selection is something that's not a town control. But other ways that occupancy could be controlled. Right. Well, I mean, if there was a couple living there and they had a family, we wouldn't want to kick them out of their homes either. No, but I do think that there is a difference between a couple that has like two kids and four people. I mean, I, you know, I used to just, when I would take the bus up the mountain early, and I'd see all the number of J1 visas and other people that were living along Meadow and Sinclair in those houses, and the chaos that it ensued on those neighborhoods, like I appreciate what you're saying. I get it. So I don't, I mean, it sounds like Jeff's saying we can't limit it, but I do think there's a difference dream for adults and a set of parents and a kid or two. It's just way less. But did Jeff say the homeowners association could limit it? They could have the ability to enact their own... Or the homeowner. So a homeowner in the end is vetting that, you know, but if they're part time owner, I'm there not there. You know, they don't know what's going on or they don't care. You can limit it by the size. What's it? You can limit the occupancy by the size of the unit, essentially, right? Right. Because that would fall into the fire and safety codes. No. Is that? I was just trying to find that legislation but basically it says that It sounds like we can come. What's the limitations based on demonstrated health and safety standards such as the international codes, fire code regulations or CDPHE, wastewater and water quality standards. Those are the bases on which you can limit occupancy. And so I think the two persons per bedroom limitation is intended to be consistent with those safety restrictions. But so if snowmassage away if they put the limit on it and then the individual each of ways don't say anything about it then that what these save rules for the snowmatch H.O.A. Yeah, if they did it, if they enacted a restriction through a private covenant. Yeah. Okay. Or you could just limit it to a one-bedroom issue. It's not our issue or issue is where our hands are tied a little bit on how tightly we control occupancy based under this recent legislation. Okay. Is that, would that be right if you limited it to a one-bedroom unit, that it would be maximum of two occupants instead, you could be a 750 square foot one-bedroom unit. I don't think that's our intention. Okay. To a one-bedroom. It's not the intention. Well, that's our major concern as part, as the design review that we would limit it to a one bedroom, two-person occupancy. And then something you could, that the homeowner's association could do, if you could get. Are you seeing the, to limit the number of bedrooms allowable in an AU under the code? Yes. to limit the number of bedrooms allowable in an AU under the code? Yes, and by therefore restricting the occupancy by limiting the number of bedrooms, it's a way around it, I guess. Something we would take under consideration. You know, using the 3,000 square foot size as an example, if you have a 3, 3000 square foot house under the code you have a 450 square foot AU with the 15% bonus then you get a 500 square foot below grade exemption and a 900 square foot garage you start to approach a 5,000 square foot structure on a lot with the FAR of a 3,000 square foot unit. One of our concerns is especially for a detached structure. How would the exemptions work for exempt FAR? So let's say you allow a 750 square foot AU and then it has exempt mechanical room space and an exempt 500 square foot below grade space over a 900 square foot garage. What does that look like on a lot? It's no longer just a 750 square foot apartment or to your comment, Mr. Mayor, a 500 square foot AU in your friends backyard seemed like a livable space. With the mechanical room exemptions and things like that from the building department has that been thought through on how that will affect overall size. And will they be allowable in that AEU, detached structure so that you can get to 750 square feet additional mechanical room space, 500 square feet below grade, over 900 square foot garage. 100 square feet below grade, over 900 square foot garage, you can imagine how these things balloon quickly within the code is that spilled out? The exemptions are limited. The exemptions are limited. We would continue to be limited. Those exemptions apply now with what we have. They would continue to apply. I think the only thing you're, as I'm hearing now, is taking it from 10% to 15%. But the exemptions continue to apply the same way they do today. I mean, just to clarify. And we allow for two better units today. You know, just going back. You're talking about changing the existing code is my point to do the things that are going back to Mark's point. Do you get, I mean, for the mechanical room exemption, is that a percentage of the total FAR to a maximum number? So yeah, I mean, there's a maximum floor area cap per lot. Yeah, right. It was not a floor area cap per eight U because there's not a separate lot for the eight U. So we calculate the principal house or an accessory structure is all together. Right. With any building permit application. So if you get an additional 750 square feet with the bonus of it, is it FAR for the purpose of then the calculation of your mechanical space and your basement space and your other exemptions that are present on the maximum floor area cap? So the five percent- Does that go to the FAR or the FAR plus the bonus area. Well, I think the bonus just applies to the accessory and employee unit. So I think the maximum mechanical would be 5%. The maximum exemption that you could claim is 5% for the lot. So if you say you had the lot of 3,000 square feet and you already had a 5% exemption for mechanical space and you got another 450 square foot bonus for a U, could you then have an exemption of 5% of the 450, which is what? Tell me a 20 square feet. We're not talking about a big number here. I don't think that would be the case. I think we have to look at the calculations for all the structures on the lot to make that call. So when you're looking at 5% of the FAR of the allowable area on the lot for your same mechanical exemption. Is it the allowable FER plus the bonus area? Or is it just FER? It would be the maximum for you on the lot times 5%. So yeah, it's around 500 square feet. What are you talking 25 square feet? Something like that. I mean, that's something that's allowed today. I'm just trying to answer this question. I am seeing. Tom, you would get 5% on the bonus area also, right? If it's allowed under the floor area for the lot. Got it. All right. So there's another 20 square feet there. Tom, I don't think our concern as much would be for the mechanical space. It's just cumulative. If you had a 5,000 square foot house and they didn't use the bonus FAR for subgrade space and then they were to build a 750 square foot AU would they be allowed to use the 500 square feet exemption that was not used for the main house. I mean like a basement exemption? Yes. So would you be allowed to have a basement exemption on an AEU if the basement exemption had not been used? I think that's a. You're taking this to an extreme limit and something that's hypothetical. If someone doesn't have a basement now, so you're saying they're gonna build an AU of 500 square feet, and then on a 5,000 square foot home, build an entire basement that's based upon that. No, they build a basement level under their new D-tash AU. That's for the entire lot. So 5,000 square feet times 5%. It's well. So they're building a 500 square foot basement? I got a 500 square foot exemption from my 3,280 square foot lot So for your basement When I'm asking is it so you're asking is can they build an entire basement? If let's say they have no basement. They have no basement. So they could do it today If they have a 3000 square foot lot they could build that basement and get the exemption. If they built a 500 square foot AU, they could build the same amount. And the only amount that could go over because of the AU would be the amount, the 5% of the 500. Well, my concern is that they build a 750 square foot AU with a 500 square foot basement. So it's a 1,250 square foot. That's what I'm asking. So you're saying they're going to go build a 500 square foot basement as well as a, but they could do the 500 square foot basement without doing an AU. Yeah, and that's OK as part of the main house. We're using it as an example of how big these could get as detached structures within the code. And just to clarify. So maybe the question is, can you have a tax on exempt square footage to the AU, like such as can you tack on the exempt basement square footage to expand the unit? If you can fill that within your building envelope. So you get extra exemptions if you build a detached unit. Or the exemptions are what they are. You don't get anything extra. Total for the entire footpath. It's based upon the FAR for the house. It doesn't add much. You don't get extra. Well, we take them together when we calculate the floor area for the house. So the exemptions based. The maximum exemption is 5%. together when we calculate the floor area for the house of the exemption spaced. The maximum exemption is 5% so anything beyond that for mechanical would be calculable floor area. The same as for a garage. The maximum exemption for a three-car garage is 900 square feet for a double-car garage. It's 700 square feet so anything beyond that is a calculatorable floor area. But we, same for basement exemptions, I mean we calculate all the structures together and there's only certain homes based on their topography or steepness that meets the qualifying basement. They have to first demonstrate that the below grade foundation wall is more than I have to percent below grade first and then they can get their 15% exemption on the maximum floor area. I mean, today they can't climb too. Okay, I think we're going down a little bit of a rabbit hole. We do want to answer your questions. So, we bring it up just as thoughts that are problematic, that we will be presented with as a design review committee, that I don't think have all been thought through yet. Right. Well, that's