We have a full house here today and we welcome all of you. We are in our Tuesday, Tuesday morning. Regular public meeting. It is 931, the 27th of August. We start all of our meetings on Tuesdays with public comment and public comment is for anything that is not on our agenda. If you are here for something that is on the agenda, we will hear you after the agenda item. So please hold your comments until that time. But if you are here for anything that is not on our agenda, we invite you to step up to the podium and please give us your name and many associations and affiliations that you're representing and you'll have three minutes. Similarly online, if you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand so we can call on you. All right, Commissioner Cork, I see that you are with us today online and just for your information, we have a whole house today. But they appear all to be here for I think our item that is later after it consent. So I wanted to call your attention to the public comment that we got in writing. It is attached to the agenda packet and that was related to our not just weed situation Tiffany will be updating me on her communication with that individual updating us when she is here later in the day. So I don't think we need to address them. So Jay, over to you for accounts payable manual warrants and payroll. note today that it's construction in 334,365 dollars. That's on the construction of the millenar and peaver waste water systems. Now, on specific incorporated for 96,579, that's also the millenar and peaver collection and mantle rehabilitation, rehabilitation project. Old castle for $37,516 is our annual late patch project, KGA FLFC 122,257. That's 2.450s for room bridge. River Bend machinery incorporated $189,450 is a new link bell excavator, which was recently delivered. We have a number of Well, if you're ready for motion. Yes, please. Yes. I move to approve accounts payable manual, Lawrence and payroll as presented by the county manager with the items of note. Second. The motion is second. All those in favor? Aye. All right. Moving on to the consent agenda. We have a pretty full consent agenda. Does anybody want to pull any items from the consent agenda? I do not. Anybody in the public here to pull an item from the consent agenda? Seems that that's not happening. So if anybody would like to make a move. Yes, I moved approved the consent agenda items a through H with note that items F and G have corresponding planning numbers with them. Second. Motion and second, all those in favor? Aye. All right. So we are moving on to the phone, gravel pit SUP renewal, and it looks like we need a table in motion. So if the chair is prepared, I move to table the func gravel pit, SUP renewal until October 1st, 2020, Word, 2024 at 9.35 a.m. Second. I'm all those in favor, please say I'm. All right. We are moving along to the amendments to Unified Development Code. This comes after a great deal of work. Our planning commissioners, the public and the Board of County Commissioners. So this is sort of the combination of some things that we've been working on. And Alan, are you taking it away? Are we passing it to Christie? No, I think Christie's going to do it. We'll be doing it. Christie, if you don't mind introducing yourself in your title just for our minutekeeper, that would be fabulous. Christie, you're muted. I'm just going to share my screen here. Sorry, I couldn't be there in person. But. We will get started here. Do you see the presentation up on the screen? Yes. Okay, perfect. So thank you everybody for being here this morning. This is a continuation of a hearing we had with Plana Commission on August 15th. So we are here with a goal to review and discuss some amendments from our adopted unified development code. And there will be three items on for discussion here today. And as I mentioned, this is a recommendation by our planning commission for decision here by the board of county commissioners this morning. So just a little brief overview our unified development code was a year long process. It got adopted on June 11. During that time through the adoption process, both planning commission and the board of county commissioners flag some issues of concern. And on July 1st, planning staff went back to you all for just some direction and some book ends on those items to bring forth back through the process. So based on those discussions in your packet is included exhibits A, which is the amended language. Procedurally, the adoption schedule has been advertised with the dates up on the screen, as well as language provided through navigate your route and any public comments are received through that portal and are included in your packets. Your packet is rather large. It consists of your planning commission staff packet with the exhibits in the public comments as long as as well as your communication form, which includes the summary and our recommendations. It also includes minutes from the adoption hearing and from the planning commission meeting. So these are the items we'll be discussing, which we will go into more detail for each one here today. So the first item we want to discuss has to do with energy considerations for home sizes. So as you recall, home sizes was a topic of discussion during adoption. And one of the items that were adopted was to give a little more, give some more of a process and for the eligibility to go above a 7500 square feet and a carrot for our LPS, which is a land preservation subdivision process. So what we did was allow for new subdivisions for a land preservation subdivision to be considered over 7,500 square feet. And below is the language that actually got adopted, which is Holmes over 7,500 square feet and any new LPS approved after January 1st, 2025, which is the date crossed out, as that was the recommendation by planning commission and some public comment that we received, that what you see without the crossed out that the leesion portion should be what is adopted. Staff did take this language to the building official, to get some clarification to make sure that our codes align with the building codes. And procedurally, we want to make sure that our language aligns with the building code to make sure that there's enough time to update the building codes with the necessary information that won't get adopted. A little bit out of it, but I've got to go back. Mr. Corrigan, we have you unmuted. Thank you. Sorry about that. I'm back. Not me having Madam Chair, I may have to step away as I received phone calls this morning, but thank you. Please understandable. Yes, thanks. So with this information, it also, what we're trying to do here is support the Climate Action Plan. And I just want to reference that as we included in the communication form to you all there was a larger discussion on this topic with planning commission so I want to pass that along which had to do with staff to go back to considering more, I guess, incentives to go over 7500 for house sizes. So they would like to revisit that topic at some point in the future. And that is detailed in your communication form. Do you have any questions on this slide or would you like me to go through the presentation and go back? So yeah. I have, I have a question. Colour me confused. Is that even sentence there that we're looking at? I mean, must meet net zero buildings? What does that even mean? That is the term through the Department of Energy that they use. However, taking out the standards set by the Department of Energy was recommended by the building official to ensure that an applicant would have other means to meet net zero buildings as opposed to just by the Department of energy. So as he explained it to us, keeping it more general allows more discretion to detect a builder and applicant to meet net zero buildings, which is the term which is consistently used throughout. Christie, I think the confusion is that in the communication form, the sentence is homes ever 7,500 square feet and any LPS approved after January 1, 2025, must meet zero energy building standards. So that's the word that is missing Commissioner Corrigan. I think that's just an oversight on the slide. Okay. Thank you. That that helps quite a bit because this didn't even apply as a sentence as far as I'm agree. We can make we can make that change. Yep. I think we're all good with that one. Okay. The next item for discussion is golf course safety setback standards. What got approved in the UDC was for a 500 foot safety setback from all uses. There was public comment that was submitted that 500 feet wouldn't be an industry standard. And so this was one of the those items that were flagged. And you know, I want to mention that we body setback, which is already adopted. We are not proposing to change that at all. That is accompanied with several pages of water quality standards, which is already adopted. And again, not on the table for. For any sort of amendment. So with that, the language that's being considered here is not site specific to any one application. We have to remind ourselves what we are talking about here is for the overall unified development code, which is applicable countywide. So this in particular, this regulation would be for any golf course that comes feet. So it reads the minimum setback for Greens and Fairways shall be 300 feet. 225 is what planning commission is recommending after recommending to you all after considering public comment, which I'm sure you'll hear today. The minimum setback, excuse me, for T, shall be 100 feet. These setbacks are measured from the golf hole center line to an existing adjacent property line, consistent with the below golf hole dimensional diagram. So as to not endager uses on existing adjacent properties. And I will just go to that diagram, which was included as exhibit B in your packet. And I think that is all I had on this item, which I am sure there are questions. Any questions for Christine? No, I think I will wait. Yeah, I was thinking that we might proceed making sure that we have our questions answered. And then we have a great deal of folks in the room here who would like to comment, I believe in this item. So once we get through questions answered, I think we were praying from discussion until we are from the public if that works for you. Okay. All right, Christie. I don't have any questions at this time. Okay. So the last item was something that we all discussed with you on July 1st when we were trying to really get some bookends and some of the language and some of the items you may want us to consider and incorporate into the code. So this is language to support Northwest Cog and the two await plan. So this language you see in quotes here, which is rather long, is something to make sure this language is incorporated into the code. This language was coordinated with our county attorney's office and this will ensure compliance with the two weight plan. As you know, the county recently became a member of Northwest QuadCOG and its task with protecting and enhancing the region's water quality and water resources. So this is what staff is proposing and that would be to include a new section and 3.1J under development standards and then replace language that is in section 7.4A9b, which is matters of state interest with the following language, which I will spare you all from reading, let the record show. So how this would work and procedurally, Northwest Cog would become one of our referral agencies. So when we get an application for development, we would send a referral for comment as we do, typically do with CPW and C-DUD and our internal offices, wrote in bridge as examples, to provide comments on our development applications. And so this is what we can expect moving forward if this were adopted today. So, I have one question for you just to clarify. I think when we discussed this last year, we were making sure that these, that this 208 language was the same in the 1041, and I think that's what you're saying here section 31J. It is yes. It's consistent throughout the document. Correct. Yeah. So, so that section 7 really would be replaced by this language, which it was really just a nod to 208 and this has a little more teeth. Great. Thank you. Any other questions about this? I'm good. Okay. So here we have a couple options, which are included in your staff packets. And that is adopt with all of planning commissions recommended changes. Option two, adopt with a portion of planning commissions recommended changes. Option three adopt with none of planning commissions recommended changes, option three, adopt with none of planning commissions recommended changes, and then option four, you could table the discussion to a date specific for more information. And that's all staff has at the moment. And if you were inclined to make any changes to the comments or the amended language, staff can make those changes on the fly today. Thank you, Christine. So I think from here we'll proceed to public comment. Just to set up the situation for success here, we have a lot of people in the room, so I'm hoping we can take like five folks in the room and then move to our online people. If you are online and you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand. As I said, we will take five people in the room and then we will turn to public comment online. Excuse me. If you are commenting here today, please do disclose any affiliations, associations, any relationships you have that are professional relationships that might affect your comments. I believe that we have all spoken about the fact that the comments'll have three minutes and we are happy to have you here today. Please. I brought props. I'm Marie Gasau. I'm a resident of stage coach for the last 10 years. I just heard you discuss the fact that you've done a lot of research on the UDC and I'm obviously here has a resident of Stage Coach kind of talking about what we see coming down the line. And I heard you say that you've consulted lots of experts. And I'd love to see a copy personally of the expert you've consulted. And the reason I asked this is because my friend Robert Woodman see, who's professor emeritus and former director of the Department of Ecosystem Science and sustainability natural resource ecology library at Colorado State University, spoke eloquently about independent scientific studies regarding the route county golf courses, and they're at the environmental impact both aquatic and terrestrial, and the degradation of the ecosystems when such courses are built and their long-term effects. And we heard from credential golf architects who didn't speak about the impact on the ecosystem, but we did hear a good deal about the flight and trajectory of golf balls. So I'm really curious about reading what you've received from independent experts concerning the setbacks for golf courses. The Haymaker Golf Course was referenced several times again because the flight and trajectory of golf balls and concerned for passing vehicles on 40 highway. And that is a real concern broken windshields, dented cars, accidents. Haymaker and a golf course near a body of water like the stagecoach reservoir in the Amper River seem like two different issues. They're not analogous. It's apples and oranges comparison. I think we need clearer guidelines in the language of the UDC. There are golf courses with water hazards, I get that. But those bodies of water aren't used to provide water supply to humans or livestock or wildlife. There's some proposals that are going to come before you that will involve living water, rivers and reservoirs that are sources of water supply. It seems to me that the UDC needs clearer guidelines for setbacks regarding anybody of water that is a source of water supply. Separate the two. One, setbacks from property lines and highways. And two, setbacks from reservoirs and rivers. It's not that difficult to separate them in the language. There are plenty of entities going forward years from now, who will benefit from such clarification before any building projects near crucial water supplies, such as reservoirs or rivers are undertaken. I think we need clear guidelines in the UDC, informed by independent experts on the environment and the ecosystem, both aquatic and terrestrial as Bob said, specifically addressing the flight and trajectory of building or land modifications that impact water sources, not just the golf balls. Sorry, I think it wrap up your comments, I think we're closing in our three notes. That's fine. Rout County needs independently informed clear guidelines that take into account the coming challenges of our worsening climate crisis and ecological degradation, posed by the endangerment of water supply across an increasingly arid and water starred west. These are the opening salvos, I believe in the coming water wars. I say this all because I believe in the Senate of Gen 7 generations principles of the Iroquo Nation. It's which is the model for our own American democracy. All decisions should be made informed by what the decisions impact will be on the people and the land. Seven generations from now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there somebody else out here? Please just step on up. Hey there, Emily Burke. I work for Friends of the YAMPA. So I'm here to provide support on behalf of Friends of the YAMPA for the proposed amendment number three, the one related to requiring development to comply with the Northwest Cog 208 plan. This plan promotes consistency with regional planning efforts as well as seamless integration with the statewide water quality management plan. And because Northwest Cog 208 plan stems from section 28 of the Clean Water Act, it's therefore pursuant to federal law. So requiring development to comply with this plan makes local regulations less vulnerable to potential challenges from developers or others. Friends of the AMP also supports the inclusion of the provision that a development compliance with the Northwest Cog 208 plan be reviewed by Northwest Cog Water Quality and Quantity Program. These are trained specialists in conducting these reviews. And then lastly, I just want to say that while we support this proposed amendment, we also feel strongly that the 208 plan needs to be updated and I've spoken with Tori Jarvis about this. There are some documents that are cited in the plan that are missing most notably the 1996 guidance for water quality enhancement at golf courses through the use of best management practices. It's cited in section 3.8 So we urge the county to work with Northwest Cog to get that plan updated There are you guys are probably aware there are some great resources out there for best management practices for protecting environmental quality and water quality for golf courses like the Rocky Mountain Golf Course Superintendent Association's 2020 Colorado Golf Industry Best Management Practices Guide. And lastly, I just want to thank you all for your work, the commissioners, the planning department, and then also planning commission on creating what we feel like is a really environmental rigorous UDC. Thank you for all of your work. Thank you. You're other folks in the audience. A lot of people here today. Nobody wants to come in. All right. We'll turn to our online audience. Where everyone wants to. Oh, we do have one sign. Step up please. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Todd Schauder. Good to see you all again. I'm the owner and principal golf course architect of icon golf studio. Just as a quick refresher. I'm a practicing golf course architect in this industry for 30 plus years. I'm also a registered landscape architect in the state of Colorado. Numerous golf course designs in the state up and down in the Western Slope front range and nationally. I'm here today to talk about the golf course setback. Also, just make you aware I am working with Discovery Land Company, helping advise them on golf course setbacks. They brought me on to really educate them on what's appropriate in the industry. But more importantly, I'm here today representing our industry as golf course architects and talking about this setback. So what I really want to do is just talk about what occurred at the planning commission meeting on the 15th. It was a very robust excellent meeting with staff with the planning commission talking about golf course safety setbacks. Obviously we started at 500 feet. We got down to 300 feet and if you remember at the last planning commission meeting we all discussed and were about to approve 225 feet but unfortunately the setback issue for a variety of reasons got intertwined with the water setback and they are two entirely separate different issues and I applaud around county on the 300 foot water setback because that's six times industry standards. It's typically 50 feet and some of the more stringent areas is 100 feet and you've adopted 300 so well done on that but we are here to talk about the safety setback. As a result of that meeting, we had an ongoing dialogue with the Planning Commission and staff were able to present some scientific data and talk about standards and guidelines that are occurring in the industry. And we as a result of that conversation, there were some excellent questions asked of me and others, and we were able to clarify some of the confusion. We know as designers, and it's been proven, it's proven in Rout County, it was existing golf courses, proven across the country, that 200 foot setback is appropriate and safe for a golf course. However, we know that every site is a little bit different. Elevation like we are here at that elevation, we have to consider that golf ball may fly a little bit further, which it does. So we have that dialogue as well. And as a result of all of the conversation, the data presented, the information, and the questions asked, we were excited that planning commission really understood what we were trying to present. And in the end, as you saw, they're recommending a 225 foot setback, which is appropriate, which is safe. And the most important part about that, the 225 is conservative. 200 feet would be plenty. And that's what occurs at Haymaker. If I remember correctly, other golf courses have as little as 150 foot setback to a property line. So we're going because of the elevation of Raul County, we're recommending a 225 foot setback from center line to adjacent property lines. And we think that is, well, we know it's been proven to be safe. And what the beauty of this is, it's a minimum setback. Every applicant should consult with a qualified golf course architect to look at the proposed design, the actual site, and you always have the opportunity to go more planning commission does. So the setback for our industry, we know that 200 feet is more than ample and conservative, but we also know that going to 225 will cover anything that will occur presently or in the future in the county. What does that do? Yeah, real quick. If I go into a last step back to 300, 225 feet saves valuable resources water and land. It's number one that could be used for open space or trails or other uses. It supports what's been previously established and approved in the county. You have the opportunity to set earlier to revise that set back to a higher number if necessary based on recommendations and site conditions. I'm just excited that staff and commissioners really, really took the time and they truly did understand this scenario and then recommended the 225 puts up. So thank you. Thanks, Todd. All right. If you are online and wish to make a comment, please raise your hand. I did not see any hands. Oh, somebody has raised the hand. Great. You could state your name and any associations you have with organizations you might be representing. That'd be great. Thanks. Thank you commissioners and staff. This is Forest, Richardson. I'm a golf course architect and member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects. I was president of that professional organization in 2021. I'm also the author of a reference book on golf course planning, routing the golf course, which is a John Wiley reference book with two chapters on setbacks and safety. My office has assisted other municipalities throughout the U.S. and Mexico, Canada and in Sweden on establishing safety setbacks for golf courses. And basically I'm here just to reinforce Mr. Schoters' comments. He asked me to participate and review his work on behalf of looking at the UDC, the wording and the language. And I've done that. I had the opportunity to appear before your planning commission and certainly applaud their dialogue on this and the careful scrutiny that they had in asking questions and making comment that was just in their recent meeting. So basically I'm here to just reiterate questions and making comment that was just in their recent meeting. So basically, I'm here to just reiterate that there are no standards in our industry. All golf courses are unique. Every site is independent and specific. And when we adopt these guidelines, whether they're again in Sweden or Canada or here in the United States, we try our best, as Mr. Schodermenchen, to be regionally specific in terms of altitude. But we also try to look at terrain and extenuating circumstances. Just in summary, I think the 225 feet is excessive, but it is appropriate at your altitude. When I say excessive, I mean, I think I agree that 200 feet is perfectly acceptable, and that's what we see in most municipalities that adopt uniformed language. But I do agree that the 225 feet is very appropriate. It affords you that extra latitude and also it's a minimum as Todd mentioned. So with that, I'm here to answer any questions. I just wanted to be brief in my comments. And again, as a review to Mr. Schoters work and what he's put forth to the county and to your Planning Commission and to your Council, your Commission body. I'm just here to be another voice from the professional industry to say that I feel it's very appropriate and acceptable. Thank you very much. For your comments for us, we appreciate that. Is there anybody else online who would like to make a comment? Mr. Racies. Yes. I'd like to read. Sure. We'll get to the public again, thanks John. All right, online I've not seen any hands, so we're going to go back to the room. Please. Good morning. My name for the record John Vander Blumen. Spoken before you many times on the UDC. I want to I thank you for listening and perhaps considering my comments. I have appeared on behalf of Alpine Mountain Ranch and on behalf of myself and I thank you for continuing to recognize the value of LPS as a valuable tool in your county regulatory toolbox continuing in the UDC. I spoke to you last on June 11th when you adopted the UDC. I spoke about the LPS house size issue on behalf of Alpine Mountain Ranch. I spoke on my own behalf as a golf nerd, as a former very involved person in the golf in the Ampa Valley about the propriety of a 200 to 225 foot safety setback. Totally separate from the issue of water quality or other issues. I was appointed by the city to serve on its golf management committee in 1994 and for 20 plus years. I chaired that committee. I brought Haymaker golf course through the county planning process, three SUVs, both the golf course until 2016. There were over 20,000 rounds per year during that time frame. I never knew of a single safety or stray golf ball issue causing property damage or injury to any of the facilities that haymaker cars on the highway and I certainly feel like I would have known. Today I'm here to speak on behalf of both those issues again, very briefly, I'll try to adhere to my three minutes, shut me off if you need to, Commissioner Macy's, on LPS House-sized energy standards, Alpine Mountain Ranch supports that. With regard to golf course safety setbacks, in the interest of transparency, I'm here on my own, and I'm also here on behalf of Discovery Land Company who heard me speak on this issue and understood my experience with Haymaker and asked me to provide comments again, but I want to be transparent about that. The substance of my comments has unchanged. The 225 foot recommendation by the staff and the planning commission that's in your communications memo, very logical. These are land use standards we're talking about. Countywide for 20 years, whatever it might be. They need to be logical, rational, and could apply to a golf course on the cog in Hayden. If someday the town of Hayden grows the point where somebody wants to put a golf course there or at stage coach, you need to be flexible, don't waste land or hamstring your staff and applicants by adopting a minimum. This is a minimum safety setback of greater than 225, 225, when are your feet? The Planning Commission did have a robust conversation about this if you had a chance to listen to them and they unanimously recommended. There was one comment made about the possibility of the county being liable of something where to happen and there were an injury or property damage in my past life as an attorney. I represented the county in del with county governmental immunity and I will say that if you adopt the industry standard as being suggested, there's no way that the county would be held liable. There's no case a lot of support that so I'll order to add that extra point in for you and I'm welcome any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you for not making me cut you off John. I appreciate that. All right. Anybody else wishing to make public comment? Please just step up to the mic. We'd love to hear from you. And I do want to be clear that after this period of public comment we will turn to Commissioner deliberations. At that time We will not be having a dialogue or entertaining additional public comments. If you do want to speak, please do so at this time. Thank you. Hi, my name is Michelle Baxter. I live in the stage coach area and use the reservoir extensively. Not as smart in these aspects, so please bear with me. The one thing I noticed when listening to all this is that all the studies are done and paid for by Discovery Land Group. Are we gonna do any independent studies? Because it just seems like it's very, very biased. Am I gonna be riding my bike on the trail in Stagecoast Reservoir and be dodging balls? We need to have an independent study. We cannot have a development like this without looking at two views. It's bias. So I would recommend that somehow we get an independent study in there so that we are not just set by the rules that are governed by the Discovery Land Group. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Michelle, for your comments. All right, it's getting real quiet in here. Last call for public comment. Oh, we have a speaker. My name is Jennifer Friendly. I also live in stage coach, but I just wanted to comment on general since we're just doing general setback stuff for this. The John, I think it was, was talking about how there haven't been any injuries in the last, whatever, something due to golf balls or something like that. My husband is a tradesperson and works at, is it the Rolling Stone, the Sheridan Gulf Course or whatever. He does houses there. You know, people don't always call and say when a window gets broken at their house from a golf ball because they live on a golf course and they just realize that that kind of happens. So I don't even know if we are actively aware of how many instances like that where golf balls end up in places they shouldn't really end up. And so I would encourage people here to possibly consider going above and beyond what the industry calls a perfectly good setback. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. All right, it looks like it's time for us to have some deliberations commissioners. It seems like it would be advisable to maybe take these items one by one. And I know we have a motion that's suggested in the packet, which addresses all of them the items, but at crispy, do you want to land on something? Yeah, I just want to provide some clarifications before you go into that based on some of the public comments. So I just want to really speak to process. There's a lot of people here today. There's a lot of people that are focused on some anticipated application and movement in stage coach. So I just want to reiterate what that process looks like for folks. So there was a comment about public comments and seeing some the information that we have received. All public comments are included in today's communication form. So we're being transparent. That information is available to you all to review. It's the same information the commissioners have received. There's a lot of focus on the golf safety setback. That is all in the packet. And then just to reiterate what John Vanderbluen said about the regulation here, we're talking about what gets adopted is the minimum setback. It is countywide. That doesn't mean that if an application comes in and if it is warranted to increase that setback based on the information that is provided to us. That setback can be increased. And so when we review applications, they're done on a case by case basis based on the site specifics and information provided. We send referrals to our involved interstate agencies to provide feedback and comment. And you all make that those decisions based on the information provided to you. So just want to point that out and then I also want to remind you all and the public that part of the UDC there's a lot of information in the UDC that got adopted and one in particular and we continue to hear about the experts, the experts. And so what we did in the UDC is that we included the ability for the county to hire experts in various areas if deemed necessary, which would be a third party consultant providing feedback on the information that we're getting. So that would look like an applicant providing their information, staff, and our review agencies providing their information, and a third party more than likely providing their review and their comments based on the specific area of interest, say water quality, right? So I just want to explain what that process looks like moving forward outside of what we are doing here today. So that's all I have. I think it's also important to add that we're actively pursuing a assembling group of experts to work with us on anticipated applications coming forward. And those will be consultants that we either have a relationship with currently or that we're seeking out through our other relationships throughout the state who would be folks we can trust to give a really good review outside of some being paid by an applicant. All right. Got a couple of clarifications from staff. There are no further questions. I think we should just jump right into discussion starting with the home-size revision. If anybody has strong feelings about that. Madam Chair, I guess I'm still a the direct reference to the Department of Energy, but this feels awfully vague to me and seems like someone could refer to any number of different zero energy building standards to fit their own purposes. So I don't know. Kristi, can you help me with this? Sure. Let me bring the language up in the communication form for you. So it's just really available. Just let me know you're seeing that language. But what we're looking at here is add the following language to this section. And so this, I guess to your point, this seems a little out of context, because you're not seeing the entire section, because there's various things included in this section under house sizes. It's actually under the definition of dwelling unit where this language would belong, which is section 2.42. And then this would be under subsection to that B3. And so your other question about having it more open-ended for zero energy building standards is the recommendation. You know that is the language. If we include the Department of Energy Language we had before, then it would be very specific that an applicant would have to meet those zero energy standards under the requirements for only Department of Energy, but there are different agencies and in places that have, I guess, standards that one could go by to meet zero energy in the building code. So we didn't want to just have it be very specific. We wanted more discretion for property owners, developers, designers to be able to meet those standards. So I understand, I understand all that Christy. Look, was Alan going to say something? I was. So I would like to remind you that this is just one, the first step. Now the zero energy building standards now needs to be adopted by the building code so that they can officially be enforced through the the building process. So I think we could, you could potentially add more specificity to this language, but I think it's the language that's in the building code that is really going to hold people's feet to the fire. And like Christy said, we did talk with the chief building official about this. And he said there are, it's not just the Department of Energy that has reputable standards, but there are other organizations that have reputable standards as well. And again, removing the reference to the department of energy allows those other reputable standards to be met. And I think it would be up to the building official to determine whether those standards are adequate or not and if they meet the goals that the county has. So Tim, I share your discomfort with having this be general, but I do also understand what our planning staff is saying and I think you do as well. I'm wondering if we wanna add some language here to refer to the building department. I mean, if we're defaulting to what the building department. I mean, if we're, if we're defaulting to what the building department seems appropriate, whether that's lead or, you know, energy star, you know, whatever the standards are that are acceptable to our building department, I think we need to make reference to that here rather than just having it be vague standards. Something like asset by the building department, something to that nature. There you go. Is that help you out up there? I mean, it does kind of, and I guess, you know, it's my job to think of the really weird situations that could arise, but I'm thinking you could have some rogue climate denial group that came up with a set of zero energy building standards and an individual building at house could say, hey, look, I met those standards. I think that's what I'm kind of struggling with. I'm not, you know, do you really want to put the onus on the building department, I understand that something standards could be contained in our next update of our energy code and our building codes. But I think we're year, at least a couple of years away from that happening. So I don't have a great answer how to address my concerns here, but this strikes me the way it's written now that it's pretty wide open for someone to push something through that's outside of our intent. Yeah, I think you make a good point. And Commissioner Redmond suggested an amendment that wouldn't refer back to the building department. I think when we talk about putting the onus on them, I mean ultimately it already is going to be if they're going to be accepting a land preservation subdivision that has or a project within an LPS that has these exceedances, they're already going to have to certify that, you know, this is an appropriate exceedance based on some level of standard so if you can Live with the language that Commissioner Redmond suggested as far and what was that again? Oh, you know basically I says as as set by the building department But like to get some feedback from planning on their thoughts on that Let me give you let me give you some feedback right now. The building, the building department does not set standards. The building department enforces the building as it is written and it is our job to adopt the building code from time to time. So I guess the question if Todd was there, if somebody came forward tomorrow and we actually had a house that qualified at 10,000 square foot house within an LPS that qualified what standard would he apply to that in order to determine that it's net zero. I don't know that he has that kind of standard within the code. If y'all want to move on to the next topic, I can go run down and talk to Todd and potentially bring him up here to answer those questions. I think that's a good idea, but I do have one other concern. I wanted to flag here with the date of approval approved after January 1st 2025. Didn't we make the all of our amendments as of June 11th 2024? We did, but that 7500 square foot restriction didn't kick in until and that was to provide landowners and designers that are currently in the process of designing a house to be able to complete that design without potentially having to scrap all the work that they had done to redesign to meet these standards. Okay, thank you. Let's let Alan visit with Todd and move on to the golf course if we don't have any further questions. That's fine. So, Lynne is gonna go ahead. Gonna run getting so you can stay. Yes, perfect. All right, now for the spicy item, golf course setbacks. Who would like to begin with this one? So this is going to be the minimum standard, right? That's the minimum correct. And what were the standards for the existing golf courses that are now within the county, the 200? Well, we don't have one. So they're, okay. That answers that question. Take that. Okay. I'm fine with this, the way it's written, I think Christie did a good job of talking about the fact that this is a minimum standard applying countywide. We certainly have the latitude to oppose a greater setback if we feel it's necessary on any given application. So I support this as written. Thank you. Go ahead. Go ahead. What? I mean, going from 500 to 225. Is a pretty radical move. That being said, I do think the inclusion of an independent review on a case by case basis. It gives us more flexibility to increase those standards if it's actually merited by an independent review and a study. So it's not sort of a willing nearly throwing darts at a dart board. I typically am uncomfortable adopting something that we think we're going to increase the increase the the standard for somebody I would rather adopt a more stringent standard and then relax the standard. Just because I think it provides a little bit of a greater clarity to applicants that, you know, that we're not going backwards from that number. So I'm a to go with it. I think if Commissioner Redmond does not feel strongly that we need to increase that standard. You know, whichever way we go, it seems like we're going setbacks. If we go to the higher standard and they want to reduce it, then they're going to come into us with reasons why it should be reduced. If we go with the lower standard, do we put the language in the code that, how do we prove the need to increase it at that point? Yeah, I mean, I think you're identifying the challenge that I have with this to some degrees. What we do not want is to introduce subjectivity into the equation. I mean, I would prefer that we adopt a standard that we are fairly comfortable that is consistent and applicable in all cases and consider these case-by-case adjustments as anomalies and not norm. So I don't know if this number gets us to that. Well and I would also say that there seems to be some thought out there that there was confusion between the safety standard and the water body set back. I will say on my part there was none. Now I'm glad that you brought that up because I think one of the other things that's really important in all of this and you know really it's the next topic though is that when we have a referral agency that is QQ which is water quality and quantity arm of the Narsweth Cog and we have a plan that we're referring to. I mean that is sort of a built in suspenders approach to cases in which a golf course may be cited near water body. So I mean you know the safety standard is safety standard we're talking specifically about safety. So do we think that 225 is an adequate, we've heard from a couple of folks who are in the industry granted with respect to the public commenter, they are retained by what we believe to be an organization who would like to build a golf course, recognize that. But at the same time, our staff has also done some independent reviews. So. And then we have a letter from CPW as well. Yes, which is not necessarily comfortable with that standard. Exactly. We're safety. I'm going to Commissioner Macy's. I appreciate a couple of the points that you made. And me of all people, I'm perfectly happy imposing regulations for any number of reasons. I guess, you know, my opinion is, is that in terms of public safety, I just don't think that a 225 foot setback somehow represents some clear and present danger to the public's health safety and welfare. And I think in terms of predictability, this is a predictable number. I would much rather be in the position of looking at an individual application and seeing specific items that would lead us to impose a greater setback rather than being in the position which I think is pretty controversial. And I think you would know this from your experience at the city when you start providing waivers to developers who claim they can't get something done that it costs too much. Therefore, you, governmental entity needs to waive your standard so we can afford to do this. I think the 225 feet is reasonable and we have the ability to extend that if necessary. Okay, well, how about we consider this? You know, I think within the note from Parks and Wildlife, there are some very relevant points made including the modeling that might be provided to us by any applicant who is looking to design a golf course. And so given that, Commissioner Korgan feels strongly 255 is appropriate, 225 is appropriate. I'm gonna default to this independent review and say that that's gonna be my belt and suspenders. If we do this to 25 in addition to the water body set back of 300. And short, I think I can live with this. Does that seem appropriate to you? You know, we still have the ability, if we see a situation that we feel is public safety to increase the standard. It does seem that there is a little discrepancy between two people that have a stake in this of what the actual standard per the industry is. But I do believe as we look at these individual applications, we will have the ability to adjust to protect our public. So the fact that I do know that I will be able to look at each individual application. And if I see a situation that is concerning, that we have the ability to adjust that, I believe I could live with that, would not be my first choice, but I do believe we can make that work. Okay, so it sounds like we are at a point of agreement on that item. And Todd has joined us in the room. We want to talk a little bit now about the previous item with home sizes. Do you feel like you were briefed on what it is we're asking about here? Yeah, and we're talking, it looks like the top paragraph up here. Yeah, right now, right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so it looks like this language got adjusted a little bit, so homes over 7,500 square feet. I don't know if my glass is on any LPS approved. That would be January first, must be must meet net zero standards. That should have been kept not crossed out net zero standards. And it should say that's it net zero standards as approved, not by the building official. This should say as approved as through the adopted building code resolution, right? So in the unincorporated rock county, we have a building code resolution. So if we were, if you were going to entertain moving forward with this, then we would have to go through a first reading and a second reading where the building department would adopt net zero standards into our building code resolution that would apply to homes over 7,500 square feet. Now, when we do that, we want to allow designers, contractors and the property owners to choose their option to pathway to compliance to get to net zero, right? We don't want to hold them back to one certain standard because there's really top like three options you can go through as a designer and a builder or an owner to get there. But ultimately yes the department energy sets the standards but there's three separate programs you can go through to get there. But in a nutshell for that paragraph all you would want to reference is the building code resolution as adopted by route county. Okay so that being said we have a start date of this January 125. Can we get that resolution in place before them? Yeah, it takes two meetings. It's the first reading, the second reading. I believe, uh, Flanay or Eric's online. I think you need a week between. You got a post of 15 days in advance, right? In the days, but yes, we could get through there. Okay. All right. And just as a little follow up, you say there are three sets of standards programs that have been put out by the energy department. No, no. Which one? There's a program through the DOE. There's a program through International Code Council. OK. We adopt our codes through another one that's struggling with the name. It's a really rare one that we probably won't see used. But those would be the three references that people would go to. Or would that lead the door open as Commissioner Corrigan was saying that somebody else might write a standard. No. No. We would end up embedding that language in the building code resolution that sets the standards in the tone, and that's what it has to be met. So that gets rid of the ambiguity right there. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I'm, uh, uh, Madam Chair, I'm totally satisfied with Todd's explanation and this new language. Thank you very much. Excellent. But that could say adopted, not approved, correct? As adopted in the route of County Building Code Resolution. Okay. Yeah. Oh. As adopted in the route County Building Resolution. So yeah, Christie, change, approve, that approved to adopted. And then a period after resolution. So let me let me help with a little word smithing here. I think it would be better to say must meet zero building standards in the building code resolution as adopted by route county. I don't think you need all those adopted in there. All right, well, in the interest of getting us moving a little more quickly, we do have another stage coach item that we wanna get to. So let's wrap this one up and move on to our third item. Thank you, Todd, for coming in. Appreciate that. I'm so excited. Do we wanna take action on this? Yeah, hold on, Madam Chair. I want to, I'd like to sit through this and make sure that this language is what we wanted to say. Must meet zero building standards in the building code resolution as adopted by the Rau County commissioners. Right? Sure. And I was thinking we were going to be making a motion for the the communication forum on all three of the items. So I wanted us to just get general agreement on these three as to how that motion will go. That works for you, or we can do individual motions on each item. I'm sorry you like onto the regional water quality management plan. Is that what we're onto then? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry to keep interrupting, but is Linnea in the room or Eric? They're not. They're online. Okay, I guess we could go ahead out to that next discussion point and circle back to this, but I'd like to have some understanding that our legal staff is actually comfortable with the words that thing we did here. Yeah, and I think we could add after the building standards must meet net zero building standards. Here comes Eric. We're going to make everybody in legal take a walk today. Christie to do here, but I think we should say that they're defined in the building code resolution. Okay. Building standards will be defined in the resolution. And then. Yeah, I don't think we need an ask. Finds in the building code resolution adopted by the route county commissioners. So I guess there's a need for you to make sure this language meets standards. And you're going forward with an approval today is that objective? 10 is to get a motion for all of the three changes we wish to advance. So this one has been wordsmithed to make sure that it's clear that the County Commissioners adopt a resolution that defines which programs are acceptable programs for net zero building. Yeah, the commissioners adopt the building code resolution so that appears to be accurate. Okay. Madam Chair, I am comfortable with this language as we're looking at on the screen right now. Just wanted to make sure that Eric didn't see any glaring errors with the language. Tis, why are there quotation marks? We're just talking about what is being inserted in replace so that's just to basically. I agree with Eric, we don't need quotation marks. That's not going to be the final document. All right, with that, it seems like there's a level of comfort with this. We can move on to the 208. If we want to get to our motion, somebody has found a significant red flag. We'll pick that up at that time. It's that works for you, folks. On the 208, this is one that I felt strongly about including. And I think it's really important to recognize that we have joined up with this agency, the water quality and quantity committee of Northwest Cog that they do have legal expertise, they have technical expertise, they have all of the things that we need to fully analyze anything, any development project that is related to or adjacent to or in proximity to a drinking water source of river. Anything that we want to protect from a water quality and quantity standpoint. So I'm really happy that we've included this. I participate the friends of the ampofobes coming out and talking about some of the documents that are missing in the reference to the 208 plan. And as we discussed, we first talked about 208 208 is currently being updated so I'm certain that those plans reference documents will be included in the updated. Just to adopt the that. Yeah so I'm pretty happy with this that does anyone else have thoughts? I am too, Madam Chair. I'm kind of relieved that we have an entity like QQ that we can rely upon to really do the technical work that I think we would struggle to figure some of these things out on our own. So relying upon them seems like an excellent idea. And I haven't heard anybody push back on the idea that we would be adhering to these plans policies. So I'm a support of this. I'm absolutely in support of this. And I really like the fact that we have established this and that we will be consistent moving forward. Agree. Okay. Well, it sounds like we are all in agreement with the proposed language and the communication form. I just ask Alan or Christy, whoever's managing the screen, if you wouldn't mind popping back up the language on home sizes, because any motion that's going to be made is going to be directly from the communication form, but the exception of the home sizes that we've changed. So whoever wants to say- I can do that. I just I will share the correct screen for you. Do you see the communication format? I do. Okay, I answered the correct language. Thank you. Are you ready? Yes, please. All right. I move to approve P.O. 2023-0021 with the following amendments to the Unified Development Code, add the following language to section 2.42B3. Homes over 7,500 square foot. Oops. Homes over 75 square foot and any LPS approved after January 2025 must meet net zero building standards defined defined in the building code resolution as adopted by the route county commissioners. Replace the existing language with the following. The minimum set back for greens, fairways, shall be 225 feet, the minimum setback for teas, shall be 100 feet. These setbacks are measured from the golf hole center line to an existing adjacent property line consistent with the below golf hole dimension diagram. So as to not endanger users on existing adjacent properties, Exhibit B golf hole dimensional diagram will be inserted below the text and the final document with the 225 foot sets back indicated. And three, add the following language to section 3.1K and replace the language to section 7.4A9B with the following. Regional Water Quality Management Plan, all development shell demonstrate compliance with the Northwest Colorado Council of governments. Regional Water Quality Management Plan 208. The 208 plan policies and implementation actions the Northwest Cog, Water Model Quality Protection Standards, and the water saving guidance and model standards for the Colorado headwaters collectively 208 plans and policy, which are incorporated here in by reference. The developments compliant with the 208 plans and policies shall be reviewed by the Northwest Cog, Water Quality and Quality Program and the cost born by the applicant. All right. Second. Excellent. Motion and second. Any further discussion on this? All those in favor? Please say aye. Aye. May I interject Madam Chair? If I could get asked for a second motion, I'll make it for you that the staff, route county staff, including the legal department, shall have authority to make non-substantive amendments typographical in nature as needed. To these amendments. So moved. To the amendments. Second. And. So moved to the amendments. Second. And this is specific to these amendments, Commissioner Gorgon. Correct. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thanks, Eric. Okay. So that took us a little longer than we had planned. We do have another stage coach item and I think we are probably going to have to extend our time a little bit if somebody wants to alert Tiffany that we will probably see in the back there. She is okay, great. Sorry Tiffany. So we are here now for the consideration of the Stage Coach Park, State Park PUD and Alan and Christie are here with us who is going to help us with this item. I think the way we were going to do it is in their presentation first, then we'll you hold seconds. So I'm just pulling out their talent. I just think- I think the interest of time we can, uh, Jordan, we don't need the slides to all of the most information that we presented to the planning commission. Ask with that. Let's follow. So we can go along a little quicker. Okay. most information that we presented to the planning commission. Ask with that. Let's go. So we can go along a little quicker. Okay. Yeah. I can do it verbally here. And I think we have Michael online now as well. Yep, I'm here. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. All right. Anything that's nice to offer? My lighting is terrible. Give me one moment. Hey, Michael, I'm in a bringing My lighting is terrible. Give me one moment. In my filament of ringing of Andy's presentation. You're going to what? I'm bringing up Andy's presentation. Okay. I can switch to mine then when we get there. I do have both of them if necessary. Let's go that last slide. Be great. But yeah, take it away. Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Andy Rossi. I'm the general manager of the Upper Ampilwater Conservancy District. And we're here asking for approval for a stage coach PUD, Upper Ampilwater Staff and the planning staff I'm been working for many months now, to basically clean up some old approvals and some maybe unfinished business at the Stagecoach State Park property, which is owned entirely by the Upper Amplewater Conservancy District. The document on the screen here is a copy of the PU document. We are not gonna go through and read all of the very fine texts there. But as you know, Upper Amplewater Conservancy District operates Stagecoach Reservoir as a public facility. We are a government agency. text there. But as you know, Upper Amplewater Conservancy District operates Stagecoach Reservoir as a public facility. We are a government agency. This is a high hazard reservoir and a state park at the same time. That by nature means that we have to comply with multiple layers of federal, state, local, and county regulations. So what we try to do with the staff was try to mesh all those authorities that we have to make sure we're operating under those specific terms of all of our licenses and our permits anything from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to CDPHE to Rout County. And to one document, it's very concise that allows for some pre-approved items and also requires us to come to Rout County for other things. So with this document, we hope that we're putting to bed some years of sort of half measures and just have this move in the future as the permanent PUD for stage coach State Park because we have no plans to expand or fundamentally change the park at all. So I think with that I'll hand it over to the staff to keep us moving and I'll stay here for any questions you all may have. Thanks Andy. Michael did you want to tee up some slides for us? Yes let me share my screen. All right, it was Andy that was just speaking, right? Yes. Okay, great. So yes, as Andy noted, this is a PUD amendment for Stage Coach State Park. To give a very brief history, the State Park was approved in 1987 with a conceptual and final PUD and several amendments. For whatever reason though, no PUD plan was ever recorded with the county, and that is something that is required for all property that is a PUD today. So they are looking to rectify that and the trigger actually has been the visitor center which all of you are familiar with being constructed. I will get into that in a moment. So the land is owned by the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District but it's at least a stage coach state park. So it's mainly a two function property property with the State Park and the reservoir operations coexisting in a pretty symbiotic relationship. The site is 1433 acres on a reservoir parcel. There's a 210 acre campground parcel and the total site is 1643 acres. The site includes the reservoir, its banks, all the land east of Cone Road 14 and south of Cone Road 18, and it also extends half mile downstream from the reservoir dam. And there's also some land extending one mile north of the dam across Cone Road 18 where it borders BLM land. So the existing uses are the reservoir, dam, and power production, as well as the recreational amenities operated by the State Park. So the PUD project is to allow for the new visitor center which is already constructed and a flexibly accommodate future plans without the need for multiple successive PUD amendments. The and to add some clarity to this so the State Park as a government agency is able to actually do things without the county's approval, but they have always been very kind in going through our process and getting the necessary PUD approvals due to the timing of how this all happened. We allowed them to move forward with the visitor center with the understanding that they would come through and do the PUD amendment to kind of wrap it up in a nice tidie bow. So this project is basically that nice tidy bow to get them the PUD approval that then makes it much more, it makes it a lot simpler for the county to then like whenever if we needed to figure out whether or not you know something was going to be a big deal on that property, something that required more public input or public notice or whatever it might be. The PUD is our guiding document to say, okay, what were we expecting to happen on this property? What does the PUD plan set forth as the expectations for this property? And is this within, is a future proposal within the PUD guidelines or is it something that we need to amend the PUD for? So kind of make sure that there's a public process available so that the public stays aware of what's going on there and there's some Expectations set forth that the county and them and the state park and Water Conservancy Industry can all agree upon so the PUD is generally intended to allow the existing uses proposed by the stage coach state park redevelopment plan asless below. I won't get into all of them, but there are several facilities in various different areas of the State Park. None of them are particularly unusual, and they are things that they are already either operating or have been planning to operate, but they are for the first time available in one big list that would be publicly accessible from the county. The PUD procedure, I guess it does kind of explain this already, my apologies. So they have the authority as another governmental entity to operate regardless of the county's input and they've always gone through our process. So the purpose of the PUD given that type of relationship we have with them and the rights that they have is that the PUD's intended to remain flexible for future improvements that they have planned while ensuring mutual predictability and compliance with county's process regulations and plans for the area. So the following language is proposed by the applicant to guide future county processes. up is that it doesn't just say certain uses because typically when you do a PUD plan you are getting everything permitted all at once and then you're building it pretty soon after and those are the final that's the final PUD approval. This PUD also has all these different operations. It has all these different process conditions that help govern how the PUD operates and so certain uses are permitted by right. And there are no county approvals necessary. And that's basically existing operation of all existing facilities. Then there are permitted uses and improvements for operation of the state park. So it's kind of a similar situation, all the things that they're currently doing. General operations and maintenance are already included. And then for new changes, this is where the PUD has more of a process component to how things are processed. And I'm going to try to explain this as carefully as I can because it was confusing last time too. So this first part, a conceptual PUD amendment, this is where they have to go to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. So this is a situation, the best way to explain it is with building construction. If they are going to do a new building construction of 1000 square feet or more, and it is not shown on their the CPW redevelopment plan, or they are emending the PUD boundary, that's considered like a, you know, biggest, biggest deal, biggest case scenario type thing where they would have to go through the whole process again. So that's that first section. They would only have to go to planning commission for final PUD approval for situations where things are shown on the CPW redevelopment plan, such as buildings of a thousand square feet or more, or enlargements of a thousand square feet or more of existing buildings. So the difference between those two categories is whether or not it's shown on the CPW redevelopment plan. Administrative reviews for some more minor things, like relocation of buildings with more than 800 square feet, less than 1,000. And then no further zoning code approvals is required for permitted uses and infrastructure. So it's very similar to how the Steamboat ski resorts PUD is set up because they actually were the, that was done, I think, 2015, is that right, Alan? Yes. They were kind of the impetus for creating a PUD process like this because it allows for some amount of flexibility, but it's custom zoning, but it's also custom zoning in the sense that there are by right uses, which is a very innovative way of implementing a PUD. So as Andy noted in his slides, this is the example PUD plan. This is still a draft. All the words that you just saw in a readable format are all the stuff in the bottom left that you now cannot read. So those would be recorded with the PUD plan. And we will decide whether or not we want to do this all as one document or split it into two so that text changes could be made in the future more easily. That's a bit irrelevant. But basically, it sets out use areas as shown on the plan and it also sets out all of the process conditions and permitted uses in the bottom left as we noted. So some issues for discussion recommendation, we would love to hear your thoughts on the above process and whether or not the cumulative impacts are too much and our recommendation as well as the planning commissions recommendation is that the application be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So let me know if you have any questions. Michael, yeah. So it's pretty clear then within this PUD that's recommended for approval today that they really could not build a whole bunch of different buildings. Is that correct? Because when we talk about cumulative impact, we would be thinking in terms of many additional structures and or parking lots and or campgrounds. Do we have some confidence that this document limits that? It's limited based on those process conditions. So it's not that they can do everything by right. If they were to do something that is outside the purview of that CPW redevelopment plan and not listed in this list. They would have to go through a public process. Of course, the caveat there is that technically because they are, they are another governmental agency, they don't have to go through the public process, but they are electing to do so. So we do have some protection in the sense that this lays out what they can and can't do. And yes, they, if a lot of buildings were constructed, they currently are only allowed to build whatever is in that redevelopment plan, which I believe they have some proposed employee housing. And then the visitor center was kind of a big thing that's already happened. But for the most part, a lot of it is existing operations and refurbishment of existing facilities, which are kind of getting old at this point. Okay, thank you. So Michael, I have a question for you. I recognize that our state partners often don't have to go through local government processes, whether it's a school district or parks and wildlife, but they have always come forward and worked with us, which is great. I just know that the State Park was leasing land from up for Ampa. Is that changed that situation? That's always been the arrangement since the first construction of the entire facility. So we call it a lease agreement with the state of Colorado and it segregates the operational you know responsibilities. Upper EMPA basically takes care of the water operations and the care and maintenance and the responsibility of operating a high hazard dam with a hydroelectric plant and CPW formally parks operates all of the recreational facilities for the park operations. So that's the way it's been since 1989 and we just renewed that agreement with a few minor modifications for another 20 years. So that's helpful, but really what I'm questioning is, you know, they're the lessy, they're not the landowner. Now that's upper ample. So, I mean, procedurally... Is that a right by use, I think, is what you're asking? Yeah, I mean, you know, it's not, I mean, they're the lessy, they're also the applicant. So I'm guessing that by the technicality of being the applicant, but not the landowner, that same grace is extended to the state agency of that? Well, so actually Upper Yampa is the applicant on this one. Since they are the landowner, Upper Yampa is the applicant. Since they are a quasi-governmental agency, they do have protections against or not against, but they're not required to come through our land. You review process, but there is, there is what's called a location and extent review where the county can review the locations of the buildings that are placed, but we're not really limited. We really can't say no, you cannot have that use. But we can again comment on where that building is located. So similar to a fire district, a school district, or any other quasi-governmental entity. Yeah, that was the part that I missed. Thank you. I thought that we were. That's an interesting question. And thanks for raising that, Sonya. So just to be clear, a quasi-governmental entity such as the Upper EAP, a Conservancy District enjoys the same immunity from county regulations that the state enjoys. And does that that kind of immunity extend to any special district or any. That's an excellent question. We can help you answer that a little bit. I have a lot of the tune of assistance here with me today and Bob Weiss, the operating info, water concerns issues, General Counsel might be able to be shed some light on that. Is that work for you, Commissioner Corrigan, if we invite Mr. Weiss up here to talk to us about this? Yeah, I mean, I think at this point, it's kind of more informational for us rather than bearing directly on our consideration of this particular application. But I guess it did kind of raise a little bit of a red flag that, and we just went through this with the Oak Creek Fire Protection District where they thought they enjoyed that kind of immunity. But of course they did not because they weren't building on their own land. They were building on somebody else's land. Right. Just the nomenclature of removing quasi in front of what commissioner just said is we are not quasi government. We are indeed a governmental entity. Okay great clarification Bob do you want to come up and talk to us a little bit about this question? Please. Yeah, that way people online will be able to hear you. Sort of a little slow and gross. Oh, it's painful. Well you're moving pretty good for a man with broken ribs. Yeah, my name's Bob Weiss and I've been the general counsel for the Priyampan District for 40 years. So a Priyampan as Andy mentioned is local governmental entity. And it's not immunity is sort of a miss understanding of what it is. Basically, as Alan mentioned, there's this sort of location and extent reviewed by the county. And then if the county were to actually deny something, I believe the board. And this is universal among government landings within Colorado can approve it, notwithstanding that denial. I've never known that to happen around County. Upper Yampa has fully cooperated in the PUNE process for everything that's been done out there jointly with the state when it's their project or in some cases when it's upper-yampus project out there. In addition, I think this is crucial and that's in your PUD is on certain kinds of actions. You have your 1041 rules which don't apply to this. That's sort of your super network. Okay. We recognize that. Yeah, so that's kind of how it's structured. And I think the staffs explained it very well. What we did is we listed kind of the allowed uses and then the process to get further approvals, which is in that process section. And I've done this one and I did the scary one and this process work quite well. It's, I think it's kept the land use process in place in an efficient way, but not forcing a lot of trivial things into everything in the process. So I think it's worked well. I think the stance is handled well. Thank you, Bob. Just as a question, do you have approval power over the state as to what they can and can't build on your property? We do as the property owner. Right. Right. That way, yes. But really when it comes to the state physical presence there, that all falls under the overlying umbrella of our federal energy rate with toward commission license, which is very specific. So we have a whole federal process to go through if we want to change any the physical nature of what's out there, even for the recreation. That state park details are explicitly stated on third places. Okay. Thank you. Great. Any further questions before we entertain public comment? I have none. All right, well, I do see we have our friend from Park Samodla. We have some other folks in the audience, but anybody care to comment on this item? If you're interested, you're in the room. You may step up to the podium. If you're online, please raise your hand. All right. Oh, please. I don't know if I need to comment. I'm Craig Preston. I'm the park manager at Stagecoach State Park been there for 17 years. And just appreciate your time on this situation. Again, reality is it's just kind of tying a bow on something that could have been done a long time ago. Our relationship with the Upper Amphalwater Conservancy District is fantastic and as a result of that like Andy said we recently signed it another 20-year lease. So as far as all of the projects outlined in this, those came from a redevelopment plan we put together in 2016. And reality is 98% of that document is refurbishing existing structures and infrastructure trails, parking lots, that kind of stuff. As stated, the two new facilities are the new visitor center which has been completed and then the seasonal housing that we're hoping to do in the next year or so. But outside of that, it's all refurbishing and redoing campgrounds and upgrading trails and that kind of stuff. Right? Yep. Right. Anybody else wish to make any comments on the setting? So I think we're good for our discussion. Yeah. Well, you know, this actually, to me, just seems like a very nice cleanup. And I want to thank all parties involved, because now, you know, feel like we're all in compliance. And even though it is voluntary compliance, thank you. Well, very well said. I was surprised to see that the PUD had never been recorded previously. So that was. They'd both surprised. Anything from you, Commissioner Gourin? If not, we are at the point where we could take some action. There's a motion in the agenda package that has some lengthy conditions, but generally specific and so on. I would imagine this motion does not need to reference all of the conditions, but maybe just finding the fact. I was thinking and then just calling out the conditions. Yes. Are we ready for motion? Yes, please. All right. I moved or approved, PUC amendment item, PL 2022 0060, based on the following findings of fact, the proposal with the following conditions meets the equal guidelines of the route County master plan and stage coach community plan and is in compliance with the applicable provisions of section six, a five, six and seven of the route county zoning regulations. The proposal has been determined to be in compliance with the guidelines of the route County master plan and the stage coach community plan. The final PUD is substantially similar to the conceptual PUD conditions that may be appropriate include the following general conditions, one through eight specific conditions, nine through 14, permitted facilities, uses and conditions, operation conditions, 15, 16 with the bullet points under 16. The process conditions, the following conditions set forth, the process in which the future amendments and uses will be addressed by the county. And that will be modification 17, 18, 19 and 20. Second, two, yeah. Second, is there any further discussion on this? and the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the discussion of this. All right, all those in all those in favor. Thank you. Mr. Gorgon is a way on family business. Mr. Gorgon is a way on family business. Mr. Gorgon is, we really appreciate this. Thank you all. Clean up Biden. Yes. A lot of specificity in this. And thank you. Sorry for the moment. Yeah. So we're going to take this with great. Like our system. A variety of reasons. A lot of folks came in for public comment. We want to hear from the public. It makes our process and our products better. So I'm sorry that your item took a hit in terms of pushing you back, but we are here for the weed program. And we have Tiffany and Lanayah with us. So please take it away. Whoever's going to get started. Yeah, we're here for the the second reading of the Rat County Noxions lead ordinance. We did present this for first reading back on August 13th. We did publish it in its entirety in steamboat pilot on August 15th. And we have received one public comment formally in that timeframe. That's was submitted by a Mr. Boyle and I did have a pretty lengthy conversation with him and try to address a lot of his concerns regarding the ordinance. Most of his concerns are regarding the timeframe and that our read ordinance starts at the actual legal process, which would be the notice the violation. Any of 10 days to respond to that. And I did clarify to him that we have a process that begins way before any legal action has taken place and that our goal has been and will always continue to be education is our first line of contact. So the way our programs worked and will continue to be is that we send a notice saying we found these weeds on our property and here's all all the information we have to manage it effectively. Here's our contact to be resource and then we asked for a form to return to us within 30 days, we've been sending a second notice, in which case moving forward, we would then proceed with the notice of violation if we're unable to get a whole of this person, if they won't acknowledge our letters or start a conversation or management plan with us. We understand that these weed management issues aren't going to be remedied in 10 days, but we're just looking for people to work with us and have a plan for the next season. Is there a main goal? So that was just some background on the public comment. And what was the his response? He just felt that he felt more comfortable after talking to me, but his main concern is if I were to leave my position and the program were to change hands, would there still be the same educational goal at the forefront? He's where it's going to come in. And just look at the ordinance, which is required to state the maximum penalties. Right. And so seeing that and then being more, I guess, forceful or strict with enforcement is his main concern. And he was, he did agree that there's a need for this ordinance. He just felt like it wasn't being executed or worded clearly. I kind of picked up on that. Yeah. And, you know, I'm going to have our, our process on our websites. But as far as this ordinance goes, you know, we have over some residents that we've tried to communicate with and enforce on for more than 10 years. So you don't have any next step. So this is giving us that next up to get legal on board and to have these remedies of action. So that's the goal and the purpose of this ordinance. I agree. Great. Well, I think we have to be very proud of this work. I'm Commissioner Corrigan, played a big role in that and working with the state legislature. This is the second reading of the ordinance. We didn't have any substantive changes or any changes at all. It's the first and second correct. No changes. No changes. No changes. So they don't know. They're doing pretty good. Yeah, he was going to let me attend today, but there may be others. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on the second reading of the weed not just weed ordinance? Or online? Oh, please step up. Thank you. You can online. I Chris would admire. From stage coach, um, stats and ranch. I just wanted to comment on Tiffany has been a great resource for us on. I'm working on, you know, the leafy spurg out there that I believe is the. The highest priority of problematic weeds in the county. It did cause me to go back and reread my conservation easement. And one of the things in there is that it specifically prohibits aerial spring. And I know that that is the recommended, one of the recommended steps that Tiffany, and I've talked about over the years and so I just would like to see at the appropriate point if I might get you guys or Tiffany to be able to write me a letter and support of that for going into the catamons association on the terms of conservation easement. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Corgan, we are just looking at the second reading of the lead ordinance this. And then we just heard from Chris, what am I on stage coach about the conservation easement and some aerial spraying concerns related to leafy spurge. I'm under the impression that we could use bio controls for that as well. Well, so maybe, maybe not. That is surprising to me that there would be a prohibition on aerial spraying on the conservation easement documents. And, you know, we'd have to talk about that a bit, but I can certainly imagine that we would support a change, at least to address that leafy spurgs outbreak, and really appreciate Chris paying attention to the leafy spurg and paying attention to his easement documents. So, yeah, to the extent that we can help out there would be great. And then, you know, I think, you know, I've read that public comment that that written public comment. And I think, you know, I've read that public comment that written public comment. And I think I missed Tiffany's presentation, but I'm assuming that part of it was that we're not seeking to start finding people, thousands and thousands of dollars or goal here is to help people achieve compliance and work on controlling these weights. And I believe that that's the way this new regulation ordinance is written. So I'm going to be supportive of approving the second reading. Thank you. Question for you, Tiffany. In the time that I've worked with you, I'm not aware of any aerial weed spray. I know that we've done some work with grasshoppers that way. Is that a tool that we use? We as a county have not contracted for aerial spraying, no, but it is a resource that we have recommended to landowners based on the species and extent of the infestations they have. And a circle back on Commissioner Macy's questions about the insects in regards to Mr. Wooden Myers' property. This is our most westernly known infestation of leafy spurs near the headwaters of the Yimpa. So insects alone cannot be a viable control option in that it does not contain or eradicate the leafy spurs. It only suppresses it, it reduces its seed set. So it can be used as part of an integrated approach in which we've been working with the leafy spurs project in hopes of trying to get something sex in some part to reach areas. Going into the future, but as far as the form of management that needs to occur there, it needs to be more than suppression and that we cannot allow this to enter the waterways because it would be ecologically devastating to the impact. So again, it's situational. We don't, yeah, we don't do contracts for ourselves for years, but we do have contractors that are on our contractor list if people would like to utilize that as a resource. Thank you. I'm continually impressed by Tiffany's knowledge of the subject matter and capacity to educate us in such a gentle way. But I'm and I also am really grateful that you are on top of this in the waterways and working with the landowners productively. This is just a all good thing and Commissioner Corrigan, we missed you missed the kudos we gave you for working with the legislature to make this possible. Do you have a good chance? Yeah, just proving the notion that the legislature can't do anything right. So yeah, but you had to hold their hand. All right, unless there's anything further, does somebody want to make a the second reading of the route county weed an audience approval and authorization for the chair to sign the second reading of the route county noxious weed ordinance and to publish the ordinance title in the steam boat pilot. Second part of the motion is ordinance and to publish the ordinance title in the steamboat pilot. Second part of the motion is motion and approval to repeal resolution 2008-002. And also there is a caveat that there will be the need of a supplemental budget at the end of the year. Second. Motion and second, just one point of discussion. We did hear from Commissioner Morgan. He was supportive of Tiffany working with landowners. You might have prohibitions on aerial spraying and the conservation easement. So if we need to write a letter of support to make a revision in the case of leafy spurge or other noxious weeds, I think we would be amenable to that. Is that? I would think so. Yeah, I don't know that we'd need to even write a letter. Or I think you being aware of it is probably gonna be all we need, right? Well, I think maybe someone needs to talk to LaNanne because I think any significant... She's sitting right here, let's ask her. Any changes in a Colorado Calamans would want to make to a conservation easement, they might need to jump through some legal hoops with us. I don't know. In amendment to a conservation easement would need to be in writing just like an amendment to any other agreement. This particular easement was did utilize PDR funds and so they would have to get our okay. But the steps needed to get to that point certainly I think your direction to Tiffany today would be sufficient to get that started. We have a good relationship with cattlemen's. I am in fact meeting with Megan not tomorrow on our client wetlands property. So I'll even try to remember, although I'm not promising. But to be clear, and prior to any kind of aerial spraying taking place, you would have to go through that process. And the Board of County commissioners would have to actually vote to approve an amendment to the conservation easement. Yes. Thank you. One more thought I have is, have you, the name reviewed the conservation easement recently? Not in this particular thing? I actually did briefly look at it a couple of weeks ago, and I did note that it says that, yes. So there is no, sometimes there are these slippery provisions that allow for the use of updated technologies. And I don't know if there's any language in there like that, but this could fall in. But if we could check that out with the night towards that because amending the easement is process that takes a little time. I did not read it that carefully, so I will do so. All right. I wanted to just add that the I didn't recall if you noted this was ordinance number 2024 002 and the red I did not call that out. No. The resolution repealing the 2008 resolution is numbered and we have a couple of friends who have given some direction for our staff to work with Mr. Woodamire on the conservation easement and making sure that the language allows for what we're asking which is to eradicate this levy's purge. So with that said, is there any further discussion? All right, all those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thanks everyone. Appreciate you being here. Good step forward. Moving swiftly on to our route counting museums and heritage fund advisory board. We have a number of folks in the audience. Please join us at the table if you'd like. We will ask you that as we get into our discussion that you present your name and association. Looks like we are. We are. We are. We are. Thanks. Yeah. Let's do it. OK. OK. So, OK. OK. OK. Okay. Okay. Okay. It looks like the topic is we are considering to approve the museum and Heritage Fund advisory boards recommendation to approve the adoption of the amended capacity building grant application at the point. Starting with the fall of 2025 grant cycle, I will call your attention's commissioner to some late breaking information that came to us by email through Jennifer. I have not had a chance to look at it, but it is in your email. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Excellent, thank you, Jennifer. So who would like to lead on this item? So my name is Pete Wether. Thank you, Jennifer. So who would like to lead on this item? My name is Pete Weather on the Chairman of the Women's Heritage Fund Board. Oh, we've been using the same grant process since the beginning of the Women's Heritage Fund about 20 years. And as we went through this period of time, a lot of the entities that were found for the grants had issues with the way it was presented and put together. As it's much different than the state level and federal level grants. So in an effort, get us to be more the same with all the different grant processes. There was the museum board wanted to take on the project of changing them way it worked. And Jim and Becky are two of the people that ran from the New Zimmer Heritage Fund, but we're along with all the other entities in the county had input into it as well. And Jim, take a from there. It's a little background because I'm assuming you haven't gone back and read the resolution that is now 20 years old that sets up all of this. In 2003, the Route County Resolution 2,003, dash 0,600 was drafted detailing for the voters how the proposed property tax revenue for the museums would be processed. The museum heritage fund property tax is a .3 mill levy. I always hear people say it's a 3 mill levy, but it's not. It's .3. It was approved by the voters in November 2003 and in 2004, the first receipts were collected and dispersed under the resolution. Following the approval, the Board of County commissioners appointed the Museum and Heritage Fund Board Advisory Board, the first members of that. I think you've been on it since day one. That's right. That's right. We've been very comfortable. I'm at all. And that group along with County Commissioners and County staff developed the application process that has been in use for 20 years unchanged. As Pete said, there have been some questions and comments and you know over some of the details and that's what we were attempting or hoping to try to clear up and simplify this process for museums. One thing I wanna note clearly is that none of our changes, none of the proposed changes affect specific items that were approved in the original vote in resolution. We addressed some of those and we came to conclusions and said, no, that's not covered in the resolution. And we're not looking to put this change of the application to the voters. So I don't think we've hit any of those. interesting that I was going to run through some of the items that we are proposing to change. The first four that Dan mentions in his memo are the first four that I had on my list. So I'm just going to cover those really briefly. First one was a reduction of the cash match from 50% or dollar for dollar to 10%. Colorize state historic requires a 25% match. However, a lot of the other grantees and I haven't looked to see what better and gates in those require, but they're lower. And that's why we set up a 10% match. It's difficult for some of the museums to come up with 50% matches. Secondly, was to include a cash advance of 25% when specific items needed to be paid for or partially paid for in advance, like computer equipment, things of that nature. Dan addresses his feelings on that one, I think, in the memo that we can come back to. The third one was an emergency grant. We're all familiar with Oak Creek's problems over the last couple of years with the leaking roof and having to move all of the artifacts to other locations, things of that nature. We were proposing putting in an emergency grant request that could be done outside of our semiannual grant approval process. We approved grants in April and October. Emergencies don't actually happen on our schedule. They happen on their own schedule. And we're proposing a change so that the county commissioners could approve a grant for emergency uses. The fourth item that Dan also kind of asks the question about, and doesn't really go into detail, is clarification of the sponsored entities versus the entities that are in the resolution and those entities in the resolution are the museums in route county and historic route county. And there what's referred to as entity or an eligible entity, which is the question of what's the difference between eligible and sponsored. A sponsored one is like HRC is a eligible entity that they can sponsor a grant for someone who's not eligible to come to us and that's a sponsored grant and the rules for them are still stricter. And we have a new minute keeper so we have Jim Peterson. You are on off of them, right? Yes, I'm sorry. That's okay. And if you don't mind introducing your name and title record, it's okay. It introduced us so I thought that Becky Hicks, I represent North Rowland. Thank you. That's just helpful. We have someone making taking our minutes who doesn't know everybody quite yet. All right. Thank you for that. You could. One other comment on that is that the sponsored entity is also a nonprofit and they would be operating under their nonprofit status through the entity that is eligible to sponsor. Okay, please give us your name and a some way to call. Thanks, I think. The Elzba Maria, they set her with us. Yeah, so you won't leave to introduce yourself, for the recording Arianti's setner, Gordon Meredith with Historic Rock County. And she helped Jim and I get together and go over the grant. And one thing that Jim didn't mention and wasn't a problem with anybody, I guess, in the commission's office. The main reason for redoing this is that the application form, the original one, was very redundant. People were asked in a different way. This is quite four different sections. And the eligible entities that are in the resolution, one, the beginning questions is, who are you? What is your mission? Give us proof of things that you've successfully done. Well, they've been doing that for the last 20 years. So it was kind of, we thought why have them fill that out. So that's one of the biggest reasons was to streamline this, make it more user friendly. Great. Before we get into discussion on this, do you folks have any questions at the board? I don't. But you're regular? You know, the only question I have is, and it kind of follows along with the question that was asked, you guys, do you, you don't actually own the buildings, do you? No. And, which buildings? Well, I'm think, because for me, I'm familiar with Hayden does not. Right. And that the town carried their inshorts. Is that the same thing in Oak Creek? Did in the town carry the insurance there as well? Oak Creek does not own the building. It does not. It owns the building. But Oak Creek does everything about the building. I'm not sure who carries the insurance. Okay. Onspeak is historic owns its building and provides its own insurance. All right. And steamboat owns its buildings and provides its own insurance. And short. Great. Well, before we jump into our discussion, I can't quite see that third person online. I don't know if there's anybody online who wishes to provide public comment, but if you do, please raise your hand and we will entertain your comment. Looks like we might have media and staff on there, but if anybody else wants to comment, please raise your hand. All right, no public comment. So, all right, but do you have anything else? Just speak a little bit. Yes. And it basically emphasizes the process, the very thoughtful process that we went through that started, I believe, in February. Correct. Meeting every couple of months to talk about what we wanted to change, sharing a draft with all of us, changing it, again, reviewing it, changing it. And I think we had at least three in-person meetings plus a long stream of emails. So it was very transparent and thoughtful. And I think from the eligible entity perspective, what we have observed over the years is that so many of these smaller operations could not come up with the cash match for their grant request. And that is why for so many years, the only entity that was able to generate those funds was the tread. And the smaller museums, they said, we can't figure out how to make the match. We can't even fund our operations. And so that was really the driving force behind changing this application plus streamlining it so that we didn't have brain damage in answering these questions and also making it a simpler process for the reviewers to look at these applications and going wait they answered it here and they're answering it here and you know so it's it's easier for everyone. The one thing that is also different is that we eliminated this in-kind donation because that was also becoming problematic in terms of getting people to sign the volunteer sheets, determining the labor rate, at, you know, calculating the hours. And so we just cleaned it up 10% match for eligible entities and 50% match for the sponsorship. And it just makes everybody's time work more efficiently. And I think Dan had a question or somebody about would somebody ask for $20 million out of the Maffa pool? Well, I think all of these entities are, there's a gentleman's agreement, I think, or a gentle persons agreement about knowing how much is in the fund, knowing that it is to be shared by the community, dispersed through the community, and not hogging it all up and taking more than your share. So we all decide we would say no if somebody who wanted the entire fun. Right, but you know, there's a lot of community in terms of how entities ask make requests. And so I don't know if it needs to be defined. Or I think the map at board has, you know, the wisdom to say, you know, really $20 million is rather outrageous and it will deplete the fund for many decades. So that's just my two cents. Thank you. Wendy, did you want to, I would like to make just two other comments. The in-kind sometimes it's difficult within the two year period to get the commitment from the skilled labor. So that's another part of the problem coming up with that 50% match and being able to perform a grant that's been granted. The other thing that I would love to share with you all is that there's a timeline here that's a little bit integral because we are looking to have applications in by October 1st for this next grant cycle. And so using the appropriate form to apply for this funds does make a difference to what we can apply for based on what our resources are. And we won't be looking for 20 million because we can't do 10% of that. So, that's an excellent point So that's an excellent point. Yeah. Thank you. Well, we really, this is a very important step forward. And I think, you know, we heard as much as you did from the entities that were eligible and sponsored that this was an owner's situation. So I really appreciate you looking to streamline it. And, you know, we're talking about voter approved funding. I think this is a really really good step forward. I will say we have a suggested motion in here to approve this but we also do have some information from our accounting team who work closely with you folks to administer this. So I think we need two commissioners just have a discussion about amendments we might want to make based on the suggestions of our accounting team. Is that okay with me folks? Well, I think we need to discuss this, yes. Okay, because one of the things I was going to suggest on our first thing about the upper limit, I mean, I understand the board discretion question, but I think it might be wise to just include some at least a historic range. You know, so something about grants made by this fund have typically been in the range of, because while I understand that there is a general person agreement, I think that would satisfy maybe the concerns of the accounting team. Is that some reasonable for you folks? Or do we wanna talk about an an absolute that they would be? Well, we found in politics that not everybody goes by government. I mean, gentlemen's agreements anymore. Right. At the federal level. Can I give you some quick numbers? Compromises. Please. So at the end of 2023, the fund had a balance of $203,000, just over $203,000 unspent. And that is a result of previous years carrying over. And then in 2024, there was another about $63,000 added. So with the projects that are in Comber, there's about $200,000 available. And that stays high and hovers high because the entities haven't been able to apply due to the match. So what is the-end. There has been one recent request for just a over 40,000 and that is from Hayden, from matching funds for a state historic grant, and then Oak Creek had a bigger one for their Raise the Roof project and for 37. They all had to come up with a 50% match for those. Correct. And I would imagine Oak Creek would have asked for more if they didn't have to have. Yeah, thank you. No, we need. Yes. So commissioners, I've got a question for you. Procedurally we are wildly behind. And I think we could take one of two. We could take two different approaches, probably many more. But one would be just to ask our accounting staff to work with the board on some of these final revisions or we could talk through them here today. Which would you prefer? I, you know, I'm, I'm happy, I mean, is there a big rush on this? If there's not a big rush, then let them work out the details and bring it back to the office. There is. When is he on October? Yeah. Wendy mentioned that there's an October 1st deadline for the entities to apply and they'd like to have their new application. I mean, We want to be able to get this back in a week or two, right? I would say two at the most, absolutely. Okay, so is that your preference? I mean, I believe that, you know, one of the things I do think we should discuss just briefly is whether or not we're comfortable with reducing the match for eligible entities to 10 percent. I think that they have made the case as to why that is necessary and appropriate. I will say it is far lower than what I'm used to seeing. I think 25% is the minimum that I've seen, but that doesn't mean that I have a problem with it per se. So you don't want us to give them guidance to work with the accounting team and then come back with the hard now on this proposal. So is anybody else? I'm fine. I'm fine with the low max amount. I don't have any problem with that. I not neither do I. You know, I would say the second question is, is one that, that I'd like a little more information on, you know, the, the, uh, uh, the women or the, the cash advance. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I think the idea would be, we approve the 10% cash match that that's a good thing. We would ask that there be some conversation with accounting on it. Is there an upper limit to the grants that can be requested or how do you specify that just a little more clearly? So it's not subjective. The cash advance I'm uncomfortable with, and I sense that the accounting department is also uncomfortable with that. So I think that is probably one that will come back to us with an accounting suggests that we not do that. And I would support that. I think that's a tough question for us to consider the cash advance. Does that sound right to you folks? Yeah, I'd like to hear, you know, where accounting's at on that and their concerns, I'd like to hear them laid out. Yeah, I think the emergency grants section is very, very good. I think that's a really good addition to this and I really like that you're considering these kinds of situations that can be bankrupting for small entities in particular. And I really like that. I think I'm doing a map at Barg first. We recommend that and we could take that to you. And we thought we had something about insurance. That's one of Dan's concerns his insurance. And honestly that's what I noticed when I was going through it yesterday, we always intended that any insurance proceeds then received would be used to reimburse the emergency grant. Obviously, it could be the case. The emergency grant was 30,000 in the insurance proceeds for 25, which wouldn't reimburse at all. But I was also not to cut you off. I'm sorry, which I know I good thought. Yeah. Good thought. Because that can help. Popping. It can help these entities have insurance policies that are affordable to them. But with a $10,000 deductible. So, right. And I was wondering if that might have been what you guys had been thinking. We hadn't gotten that far in articulating. Okay. We were just thinking, you know, the roof fell in. Right. Or we had a fire in the back room. Three months till the next month have meeting. Right. What do you do if especially if you're one of the small ones whose mill levees going down and they're losing money from the fund? Right. So I'm going to attempt to summarize where we're going with this. It sounds like we're giving direction to, um, today to help accounting work through some issues with the board. Uh, noting that we are comfortable with the 10% cash match. We would like to see what accounting in the board can come up with regarding whether it's a range of funds that people can apply for. Is there an upper limit, whatever is the recommendation of the group. We would like to see the cash advance portion taken out. That's not something we're quite ready to commit to. And then with the emergency grant question, how do we provide some specificity around how the emergency grants interface with insurance? Is there anything else that we need to see in this? Nope, not from online. I think that's good. I don't think those are complicated issues to resolve very badly. I think we can end now. You know, the sure issue is like 50,000 up to them. Yeah, we'll get it. We can approve that those up and have for it to come back on consent next week. Is that possible? Yeah, I think we can answer these questions right now to speed this thing through very quickly. It's good. I think you're basically saying on now to speed this thing through very quickly. It's going to track. I think you're basically saying on Dan's number one to, okay, the 10%, which obviously we agree to because that was our recommendation. He also asks without going into detail, is there a definition of eligibility of sponsored organizations? Which I think you gave us. Which is actually covered in the original. It has to be local non-profit schools, churches, so on. In other words, it can't be individuals. So I think that one is sponsored. Yes, sponsored. And is that a clarification? One of these entities outside of the eligible entities as defined in the resolution. Let's say some group, nonprofit group, asks Hayden to sponsor a grant for them. Hayden doesn't have a capacity at that time to sponsor a grant. So the other thing is we cannot as eligible entities always sponsored grants by these outside entities. And that's an important thing because capacity is a big deal. And there is a responsibility with sponsoring a grant. So it's not a slam dunk to get sponsored by anyone. And it has to be a compelling project, a compelling case. And even then, the math ad board would be the ones to review it, but it still requires an investment of time by the sponsoring entity to do that. So I'm gonna suggest that we give this another five minutes. We are woefully behind on our items and we do need to advance. So if it's possible, Jim, say you can get quickly bring us through some of that. I can do that. Okay. Balance us through some. I can do that. Okay. Balance. Maximum amount. I would suggest and I think the would agree is 50,000. Right now that's about 20% of the fund. Initially I was going to suggest a percentage. But if the fund balance gets down to, if we've made a loan, made commitments and the fund balance is only $ Board, those of us here, we do not have any approval authority. Everything we do, dollar amounts, things like that, are recommendations to the BCC, correct? So you've always got the ability to say what in the world are you guys doing or do overrides? So my attitude there Sony is just let's put 50K in and you know unless Dan has a problem with that one. You know the cash advance, I'm hearing all of you denying it. It's a difficult one. As I don't I don't like to, but let's pull it out. Yeah. The emergency grant, I think we're all in agreement of that one. include the terms of deductibility and include the terms that any insurance reimbursements would be used to repay that emergency grant. I think that covers most of Dan's concerns and hopefully we can just keep this thing moving forward without taking any more of your time. Yeah we do have our audit team here and they've come from out of area. So that's one of the reasons I'm sorry to be speeding you along, but you know, I do feel like we need to address that. Okay, so I would suggest commissioners that if we do decide to make a motion to advance this, we make a contingent upon accountings approval of those provisions that we just described. I'm comfortable with 50,000 as an upper limit. I got a thumbs up on screen. So I work for you. I think it does. The deductible and the refund on the emergency grants. Yeah, I think I can be good with this. Yeah, it's just a proof of the 10% up to 50K, they can apply for no cash advance and then clarifying the emergency insurance. So good. Does somebody want to make a motion to approve the adoption of the amended capacity building grant application contingent upon approval from accountants. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second to add one p.s I had nothing to do with this it is a thank you for the county being a supporter sponsor of Colorado Preservation inks on the road weekend September 6th, 7th and 8th. And I'll talk to I'll send some information, but we really appreciate your support and active involvement in preservation in this way. Thank you, Ion. It's always always nice to support that kind of thing. Thank you. So we have our counting update. I'm going to need to take at least two minutes to just start a little bit of food while they're setting up. And I think we can anticipate a working lunch over here. So buckle up. You can miss your garden. Sorry. I'll work with legal and accounting. Edit stick. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Okay. So we are back now at 1207. We are moving on to our 1128 nonning item, which is our audit report. Looks like we have some visitors from out of area potentially in the audience to speak to us. Not in the audience to speak to us, not in the audience, at the table. And if you guys don't mind just identifying yourself by name and title, that would be helpful for our minute takeer. Thanks for finance director Rob Cahne. Sean Sunkawa County manager, Rob Cahne. Michael Jenkins partner with McMan and associate. I'll have to show them. Thank you, Michael, will'll be doing the presentation. Yes. We'll come over to Mike. Let me do the presentation. You know I've always noticed when we get to this it always empties the room. We have it. It's a media like this. The ring jam were hot. I've just been shocked because this is where I think the room should be full. There's some questions right? There's some big opportunities. Yeah. So I've already let the other folks know who are next that we are running behind, but we have 20 minutes for this. It is needed. So please take it away whenever you're ready. Perfect. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is that working? As you. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity to meet with you this morning and discuss results of our audit of the county's 23 financial statements. The audit itself is a statutory requirement. so it is required at law, but it does have beneficial products or byproducts for the county in terms of really just providing the county's constituencies. It was the Board of Directors, management, vendors, lenders, taxpayers and residents of the county with confidence in the management of fiscal matters and the reporting of them within the county and by the county. Our job as auditors independent CPAs is to provide an opinion on the county's, the compliance of the county's financial reports with governmental reporting and accounting standards and ensure that ultimately the financial position and the results of operations are properly measured and presented. For us to issue our audit opinion staff spent a week in March and another in June working with the county staff working with various departments, just getting an understanding of how does financial information flow through the various departments and kind of walking transactions through those systems to make sure that what we say is what we do. But also doing the ticking and tying and making sure that the presentation and the financial statements is consistent with what is required under the gas be accounting standards and reporting standards. Please to report that the county received what's called an unmodified or layman's terms a clean audit opinions on its compliance reporting for the county's use of those federal source dollars that's commonly known as a single lot. And that together is really the highest level of assurance that we as independent CPAs, independent auditors can provide them for the interest statements. So, you know, it's the Helen Fulcina. The financial statements themselves are rather large document. There's a lot of information in them. So I even find it somewhat daunting. But I would think that if somebody were looking really for a summary of the 2023 fiscal year, I would certainly recommend looking to the management's discussion and analysis, which is one of the first sections in the financial statements. And that's where Dan and the finance staff have summarized the really the information that's in there in a very readable format, as well as provided some context for the numbers that appear in the financial statements. The financial statements themselves, there's a recall, set up through other governmental reports, there's kind of two perspectives included in the financial report. So we've got the government why, which is full of cruel, lose depreciation, all of debt, all the assets of the entity are included in there. Really, it's similar in concept to what you would see in a for-profit organization. So you get really a holistic viewpoint of that. The fund reporting, however, is more on the budgetary basis of accounting. So similar to what you're seeing on a regular basis in terms of the, how are we doing? How are we doing year over year? We did it relative to our expectations during the fiscal year. The notes to the financial statements are mostly what most people angst when they read financial statements, but they really provide that narrative of the explanation of the accounting policies of the county and provide some details on some of the balances and transactions that took place during the past year. But we'll express up front or indulances to those who are reading because those have increased significantly over the last two years, thanks to some of the gas-be-accounting standards that have come out specifically around leases. And what I heard, not very pleasantly called spedas. So subscription-based information technology arrangements. So basically software and similar arrangements where similar releases the county has a commitment to a long-term usage of a particular item. Now under the least standards and standards, sorry it just doesn't come out very well. But there's a liability recognized for the commitment to the payment structure as well as an asset set up and an asset that is depreciated or advertised over that the term of the agreement. We also have within the financials the required supplementary information, which is budgetary comparisons for the major funds as well as the other supplementary information which includes really the other funds in their comparison to budget and then lastly at the end of the report is the single audit reports over those federal source dollars. Dan and the finance crew have already gone 17 million over the 2022 year end. The county continues to be highly liquid about 8 3 and a half million dollars in cash investments which is about 25% of total assets at the end of the year and that was up about $3.6 million over the 2022 year in, excuse me. Capital assets, so buildings, vehicles, infrastructure, really the asset base that the county uses to provide services to the taxpayers of route county. Represented about 63% of total assets total about 213 million at the end of 2023. And increased about $7 million during the past. That included the human services, which human services building, as well as some of the airport improvements at playstring this year. On the other side of the governmental balance sheet, if you will, the liabilities, total liabilities is about $12.7 million at the end of the year, down about $3.4 million from the prior year. The county has a relatively low debt level, about 5.5 million in long-term debt at the end of 2023. Maturity's range from 2025 through 2029. The one COP issue, the certificate of participation issue, that matures in 2025. And there are two revenue notes for Fipsburg that mature in the 2026 to 2029 range. The, during the past year, there was about $1 million in principal reduction, following the repayment schedules for the existing debt. And also that libel, that $5.5 million also includes the gross amount owing on the county's gross commitment to leases under leases and these sped up agreements. So software agreements. One thing also to keep in mind is that does not include the $1.5 million that Fipsburg and Milner received in 2024 from the corporate to health funders various water treatment and plant improvements. The difference between the assets and the liability of the county are referred to in government, governmental accounting parlor says as net position and that was almost $294.5 million at the year. The largest portion of that $210 million are 71%, which was comparable to the piers, is the county's net equity or investment in capital assets. In essence, the historical cost of all the infrastructure of the county, less appreciation, less related debt, really that that strong commitment there to, you know, investing in the assets of the county to provide services to the county. Unrestricted portion is about quarter of the total $74.5 million at the component of the net position really represents limitations on the net position due to external commitments. And primary among that is debt commitments, debt governance, and the other big one is the required table reserves. We look at the government at that level. Again, this is the flow crew basis. This is called the statement of activities. The presentation is a little bit different from what you typically see in a for-profit environment. in a for-profit environment, but it's a very effective way of presenting really the first off, the expenditures or expenses related to the major functions and programs of the county, then offset by the direct revenues associated with it, both in terms of direct fee for service arrangements as well as grants and the idea being to present that kind of the net draw a contribution of each of those programs to the general activities and general revenues of the county. So for 2023 total net position increased 15.7 million dollars or 6% of the prior year net position of that amount in governmental activities. So the the day-to-day services of the county in terms of administration, road and bridge, public safety, et cetera. Those contributed $1.5 million to that increase. In the remaining $14.2 million came from the business type activity. So the airport, the two water and sand districts, and the building department. The bulk of that, understandably, $9.3 million is coming from the airport. 