a pretty good example. I think that's a pretty extreme example. I think for a tear down rebuild an architect will find a way to squeeze every square foot on that lot without much problem especially with below-grade exemptions. Susan, to your comment you will see it. It only has to be 50% below grade so you can have windows on a basement level that you could see and then you put a deck on that and you put an overhang on the roof on that and it. Which most of you could do today right you could do today. Yeah so you could also you. That's not really what we're talking about. It is from a design review standpoint. That's what we look at. How does that overall size impact the lot? Especially for a detached structure, where you end up with a significantly sized second home on a single family lot. I mean, I'm sympathetic what you're saying, but I'm not sure that there's a way to really write it any differently than we are to be effective. And maybe it's one of those kind of things. Let's try it. If it's really getting abused, then we'll let's come back and look at the language in the future. But I think where we're at is a pretty good balance. Well, based on what we've heard, the letter and the notes and comments we've submitted, I think that there's no way, the way this is going, that we're going to avoid conflict on the Dying Review Committee. And I don't have any further comment. I think we'll just deal with it when we get to that point. I totally respect the fact that if you find your regulations within the HOA, Shoah does not allow for what we're talking about, then you may reject it. But I understand that, but we got to go forward with something. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much, Mark. Can I just say one thing. I think we have a really good relationship with the DRC, and we've always checked with them. And they have brought up the detached units, and if that's something you want to address, then I think you say you've just done a lot of detached units. But right now we allow them above or below the garage. Right now I believe when we read through the declarations they do allow it as long as there's an architectural continuation or fence. I think we continue to do that, continue to work with the DRC. And I really don't see the way we're taking this and the more restrictions we put on it, the less it's gonna be used. But if you want it to address that, I'm just gonna delete the detached unit. That's a way to solve it. Yes, I mean, free standing detached unit. I mean, I think if we're creating policy that's going to create conflict then maybe we should reconsider that but if we think we're going to get around it either way then you know it's just a matter of communicating with DRC and homeowners association and seeing how problematic this becomes and if it does become problematic. And we can revisit it. Revisited it. Yeah, I agree. I don't want to lose sight of the whole, the big picture of what we're trying to do as a community, like all of us, working towards, you know, having our community who work here, live here, and it's, you know's trying to build that community that we're feeling like we've lost. And so, you know, I don't think it should feel like we're, you know, there's some outsiders coming in. These are people who already work in our community, and if we can house them in some ways I think that's going to make everything better for all of us. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else for a public comment? Okay. I'll make a motion. Okay, please do. I'm going to need some help with this but I move that a motion. Okay, please do. I'm gonna need some help with this, but I Move that we approve ordinance 10 But the following amendments is where it needs to melt. I think the three amendments. I heard we're one to Make sure fine change to the code that the I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Maybe I need to go. Let me, let me, let me rephrase it. Yeah. That the bonus will be 15% of the underlying FAR up to a maximum of 750 square feet. I think it was the other way. It was 15 square, not to exceed the greater, not to exceed the lesser of 15% or 750 square feet. And they cannot be combined with the. They cannot be combined with the purchasableable affair. Okay, and the third was that the minimum rental provision be included in the code That's one I didn't quite here. We got an often tangent so can you clarify what that is? Jim, do you want to can you speak to that again? Well Dave spotted some language and do the there is short to rental provisions in the current code because it shall not be allowed but it says all maximum rental shall be for minimum of six months. We could change that to eight months or we can add that provision to the occupancy standards. I think yeah I think adding it to the occupancy standards that it will say about six months or eight months. I'm fine with six months because that gives us a little more flexibility. I agree. It makes sense with our season. Yeah. So there's three changes. One would be to clarify that the bonus and the FAT cannot be combined. We might do some work. 15%? We're expecting some work. We're checking. We're smithing on that. And then 700, the bonus is 750 square feet or 15 percent, whichever is more restrictive. And then the third is that there's a mental rental provision in the occupancy standards for six months. Minimum. Yeah. Okay. That's what I meant to say. There it is. So moved. No, that was a good discussion. I'll second. Susan, second, any further discussion? Sweet, is this second reading? Yes. So are we going to see it again now? No, no. Okay, Megan, do you want to do a roll call? Roll call, second reading, ordinance number 10 council member Fred Steen. Aye Councilmember Moral aye councilmember Shank aye councilmember Gustason aye mayor Manson. Hi. Thank you Okay, thank you. Thank you. It's a good effort. This is It's been a long drawn out process. I really appreciate the homeowners further. Feedback, I think it's always a team effort here in snowmast village, and that's why it takes a village. So we're chipping away at our, the issues that are presenting us. All right. Now we're going to move on to our administrative reports. We've got a discussion regarding the Picking County landfill. All right, Brian. Thank you for waiting patiently. Thanks for having us. And now for something completely different. It's been a talk about trash in Pittigian County. But I'm Brian Pettit. I'm the Public Works Director for the county. And as you know, we have a ballot question coming in November, which is basically allowing the county to take on some debt in order to make some capital improvements at the Pitting County Solid Waste Center. The current Solid Waste Center has about five years left in its life and we hope to create an expansion to add an additional up to 70 years, 70 years of life at the landfill. So that will take a state permit to allow us to cause that expansion to happen. And we have to move four facilities. One we have to move the scale house, the primary scale house to the entrance. We have to move the mother load mercantile, which we just recently completed, which is hugely successful by the way. We have to move what we call the household hazardous waste building, which is an old metal building from the pick and iron days we moved from lower River Road, and we have to move our recycle transfer area. Because that area will then be filled with trash. So what we have is a cash flow issue because we have these expenses to move our facilities. Clint had said that there was some question about how much of the trash, the waste stream is represented by construction and demolition debris. It's about 54%. So over half of the waste stream that comes to the Picking County Landfill is from hotels and houses being demolished in the county. And I'm happy to answer any other questions you have. And also, and with this, which is to, if you would like to ever have a tour of the landfill, we give them, we give them often. And I think you would learn a lot about the number one landfill in the state of Colorado for diversion. We divert more material out of the waste stream than any other landfill in the state of Colorado. I think one of the questions that came up was regarding the construction, was that program of requiring contractors to make a deposit, be a project that they divert so much to get money back or what ever happened with that and is it in that and who is an in fact and who does apply to it is an effect and it applies to picking county residents right now the city of Aspen is is that unincorporated picking county correct unincorporated picking county the city of Aspen's working to join that so they're they're checking out the system and they're joining it without having passed an ordinance yet to see how it will work. But it's highly effective. It allows us to track and monitor and control that waste. Can you explain to my full council members what their program is? So basically people have to put a deposit before they demolish their home and then they have to sort their loads in order to get that deposit back. Sort the load to recyclables. Correct. So you are seeing success with that program? Absolutely. Yeah. And pressure being placed on all the contractors to do that work rather than just a few that we're working with now. Because we've heard that some people just pay the deposit and just don't pay everything. They pay the deposit and then they pay a premium for disposing unsorted loads, which is about five times the amount that they would spend if they sorted things out a little bit. And really sorting, we're looking for concrete, cardboard, metal. Those are the really the things we have a market for. Really sorting, we're looking for concrete, cardboard, metal. Those are the really the things we have a market for. We're not looking for someone to sort the gypsum board from their lumber. There's just not a market for it right now. But I'll go back to Bill's point. I mean, are people actually doing it, or are they just paying more money in not doing it? Both. Okay. Both is the answer. But there's enough people doing it that it is worthwhile proceeding with. Absolutely. And we can track that. So this after we have allows us to track who's participating and how much we've diverted and be we'd be happy to provide that presentation to you or to your staff because we'd love to get the town of Snowmass on board as well. I think it's important and if we can make that happen, that would be good. What are you doing to increase the capacity for 70 years other than moving those facilities, would you actually doing to make the area larger? We're not making the area larger. We're filling in a gully that is part of the landfill right now where the primary road enters into the landfill. Yeah. So we will line that. We'll create a modern landfill. Most of the pick and counting landfills unlined. So we'll meet the new regulations for landfill development. And then we'll fill existing land that the county owns at the landfill. We're not expanding the footprint. So there was a map in the packet. So if you're driving into the landfill, that's the valley that you're talking about. Yeah, once you hit the scale house, the area beyond the scale house would be the area that will be filled. So where do those four buildings go? They go on a different site within the landfill, another flat area that is current or current operations area. So is that an area that has landfill and it's on top of the landfill? So it cannot be permitted. It's it's unpermittable land that the county that's part of the landfill space. So as you're driving in you're gonna go Left they're gonna as you're driving in you're gonna go right sooner. So you go right over on to like on the top of that other Hill correct So the area that's there now will be filled Correct so okay because that was one of the questions I had just snowmass village on some land that's kind of behind Aspen Village. You're not going in that direction. No, we are not. It's it's land that you would consider the landfill. So it's filling up a gully that is just now being used as a road. So we would not break any original lines or anything like that. I think the area that could possibly be seen from the expansion is toward lower river road that they they they currently can see the landfill from that area now. But that's really the only site problem that we have to work with. Well, 70 years is significant. Yeah. We'll see what the state permits. It's up to 70 years. And Anne Dürger is here. She is our treasure. What is your title now? I have several. OK. That's why I do. The chief financial administrative officer, most of the treasure in the public trustee. But I'm here to talk a little bit about the ballot question, because you may be aware that we run our landfills in enterprise funds, and the enterprise funds don't have to ask voters permission to issue debt, because there is no increase in taxes, all the debt would be paid for by the revenues of the landfill, which is the fees and charges that are paid by the users. So state law actually exempts enterprise funds from having to go to the voters to us for debt, but the Picking County residents have a home-real charter and they require debt. All debt issued, even if it's exempt from doing so by state law has to go to the voters. So the question basically is to us permission to issue debt for the expansion, 22 million in revenue bonds, but it's without any increase in taxes, all the debt will be serviced out of the landfill font, which is just fees and charges. And what is your confidence of the ability to repay the debt from the landfill funds? Oh yeah, it's very good. You know, it's a healthy, healthy fund. Our revenue streams are fairly significant each year. So, and as part of the ballot question development, we completed a comprehensive financial study over a period of time to prove that the revenue is there to pay the fact. Thank you. In addition to moving the buildings, I think also read that you're putting an electrical fence around it. Is that right for wildlife? Not at this time. No. So that would need to, in the board, board accounting commissioners would need to talk about that. There's not direction to do that. There would be the financial wherewithal to do it if the directions provided. Right now that direction has not been provided. And how active is the landfill with bears? It depends on the year. This has been a really poor year with bears in the whole valley, frankly. I know a lot of communities that will start a little with bears. We have 20 to 30 resident bears that live in the woods and come down and feed at night and move back during the day. So we haven't had any conflicts per se with the bears. They come and go as they please. But the last thing I wanted to add about the, with regard to expansion of the landfill, if we don't expand the landfill, we would be creating a transfer station because the 150,000 tons of material isn't going away on this valley. So it would come to the landfill, we would compact it the best we could, and we would put it in big trucks, and we would ship it out of the roaring fork valley. So that impact to the environment and to the community would be greater than allowing the landfill to expand. I mean, I don't see how anybody could disagree with this bell. It seems like the cost of building a transfer station is probably about the same amount of money we're doing the expansion. I'm impressed you could all this for 22 million. We can't do anything for 22 million here. We haven't done it yet. Well, you also mentioned the recycling program, the single stream program. I know you move a lot. How successful is that program once it reaches, I guess it's going to Denver, right? That's correct. So it goes to the waste management. It's a transfer station and a sorting site. I think they spent $6 to $8 million building this sorting center. They sort the material and they sell it to the commodities to different agencies in Denver. And we get a report back on a monthly basis on what they've sorted, what the quantities were. Sometimes we get docked for contamination, but most of the time we get rewarded with financial incentives because we have the aluminum and cardboard, the big commodities that are generating revenue right now, which are aluminum and cardboard? We want the aluminum and cardboard correct. So you know, we get a little money back, but overall it costs the county money to ship it to Denver. So that, that triple loan is, is expensive. And you have a pretty successful composting program at the landfill, right? Yes. But it doesn't include single-stream materials, correct? Correct. So, yeah, it's only compostable materials in food waste. So a lot of the yard waste and he kind of tree products that come in will mix with food waste and compost it. We sell out every year. We can't keep it in stock. It's very popular. Other questions? No. I don't have any. I would like a tour sometime though. Yeah, we'd love to have you. Do we give tours to schools all the time? Let's do that. Locke, it's really impressive. It's a fantastic. Yeah, I mean, the mercantile is just, it's a really, it's such a great thing to have in our community. Yeah. Yeah. And we've been coordinate. Yeah, let's do that before it gets cold. Yeah, really cold and muddy. The next month or so, yeah. Good. Good. Well, and good job on the financing mechanism. Sounds like we're in good shape. Yeah, if it passes, we'll be in good shape. I'm not quite sure what we'll do if it doesn't. Right. It's all about communication, getting that information out there. That's right. Thank you for having us. Thank you for coming. Thank you for coming. It's nice to see you guys. Thanks. And kind of like the airport issue, Anne, I appreciate the information in the paper that you provided on the financing model there, so that was excellent. Good job. All right. Next discussion is going to move on to Rorync For roaring fork safe passages. This is a request for funding Give you a nice moment to catch your breath while they're pulling the presentation up. Well, you get our tour scheduled. We can certainly do that. I find solid waste facilities to be fascinating. It's pretty impressive. If you really want to earn bonus points and give yourself some homework, you can ask to do a trash audit and see what kind of homework you get there. Yeah, I can leave you with enough mystery for that because I've vamped long enough to get the presentation going. Well, it's, I mean, our landfill has advanced, I mean, it's amazing what goes on out there now compared to what you staffed out there. Sorry, thank you. Thank you so much for having me back. I just wanted to come and present to you a little bit of a review and an update on our project. You give your name for the record. Sessalita Angelo, Executive Director of Rowing for Exhaust Passages. So just to review the current mitigation goals between Woody Creek and the airport are to reduce wildlife vehicle conflict in that area where we have a severe problem. Then ultimately improve and preserve long-term permeability across Highway 82. This looks like coordinating wildlife crossing structures with targeted habitat protection efforts. Currently, so starting in April of this year and really in June when we came to present to you guys, we started into phase one of our mitigation in that area. And the specific outcomes from stage one is myelpost recommendations for mitigation strategies. And stage two is what we're starting into right now. And that involves some pretty incredible high-tech drone imaging, which will help us essentially take the, we're not being public with the exact sites, but there are currently five sites that we're evaluating. So in stage two, we will be doing drone imaging, which is not just a tool for marketing. It is actually a tool that's going to help us eliminate and get more specific on each site and what is possible on each site. So this next phase two, the outcome is hopefully that we're able to be more specific about what can be done where and what we think is the best use of dollars in different locations. And those five sites probably won't make it through this next phase. It'll probably be whittled down to two or three. So that is phase two and then stage three will be the production of outreach materials which is a bit more of a marketing stage. So we will be producing materials for the public so people can see what we're proposing in each location. And this will be specific to the locations we identify and sort of whittle down to in stage two. This is just a sort of an update of what we're doing. I'm actually just going to click through to this one. So we've we starting in April we reviewed sort of the data of the area and did initial site visits with Julia and we also invited we had page singer up in the area who does some of the data collection. During that time period and subsequently we've had partner and stakeholder engagements and these have been a wide net where we've invited everyone that we can possibly reach out to involving that are involved in this area. So it really ranges from the Angler community to local municipalities and counties and anyone in the Australia has suggested. So we've reached out to like the community and Woody Creek. We've reached out to brush Creek Village and really tried to be as inclusive and cast as wide of a net as we can as we move into this process. And currently we are looking at and developing and evaluating the mitigation alternatives in those five locations. Stage two, so we're not done with stage one because we haven't been able to, to stage two is what we need in order to complete stage one. So the final mitigation plan will not be finished until we are able to overlay stage two onto stage one and eliminate some of those options and come up with the best of the, so we have five and we need to come up with the best of those five options, which will not be all of them. And then again, in stage three we'll be doing that outreach and public materials to be able to communicate these options to the public. So, just to review really quick, the potential scenarios for what we may arrive at as we come through this process, is we may improve existing wildlife or extend wildlife fencing in the area. There's some places where animals are, you can actually see it right here, that the animals are walking onto the highway, sort of just between the ABC and where the wildlife fencing starts, and there's nowhere for them to go. They're just getting trapped on the highway. They would end up right into the airport if they were to keep crossing. So there's some very obvious without going into specifics because we're not quite ready to release those. There are some areas where it'd be really obvious to just extend the fencing and it would just make things much safer. There's already no permeability and there's not going to be permeability in that area. So ensuring that the animals aren't just getting trapped on the highways, an important thing to do in that area. In other places, there's one way fences that are rusted open. There's, we actually went out and walked the fence. And even as it go the fencing, the wildlife fencing, as it goes up onto shale bluffs, you can see the animals are coming around it, which is wild. Like I wouldn't imagine that they would cross there or come down that way, but you can actually see where the game trails are. And that's a pretty easy fix. Like, how can we keep them from coming around that corner? There's also other options that we could look at, such as nighttime speed limit reductions, which is not that effective because you're trying to change human behavior there and often not, not something that people follow. Replacing, so we have an existing box culvert in that region. So there's potential to dig that out and make it a larger box culvert so that it's in fact like a buried bridge and no longer a box culvert. Box culverts of that size are not effective for elk. A lot of other species will use them, but it's just too small for an elk to use. And I think deer will use a lot more and do occasionally pass under there, but I think they're also a bit reluctant to use a structure of that size. So creating a structure in that place that could be utilized by elk is an option. And then there's other places where we could do underpasses and overpasses along this segment. Another thing that we can do is improve sight lines. So if there's a berm where the animal and or the car may not be able to see each other, you can flatten that out. So as we evaluate each of these locations, we're looking at both wildlife and biological and looking at the wildlife movement patterns through that area, even though they've been altered a lot over time, like these are not what they originally were. We're also looking at safety and human concerns in the area, and then also how much and how and where humans are using the land in that area, for example, recreation. And then there's going to be big design and design limitations depending on the topography and that's part of what phase 2 in this helps us do is it's basically our first phase of the first phase of design for the construction of these and helps us eliminate which structures can in fact be built and which cannot. And then construction and maintenance and then the relative cost. So we will be looking at what makes the most sense throughout this entire segment of highway. Just to jump in we also have to look at land ownership and land use the terrain and landscape characteristics and then you know what type of crossing structure we're looking at, and then if they're constructable. Where is that picture? This is the box culvert. Yeah. That's pretty big. So you can kind of see, do you see where it is relative to the end of the runway there? No. Where you see the road curving is the end of the runway. OK. I'm going to go back. So we're looking back towards brush creek road. You're looking towards that. You're looking south towards that. I'm just asking. OK. Yeah, it actually, it's used by wildlife quite a bit. It is not used by elk, which is very problematic in the segment. It's also been used some by humans, which I think is a bit of a problem. And we have to eliminate that in the segment. It's also been used some by humans, which I think is a bit of a problem. And we have to eliminate that in the future. But it's got potential. Yeah, it connects some really big pieces of protected and open space. Yeah. If it were larger, would the elk be able to go through it? Yes. Oh, yep. So in what's really interesting, some of the, If it were larger, would the elk be able to go through it? Yes. So, and what's really interesting, some of the, I think that there's also an underpass and we're not into mitigating this segment yet, but once we get there, we'll know more about it, but there's also an underpass that was built near Snowmass Canyon. And what has happened over the last 20 years of the science around wildlife crossings is we now understand what species will use, what type of crossing, and really truly what the dimensions need to be. And unfortunately, that science wasn't quite up to date when these structures were built. So we're dealing with kind of like a mismatch from species and size and yeah unfortunately they're just not optimized for the problem that we have in that segment. So it's unfortunate to have to go back and rebuild, but it's being done around Colorado. I think that two, no quote me, but I think I know at least one and I think two box culverts were dug out on I said, sorry, on I-25 for the GAT project and they were basically rebuilt to accommodate ELK, which is really cool. And they're huge. You walk under them and they're like over 20 feet high in order to be welcoming to elk. And they're using them. They just opened last year and the elk are readily using them now, which is really exciting. Okay, so we are in the process of fundraising. So we've completely funded and have already started phase one. We are now moving into stage two, which we have gotten a commitment from the city of Aspen for $12,000 for this. We've gotten a commitment from picking county for 12,000, and I'm coming to you guys for 10 to 11, which is like, I don't need to split hairs over that. But I would love your partnership for a series of reasons. One, to have snow mass involved in this process, I think is really essential. And I actually have really appreciated the involvement that we've had with eco flight. But I would love to have someone from not necessarily town council, but someone from the town of Snowmass on these calls regularly with us. Because there's the migration corridor that goes along brush creek is starting to be discussed a lot and I know that that's an incredibly important piece of snowmass so I think having a representative regularly on calls with us is going to be essential to have the voice of Snowmass represented in our stakeholder calls. And then I also just, not for huge dollars moving forward, but for participation, I would love to have support from you at this point in the project, which I know is off from the budget cycle, and then consideration of being a part of things moving forward with us, which There's a small chance that we can move into design on part of this segment the end of next summer 2025 the majority of design will probably be completed in 2026. And the goal of the project, essentially, is to get this to 20 to 30% of design, which is like shovel ready. If you mark 100% being shovel ready, my goal is with local funds, so meaning private donations, county cities to get it to 30% of complete design so that we can engage with C.DOT and hopefully bring in funds from both C.DOT and from federal sources. So my ask is for you to participate currently with in the concept development fundraising component that we're doing right now, but then also to sort of work with me to identify someone who can just bring the voice of Snowmass Village because the court or the migration court or is at risk. And I think it's really important that Snowmass has a voice in this as we move forward and make some decisions about how we're going to handle the wildlife crossing area and what we do in that segment. Okay, so a couple things. The, I mean you're still in the process of trying to figure out which locations. Yes. So it's not necessarily talking about brush creek and N82. I mean from your maps it looks like highway 133 might be a higher. So, currently we're just doing the segment that goes from the landfill to the edge of the airport. So, sorry, this is hard to separate out, but the mitigation plans for the rest of the valley. So we have six total priority zones. This is just one of them that we're working on right now, and this one runs from the landfill to the airport. So within that, there are five sites where we potentially are going to look at, could we do a wildlife crossing? Could we do an underpass? Could we dig out a culvert? We have to do this drone imaging, which is sort of the stage two here, in order to take those five locations within our current priority zone and sort of whittle them down to two or three. Even within those two or three, we're going to be really lucky if we get to build one in the near term. Hopefully in the long term we can start building those into like the work plans with C.Dott. The other five locations are priority zones in the valley. We're commencing mitigation plans, like the one we're doing in the current zone. We're commencing those plans in the beginning of the year, so they'll probably be like February when we jump into that project. And I'm going to other towns in the valley. I'll be approaching the salt, carbon dale. I'm currently trying to get on the docket with those towns to get them involved. Picking county is being asked to join for some of that. And I'm also going to Garfield County and Eagle County to join in that. Townes Knollmas has no involvement in many of those locations, so I would not ask you guys to participate in that in any way. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Thank you for that clarification. Because these are massive installations, right? I mean, even for pedestrian underpass that we talked about at Buttermilk for a long time is like $20 million. So whether it's an underpass or an overpass, or I mean you got a huge uphill battle, right? And I'm not trying to pour water on it, but I mean your stats say, three out collisions per mile per year, you know, the numbers are pretty small, even though we all hate to see that, you know, on highway, you know, when you're trying to equate, you know, dollars and cents and overpasses and huge infrastructure, you know, lots of, you know, big tall fences and, you know, in our open space, it's, you know, it's a challenge for sure. Absolutely. And so one thing that we've done recently and understood that those reported numbers, it is per mile per year. So it's not like throughout the entire segment. The other thing just to note that that is actually one of the highest rates of elk collisions reported in the entire state. So that number, especially because elk collisions can be very dangerous or they're not typically deadly but they can injure drivers, or they're more likely to, because the animal is so large. That is a fairly high rate. And those numbers are wildly under-reported. I think the stat is that it's two to four times that actual number is what actually is occurring. And we've spent, and did a full sort of training, and I would say it was a dual training, like they were training us, and we were training them, on with the Pick and County Sheriff's Department, to, as we move forward, we will be collecting better data. And they're getting on board, and already have started, to collect better data for us because as we have better numbers we will be pulling money in from the state and then the state has to bring their 20% and that would then pull federal funds which would be 80% to build this type of infrastructure. It's not that we can't do this locally, we could, but the goal is ultimately to be pulling, there was a pot of money that's for the, it was the Wildlife Crossing's Pilot Program. So that's like a $350 million pot of money. It's a wildly popular, you get like 80% of voters are in favor of this type of infrastructure. So more and more money is being earmarked for this at the federal level. And again, these are, it's ambitious. Like, there's many, many projects that need to be done. But actually this segment in particular because of the high number of LKITs, and I know that that looks small, but it's not. It's one of the higher in the state. It in particular maybe one that rises to the top with CIDA, and that's because of safety. So just to like clarify some of that, that it's not. It in particular that's in Julia put this well well and she's a bit better at describing this. It's not that it's necessarily going to take down our L-curred. It's cumulative with what the pressures of the L-curreds are feeling right now. So they're dealing with overdevelopment. They're dealing with pressures on their calving seasons, like their migration corridors are getting constrained, and then they're also being hit. So I wouldn't say that that number of hits is not what's taking, like putting all the pressure on the L-cards, but it adds to it. And I think when you look from a hunting and gaming perspective, there's a lot of hunters that are very enthusiastic about this type of infrastructure. And I think that's because they see that the number of tags, especially in certain areas, are going to go down. And so there's that type of enthusiasm and sort of hope that these enabling animals to move more freely through our landscapes is going to hopefully increase their herd numbers and then we're also not just like aimlessly taking them out with cars which is a bummer especially when depending on how you look at it at different populations think about that differently. Yeah, we're hunting season two. I mean, that's a huge impact on the population as well. Absolutely, but CPW will adjust the number of tags issued based on the population numbers. So I think that's why a lot of hunters get on board with this type of infrastructure is to ensure that there's more tags available instead of less. Just sort of quantify. What is our stretch of road we're talking about roughly about four miles? I think it's a little over five and I actually wanted to look that up before this presentation because I forgot exactly. So I have to say three per mile, it's like 15 out per year. Yeah, it's not like insignificant. Yeah. about 15 out per year. Yeah, it's not insignificant. Yeah. I mean, that's 15 cars that got banged up. But also if you multiply those numbers by what, if an elk is hit and then runs off the road and dies on the side of the road, that it may have kind of banged up your car, but it wasn't enough to report it, and then you just go and get your car but it wasn't like enough to report it and then you just like go and get your car fixed. So a lot of those are also just not recorded. Yeah. And so if you get federal and state money, you're thinking you could fund the actual project with 100% of those funds? Is that what you said? No, I think we're going to have to get this project to a certain amount of design. Like I think we're going to have to pay for some of the design locally. And this is just based on what I've seen in other communities. So I suspect that with the design process, I don't even want to give numbers because we have to identify what we're actually thinking for this location. Like an overpass is a wildly different cost. The digging out a culvert. An underpass may be a different cost. Extending like the fence in a small segment, maybe something we can do relatively quickly. We may not even ask C.DOT for that money. We might be like, it's just worth it to our local community. We're gonna extend the fence so the animals aren't just walking onto the road right here. And that's again, it's, it unfortunately does not, like in that scenario, that's not going to improve permeability, but it might instantly help with, with human and wildlife safety, which is really important. I suspect that in order to get, we've had conversations with C.DOT, they are part of our regular stakeholder updates. But based on what I've seen with other projects, you need to get these designed to about 30% for C.DOT to be like, OK, we're going to engage. And that's just like the nature of how many projects that they have and sort of what's on their docket. And I think that our valley won't get like six projects down at once, but the value of having the projects ready to go if there's going to be any sort of improvements or changes on the roadway or work being done is huge. And that could really help us get those in the future, even if we don't get them in the near term. And some of the safety software came to be done very quick. And I think like I would imagine that if I would hope that in the next like five years, we can at least in the segment get one of the structures to improve permeability built. So if you had one and say it's built at brush creek and we have fencing going from the airport all the way to Sonomaes Canyon, the elk would have one opportunity to cross than at Brecht Creek to get to the river. Yes, I think that based on the desire to keep some amount of permeability, there's a science, and I'm sorry, I'm not the one to answer this. Julia knows exactly, but there's a science of how many miles on each side of the overpass you want to fence. And it's not, it will not be like three miles on each side. It might be a mile on each side, but you do need to funnel these animals towards the crossing structure. And I think that there's, as a community, and again, this is why I want Snowmass to be a part of this discussion, we need to decide how much of that area we want to fence for safety and how much we're just going to leave open to have the animals cross in that area. But as the pressures grow from development and from just the increased traffic and the speeds are increasing, which I know we all just notice on a daily basis, that has to bring up the question of do we want to fence that area or not? It's not what we're necessarily recommending. But a structure in order to be effective does require fencing on each side so you can effectively Mitigate about a Three-mile stretch maybe two-mile stretch like a two-mile stretch is my guess and I again I apologize. I'm not the expert. No, I hear what you're saying. I'm not just a really I don't know. It's just a really challenging thing, right? Because if you want to do it every two miles, then I mean, the cost is an ordinance. Totally. And, you know, the gold standard is looking at the Highway 9 project. And when you look at that, there's two overpasses, three underpasses, or maybe four underpasses. And they have really mitigated on like every mile and a half or two miles and it's worked phenomenally. But if we're not going to put those types of resources in, then we have to decide what can we do with one or two and or maybe three and how can we be smart about putting fence in the right places or tying in fence, like I said around trailpluffs, you can see where the animals are walking right around the fence. So to ensure that we're utilizing our resources in the best way, to increase permeability, decrease wildlife vehicle collisions, and in my dream, I would love to spend $100 million on that whole segment and do every single one and ensure that the animals could get across and there was no more hits. But you're right, it's a huge amount of money to mitigate a five or six mile stretch of roadway. In the Highway 9 project, you just can't compare numbers. When they did it, it was like 43 million for that whole roadway, but they also did massive improvements on the roadway itself. And I think that now we're looking at inflated construction costs, which are make mitigating that entire segment, probably unlikely. But I truly believe that we can do some of it. And I think we have the will in this community to do a portion of it. Do you have a timeframe or a stage in here for some of the potential scenarios of the alternative mitigation, like that just, you know, improving the existing fencing and some of those bits and pieces that could be done. So it seems like fairly soon. Yeah, totally. So even fencing requires a certain amount of design and I've asked Julia this question a couple of times. I think that we could launch into, I'm saying conservatively, the end of next summer would be design for that. I honestly think we could even potentially launch into design for fencing. If we had like the partnership, the funding, I think we could do that even sooner. This whole project and sort of the exact recommendations in each location will be done by February. So getting into design, I don't know that it necessarily needs to wait until that much later in the season. But just to be conservative and like have expectations, hopefully met, I would say that next year we could launch into design and then like actual implementation as a matter of like, do we choose to do some of that mitigation as a local community and not bother with C-DOT? And I should actually very, I need to specify, you have to involve C-DOT. It's there, it's there, you're constructing on there right away and it's technically there in first structure, but I believe that we could pay for it and have it approved by C-DOT. And that's been done in other locations. I think it's unlikely we will do that in its entirety with other structures. I think we will ultimately decide to try to involve C-DOT and federal funding in order to, if we're doing bigger structures. And I think those timelines are a bit longer, not necessarily for the initiation of design, but for actual fundraising and involving CIDOT and all that, like we're on a sort of different timeline. Yeah, because it'd be great to see some of those easy fixes done. Totally. Yeah. Some of it you're like, we could just go out to see some of those easy fixes. Totally. Yeah, some of it you're like, we could just go out and tie a little bit more here and get them not to walk around or there's places where it's unlikely that the animals are jumping over but the fence is now far less high because the sediment has risen on it and you can actually see that from the roadway. So technically an animal could kind of jump over that. So there's definitely some maintenance stuff that we can do in the interim too. All right, other questions? So just a clarify, after stage three, then the stretch that you're looking at that impacts us or that we would be most involved in, would you would identify the few things that can be done in that area, not all of the zones? Actually, stage two. That stage two or a state, like I'm just trying to clarify what happens at stage two. That stage two or state like I'm just trying to clarify what happens at stage so stage three. So stage three was determined by picking county and by Aspen to it just felt too much like materials that were sort of marketing materials for running for safe passages. So we committed to paying for stage three because that's all the visualization. I think it's a tool for everybody but I get that and I was fine and we were able to raise those funds privately. But by the end of stage two we will actually have the portion of the imaging that we're using to narrow down which locations we're actually recommending. That once we're done with that will be stage two. We'll be able to be like, okay, this is like what we're doing and where. That being said, I really think that watching this whole process, the stakeholder voices are incredibly important in making those decisions. They're as important, it's not that we can alter topography, but they're very important alongside with the, sorry, alongside the technical information that we're gathering as well. So like at that phase, you would come back to us and say, this is what we found out. And this is how you could weigh in. I'm just trying to figure out if it's important. I would like to have someone from Snowmass on the stakeholder calls with us now. So as we're narrowing down this information, I would like to have a representative from Snowmass like bringing a voice to the table. So you're not necessarily coming back to us. You're just getting somewhere from Snowmass that is participating in the discussions. And then yes, once Phase 2 is complete, I would come back to Snowmass and be like, OK, this is what we've found. But I would like to have a voice from Snowmass at the table as we narrow down these options, because I think it's incredibly powerful to just have that perspective. And as I kind of dug into the priorities of Snowmass, realizing how important the brush creak corridor is, and I know we do a lot with open space for that, but that is a migratory corridor that is being looked at right now, and I think snowmass should have a voice at the table with that. Anything else? So are we making an emotion to say that we want to add this to the budget if that's what we want to do? Well should the council want to participate in this? It would require an supplemental appropriation of, I believe, the S was 10,000. And so just know that that would come back as a ordinance and so for second reading. Or if you wanted to consider this for next year, it could be included. I can have Clint Telmeri and I do some more work and add the 10K to the 25 budget. So the fund, if we do it in the budget, the money would be available January 1. Correct. Does that work for you or not? The work is being done starting October 2nd. So ideally, no. But I would make it work. I would make it work. I would make it work. I asked Ben and Picken, right? Aspen and Picken are doing supplemental. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, they can do the first three, two months, well, two the last month. How far are you away from where you need to be in this timeframe right now? In your fundraising? In the fundraise? So we've raised everything aside from what I'm asking for. No. From you guys. Yeah, so if we give you the final $10,000 that takes you to where you need to be October 1st. Yeah. And then you'll be coming back next year. It's likely that I will invite Snowmass again to participate. I understand that Snowmass' budget is very different than picking counties or even the city of Aspen and the city of Aspen will probably not participate as highly as picking county will. So I'm not saying no, I'll never come back and ask for future participation. But it will be again, the ask this time is proportionate. It's, I'm asking, it's not a matter for quite a bit less than the amount that the other entities have. Well, didn't you ask Aspen for 12? They have contributed, they contributed, I'm so sorry. 26,000 for phase one. City of Aspen did 26,000 for phase one. And then they also participated heavily in the prioritization plan for the whole valley. So, I'm sorry, I don't have the complete tally, but the portion that I'm asking the town of Snowmass was quite a bit less than those two entities. So they did 26 and phase one and they're committed to 12th phase two. Yeah, picking county and then actually city of Aspen is the exact same. And I should specify again, it's city of Aspen and the exact same. And I should specify again, it's city of Aspen parks and open space and it is picking county open space. Those are the two entities that have been joining us to date. That's not to say that we wouldn't potentially ask like the general fund or something else in picking county in the future. Well, even though none of this borders are a little town, I think it's a good cause. I think it's an important thing for our valley. And I would be support of giving them $10,000 whether we do it now as a special or putting the budget, whatever works best. What do you think now or later? I guess I'm not sure which works best as far as our budget goes. Or how much it's significant. I don't think it's significant. Yeah. Well it's a fun question for me to answer because I don't have to do the math. I'm sure. I think Clint said before we could find the money if we said I don't want to quote him but yes we can find the money. I think he said that. Yeah I mean usually we can find the money it's probably better if you're putting it in planning for you know the next budget but if it's a matter of her meeting her goal now or not being able to to pay for the work that's being done. I feel like we should just do it if we're going to do it anyways. Yeah. I agree. So let's take out of the assistant town manager's beer fund. Just a coffee. The drinks with council. It's all our drinks with council. It's BYUB. Exactly. Exactly. Okay, so did you make the motion? Well, I will make a motion that we're going to say something. We're just looking for direct staff to bring back a supplemental appropriation for this. For the $10,000 for this. So moved. And can we get that done before October 1st? Is that possible? The bill probably won't come until the 15th or 20th. So I just want to make sure that it helps you when you need it. Under so. Yeah. Okay. They have their wealthy neighbors already committed so. Go that partnership. I hear a motion. I'll second it. And so when do we expect to hear from you again? February. That being said I would really love to identify someone and it could be I, a town council member or yourself to participate. We'll probably have two stakeholder meetings between now and then. And that will be a very, what we're going over at that time will be not completely formed. So that's part of the decision making process as we involve the stakeholders. So identifying someone in the interim is really an important piece of this. Greg it sounds like this is right up your alley. I love attending meetings. Okay all those in favor? All right. All right thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now we're going to have a personal request from our Environmental Advisory Board. Come on down. We have just enough chairs. Yeah, microphones. Hello. This is on, yes. I'm Rebecca Pescal and I am the chair person of the Environmental Advisory Board. I do have with me Andrew Wicks and Morgan Ficksel as well, two other members. Jake Lap is also on the Environmental Advisory Board and he is listening in. He is here. I mean, he's also a member of COURR. So I can see the- Can you speak in your microphone? Is it not, I can say, is that better? It's a little better here. Sorry guys. So thank you for accepting the letter and thank you for having us here this evening. Appreciate your time and your consideration in this matter. I guess we as a board, we met and when we look at the sustainability plan that was us started in 2009, revisited in 2015, and then in 2020, there's just many, many topics that it looks to provide guidance for. Just looking at it, energy conservation and climate protection, affordable housing and community serving commercial, land use and open space, water, resource conservation, recycling, and solid waste, green building, mobility and transportation. Water shed, water quality, air quality, and then wildlife habitat and physical environment. So all of that are the different sections of the sustainability plan And it's just it's a lot. It's a lot to coordinate and then we know that we have different staff members who are You know doing different portions of this as well as monitoring things But to have one person a sustainability coordinator who would be the person when somebody with wildlife considerations is looking for a snowmast person to have one person that could coordinate it all would be we believe very beneficial. Okay. Andrew, you got anything to add to that? Why not? Andrew Wicks with the Environmental Advisory Board. I think I can just echo what Rebecca mentioned. It seemed to be, I'm green. It seemed to be important. A few of our board members brought up that most municipalities had a coordinator or a role like this within their town government. And it was kind of, I don't want to say glaring, but it was obvious that the town of Snowmass didn't have this particular role. Some huge topics coming up for the commitments to reduce emissions. If you recall, if we started in 2023 replacing natural gas with electricity, would be about 5% of commercial per year and 3% of residential. And so if that is to unfold and take place, Holy Cross is to be unveiling a program that will be helping homeowners and also business owners and property owners make that switch, make it more affordable. I don't know or don't think I'm allowed to potentially talk about that, but that would be a lot of coordination at the town level to look at that and to implement those strategies. We just came at it from the board perspective. I think what's really important here is interdepartmentally and knowing from Greg, from Anne, and from transportation, how much benefit could the town of Stomask get from this role? How much help could each of these departments receive? I think that was a great segue here in the last presenter that that person could be the stakeholder for the town of Stomass. I got shorter. And, you know, so that's really just, I think it's important for discussion between the town council and the town staff on how beneficial that role could be. But as a board who really wants to see a lot of progress in the town and meet once a week and have full time schedules, those of us that were not all the way confirmed in our beliefs that we needed that role. I assume someone being paid full time at the town level, hopefully could get a lot done even more than a volunteer board could. Well, it's certainly a challenge. It's a goal that we set. So we're pretty ambitious about it. I think every department within the town has that in mind. You know, it's talking to Sam the other day about some new buses that they're buying and they looked really hard at getting electric buses and they just couldn't get it. They couldn't figure it out. Like just there's just not the product available. So I think every department does work on it. Can we we could always do more for sure. Adding staff positions is always super challenging because it's, you know, you have the cost escalator. So it's, it's tough. I mean, I jump in and go here. I mean, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I mean, I understand the logic for having a person like this. I'd have to learn a lot more and I really would ask staff to really come back to us like, how would it integrate with all the people in positions we have now because as the mayor said I mean there's a lot of these roles which are important roles are being done by different departments and would one person you know holding the mantle for all these things would they work well with the way people operate? I just don't know the answer. And I also think, from a cost point of view, I mean, certainly electrification, getting away from gas, for heating, certainly on the residential side, on heating and cooking, it really comes down to dollars. If we could give subsidies to homeowners, they would be doing it. You know, they'd be more ready to do it. And if we could take the cost, I mean, if to have a staff person with all the benefits, all this guy be at least, I don't know, picking up $150,000 a year or more. I mean, we use that money for encouraging people, giving people subsidies to convert to electrification. And if we can handle all those roles you identified in your memo, internally, without any other person, well, that's more work for Greg and everybody else than maybe, maybe that's a way to go. I mean, I just don't know. I don't know enough to know what we should be recommending. So if I may, that's my first answer to everybody else's. If I may I think you know from our understanding from like I don't know if you can you can't see but there's one chart that basically says kind of where we are, where we've still missed our goals, where we still have attention and there's a lot on here. And so even though staff is great and Greg sits in on our meetings and we hear that there's real staff attention to this, it sounds like there's some extent of just catching up for some period of time. So if we want to have a role like this, we're let's say for the next three years, we're committing to like a sustainability coordinator to help us just catch up with our already stated town goals. I think that that would be tremendous. And even just in talking to Ainsley who is the sustainability coordinator for City of Aspen, she would love to just have one point person, not like we're making a decision based off of it. And so once but she'd love to have one point person because she fully believes that if you have one sustainability coordinator who's basically responsible for each town, city, county, etc. You can get a lot more done because all those people are coming to the table adopting the same ordinances, adopting the same codes, and then things can happen faster. So I asked Brian from the landfill as he was walking out of that construction, if we were to adopt something like that, does that make a difference? He said absolutely. And if Town of Assault did it, that would also make a difference. It would also expand the lifetime from five years to more. And then after that, the biggest thing is composting. If we could adopt a composting plan, that would go a long way. And to have someone really own those projects, rather than have it be 25% of every single staff member, you know, their task, I think would go a long way, not to say that we shouldn't as a town have every staff member thinking towards climate Activation, but I just think that we have catching up and this is a great way of doing it. I mean, and I appreciate that having spent many many years with big organizations Instruction organizations. I just question is this person just going to be an advisor? A coordinator is this person going to have be an advisor, a coordinator? Is this person going to have authority? Tells, you know, Betsy and the housing department, you can't do this, we're going to do this. I don't know the answer to that. I mean, how do you make this person effective? You go from a list of things on a piece of paper to an effective person within an existing organization. I'm not saying it's not the right thing to do, but I just don't know enough to say whether it's a good thing or not a good thing. So, I mean, to me, those are the issues. I mean, all these things need to get done. I agree. But I don't know how you shoehorn a person in effectively. If we can do it or if we can't do it, I just don't know. And we did identify highest best use. That's why we contracted with core. I think we spent $110,000 and we're waiting on the report, I guess, right? We've got a draft report. It's on my desk, haven't reviewed it yet. Okay. So I think that's something that'll be important to share with the EAB. I mean, we are chipping away at it. At Tom's point, it's hard to kind of get your arms around like what this person would actually do on a date, you know, what kind of authority they would have. I mean, I think we need more information from staff at the bare minimum before we could make any kind of decision, but also maybe hearing from other towns that have a sustainable sustainability coordinator that could give us examples of how that's moved their projects forward or their goals forward. And then also just for me, from a budget standpoint, what would we have to give up to pay for a sustainability coordinator. Where would that other, where would that many come from? What could we also be using it for incentives for people to, you know, switch to electric power source? But, for example, but those are things that I think we just need more information as far as from staff. For example, but those are things that I think we just need more information as far as From from staff So we came to you guys tonight because we knew that there is just a little bit of time before the budget was approved for this year But do you believe council is open enough to the idea that if we as the EAB spent a few more months six months seven months actually speaking with staff, speaking with different departments, seeing, answering those questions, maybe even speaking to different sustainability coordinators and how they run their job. Got a better maybe even idea of salary and experience needed, et cetera, and maybe even some input from the citizens, some public input as well, would you be interested in maybe revisiting this at a later time, maybe next spring or summer? I mean, I think this is precisely the kind of initiative and progressive thinking that we're hoping for from our boards. So I really commend you for their recommendation. And I think everything you just said there would kind of help us refine and make this decision. So yeah, I mean, I agree with that. I did a little just not a ton of research, but I was just snooping around at other sustainability coordinator positions. And I think one of my concerns was that I want to make sure that if we did hire someone that they're set up for success, and it looks like in a lot of municipalities, there's pretty good-sized teams of people. I mean, Aspen, for example, has 11 people. So I think that it's important to make sure that if we did hire that person that, you know, what are they doing day-to-day, who they're reporting to. I did, I was talking to Clint earlier and he did say there was a position that was semi-like this like many, many years ago and not fully like this but they dealt in some of these things. So it's not, I don't think it's out of the question. I mean, it seemed like annual salary ranges were around $65,000, which Clint did say that seemed to be about what you would pay someone. But I think that I want to make sure that we set them up for success, you know, because I think it is hard to bring someone in when you don't have that infrastructure around them. And I recognize that like we have a lot of staff who keep this as a goal, but it's definitely hard because they're busy doing 5 million other things too. So it probably would be helpful in advancing some of our initiatives. But so for me it's not another question but I those are some of the thoughts that I had and want to make sure that we you know kind of really understand before we attire someone. So hearing that the council could take this under consideration and staff can give us some homework. We can do that research and help with the decision making process. Very good. Yeah, I think that's the direction. We'll see where it takes us. Thank you, guys. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. It's really appreciate you here. Thank you. Thank you. Great. It's really appreciate here. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Great. Thank you. I don't know if they're wrong, but it makes me really... Okay. I don't know. We have council reports and actions. Susan, what do you have? Alyssa and I just met with the Issue committee for the Pick and County housing tax that will be on the ballot this fall and our We were just discussing ways to kind of promote that and get the word out about that ballot question, which I think is exciting and I'm personally quite supportive of and I think it's a way for us to partner with Pitkin County on some of our projects. So that's exciting and good and we have plans to reach out to groups within Snowmass Village as well as the rest of Pick and County just to get the word out about that. Yeah, I did ask Grant earlier and he was going to put it on the to ask for a resolution of support in favor of this ballot measure that picking county is putting on the ballot so and it was I mean when you look at The information they provided today. It was it was really interesting. I mean like between 2019 in 2023 picking county only in 2023, Picking County only collected $9 million and back fees which could go towards this which is not a lot. And I think their thought is they wanna be able to contribute to projects like the draw site, things that ask for may have in the works, but it doesn't have enough funds right now to be able to do that successfully. And so it's gonna be an increased tax, right? It's increased. Yeah, yeah. So we'll be coming with a more formal presentation and details. But that would be the thought is that we're going to key stakeholders, other municipalities, fire district, Raffta school districts to get support, letters of support in favor of this ballot initiative. And it's like $150 or $200 per million dollars of property value? It's around $10 a month, I think, for a million dollar value. It's what she said, like $120 a year, I think is how it came out. Something like that. Yeah, okay, we value there. And she also, which we'll explain when we do it, she went through all the different types of ways that you could get money, but that basically, the property tax or a sales tax are really the only options for picking county. Yeah, for picking county that I pay. Or really any mean that's a felony now. Yeah. Right. So it was interesting. Did it? I have Nordic Council and I actually am flying out Wednesday afternoon so I'll be able to join I think for a little bit remotely. I don't know if you. I'll be there. Okay. Thanks Bill. You bet. Rita. I haven't been to any meetings recently. I've got a few coming up but I just wanted a huge shout out to Snimes Tourism for the Blue and Festival. That was really some fun new additions. The Kid Zone was so great, entertained all the families and I just I heard great things all around about everything. So many people. I mean in the weather it was just extraordinary. Yeah so many a good job on the weather. And even I thought it was really really thoughtful of the pilots to blow up even though they couldn't go up on Sunday too to just give an experience. Oh I thought that was just what they were doing just. No they were supposed to fly but they couldn't because of this storm. I see. Yeah, and that's a lot of work to unpack those things just to entertain the mass. It was there. So the parking went smooth and yeah, great all around the weekend. Yeah, Tom, nope, I haven't got nothing. Well I got to help serve lunch to the town staff down at the rec center last Tuesday at what Wednesday, which was off. It was really great. I thought the directors did a great job serving lunch from home team. So it was fun to be part of that. And I think the staff really appreciates it. The tourism talk on Thursday, I thought, was well done. We got to hear from everybody over at the collective. So that was another really, really good community building activity that Rotary Club did an amazing job with the Wine Festival. Yeah, the balloon fest was great. I mean, Saturday was absolutely spectacular. I mean, it just couldn't ask for better weather. And the night glow Friday night was really good. So I thought, you know, toost everybody. All right, well done. Oh, wait, I have a raft to report. I was at Rafta last week. And I would say the biggest news at Rafta,, which someone you may have seen in the press release, is that we awarded significant portion of the 31.7 million in grants announced by Governor Polis for expanding clean transit options across Colorado. So the 15.54 million that's dedicated to RAPTA will be used to replace 10 diesel buses with zero emission battery electric buses. And the one thing that they will they said delivery date for those will be 2026. And the thing that's going to make them feasible really is the on route chargers like they're going to put one at Ruby Park station. 27th Street. 27th Street? Yeah. station. What? 27th Street. Yeah, yeah. And so those are going to be key because otherwise, like basically it would exhaust it in one trip so then they would have to like switch out the buses in factor in that time and switching out buses and blah blah blah. So anyways, it was it was really exciting and Rafft does you know thrilled and the buses are coming in 2026 and That is just and so everyone understands that's the whole valley not just Aspen because before it was just primarily the electric buses for Aspen But now it's will really enable Aspen to Glenwood Rafft is the second largest and then we also started the budget review. So we had a review, a budget draft review, and then Dave Pesnichack did a big presentation on first last myon mobility, and there was so much information that we had to make a review. And then Dave Pesnichack did a big presentation on first last myon mobility, and there was so much information that you could spend probably a year dissecting it all but the gist of it is is really trying to understand how much going forward will be funded by Rafta how communities can take on the funding themselves and what all that looks like. So, and then obviously you saw the thing about the Union Agreement. I mean, I'm not gonna talk about it, but it's definitely a big thing for Rafter right now and hopefully we can work towards an agreement. And I did go to Sister City's, nothing major, just went to the meeting. So, yeah, that was it. Yeah, yeah. It's like the... Batten Union can work it all out. I hope so, because... Wouldn't be so good for the winner. There's a lot of... Yeah, there's a lot of... A lot of effort, but... You need a motion to a turn? Motion to a turn? I move that we a turn. Second. All second. I move that we adjourn. Second. All those in favor? All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.