2.8 million dollars was represented by Fippsburg and 1.9 million dollars for a million. Keep in mind those numbers for Fippsburg and a little bit out of sync with your norm because they give include a total of I about $4.2 million of transfer from the community General Fivons itself. So as as as typical about a third of the 2023 costs for General Governmental Operations were covered by direct revenues, a larger source of the county's revenues continues to be and to ask about the property tax. Sales tax about 15 million dollars for the year. About 17% of the total. The property taxes were up to about 7% from 2022 primarily. Due to the inflation factor under table and also to a lesser extent new construction, sales tax increased 3% from 2022. positive results. Well, the total governmental fund balances decreased $2.1 million. That decrease also includes that $4.2 million transfer up to Fipsburg and Millner. So that's just looking at the governmental, the general fund and all the major funds of the county. The major funds also performed well relative to budget in 2023. Expanditures in all those funds were within budgetary limitations. One of the metrics that we typically use to look at, how are we doing overall is to look at fund balances as a percentage of the current year expenditures. And the larger number obviously being better because it shows the county has a good financial basis entering the current fiscal year. So at the end of 2023, the county's governmental fund balances represented about 62% of total 2023 expenditures. Keep in mind, you know, because of the county's reliance on those variable revenues, especially in the way of sales tax, into a little bit lesser extent property taxes, you do want to make sure you continue to maintain your strong reserve position. That provides that flexibility and some strengths that we're going into kind of the unknown when you enter a new fiscal year. We kind of back up the big picture overall financial health still pretty strong say solid fund balances and that rides that stability rides kind of an anchor when you've got some uncertainty in the County is budget and spent conservatively. They're pretty consistent in that practice and fully cost relative to actual revenues. You know that I think the county's committed reserve policy continues to hold it in good stead because there's a benchmark to ensure that the county has adequate reserves going forward in any given fiscal year. As as mountain community communities, we're reliant on our visitors to help keep our economy strong. And we'll provide them the amenities they want, but we also need to have that those reserves in place to provide those services. The packet, the financial packet also includes our required report to you as a as a governing board that addresses the non-numeric side of the audit. So it talks about the accounting policies of the county, talks about the audit process itself and really gives us an opportunity to address any issues or concerns or just recommendations that may arise in the course of our, you know, certainly the permanent accounting policies and practices standpoint, I would say overall the county really has a conservative, compliant and consistent accounting policies. Certainly there are some areas for improvement that we've indicated that have, I think, an action plan to be taken care of by departments over the prior years, that list has come down significantly. And I think that really shows the commitment of county departments, county staff to really being good stewards of the resources on behalf of county taxpayers. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dan and Sean, the rest of the finance team and really Jay and the rest of the accounting we appreciate assistance with our work on the audit and really for doing a great job with the audit and financials. So thank you. Quick question, are you comfortable with the responses in the management level letter to the four kind of reoccurring issues that we've been dealing with. I've had to say from the SO's perspective, I think here is administrative really changed for the more willingness to address issues or we continue to work with them on that topic. That I just could you apply in on those responses when we said. Yeah, I think we're, the overall message is that I think they're moving forward. They, for example, in the sheriff's office, they are implementing a digital ticketing system, which ideally should help give you up some of the segregation of these issues that we have had in terms of making sure that from a system design perspective, we don't have the same person controlling all aspects of a transaction. It's just good business practices. Certainly, I think when he's 24, we'll be coming to do our work. We'll be able to kind of look at that and see how that has rolled out. Right. be able to kind of look at that and see how that has rolled out. I think, you know, we are moving forward. Again, another issue with the Sheriff's Office just being the use of individual cash drawers. There's not a significant amount of cash activity there. But still, it's a system design that exposes the county to a risk of misbook creation of funds theoretically. So obviously want to make sure that all the county departments kind of follow along and buy into that process. And I think we've seen greater acceptance certainly within the sheriff's department of some of the recommendations we have had over the years. And then we're taking credit cards now and systems in place, which is kind of a delayed implementation now because of the various reasons. Yeah, so. So this is still, the jurors are still, we still want to work out. Yeah. Is it a person else shortage there that you've got one person, you know, taking the money in and then doing the reconciliation? Is that sounds like what we're dealing with, right? It's more of a design of the systems. Yeah. Okay. There's literally physically only one. So three people have access now. You're right. To the to the one to take the cash payments. And then when something goes away, all that's right. You don't know what you should come down. Right, right. Because there, yeah, I've worked in in retail and everybody had their own individual code to go into a drawer. Yes. that. Everybody's pointing fingers at each other. You know, yeah, they're all right. That's not a good thing. Okay. That makes total sense. You know, something that came to my attention that I wasn't aware of is that the airport isn't really a dedicated enterprise? Okay. That's kind of there's a couple of layers. The general accepted account of principles, which it is truly an enterprise. And then the enterprise under table. And that's what we're, if I contacted Kevin about a month ago, we went out to the airport and said, oh, because he was, you know, we're looking at bringing up that funds that basically since it's not an enterprise under table. And it had, you know, the concept there is basically has to meet that 10% requirement that your revenues less than 10% of your revenues have to come from a governmental source and stuff like that. So it's not been that long ago that we had that situation where we had more than 10% like say a gold grant or something like that that would send us over that 10%. I got you. It's 10% of state. Well state and local anybody but not federal. Not federal, right? That's not a lot. Yeah. So basically we've been a paper for accounting but not federal. Not federal, right? That's not federal. Yeah. So basically we've been in a paper for accounting, but not paper. Gotcha. Yeah. And so what we're doing, you know, we're going through the process of what we did with Pittsburgh and Milner to make them enterprise funds under table. And then we can free up that, I think, 300 and 3.5. 3.5. So that's something like that reserve balance so that it could be used for the criminal building or what have you out there. Yeah, I should. Yeah, how about the building department building department is an entity. Yeah, okay. Thank you. There are 100% of their folks accounting and pay them. Yes, the table enterprise has a less stringent requirement for reserves than the generally accepted accounting principles? Well, a table is part of an restrictive reserve, okay? So like if you have, if they are, but like, there's still undertape, like the airport is, you got to stick 3% of their reserve into a table reserve. 3% of basically, revenues is that you have out there. And what we're doing with this, we're going to have a, basically a resolution come in front of the board to free up that money. So they can use it for further, well, thermal expansion and that kind of thing. And there would be no longer that reserve out there. And plus, since we've gotten in the Southwest Airlines, we're pulling, oh, let's just say 2.2 million as far as the net operating income or something like that, or bottom line before you have any kind of other expenses and stuff like that. So that really puts it into perspective as far as the table concept that you weigh above and beyond what the table reserve requirement or that table of limitations as far as the 10% and that kind of thing. So we, we feel comfortable with removing that restriction and then it would just be a part of the regular operating reserves and that kind of thing out there. Yeah, I wish she hadn't mentioned Southwest in the same breath with success out of the airport because we just started from Kevin that they're a little shaky in terms of future projections flights and things like that. Oh, that's a huge deal. I don't think we need to put, yeah, I mean, I just hope we're not putting too many eggs in that basket. I'm not trying to create any fear or confusion or anything else, but Kevin did mention that we'll be cutting those summer flights back or cutting out entirely, I believe it was. So there'll be some gaps in services fall where there could operate three days, I think, instead of the balance and then they'll scale back, but it's more because of early state representatives of aircraft availability. They were supposed to get 80 aircraft from Boeing this year and they think they're gonna get maybe 30. And then this winner, they're gonna keep the flights say had last year but scale back one of the day to Denver. So we've included that in all our airport projections. It's just a, they're going to continue to look at rebasing a little bit. As you know, the biggest thing that goes on on on Southwest is making the rest of me competitive. Exactly. Yeah, because I mean, I think, well, let's see what's happened when it takes the flight at Denver and stuff like that, where it's maybe $200 to fly to Denver now or something. happen when it takes the flight at Denver and stuff like that where it's maybe $200 to fly to Denver now or something and that used to be like a whole lot more. Right. That way. And that's what's you know that's the whole package out there is a very much more competitive those other airlines having something to do that. And I don't think the down the sound like you know the flights that we just talked about here, I don't think that's going to be that competitive. Well, I'm going to set up an appointment to talk to you more about enterprise funds at some point in time. But I do want to recognize that we have Commissioner Corgan online and wanted to know if you had any questions or anything you'd like to share. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Michael, for what has become a delightfully boring and predictable presentation. We love that. Which I think speaks well of our accounting staff and our operations. So thanks to everybody. Thank you. And on another note, I will probably come down and sit down with you guys to understand the scheduled depreciation on spit as I don't quite get that. Okay. You might not want to ask that. The conclusion is that they're depreciated or amortized over the life of the contract. So most of them all can be longer than five years and you're just taking, say, comes on board for 100,000, you're taking 20,000 a year. Oh, okay. Amortizing it like you're doing a regular vehicle. It's just, it shows amortization rather than depreciation. So it's, it acts just like an asset. But it's a soft asset or a spade gets. It's an asset that you couldn't sell. We will go. We have been paying. Yes. Yes. Right. One question for you, Michael. I'm assuming that we are not your only local government that you work with. So how many local governments do you work with? Which hundreds? Okay. You're out the stadium. Okay. And so what strikes me quite a bit, I mean, many things, but the debt, you know, being 5.5 million in long term, as you identified it, if you were to put us in a range or if you were to sort of say, how consistent is that with the rest of local governments? I mean, I have maintained that it's not all that common to have that low debt. Is that? That's probably a true statement, but every entity is going to have different situation in terms of the opportunities and why they have to borrow. Right. Yeah, I just feel like that's a standout to me. I mean, just having been at the city and you know looking at how some of the expansions and improvements have been funded. I mean, it's just thinking it's a real testament to the building. The ethic of our county team things that you guys have done to make sure that we don't have to get into debt to be able to do things like the HHS building or other improvements and upgrades. I mean, yeah, delightfully boring is a good way to put this presentation. But I mean, I think frankly, it's astounding. And I would encourage anybody who wants to get a snapshot of what's going on to look at that page four, which is just a really good high level. And this is what we have accomplished. And now we've done it. As I'm looking at all these things, I'm just thinking we should have a spotlight on Dan and his team because, really, it's this mastery of lizardry in helping to continue to keep these, to operationalize the ethic that we've all shared of making sure the county is protected for the long term. So I'm very pleased to see this every year. It's just really good stuff. And I'm glad you guys continue to work through that but I would consider to be fairly micro level situations. I mean anything that's in that letter. I mean you know it's all important but in the grand scheme it's micro. I think low deaths critical as we move forward you look at climate change and other issues. That bar capacity to me is critical for emergency response if you have a major issue where you can Not have to worry about your your debt load Yeah, it gives us The right ski and I've lived in this county log enough to remember when it wasn't that way Why did you say it was $80,000 in debt for the airport? What was it when you started? Well, we had a $40,000 reserve balance in the general fund. And we did spend virtually all the rest of the governmental funds observers on the airport. And it was, I don't know, it was a mess. Let's put it that way. Well, thank you for making it not a mess. It looks like this item on our gender communication form is informational only so we don't really need a motion or any sort of approval of these of the audit. Well, thanks Michael for taking the time to come up here and again, sorry, we can't hold delay but this is great information. We're really proud of our team in the accounting department and thank you Dan to all of your folks for all the work that you do. Yeah, just that line candidates and great teams. Yeah, because it takes a little bit of getting into the weeds to put this together. Just a little bit. We do great job. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next year, I'm going to have another A plus plus report card. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So we have Julie up next with purchasing. There is a grant program management soul. So if the word she'll come up and talk to us, looks like this is a fairly quick item. So I'm hoping we can take a few minutes before one o'clock and have some break. Check. Julie, what looks like we're talking about NW CDC again today, Julie. That's what we have in front of us. So I'm here to request the Board of County Commissioners approve the award, the Chair signed the Professional Services Agreement and authorize the County Manager to electronically approve the Eunice contract to CRW Enterprises LLC doing business as upsized marketing strategies in the amount not to exceed $141,000. This is a grant funded project through the JTF grant that was in the amount of 150, so we will not be looking for a supplemental budget. So we received the JTF grant on June 4th. I'm sorry, this was mistaken there. It was June 4th, 2024, for the development of the rural innovation center 501C3. This PSA with upsized marketing strategies continue the program management for the NWCDC through the original READY grant and the current OJT grant for consistency and efficiency. We're doing a new grant or a new PSA due to the fact that we want to keep it clean with billing against the right grant. It was worth doing a fresh one. So, you know, Christine Rambo has been leading the charge on this and hopefully with this development of the new 501 through C that Ralph County can move from being registered agent of these grants and get it into the hands of the NW CDC going forward. Which was direction that I received from our county commissioners, so trying to untangle things here. Commissioner Corrigan, anything? Are you ready for a motion then? Or would you like to make the motion? No, I just, so is there any concerns about the contract E being the same as the, I mean, isn't this contract going to the person who runs the program? The contract is going to upsized marketing, who is the consultant for Northwest Colorado Development Council, which would be approving anything that would be spent through this. So I'm just trying to understand the role of so she's not like a director of the she's not an employee of she works through with a contract that we are looking at with this just transition funding. Is that correct? She currently works under a contract through us for the Northwest Development Council work. This is basically contracting for her to work on this transition period. So it's kind of formalizing the arrangement as we go through this effort to create a standalone nonprofit and revolving loan fund and stuff. So she's her role is continuing. It's just under a different contract for this specific work. But there aren't two contracts that she's not getting paid twice. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, we wanted to make sure we worked with the counting on this and we all felt this was the cleanest way to keep the two grants separate and the billing separate. So any work that's going to go into getting this 501 through C up and running and everything will come out of this contract. This full of money. And then the permanent project management that she's been under with the OJT grant, that was a little over 400,000, wasn't it? Yeah, 460,000, something like that. And so she's been expensing against that. But now, you know, with this new grant coming in that is just for this transitioning and the development so that the NWCDC has the funds to go out and hire an attorney, make sure they get everything done. And it's only moving us in the right direction to have the NWCD CDC working on its own. Okay, well thank you. I appreciate that Commissioner Redmond sort of our team lead on advancing the charge to get this out of Rauc County and to a more independent state. So I appreciate that. And it's where it should be. I mean, I'm going forward. Is there a point for that? I also want to say that this request for the sole source approval is justified under the exceptions to the requests for waiver process that's in our route county purchasing manual because we've contracted these service- like services in the past six months. Actually, she's still under contract. So, right? So, if we have like services or product, we don't need to do the formal purchasing process. Excellent. Thank you. I think we have clarity around that. I am ready for a mission. And the reason that there's $9,000 pulled off of that is that we'll be paid to Ralph County to do the accounting on this as well. Yeah, administration. Okay. So I move the Board of County Commissioners to approve the award, chair signed the PSA and authorize a county managerers to approve the award, chair signed the PSA and authorized a county manager to electronically approve the Munis contract to CRW enterprises, LLC, DBA, upsized marketing strategies in the amount not to exceed $141,000. Second. All right, the motion is second. All those in favor, please pay aye. Aye. Thank you very much, second. All right, the motion is second. All those in favor, please pay aye. Aye. Thank you very much, please. Thank you, Julie. Thanks for your patience. Oh, no problem. Tim, we're going to have our budget folks coming in at one. And we've got a pretty rapid fire succession with very little time in between. So we're just going to, I think these are the informational presentations at this point. We'll see if we can get some questions answered if we have them. This is not the last time we will see these budget items. You will see them in a version, the complete budget. But this is your time to say, hey, we've got issues on this or not. It helps direct what we may amend in the current draft budget. Okay, well, I don't want to cut it short, but and I don't have a hard stop this afternoon. I don't know if anybody else does, but at the same time, I don't like to keep people waiting and incessently so I'm gonna try to keep this moving. Both of them are pretty. End up in more detail. Probably ask Eric to be at the one-up box so in case the vehicle insurance comes up. So we will adjourn until we talk and be back. We are back. We are back now to hear some items related to the budget as one of three in our first order of business is listening to the search and rescue presentation. And thanks for joining us today. If you don't mind introducing yourself and title for the record, that would be helpful. And we're eager to hear what you have to say. Yes, good afternoon. And thank you. My name is Dan Emmert. I am the treasurer on the board of route counties search and rescue. Thanks, Dan. And looks like we have some information in our packet. Do you want to give us a overview of what you folks are requesting? Certainly yes. Thank you. We are requesting. Pretty standard amount. From the past with a slight increase due to some increases in our costs, inflation in general. In addition to that, due to some changes that we were made aware of this year is an additional expense and request from us for vehicle insurance. That being the contributing factor to this year's increase in our request for funds. Okay, and you did say within your letter here that the city of steam but springs is not, you can't count on them coming back to match in yearly funding. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Yeah, we had all kind of briefly discussed last year up until 2008, the city had always matched your level of funding being the county. When their budget changed significantly at that point, our yearly contributions half to just over $20,000 from in the low, around $40,000. I requested last year that they again start matching your amount of funds in line with our increased budget and expenses. And they came up from 20 to 25,000 last year. So again, this year, I reiterated the past non-matching years for quite some time and the increases in expenses in our yearly budget for this year and next, aside from some large capital expenses coming our way and did requests for them to match at least the base amount outside of that insurance for this year being around that 48-5 or the 49, right in that, $48-49,000. I have not heard back from them officially and kind of awaiting their response. But our hope is that they would start, that they would go back to sharing, the main chunk, the administrative expenses, the fixed expenses we have each year and allowing us to fundraise for equipment and training and everything else aside from that as we have in the past. Mr. Corgan, did you have something? No, just, it is frustrating when the city almost always expects us to match their contributions for some pet project that they've got going on. And when we're talking about critical life safety, oftentimes for the visitors that support their economy, that's very frustrating to hear that they're not matching our contribution. And I would strongly suggest that that be included as an agenda item on our next joint meeting. It's actually gonna say that this sort of does fall into the same bucket as the previous item we discussed with them around emergency services. So maybe we just add this as a subset of the request. E911, you mean? Yes, the request. E 911. Yes, when we were talking about 911, exactly. It stands just for your information. We just this is not the only place when it comes to responding that the city has not stepped up to match our contribution, resubsidizing them heavily on the 911. And we had a conversation about that. And we committed to having a future conversation so maybe we fold this into that future conversation. I mean I don't disagree with that but fundamentally this actually feels a little bit different. I mean yeah different and the same at the same time, but this one I find particularly frustrating given that the city really relies upon the sales tax revenues from the visitors to this community and then to not share equally in the cost of helping care for those people. I mean, my guess is dog that the majority of your calls for service are from visitors rather than locals. That's correct. Well, I appreciate you including the 990 in here, you know, it appears that you continue to be an all volunteer outfit and that's really admirable. Do you anticipate that that's gonna be able to continue? We do. We've actually not had a training class for the past year and may skip another year, being able to keep the team at a very full level and right right around 40 low 40s. At that point, we have our own growing pains in our own building and have to make some building modifications and expansions to be able to train and house that number of people. But hardly any turnover. We've got a really great team of volunteers together and at a perfect number that we're not falling short on any responses on any incidents is even on tough times like holidays and weekends and travel periods when a lot of folks aren't around. So we've kind of found found the sweet spot and been able to maintain that. And two quick questions in your material, you mentioned that to $16,000 for insurances for your emergency response equipment and vehicles and not for all of your equipment. Do you then have a different funding source which covers the balance of the insurance requirements? At this point since the change in insurance from being under the county to being on our own, the rest of our equipment is all now self-insured. You're a self-indicentant, Mr. Dan, sorry. You're actually self-intermined. You have no, what's this $16,000? That's to actually buy insurance for the emergency response and they're claiming the balance that they were putting their cell for the show. So, all of our, yes, clarify the, it's the, our rescue vehicles, our on- road vehicles fall under that. All of the off-road ATV snowmobiles, rescue medical supplies, everything that's in all of the trucks and trailers does not fall under that insurance. That was just to get the most serious, most expensive and equipment with most liability behind it covered as quickly as possible. Then the second question, the parking lot of life brand, that's a pass through correct. We received those funds and passed them through to search and rescue. That's correct. We don't receive anything directly from them. We run it all through Sheriff's Office and through the county. Speaking of sure this is Dan again speaking of insurance. I'll be able to be able to. As far as vice workers, confidence, incident or if you're involved here and stuff like that. Are you are you covering any data for errors and emissions or anything like that for your board? We do have board insurance as well. And we are in the process of clearing up any possible misunderstandings, but our members during response and training are still covered under the county through Workman's Comp Insurance. Yeah. Okay. I didn't know. Is there was or not being paid by another entity we can cover that? Okay. Correct. Okay. Okay. That was my biggest concern. Yeah. Okay. It has. Did you guys just talk? Sorry. I'm late, but you know, at one point in time, the city was looking at relocating the property on the empty street down there. Is that still opportunity? I guess I would call it potential opportunity for them, not a realistic opportunity or viewed as an opportunity for us. We are in agreement with the fire protection district that we plan to stay and maintain that location into the foreseeable future or making modifications to that building and have no intention of moving facilities. We do have a request and to meet with the city to directly discuss that and their plans, but as far as our joint ownership, which differs to the city of one of us where to ever leave, we all plan to stay there. Thank you. Great. Does anyone have additional questions for search or rescue? So you have for the city of Steambo Springs, 49, 9, 5, 5, and you don't have a commitment to that it sounds like. Correct. I just wait to hear what they decide. And I do not have a similar process like this with them at all. If you have a shortfall, what would your plans be? We go raise more funds. We go fundraise. We go ask. We do whatever we need to do to survive. We know that nothing is odor expected and that everything that we receive is just appreciated, accounted for and we react as needed and grow as needed when we do come up short and when surprise expenses come along. I'm just going to take a moment and echo Commissioner Corrigan's unhappiness with the lack of commitment from the city. This is public safety and I can't think of anything more important than ensuring our residents and our guests have this resource there. So I guess I've launched my protest. Well, I think we're all in agreement that we're going to ask the city to do better. But for now, we're really focused on the route county request. Does anybody have any concluding questions or thoughts? We are actually well into our next item already? We'll spend a lot of time for you, Dan, but we really appreciate the work that you're doing and your volunteers and the fact that you guys are really stepping up to the challenge. Regardless of some of these growing costs and shrinking funds and we will do our best to advocate for you at the city level as well. Amen. We so greatly appreciate all of you. All right, thanks. Looks like we're gonna have HRC. Do we have anyone with us for HRC? Okay, Jennifer. And thank you for being here. Congratulations on your appointment as interim executive director of the United Way. We have in our packets some information from the HRC on your request, but would you like to just share with us some of the high notes? Yes, thank you. Thank you for providing some time for me to speak on behalf of HRC. I am new in this position. I'm an interim executive director replacing Kate Noak. She will be finishing the end of this week. So please give me some grace. I'm still learning how this process works and I'm working with HRC, but I've been for the last almost a year, but I still am learning a lot. And we also are working with the Moffat HRC as well. So it's a lovely group. All of them are. There are great organizations. And one of the things that I think I want to bring to all of your attention is that HRC in route has spent the last six months working on their three-year health and human service plan. We hired a consultant, a centrality research from the front range. They have been really, really helpful in getting us started on our plan. And we were able to see a draft recently, which I'd like to share just a couple of slides with you if that's possible. To just kind of show you what were the direction that HRC is moving in. And I don't know how to that so. I was told in the email that I could share my presentation. Definitely, Ken, I'm going to promote you to panelists. Okay, you have to accept the invitation. Okay. You should be able to share. There. Okay. I don't think you need to see me, right? Or do you? Say you're discrepancy. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'll turn my camera on. There you go. Alright, so, see if I can get this. Can you all see it? Not yet. Not yet. Okay, let's see. Share screen. Here we go. Yeah. Not yet. Okay. Let's see. Shares green. Here we go. Now you can see? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So we've decided as a collective that we want to focus on the whole county, whole person. That is going to be our main focus for the next three years. That will help with the whole life for our individuals, our residents, our workers, and we've decided that that is sort of our theme for our next three-year plan. We have narrowed it into these five areas, networking, education, collaboration, funding, and advocacy. This took tremendous effort. We had a meeting almost every month for six months. We also had committees that worked individually on each one of these focus areas. And we've set up some goals for ourselves. And this presentation is being recorded, but I can also send you the slides if you would like to see it. I know that I'm on a time limit. So this is a massive roadmap. These are activities or initiatives that would promote those focus areas, that would develop those focus areas. In year one, we have specific outlined activities and things that we need to embark on. Year two, year three, and then even beyond we've discussed. And this was the budget that we submitted. We have 24 different organizations. I believe there's one on here that you can see that did not request last year at all or the previous years and that was skate church. And last year we had one that was not awarded was cycle effect from us. Let me interject just a little bit here. That number that you got there for the 2024 county awarded for 347,510. Actually the county approved an amount of 361,310 and that's included the South throughout recreation center for 13,500 and youth services for $300. So that was what was sent to us last year as far as approved requests from the HRC. So this so you know what that what we have on being appropriated from the county. Okay, so then this list may not include a couple of them that the grant review committee maybe didn't add to here or maybe it was a late decision. My apologies. I was using what I was given. So this is this is all of what I had. I know that you're new into the process. I'll give you kind of a real high level overview having been through this with both the city and the county. Typically, the way it works is you ask us for what they have asked of you. We typically do not award 100% of what is requested. Basically looking at what we have in our budget and what we've done in years past. But one of the things that I think is always good to highlight is when there are significant changes within these proposals. Specifically, I'm noting a couple of things that I would love to hear a little more about. If you have information, just about reps, they're looking like they're requesting significantly less. And Ralph County Crisis Support is significantly more. We've been really focused on these mental health questions in our community. I'm just wondering if you have any insight as to why those are so different from last year to this year. These were complete estimates sent by via a form. It's possible that they are requesting from the city a different amount. I have only been asked to provide the county numbers or at least that's my impression for this meeting, this presentation. I would have to go back and validate that with reps in the form that they filled out. Okay. Well, commissioners, how would you like to proceed on this item today? So what we have been doing for many years is just adding an inflation factor to what we did the year before. And that's based, as you know, on the fact that we're limited by table. And our hands are kind of tied in terms of available money. So unless there's some compelling reason to do something different this year than we've done in the past, I would be advocating for last year's funding plus a factor of inflation. And, damn, what was that number that you gave us again? Please. We're looking at probably around 2.5%. And for the total of three of them. Last year, the award from RIS. Well, from the $361,310. And then there'd be like 2.5% on top of that. The 360, 360, 316. 316. 316. 310. A 3% increase would be 300 just over 372,000. And that is the 3.2 and a half. Well, that's for you guys to decide. The end is saying the rate of inflation is 2.5. You typically do three. Whatever. Yeah, we will get that finalized. We wait three, seven, we're 42. We're not settling our number today. We're just providing direction. And trying to do it. Right. We try to use the most current inflationary numbers once we get a little further to the process. Yeah. And that's not to say that we wouldn't like to do a lot more Jennifer, but know table limited and basic services that we have to provide this is just the effect of table thank you very much. I'm assuming that I'm sorry. I'm assuming that when these organizations were asked to give their estimate, they probably looked at what they were awarded last time and maybe that influenced their decisions. I'm not entirely sure. I didn't ask that question at our last HRC meeting. In fact, there wasn't a whole lot of discussion about the estimate. There was a little bit of confusion because I believe that the city actually doesn't ask for an estimate and the county does. So I'm not even sure there could be some organizations since I'm new to this that didn't fill out the form and may have been unsure. So, this is completely an estimate on my part. It's not, we could see applicants that did not provide that form. Okay, well, you know, today we're really here to do a high level analysis of what we're looking at. And, you know, the level of detail that we would love to see eventually is not really required for us to show our support. As Commissioner Corrigan said, you know, the level of detail that we would love to see eventually is not really required for us to show our support. As Commissioner Morgan said, you know, this is something that we contribute to on an annual basis and with a relatively formulaic approach. So I think that as you go back and, you know, talk to your team, our support for the programming is definitely there and the financial support will be there likely not in an amount to exceed last year's number plus maximum of 3% inflationary factor, but damn we'll give us the latest numbers. And you know, unless something takes a radical news dive with our budget, I think we will continue to support this that your assessment. Yeah, I think we've been consistent in our approach for a number of years now. Great. Well, thank you for being here. And once again, thank you for leading the United Way. It's a fabulous organization. I'm sure that you're happy to be in your exciting new spot. Yes, thank you, Sonia. And thank you, everybody, for this opportunity. And I am new, so you need to train me on how to do these presentations. I don't know and what you're going to need for me. I let me know if you need more. Thank you. We got it. All right. Up next we have the Yampavelli housing authority. I believe we have Jason Peasley online and we do have information on the budget request in our packet. Jason, welcome. Would you like to share with us some? I know. So I'm what you're asking for. Yeah, good afternoon commissioners. Thank you. So our request is the same as it's been over the last several years. We request the same amount from the city and county, 50,000 each, as a kind of two parts. One is to support the kind of ongoing operations of the housing authority. And then also as sort of a symbol of support for the work that we're doing. As you saw in the report, we've got a lot of irons in the fire at the moment as far as development projects in various stages of development. Our Cottonwoods at Mid Valley project is currently under construction. We're making significant progress on the US Forest Service project and as always continuing to work on advancing the Brown Ranch project project as well as other projects. We're right now assisting the folks at Milner on their on their quest to acquire their mobile home park and that has been a project that we're you know, have been doing to support county residents and so if you have any questions specific about the budget, we're happy to share any of that, happy to share some of our strategic planning. Objectives that we recently adopted. I know Commissioner Corrigan and Commissioner Macy's have been intimately involved in this as well as Commissioner Redmondmond as it relates to Miller. So we really appreciate your support and if you have any questions please let me know. Do we support any questions? No just I mean we've become comfortable with this annual subsidy for the housing authority. It's not a huge about a money on an annual basis to support the work that the housing authority is going. As long as it's kind of a level ask that we should continue with it. I have one question and one comment. My first question Jason is who is your personal assistant and who's with you today? This is Lily. I don't want to say I don't. Lily wasn't feeling well this morning so she's not at school. So she's been helping me with all the important housing work that we're doing from home today. Outstanding. Well thank you for the introduction. Nice to meet you. The comment I was going to make is just I wanted to say thank you so much for sending out a housing authority update to both the city and the county. I think one of the things that we need to do in the wake of the Brown Ranch situation is continually remind ourselves and our partners at the city that the housing authority is a product at both of the entities and that we share responsibility for outputs and as far as sharing information out to the to their respective groups. Excellent. Well, unless we have anything else, I think we're comfortable with the request and thank you for the work you're doing for our communities. And Jason real quick, we're going to meet with Corey at 245. He was available on the PAV. Okay. You happen to have a slot to zoom in at 245, that'd be great. Yeah, I'll jump on at that point. Okay, great, thank you. Thank you all. Appreciate the support. Thank you. Thanks Jason. We were so efficient with the housing authority that you made some time for the economic development folks to be almost on time. So thanks for that. Thank you Jason. All right John, you mind introducing yourself on Keith by naming type of thing you have. The whole thing. Thanks. So here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the time this afternoon. I'm John to go. I'm going to go. I'm going to go. Thanks. Thanks for the time this afternoon. I'm John Bristol on the executive director of Route County Economic Development Partnership. Want to induce the whole team they brought today. So I sit down here and air everybody. My name's Aaron Walls. I'm the managing director of the entrepreneurship center. You don't need to pass the. You got the other. OK. Hi, everyone. Keith Hensley, I'm the director of existing industry for the Route County Economic Development Partnership. Right on. And we've got quite the team, as you all know. Some of the others on the team, since we're a 501C3 public private partnership, I wanted to mention first and foremost, Route County. It's you all leading the way, saying example for everyone, but then we also have the Town of Hayden, Town of Oak Creek, City of Steamboat Springs and the Town of Gampa, as our local public partners. And then additionally, this year we added the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the Colorado Office of Economic Development, International Trade, specifically, the outdoor recreation office, I'm alone as both of those entities have been supporting our work. Private partners on the private partner side, we've got steamboat ski and resort corporation, town hall outdoors incorporated, the Impa Valley Community Foundation, the Impa Valley Electric Association, the steamboat springs Chamber, which represents 500 member businesses. And then lastly, our Economic Development Council. So I'll told the RCEDP team is our 13 partners working together collaboratively on our community led economic development effort across route county. So I wanted to mention a couple of things I haven't the request that you have in front of you isn't particularly different than previous years. So I wanted to highlight a couple items as we're halfway through our five year strategic plan that I haven't spoken to in the past years, given kind of time constraints, but I wanted to mention them here so that folks are aware of them. Together, our vision for RAP County really is a future of economic sustainability with a diverse mix of industries and a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem. And a supportive business climate, sustaining quality jobs and a stable tax base for future generations. That's key. That's that's what all of us, the larger group of the RCB team is aspiring for. But what do we actually do? Well, that's that's the team's mission. Our mission is enhanced the quality of life and economic well being throughout county residents. residents. We achieve that by fostering entrepreneurship and facilitating the retention expansion in relocation of primary businesses and quality jobs in throughout county. Our efforts contribute to a sustainable and diverse economy thereby supporting a stable tax base and funding of our shared goods and services across the county. What we're executing our mission, RCP team prioritizes and embraces 10 key values, which I would love to share at some point, but for the sake of time, I'll skip over them, but we'll say that being community driven, engaging with the community, reacting to the community, responding to that, as well as sustainability is really important. That said, as I was preparing to for today and thinking about where we're at and where we've gone over the last several years, I was reminded of the conversation that the Rao County Board of County commissioners had with Mark Hangerty in the headwaters economic several years ago, which really was a genesis of a lot of changes. I watched that conversation that helped us shape this vision and mission and the values of what we really want economic development to look like in the future here. And so with that, that shaped how we put together our programming, how we structured this partnership with all of these 13 partners and a team now, and how we're embracing the long-term economic development work of really being stable year after year with the same programming, a very the same same budget with reasonable expansion on it. And so that really for today is what you've seen in front of you. We are requesting a 5% increase in support. We haven't done that in the last three years. There's been lots of arguments and lots of folks that have said ask for more. You should ask for more. There's inflation. There's all these reasons and rationality to do it, to which we said, you know, we've asked enough of local government. It's we need to show support from others. And that looks like grant support and private investors. And so that's what we've done. And with that and successes there, we're in a position to say, yeah, okay, well, it's time to look across the boards for a 5% increase for everyone. And so that's what's reflected in budget requests that you'll see. With that, I certainly have popped in several times throughout the year just to provide some updates, but I wanted to give the team an opportunity to say and highlight in their program areas specifically each of them an item over the last couple years that has happened to just share some of the successes. And then after that, I'd love to have some conversation, I know that we're limited on time. But we're going to start with Keith, Business Retention and Expansion Program. Keith, if you could share a couple of the highlights that you wanted to reference. Yeah, sure. As you guys know, I started July of 2022, and since then, the program has expanded. In 2022, I did 20 unique one-on-one business visits with local business owners. As you all know, business retention and expansion is about retaining and expanding those local businesses, and we do that through providing resources to them and visiting with them. So 20 unique business visits in 2022. In 2023, that number grew to 60 unique one-on-one business visits, representing 608 jobs and over 120 resources provided. And 2024 so far, we're at 49 unique business visits with 500 plus jobs and over 130 resources provided so far this year. We're on pace for about 70 to 80 business visits this year and I will definitely update you towards the end of the year on how that goes. I also kind of wanted to highlight one of the business visits that was conducted this year with a primary business, really important business and that is big agnus. They represent 51 local jobs here. Usually when I go to these business visits, I like to come bearing gifts. That can typically be locally made products like Bar UE or Seedhouse Coffee, things like that. I also like to bring industry impact reports, trends reports, local demographic information, things like that to try to spark conversation and really dig down into some of those kind of deep, deep level issues that businesses could be facing. Just wanted to highlight that one. Big Agnes is doing great as you know, they're in the firehouse down the street. So another kind of non-tangeable benefit of these one-on-one business visits is the relationship building. So building trusting relationships with our local business owners, so that we can dig deeper and know those deep level issues that they're facing, so we can provide targeted resources, as well as if there's any red flags or issues they may be facing that they come to us first, so that we can try to help keep them here and help them move along. A couple of other outcomes that I wanted to mention, we've been able to bring in two major outdoor rec industry events here in the past year. The first one is Campfire Combos that was hosted by the right at Big Agnes Parking Lot. The other one is Coils, the Colorado Outdoor Industry Leadership Summit. Both of these events brought in businesses and state OREC office staff. We're just great opportunities to showcase the businesses that we have here and provide networking opportunities to connect businesses with the resources directly. Those are great ones. Then Aaron is the newest addition to the team. And you all remember Randy Rudecius who retired this last year. And we are incredibly fortunate to have Aaron Walles and his background and experience focused on the Entrepreneurship Center, which last year had 71 unique counseling sessions with new entrepreneurs. And this year, Erin, I believe is on track to meet that and if not surpass it with a little bit more, as well as developing our next iteration of the high country. So, I wonder if you can just reference that real quick. Absolutely. So, what we have come to understand here is that we have an incredibly entrepreneurial value. There are lots of businesses that have been developed here over the years and you know through the great efforts of Randy and Scott before him were able to really nurture this entrepreneur as long before there were any of these formalized programs in the mountains of let alone and Denver right and so what is so special about us is we have this spirit and as time has gone on, there have been additional areas within the mountains in particular rural areas where entrepreneurs are being supported in more of a formal fashion. So the accelerator programs with cohorts, programming, mentorship, really building these core communities all around it and generating a common lexicon as well as a community around the struggles of building companies. It's very challenging to do with a very lonely process and being able to lean on your community for that and your friends that you're making lets you know you're not alone and gets you to a place that is a lot further than you could have ever gotten to yourself. So that's the main goal with building these cohorts and the high country accelerators incredibly exciting. So that's a partnership with startup Colorado, which is a large nonprofit organization, as well as the Summit Economic Partnership. So we're pooling all of our resources and talent organizing together and building a larger accelerator program that supports entrepreneurs at Summit as well as Rao County and really celebrating this world that we're in. We've had around, I that we're in. We've had around, I think we're at, what are we at? 11 applications so far. Well, that application doesn't be boring. And then we've got an info session going on Thursday. So webinar that we're gonna be hosting, just talking about trying to really get as many of these entrepreneurs in. We have around 25 registrants for that. So all of it all, like we have 36 potential companies that are here and they're ready to build and there could be an, for anywhere from ideation to, let's say you just started and you're working on that, you know, initial, like I need to get my first order in for product or we're getting out in the world and we're seeing how people like it, right? So we're supporting that whole spectrum of ideation to like let's structure legal accounting. What is branding and marketing look like, right? So that is this collective approach and we're really excited to be kicking those programs off in about relieving. That is what we feel the energy and excitement from these guys. So, I want to leave it there and if you have some questions, let's answer them. If you need additional resources, information, how they do that. John Rowe, the you're asking includes everything this year. So in the past, there were separate ass, there was a little clunky clunky and this year the commitment was let's streamline it, make it simple all together. Yeah and then that's what it is. That's simple, it's also a formula based request within the packet. So everybody, I didn't have seen that, that makes things a lot easier. And I should read it and do you have questions? And she looked to the future. What concerns do you see? Good good questions. So when we have our five year strategic plan, and we are halfway through our five year strategic plan, and we are going to update that. And I'm confident that what we have developed across our five or sorry, 10 goals make sense. They fit with the community need. It's really a question of continuing to get that buy-in across the community. That's important. And then also developing additional partnerships with folks outside of route count. It's folks along the front range and nationally, funders, that is really important because we've got the programming, we've got the people and our public partners have built the foundation here. We've added additional private partners, but we need some additional supporters further afield to support the work that these guys are doing. You know, it's a team effort. So that's, I guess that's the thing that probably keeps me up at night. My job is to keep the lights on. But that's the thing that concerns me. Okay, always. Thank you. Mr. Corgan, do you have anything? No, thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Appreciate you keeping your request level. We never have enough time to talk about the good work you guys are doing. But I did want to ask a couple of questions. And sorry to the folks who are waiting we're running a little behind today. First of all, Erin, thank you so much for mentioning my good friend Scott Ford and Randy. We all know that, you know, we're working on the backs of giants with some of the projects that we do. And I think that it's great that you guys are carrying on that tradition and able to keep up the momentum. You know, I think with Randy being there for so long, that was definitely a concern. And it sounds like you're adding a new flavor and dimension. So we definitely. Yeah, thank you. Keith, I wanted to ask you about the coils of it, which looked awesome. I'd actually graduate school and I was not able to attend. Unfortunately, do you see that that could come back? Yeah, definitely. For the end of the coils event, a lot of the outdoor rec staff had approached us and said, we love it here. We would love to reach back here. It was actually, it was also during fall and it was at CMC. So everybody, it was hard to pay attention to all the presentations because of seeing that main presentation hall and everybody was just looking out the windows and really enjoyed it. So, I definitely see that coming back here. Yeah, whether it's in the next couple years, I'm not too sure, but we'll definitely try to bring him back. Yep. I want to ask one more question. As you know, we have our entrepreneur here inside of the Rout County organization in Kevin Booth. I work that he is doing at the airport. Yes. I'm wondering if you guys are involved in working with him on that aviation business part. Yeah, absolutely. There's one, two, and three, and we've been engaged with that. It's actually a partnership with Northwest Colorado Development Council. They've been working on putting together grant applications in the EDA. And our role has been working with Kevin in putting together economic impact analysis for what that would mean and what that looks like. So we've been doing that. Kevin's been incredibly appreciative for that. I think Commissioner Redmond had an opportunity perhaps to dig into one of those economic impact analysis and what that looks like. There's quite trust, which gives that application to the EDA that much more support and validity to be able to be funded. So that's what we're working. That's great. Well, he just presented those data to us. So that I'll okay. That was nice. Thanks. Thank you for being here. We really appreciate it. Come back and visit us. Don't always come for public comments. It was a great. I'll keep bringing them. Thank you. Thank you. Next presentation is from the Community Agriculture Alliance. It looks like we have Patrick and Michelle here. Do you guys would like to step up to the mic and introduce yourselves and titles? We'd love to hear what you have said. Okay. Well, hello, and thank you for having us. Michelle Pedex. I am the interim executive director at Ag Alliance. And that means that I am temporary and part time. Keep brought in after Michelle, Michelle Meyer speaking of on the shoulders of giants. Got a job with the state and we're happy to announce today. I don't know if you had a chance, Sonia, as an advisory board member to see that email, but we have hired a new executive director, but she does not start till September 10th. And I'm going to butcher their last name, but it's Amber Sacks, who Galleis? That's close. Yes. That's close. Yes. Pack your stanko. I'm the Ag Resource Coordinator in the Community Agriculture Alliance. Do a lot of the water work. We have support for the organization. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So we have a packet of your budget request. But do you want to hit any high points for us? Sure, I mean, there is a lot that's been going on in the organization in the last year. Many of you hopefully know that there was a big move that happened, they purchased a building over on 3511 Street and central location, great increased foot traffic. The soft opening was earlier this month and there'll be a grand opening in October. Plenty of time to make sure that everything is working well and also aligns better with the producers own schedules with, otherwise I'm finding out that apparently renters never have a great time to do any kind of settlement, but October 24th does seem to be that date. So we'll be rolling that information out. And in addition to that, there's been an increase in the amount of support that Patrick's been able to do with the money coming in for a lot of the water improvement projects. Those would be the highlights. You have had a chance to visit the marketplace. Yeah, I have. And now that you have that, will that take some pressure off of that cold stores that you have out at Yompa Valley Electric, you think? So my understanding is that it's really, kind of like once you build it, Yom Pavella electric, you think? So my understanding is that it's really, kind of like once you build it, like it's already, and they can have it. Right, right. Like in the main thing that's happening with the new space is those two bay doors, right? Like so that accessibility to not only bring the product in, but store it there, that means less delivery, so that's less time. It means less energy, right? The gas and the storing, you know, being at that place. The offsite one also has its merits and needs as well. And I think that's important because not every producer is in the market. But we represent all of the agriculture community, not just those who have products in the front retail market. So yeah, it's definitely being utilized and there is no talk that I have heard of, of letting go of that location. Cool. Do you think this gonna help you with keeping more inventory on the shelves? A hundred percent, right? So as soon as it's off, instead of having to call and say, hey, we need more eggs, we need more. Now it's a matter of the staff being able to just go in the back and get that product, put it right back out on the shelf, right? So and expand. Katie was saying that she has onboarded 12 new producers this year. So that's a nice increase and there's always new people coming. You know, as we know, our community is constantly changing. So having that education piece, I think the market, you know, brings people together under that umbrella and also offers an opportunity for new people to the community to become a part of that even if it's through that specific market in a way. Right. Yeah. Now, at one point in time, there had been talk about doing a cold storage project in Craig is that still on the table? I can speak a little bit too only because some of the original, my job was to get really caught up to speed. So I did a lot of reading the first few weeks and reading some of the strategic planning. So I think all of that is still there. It's going to be time with the new ED, with re-figurated board to look at, okay, when you go through a strategic plan and you start checking boxes, we've done these things. What do we still want to do? Do we need to change course? What are we learning? So I would say, I'm not going to say that that's off the table. I know there was also talk about a vehicle and doing van deliveries at one point. And I had asked as a Katie specifically about that. And she's like, that's also something that might still be. So I think the key word that kept coming up for me with the Ag Alliance is opportunity. There's just a lot of opportunity. So having thoughtful conversation around prioritizing those opportunities and making sure you're building capacity at the same time opportunity. So having thoughtful conversation around prioritizing those opportunities and making sure you're building capacity at the same time because growth is amazing. But you want to make sure you have that capacity built in at the same time. And I think that's right now where the organization's at and they're really focusing on that capacity piece. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gorgon, do you have any questions? Not just good to see you Michelle, long time. How does this year's request, compared to last year's request? So it's $2,000 more. So pretty small increase, considering the growth that has happened in reflection of that. So yeah, again, seven weeks on the job. So I appreciate you guys being a little bit gentle with me, but I did do my homework and I did look at that and it, you know, in the application talks about, you know, where that's, where that's coming from and how that reflects in the actual growth of the service area. Yeah, I understand that. I'm happy to support the community Ag Alliance, but I think I'm probably gonna be advocating for most of these guys of requests to be held to the rate of inflation. That's not an absolute, we're not making any decisions today, but anything beyond the rate of inflation is problematic because we're limited by table. So, and then the other thing is the community agilites is kind of unique among the organizations that come for fund direct funding. I know there was some talk in the past about lumping you guys back in with the HRC that kind of a question, how did this come about? I'm fine, you guys are pretty well embedded now, but I just want everyone to recognize that this is kind of a unique arrangement we have. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. You know, I anticipated that those comments might be coming forward. And of course, coming off of the audit report, I'm coming at it with more of a mindset of abundance and not scarcity because our numbers look so good. But I understand your point related to inflationary adjustment. And so it's something to take into consideration. But I just wanted to mention to you folks, I am an advisor on the board. And frankly, it was kind of a deadbeat for a long time because of family commitments and other things. But I got back involved when Michelle Meyer announced that she was moving on to her state-wide position just to kind of help ensure that there was a smooth transition from one director to another and was really impressed with how the board handled the transition. Michelle stayed on for a month and then Michelle Pidix was, we were fortunate that she was able to come in and step in this role. The next director seems like she will bring a whole lot to the table. So I think the organization is in a really strong place. And so as they come forward with the request, I'm inclined to support it. You know, we can talk about, is it inflation? Is it the floor request when we get into our next budget? But I did want to flag also that we did not see a request from the organization for anything related to capital. And that's something that we have seen from other organizations over time. So, you know, if you had a chance to look at the balance sheet, you'll see that they're just over halfway there on their capital campaign. And just wanted to make sure we were aware that as we're considering, you know, a slight increase in operations, we didn't get hit up for capital, at least not yet. So I was going to earmark that. I was like, well, you know, wait till the new, new, new, uh, ED is on and that might be a different story. But yeah, I just want to acknowledge everything you guys just said. And we certainly understand that and appreciate, um, the recognition of why it's a line item in the important work. Um, and we honor that by making sure we are an integral part of the conversations that are happening across so many tables. I mean, the number of, I thought, human services had a lot of tables to set up until I sat and talked with Patrick and all the water and the spaghetti, the spaghetti charts. Yes. Exactly. So I think you want to add anything as soon as you make sure. I think we appreciate everything that you said there and appreciate and she'll cut as our intern and director and we appreciate all the work she's doing for that and appreciate you guys having a look at that. And I said my work has moved into more of a project manager, right? We're doing water education, but now we're actually getting projects done on the ground here in the route county for the agricultural community. So that's sort of also why we're asked a bit more back is that we're just becoming more important. Well thank you and just please do keep us updated on field opportunities or events that you're having and those kinds of things. I think it's really good for us to see who you're interfacing with and what kind of interactions you're having and the work that you're doing on the ground. So thanks and of course you got John Bristol sitting behind you with the economic development. So if you guys need any help with your entrepreneurial. And they have. They do have right. Yes. So he and Michelle work together to bring 160,000 that we should be rolling out directly. Well, 150 of that will go directly to agriculture producers for different needs that they have around. I can't name them all. There's about five of them, but like freezers and needs they have. So being that fiscal. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Like the fiscal agent for that. So already, yes. Thank you. We're thanking everyone. We appreciate everyone. Patrick, for the work you're doing around water, you know, pretty proud of the state of Colorado and the work we've done. We are good partner. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Well, thanks for coming in. Looks like we are moving smartly onto our all times enforcement team budget presentations. Colleges to folks that were just a few minutes behind, but we're not going to short your time. You can shorten. I'm not sure. And if you would mind of course stepping up to the table and letting us know your name commander, of course, you guys know. Thank you. Share. Okay. Thank you. I mean today. So, um, I provided information prior to. So some of this might be a little bit redundant. However, at the top of that page will be our our our our mission and goals. Obviously, our tasks with identifying and dismantling drug trafficking organizations that bring their drugs and coins in into Northwest Colorado. We're also tasked with facilitating some intelligence and information that go along with these drug trafficking folks. As we see it, lots of crime across the nation is associated with drug trafficking and drug use and addiction. So that's kind of us in a nutshell. Currently our staffing were slotted for four investigators. We currently have two, me from Craig and my partner from the Moffa County Sheriff's Office. Moffa County has also been gracious enough to loan us, so to speak, a potential sergeant that helps us as time allows. Steamboat hasn't been able to provide an investigator for a handful of years because of manpower purposes. We lost our route county investigator back in December. We do have three prospects that are interested in joining the All Crimes Enforcement team. That hiring process is going to be in next week, I believe, and they're hoping to have somebody on board by the end of the year. So working half staff, but that's okay. We're not giving up. As far as cases go since we last spoke, we've been involved in 49 different investigations. 16 of those, so 32% have been in route county or have a strong nexus to route county. So far myself and my partner we have authored 18 warrants of different fashion search warrants or rest warrants, what have you. So we're staying plain busy. Kind of to highlight our last 12 months, this is by no means, you know, everything, but just a couple of highlights. Back in October, we had a multi-agency investigation where we were targeting subjects, soliciting child prostitution. We arrested three folks during a, I have a two and a half day operation. So that was a large, large lift for a lot of folks, CBI, Homeland Security, DEA, local law enforcement, SSPD, Rout County sheriff's office, and ourselves are all involved in that. So that was a, I guess a win in the fact that we were able to identify some of these folks and get them off the street temporarily. So, and of course, the, the, the, the buds were all across law enforcement as far as drug addiction goes is fentanyl. Fentanyl is all over route out county all over Moffat County. Um just as as proof of that back in November, um one of the route county sheriff sergeants, um stopped and impounded a vehicle that belonged to a route county resident. Uh he applied for a search warrant. Um asset assisted in executing that search warrant on his vehicle. You could tell that inside the vehicle, they had concealed several different things behind the door panels and underneath the vehicle to include 307 suspected fentanyl pills that were tucked inside the frame rail of this little Toyota Tacoma pickup. So they are very, very crafty and some of these folks have nothing but time in trying to figure out how to bypass the law and get their product to its consumer, unfortunately. So kind of to add to that so far in 2024. There have been three confirmed fentanyl overdose deaths in Steamboat. Two are still under investigation. One, which began in March. We were able to SSPD was able to get an arrest on a 24 year old. Female that is charged with distributing fentanyl resulting in death. So very very unfortunate cases like I said there are still two out there that asset has helped investigate. So far in Moffit County there have been four drug related deaths, methamphetamine fentanyl included in some of those as well. So it's affecting everybody, unfortunately. So also since our last meeting asset has participated in six dedicated interdiction nights, those are primarily spearheaded by the Rat County Sheriff's Office. There's a whole host of us that set aside a certain amount of time to go out and find people that are Bringing in drugs into our community. So those have been very very successful during one operation in November The Rock County Sheriff's Office contacted a vehicle and was able to seize six pounds of cocaine. So it was A big big win for community for sure. The threats, like I said before, threats to Northwest Colorado and the nation in general, still fentanyl. People go to the metro areas. They buy fentanyl pills for $0.75 a dollar, $2, bring them up here and sell them for 15, 20 bucks. So the return on their investment is huge. And there are plenty of customers unfortunately. So this happens all the time. We do our best to try to identify these folks and intervene as best we can within the guidance of the law. And I like to think that we are very, very effective in doing so. So along with our law enforcement partners, we couldn't do without them as well. Thank you. Doug, do you have anything you'd like to add? Just a couple real quick. So the reason why we haven't been able to promote somebody to that asset detective position is we have, we have, like Ryan said, three interested applicants that are gonna be testing and interviewing for that next week. We haven't been able to go forward to that until now because once we promote somebody from patrol to that detective position, we have to backfill that patrol position. And we have two posts or if I deputies that are ready to go from the jail to patrol and start that training But we can't take them from the jail because they're so sure staff in the jail. So we're we're down 20% in the jail right now six positions So we're finally the spot where we've got a decent number of applicants in the jail in the background process Once we get them on board then we can start making those transitions and backfill those other positions. And then I know in the packet that Brian submitted a couple weeks ago, there was some more information, kind of had some tolls close to a thousand pill, fentanyl pills that Asset has seized with cooperation with the other law enforcement agencies in the past year. And again, you know, that's probably a very small percentage of what's actually coming in neurocommunity, but going back to a statement he has at the bottom of the second page. Just one of those pills has enough fentanyl and that can kill the average person. So, I'm truly supportive of the efforts that we are doing not just asset, but collectively law enforcement in Northwest Colorado. So, excuse me, could you touch on the arrangement where you have a portion in your budget asset for the SO's contribution and then worry back bill the DA's office. Yes, so each each of the four big agencies in rural county, Stimo Police, Rout County Sheriff's Office, Craig Police and Moff County Sheriff's Office, sheriff's office all contribute $16,000 a year for operating costs. And that's what we're here to discuss today. In addition to that, there's another $16,000 that's contributed another $8,000 contributed by route county and another $8,000 that's contributed by Moffie County. And that's the DA's office contribution to asset. So in addition to the four law enforcement agencies, the district returning office contributed $16,000 in operating costs. But that's split up between your own Moffa County. That will be really good. I have a whole list of questions, but does anybody else we also have our own item next? So we're not holding anybody out. But if you have questions, would you like to get out there Yeah, I'm just looking at this year-to-date Munis report What is the I couldn't find on there. What is that through? Through one month oh That was through June. I believe it. I can I can look up and get you very specific. If you like me to, but I believe it was June. The report was generated July. Seven. Oh, there I see it now. Report. I see how to. Sorry. So, if I'm looking at this correctly through the first six months of the year, you've spent about $14,000 of the $82,000 budget. Can you help me understand that? I can actually. So, on top of that, some of the big expenses haven't come through yet. Some of the vehicle maintenance kind of stuff. That was a large ticket item. On top of that, asset is going. So those license plate readers are hugely, hugely valuable to law enforcement across the nation on this side. And then in addition to that commissioner, they've only been at 50% staff. So they haven't been able to accomplish as much as they would with being full staff. Because I know that a few years ago, we actually didn't fund asset because their reserves carry forward dollars were so high. Are we back now to the point that we feel the need to fully fund the request? We might be and that's gonna be a conversation at our next board meeting with all the asset board members. Okay. Would you be willing to provide a board with that that was our doubt? Yeah, for sure. Absolutely. Yeah, of course. Okay, thank you. You know, just one thing kind of caught my attention. The signatures of the executive board members were missing Chief Beckett. I can explain. So we're not missing it. So I presented it and he told me that in times past, the police chief has been able to sign that MOU himself but then or herself but then he was told otherwise that they weren't allowed to do that that had to come from the city manager so since then the city manager or whomever has signed that document but on the one that I had at the time his signature was absent you you're exactly right. Okay. And then I have a question about forfeatures and asset seizures. It seems very kind of vague to me. It sounds like that money is then used in the support of grants. How was that done? Where are some of grants? How, how, how is that done? Where are you, so that? Cause then I believe I saw something under the director. Where is that? Okay. Oh, I see where it is. So, we're in seven of 16 and the PDFs. So that we were looking there at the. Yes, it must be a four-featured. I think the last four-featured we had was that Toyota Tacoma that he's referring to. And we seized that as a county not asset. We haven't had a seizure in a phase eight. Yeah, we served the fourth or two. So we didn't see the AC's did our behalf and I believe the plan was that they were going to take possession of its cell and get persons from that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, so basically you you haven't made any seizures. You know, a lot of times there's cash involved in these drug deals that that comes across and things like that. The, uh, that's kind of old school drug dealing. A lot the transactions that occur now are cash app or money gram or That kind of more two cases of $100 bill. That's it. Seasors are living that one vehicle and one of the problems is it's very the process to go through civil court and actually take possession of that. The judges have become very lenient and not allowing us to seize that money. Gotcha. There's a very high burden of proof to prove that it's... Came from... Came from the proceeds and basically the law is making it a lot harder for us to do the seizures and then on top of that the state has stepped in and enacted some legislation where we get even if we are successful in seizing some money 48% of it goes to the state. They want their cut. And just one more quick follow up. Does this organization get audited? We have board oversight. Why are you talking about audited by? I think it's on Moffa County's book, right? Yeah, Moffa County is the one that I do show it's it's part of the Moffa County government audit. Yes. Thank you. That's my question. Okay, I have three questions. First is for you, Doug. So the K9 patrol contributes also to the drug seizures, correct? But it's a very impressive report on what is actually published by ASAP. But I'm wondering, like, when you guys are running Canaan Patrol and you're recovering things, is that included in this or these are two separate entirely separate programs? Well, they are two separate programs, but we are always working together. So like Brian said, when we do the interdiction days, that's an operation that's initiated by the sheriff's office. But we also include Hayden Police Department, Stimbo Police Department. We're all out there together making those stops and the asset participates in those as well. So it's more like a multi-team effort. If it's just a Saturday and our canines aren't duty and they make a stop and they find some drugs, that information is always shared and passed along to asset so that they can get the information on the arrestee and follow up and see if they can develop cases on them to try and check down where they're bringing it from where they're taking it to and try and build on that investigation. So the the canine stops and routine traffic stops where we find drugs are like a starting point for asset to build a bigger case. If we're not directly involved in a case, we're not going to kind of claim ownership to that fine. Just as an example, one day last week, SSPD arrested a gentleman and he had 300 and some odd fentanyl bills in his possession. That's not an asset stat. We had nothing to do with that. That information's passed on to us as intelligence and maybe something to follow up on, but we're not going to dovetail on their numbers, if that makes sense. It tells me it makes sense. I mean, I think that the point is really that, you know, while you are showing significant numbers of recoveries and, you know, alarming numbers of drugs in the community, there are even more that are not reported in this, you know, when we don't routinely go through this kind of exercise where we're hearing, you know, in a very focused way about what's being recovered. I mean, we do get reports from Doug, obviously, and so on. But, you know, the numbers are just staggering and it's alarming to think that, you know, anybody who might be paying attention to this report would think that that's all there is, but there's a whole lot more. Indeed. Okay, so there's that. I wanted to find out also, do we know what the sentencing looks like for somebody who is charged with distribution of fentanyl resulting in death? So it's a Class I drug felony. The lady I spoke to or spoke about, a 24-old female that was charged and is currently housed in the rap county jail to the best of my knowledge is it's part of the legal process. So the DA's office has discretion on how to offer these these pleas up, right, based on their criminal history and kind of the totality of the circumstances and kind of house on how this case presented itself. So there's really no kind of bright line rule to say if this is the case, this is a sentence. So 100%. Yeah, it's the largest drug felony you can get. It's a D one, so it's called drug felony class one. Okay. And then I guess the last question I have for you is, I've actually had the unfortunate circumstance of being involved in a situation where I witnessed an overdose according to the law enforcement officials who were there. There's a lot that I think people don't know about fentanyl. I mean, obviously, it's becoming more of an awareness campaign around the fact that it exists. It's highly dangerous. These tiny pills have tremendous impact. It's getting into other products and so on and so forth. But I mean, as far as people in that situation, things like this can be transmitted trans-dermally. I don't think people know that. Narcan can't hurt in these kinds of situations. I don't think people know that. I mean, I certainly didn't know any of it when this situation presented itself. So I guess my question is, are we getting to the point where we need to be putting more money into general awareness or more effort or more energy or do we feel like people would know what to do if they came across the situation? Well, enforcement is one element, but this problem is acutely deadly. I don't think that people grasp that in our community just how serious it is. Agreed. And I think Narcan is also being kind of more mainstream. I mean places that don't really cater to addiction have Narcan in various places, right? I mean Narcan is useful and I think it's to reverse an opiate over dust. So I like to think in that regard since it's kind of being more and more popular that people are maybe more aware of that situation. On top of that, nearly every location we search, every vehicle we search in their pockets, opiate addicts have Narcan primarily, along with their pills, only because we spoke to a gal, not too awful long ago, that has been a part of 42 Narcan situations. And she's just a private individual who happens to be. Yes, ma'am. We're finding Narcan. Why some of these search ones that we're doing. I know Deputy Harveston, our school resource officer, Officer Light Eifling, who's this PD's school resource officer, and Detective Sam Silva, have done a lot of these presentations at the schools, along with the Colorado opiate consortium. I believe it's still Lindsey Simby. I'm not sure if she's still doing that. It's been a while since I talked to her, but they have organized several of these trainings that they put on at the schools. But I do agree with you. I think the general public, a lot of the information they're getting is through the media, what they read online. And unfortunately, there is a lot of misconceptions about some of that stuff online too. Yeah, I find it really troubling. I appreciate the presentation. I think that, you know, we really do get a lot of value out of learning what you guys are up against and working with such a short staff situation. But, you know, I know that education and outreach isn't part of this request. I just want to flag it to see if there's any brilliance around how we can do better about getting the word out and who is the we. I don't think it's you. I mean, law enforcement, that's not necessarily. That would help. Okay. A public health definitely should be a partner in some of this messaging. I agree. One thing I want to add to is not only does asset and for work on all crimes, but some of the bigger major cases we've had in the past, us and the steam up police department, them being a 14 judicial district task force they have the authority to investigate crimes obviously outside Moffa County and Craig anywhere in the 14 judicial district and when we've had some of these bigger investigations it require a lot of staff, manpower. When we call these guys they leave Craig, leave Moffat County and come over and assist. So it's not just this stuff that's kind of the scope of their business, but it's other things that they come and help us on without any hesitation. So thank you for sharing. Great. Is your garden anything else before you complete on this? No, just appreciate the much more robust presentation. We got this here compared to last year. A really big improvement. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, this is a great report. And I mean, great. We're celebrating that you're doing good things to stay off bad people, but it's unfortunate that you have to be doing those things. So thanks for coming in and we're definitely supportive of the request. We're going to take a stretch break before our next item, which is the Commissioner budget. Okay, so we are back for the County Commissioner budget presentation. I wanted to just flag for you Commissioner Corrigan that we do have bond council popping on at 245. private activity bonds tab. And so if you have questions about that, we'll just cause wherever we're at with our budget discussions and welcome them and then get back to our budget. So Jay and Jen are gonna be presenting, I believe. So let's take it right. I'm going to get on. I think it's me. Yep. All right. Are you ready? I'm going to skip right to maybe. Are you ready? Yes, please. Your 2025 budget presentation. Board of County commissioners. You don't have it to music. I thought he would. Next year. Next year. Let me clean up my screen a little bit. I'm gonna skip right to maybe. Personal is anticipated to increase by just under $60,000 due to on salary increases for our lucky two new elected county commissioners to start next year. I think it was increased midterm for District one and two note two one and two so the newly elected will see that increase So starting in 2025. Yeah, because you don't get it till the next election. Quite a bit of information. I think everybody knows this. But when we're talking about personnel, it's all in today's dollars does not include expected cola increases and step increases, right? Correct. And that note is on the bottom. Korea requested FTE changes. I think it just looks like our grand administrators anticipated to go from 0.8 to a full time, 40 hour. Yes, please. Yes. Okay. It is playing. It's the playing. So, so on that, go back one page, please. This one or one more. One more, please. How do we end up at 8.71 FTEs? What's the explanation for that? How come it's not just a round number if everybody's on a... If everybody's an FTE? I think it's how we... Dan is not because we don't miss... Let me look. Yeah, I think we have the elected officials. No, they're dead. They're dead. Wait. I'm going to see you go on and I'll find you. You can't get back to that question. Thank you. Looking at operations, just a slight increase of about $20,000. You know, your typical dues increases. I've not seen many official notices of increase, but the one for CCI was somewhat considerable increasing. So we need, we absolutely need to have a conversation a separate conversation where we look at all of these dues. I know we've had some question about North West Cog, but all the way up and down the line because I mean you make a you know $20,000 isn't a lot, but here it is again it's an item that is exceeding inflation. Yeah, I agree with you. And I think it's just healthy to look at. We should do that on an annual basis. And last year we were adding QQ. And I thought we think we were struggling a little bit with what the cost of participating is. And I believe that we got a discount of them. I remember correctly. And didn't it the, did we have dues to have a separate time to look at the whole panoply of Jews and make sure that we we're doing what we want to do. Yeah, it's really. You know, I think you've put it well in the past Commissioner Corrigan that sometimes things just keep moving because of inertia. And I agree we should make a point to take a look at those to see if there's some dead weight in there. Yeah, I must look at the data. Love it. And then don't let me go back to the employee numbers is that because we allocate certain time to other offices, who's being minute taking. Oh, okay. And that goes to the clerk's office, right? Yeah, we do that and then work on some gets charged back on my FAB. Correct. PDR. PDR, so in. Correct. Okay. It's below a whole number. Okay. Thank you. Also, with the dues is a couple of additional memberships for our new accounting assistant county manager. Right. I'm fine with those. That's not the problem. No publications and subscriptions have increased. The only large one there is the increase of Hoot Suite, which is a tool that our PIO uses. It would be to, right now, it's a single membership and it will increase to allow three users. It's what we do to schedule all of our social media posts and interactions. And it's, I think, a more in depth to all of that even. Travel has also increased. Travel is difficult to pin down for y'all, but this past year travel definitely increased. I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the I'm sure that the increase. Did we do annual? Did we annualize it? Yeah, and then just a 5% increase. So did we go over budget? Or are we going to go over budget this year? Yes, sir. I don't think for meals and I don't think for hotels by thing transportation were projected to go just slightly over. So why did the big increase if we're just going to be over slightly better. We want to send you out of town. No, you won't be here, but we just anticipate existing more travel needs. I think I've got a couple of conferences in Hawaii. So I'm okay with this. I think we should not be restricting our travel. I think it's the travel that we've been doing has been important to represent the county and promote our interests in different areas. So I'm okay with it. I was just curious about it. Well, in some travel is reimbursed too, which, no. So even though we're over budget, there's in some of these cases, there's additional revenue just coming correct. Yeah, I'd rather us have it budget and not spend it than we ever budget. So it's really hard to say no to you guys. Wait, do I need to go get your no button? And then the other big change is in core values, we increased 120 percent. A very small part of that is just the increase in the inflation increase in running events catering party planning and such. But last year we used HR's budget to purchase the employee engagement logo where that was handed out at the holiday party. And we've moved it into our budget. So that is the reason for that large increase. Saving it in one place, spending it in another. And it should really do seem to help with morale. Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely. Worst wild investment. Yeah. All right, let's try to get through affordable housing before we get to our bond discussion. That one is simple. That is, as you heard from Jason earlier, their $50,000 asked to support the housing authority and then the $4,000, well, this year's $4,000 for the services for the legal consultant to do the PAB. And Eric asked that next year or the final year, it goes up to $6,000 to wrap it up. Good. And I think you're doing assignments. Great. One minute. So that's who we're going to see for you here in a few minutes. Okay. Community services is trickier. Do you want to wait on that one? Yes. 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. multi-modal isn't too tricky. We did put in there the $75,000 cost share to contribute to the RTA formation committee. A $70,000? $75,000? $75,000. We currently paid $35,000 a year for the bus. The bus. We get a very good deal on that. Yeah. So our contribution to the trail, core trail isn't under multimodal. It'll be a community service. Thank you. And that will actually be done this year. Okay, wait a little confused. Okay, never mind. Sorry. I was not. Multi-modal is only the bus and the contribution to the RTA. Got it. Formation committee. Thank you. What about the Multi-modal committee that works with the bicycle community and don't we spend some help spend some money like on the Yeah, but we suspended that two years ago, I think Tim. Okay. We could re-engage if we wanted, but we basically put that committee on hold for a while. They actually came and asked us to. Yeah, they appeared in front of you and asked to be parked for a while. What is that called? The Multil, Route County Multil, Mult, Multimodal Committee, I believe. There's a committee that used to buy those, the share of the road, bumper stickers and stuff like that. They partnered with their out county writers and earlier on the putting the porta-potties out on the road and stuff and that's been done primarily by Rao County writers now. Okay. That was the one which grew out of the stock dealerships you'll ever remember that. Yeah. Taylor Grayson. They're bumper stickers for that. Yeah. So we're jumping around a little bit and we're going to look at Taylor grazing and then we will conclude our discussion for the moment and invite our bond counseling. Taylor grazing is a tough one for me to discuss because I don't know anything. It just is, you don't know what you're doing. It's what it is. The question is are we anticipated to spend what you approved to be spent? I think Dan is that your question. I'm in the 2024 budget. Otherwise, over to the 25 budget. I think that's a question for. Definitely. You know, we have to check with Tiffany. I think one of the things we need to keep in mind on Taylor grazing act is with us spending down the fund balance on this. There's not funds to really support the grasshopper program. So if that's something we want to continue, we need to discuss that with Tiffany and possibly include that in the weed side because that seems to have been a really productive program. Isn't that with extension also? It wasn't in their budget. They had to have- I thought assisted with the grasshopper payments. Yes. So he is connected to that community, but we did most of the admin for it. Yeah, they had to ignore it. Is that what that money is from then? From the money we set aside for grasshoppers. This year we use we've been using Taylor grazing and funds for the grasshopper. Right. Right. And so we last year, when we did that, we knew we were going to go to the end of the road of that, spend down the fun balance. Okay. Right. Well, Eric is here right on time at Sean is raising his hand. Erie was I'll touch base with you so Sean Jason to yep We have our full set. Eric, do you want to introduce the item for us? Sure. This is coming before you in consideration of authorizing a resolution that would carry forward this year's PAB allocation. With us today, we have Jason Peasley with the Ampavali housing authority and also Cory Kalenik, who is our representative. When he puts together these documents for us, it's been two years straight now. So thank you all for joining us. Cory, I know you're on a tight schedule here. So maybe we should pass it off or any questions from the commissioners. We have talked about this item now, I think two or three times in the last two weeks. Yeah, I'll go ahead and start then. Cory, I don't know that we've met Sonia Macy's new commissioner here and I just wanted to ask you, we have been caring forward these PABs and not using them as Rao County proper but rather allowing for the use of them by the Housing Authority. Recently an item came to our attention that made us really want to just review what these things are, how they are eligible to be used and working with Jason. He has talked about how they have been used to impart in conjunction with the LITECH program but you know it's unclear to us does that need to be the way that they are so if you and mine just giving us a quick overview that would be fantastic. Yeah thank you for having me today happy to help so generally private activity bond volume cap is something that is allocated through the tax code. It's based on a per capita number for the number of folks in a certain state, and then it's divvied out by the IRS, and then the states have different ways that they allocate volume cap. And so really what volume cap is, it's not dollars, but it's rather a limit on the amount of private activity bombs that can be issued in the state. And the way Colorado divvies out this volume cap pursuant to the allocation act, the private activity bond allocation act is that roughly half of it goes to Chatham. And then the remaining half is then again divvied up to communities based on population. And so this year, Route County received 1,574 or 604 in volume cap. And then you have a choice as to what you can do with that. You can either use it, you can assign it to another issuer such as Yemba Valley Housing Authority, or you can carry it forward, pursuant to state law and federal law. And if you carry it forward, you have up to three years to either use it, or in that case you can't assign it to another issuer, but you can delegate your authority to another issuer to use that volume cap to issue private activity bonds. So as you asked, I'll just say, you know, most of the volume cap that we see right now in Colorado is used for multifamily housing. We're in a volume cap restrained environment. So what that means is we're over-subscribed, roughly three to one in the state of Colorado for eligible developers that would like to use this volume cap. So it's a pretty tight resource. But there are additional uses for private activity bond volume cap. You can use it for single family revenue bonds and mortgage credit certificates to help with home ownership. You can also use it for solid waste manufacturing bonds and small issue manufacturing bonds. So there's a whole list of types of bonds that qualify and that require volume cap. But like I said, for the most part, we're seeing in Colorado. It's all multi-family housing. And just to clarify, last year was the first year that we carried this forward. Before we turned them back to Chapa and they assigned them to the house in the 40s. clarified last year was the first year that we carried this forward before we turned them back to Chapa and they assigned them to the house in the 40s. So we're in a little different role than we've been in the past on this. Commissioner Corian, did you have a question? No, that was I thought they could be used for things other than housing. And Quarry, I assume when you say multifamily housing, that's not necessarily affordable housing. It could be used for housing that is not AMI limited. No, it actually is required for AMI limited. So typically it's 4060 is the minimum required. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Can you tell me more about these mortgage credit certificates? What kind of use that looks like? Yeah, it's similar to single family bonds. Single family bonds, you can issue large amounts of bonds to them subsidize home ownership mortgage credit certificates do a similar thing, but they it's sort of a pulled financing that then the resource goes to folks who are trying to be like first time home buyers things of that nature. So in full disclosure I haven't worked on an MCC in a long time so I can't give you much more detail than that, but I know folks that could. So the real question that was raised was could we or the housing authority as far as that goes use these PABs to help out with the Melbourne mobile home park in their effort to become a resident-owned community. Yeah, if a mobile home park qualifies as a multi-family residential rental facility, and that's something I honestly, I would have to have my tax folks do a little bit more research on. On first blush, I think it would because I know that we've done housing financing on chaffa deals for townhomes, individual townhomes that are all collectively a multi-family unit. And so if you're subject to six-month-lays terms or more, generally you're a multi-family housing project that would qualify. Again, we'd need a little bit further research, but I think the short answer would be yes. And we would defer to the housing authority on rendering an opinion on that in any case. For a quick question, what's the mechanics and the timeline for initiatives? By the time you assign an issue at PAV? Yeah, that's a great question. They can go anywhere between, you know, three months. If everything is really ready to go, sometimes they take up to two to three years. If there are, you know, permitting issues or supporting that time in issues. So it really just depends on the structure. But, you know, three months is probably a typical timeline for a housing deal. Once it's kicked off the financing. So before that, there's all kinds of things that go into the development. I had a question, Corey, first, and then maybe Jason too, first Corey, would a carry forward, how would the carry forward this year, if at all, if that takes place, impact the ability to provide assistance to the Milner mobile home park, if at all, if that takes place, impact the ability to provide assistance to the Milner mobile home park, if at all. There's an I might divert you on that. Yeah, so I'm pleased to hear that there's an potential opportunity to use PABs for Milner, but I think one of the limiting factors with that particular project is just the timing of the need to close or at least make an offer on the park. And, and then you mentioned that there would be a 60% AMI set aside. Yeah, generally for section 142, D you have to meet either a, it's a 40% at 60 AMI or less or 20% at 50. So, couple different options. Yeah, so that would be something we need to consider in the case of the mobile home park with, you know, the incomes of the folks that live there. Because you would need to put a use covenant then on the property to utilize the 4% tax credit and private activity bond cap. So we've basically kind of thought, man, this may not be the right tool for Milner. We've spent quite a bit of time thinking about how it could be utilized in conjunction with one of our existing properties, which is a low-income housing property that's funded through the USDA, and essentially utilizing those tax credits for a rehab project of that, which would have the ability and timeline to sort of absorb whatever the process might be to kind of get the full financing package capital stack together and go through the process of bringing in an investor, bringing in a developer partner and executing on that deal. I think if we're gonna be working with Milner, I don't know, I don't feel very confident saying, yeah, this is the ticket. I think we're much better off looking at conventional financing and hoping to bring in some philanthropic funds, either in concessionary debt or grant funds to help with the purchase of the Millenium Mobile Home Park. Okay well let me ask one more question Cory. If let's just say we were to consider Jason noted that there's a pretty tight timeline for getting the funds together for Millenium. Let's just say we were to consider trying to use this tool. Is it possible that somebody could come forward with the $3 million ish that the PABs are amounting to over the two years time? And then that could be backfilled. Yeah, so what PAB does is it really just lets you issue tax exempt bonds using that amount. So when we file, when we issue tax exempt bonds on behalf of a local government, then we file an IRS form 8038 and we have to show the use or the source of the private activity bond volume cap. So it doesn't translate into actual dollars, but it does translate into debt for the property. I'm not sure it's quite. I don't know if that answers your question. Well, I think the question is, and again, I'm going to defer to Jason for the more in-depth analysis, but for a simple way of looking at this would be between last year's PAB and this year's we've got a roughly caught $3 million of available bonding capacity. Could not route county go out and issue those $3 million worth of bonds and use that to help the resident own community make an offer to buy the property. Noting that you would have to have the cash upfront, right? And so then you're just basically, I mean, that's the issue is you're presenting the cash to complete the offer and then going into debt. Typically, when you do have a financing like this, you would use the proceeds to acquire the property. So you might issue the debt and make the acquisition on the same day. Yeah, you don't need the cash up front, so you're borrowing $3 million and using it towards supporting an offer to purchase the mobile home park. I mean, I know I'm making this sound simple. I can talk somebody to disobey me of my simple thinking. I need the one to do that because that's kind of where I've been going with this. But I think the issue is the timing issue because yes, they want cash. They want cold hard cash for the purchase. They don't want some form of delay of issues and bonds. I'm sure you could make an offer that had a financing contingency. Yeah, so that will absolutely be a component of the capital stack to purchase that park. That debt, you know, ultimately what we're talking about is trying to move the lever on what's the cost of capital. And so with private activity bonds being able to issue tax exempt bonds, you can get relatively low interest rates. And therefore you can increase your loan proceeds for a certain amount of payment. That's all great. Like that's one of the main levers we're trying to pull. This is one of many options that we could consider in working with the millenafilks for going out and acquiring debt. But this is not the only avenue that we have available to us to go out and get debt that's relatively low interest. So one of the other options that they have available to them is that, you know, we're working with a nonprofit called this all that works with the resident and community USA organization that has access to philanthropic capital. We're trying to bring in some philanthropic capital as well. So I think we should leave potentially the door opened for this. And I think getting back to the question that Eric asked, like if we go forward, if the county goes through the action of carrying forward, does that preclude the ability for them to then issue those texts or go through the process of issuing those bonds in a relatively short period of time, that three month period. Yeah, and if that's the question, it does not preclude that action. So thanks for clarifying that, Jason. Yeah, thank you, Jason. That is the crux of the issue, but I think the other piece that was of concern is just that, while the project that you're thinking about and you've mentioned sounds really good, you know, when the Milliner folks came forward, this is the first time to my knowledge that an unincorporated route there has been a significant crisis. And so, you know, what you're describing doesn't sound like it's a measure with meeting that crisis. So if you guys have another way of getting to the solution with Milner Milner, and then we could, the PABs are better suited for another issue, that's great. But like if we get to a place where we as accounting need to say, we want this to be earmarked for the Milner situation. I mean, I want to make sure that we aren't cutting off the opportunity to do that as well. Yeah, I think that's prudent in this situation. I can say that, you know, we're likely to need more than $3 million in debt to purchase the park. And so this would be a component. If it was part of the deal, it would be a component of the capital stack. I'd like to ask the question because I think I'm a little confused. If we carry this forward, there's not 3 million and PAB bonds there at this point. There'd be 1.5 because don't we have to wait till the end of the calendar year to reach the full three million? So you do 2025 You actually don't and the carrying forward really what it does is it lets the county keep that volume cap If you don't carry it forward by September 15th and it reverts to the state But if you do carry forward you can still use it within the calendar year, or you can use it for up to three years after the carry forward period. So hopefully that's helpful. And then one other thing that can be done always is if you get to the year in which cap is expiring, oftentimes what issuers will do is they will delegate that volume cap to Chaffa and let's say they've got a deal that might be closing, you know, the next year, Chaffa sometimes is willing to delegate back or get back volume cap to replace that. So it really just provides you optionality as you move forward. So I think we've answered, did you have another side? No, I'm fine. Okay, I mean, I think we've answered the question, which is that carrying these things forward, as Eric had proposed, does not preclude the opportunity for using them in a short-term way, and specifically for the Millenor project. I think what we need to be clear about as we do this is that we do not want to delegate or assign them, that while we trust the housing authority we want to work with you guys on projects, we want to be a good partner by carrying these forward with the kind of idea that we work together on these things does not necessarily grant the housing authority to decide how these PABs will be used. Well, yeah, because we carried them forward in conjunction with the Yompa Valley Housing Authority and the Hayden Health and Authority came to us and requested us to carry these forward. Is that correct, Jason? Yeah, I mean, actually, the kind of the way it went down last year was that we had actually requested that you allocate them to the housing authority. And then when, when, you know, we had essentially a very similar conversation about like, oh man, there might be a lot of things we want to use this for. The county made the decision, you know, we'll just carry it forward and hold on to it so that we can have this discussion, you know, year after year. And so here we are. And, you know, I don't think a year ago anybody anticipated that like the Miller-Mobile Home Park would be the topic of discussion. But it's, I think it's, it illustrates the point that you guys are making in a year ago, which is like, you know, you guys want to, want to hold on to these resources and you want to be part of the conversation about how they get allocated. Thank you. Yeah, that's a great summation of the situation. I think it sounds like we're all on the same page on this. Did you have anything to add here? There is no assignment. It's just the carry forward at this. So, correct. Yep. Sure. Sure. Yeah, and we're not requesting assignment at this point. May come a day that we will, but it's not today. Cory, thank you for allowing us to abuse your time. Thank you very much, Cory. Happy to help. Thank you all. Thank you, Jason, for coming back. We appreciate it. Sounds like while we are looking for a motion on this topic, would somebody like to make one? Happy, too. I move to approve and authorize the chair to sign resolution 2024 089 declaring the intent of the county commissioners of Rao County, Colorado to issue multi-family housing revenue bonds and authorizing carry forward allocation. Second. All right, the question is second, any further discussion? No. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay. Kory, I'll. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. We have 14 minutes so we can go back to our budgets. Did you have another question for me before the abavement? Oh, um, yes. We received a few different pieces of information and ultimately what I'm understanding to be the cases that we are upholding the hearing officer. Oh that's up to you guys during the hearing whether to uphold the hearing officer's recommendation and adopt it whether to go with the assessor's recommendation all of that's contained in the material or to do something different, amend it altogether. I know in my email yesterday I said, amending appears not to be at issue. And I meant that only because of the question of withdrawal, you always have the authority to amend your the BOE, so you can do combination of that stuff. But they would be working on the established record. Yeah, based on the record which was posted on the agenda. Right, and we're not taking additional information or additional input. Correct. Okay. All right. That was just a clarifying question for one of our next items. Thanks. So let's get back to budget. So we talked through Taylor Brazen, that's all good. Yeah. And Sean, you all did approve 50 came to you. I mean, these groups, I'm spending the $31,000 $70,000 and that's good. 8,000 for grass. You know how to tip me to this answer speaks is that answer? Yeah, I just want to make sure we're actually going to spend it. Otherwise, yeah, we'll just start to get those reimbursements in. Community service. Agriculture. Agriculture you did here from a shelf today with their increased ask of 10% to $22,000 economic includes you know an increase from John and we're finishing up with one grant. So funding includes a decrease of $14,400 to $500,000. But that is due to the OJ team grant. And there's just there's a potential that like Robinson did come to you a couple of months ago to give an update and to make a request for the NAMPA River Fund for another $25,000. And then the friends of the campus, what what we're calling it, the Vallevois were here to make that request of the one time $25,000 contribution for the Natural Resource Conservation Services Regional Conservation Partnership program on the Emperor of our resilience partnership and that payment would only be paid out if they get that budget approval. But that, any questions about that one? Because that one's... I'm just having a hard time overall with our expenditures. I just don't see the breakdown. I mean I see that we've got the HHS budget in here but like how do we arrive at 2.1 million 2.177.4 at 3 million. There is more information in your drop box. If you want to put the drop box. So community services includes. Okay. A lot more than what is on the slide. Right. I guess what I'm trying to understand for example what we put in as a placeholder for, like for HSS for example. Did we do what? Did you take the last year number and adjust for DHS? Or not DHS, what am I talking about? HHS. You want to resource for a solution? Yes. HRC. HRC. Yeah. Yeah, I can place folder in their further and full ask. And then when you guys decide what you're going to fund, we will change that. So if you will decide what how you want to use others, 2.5 to 3% whatever that possibly. The inflation adjustment is and then we go back to HRC and say, the commissioners made a decision. This your dollar amount and then they were... Spurses. Okay I'm not asking the right question the right way. What I'm trying to say is the 2.177483 overall operating budget number expenditures comes from a number of different items, right? So where is it that I could see this item by item? Because I'm looking at the drop box and I see like each singular thing, but do we have a place where we say economic development plus holding the users is plus like like I just want to know what was put in there as a placeholder for these different things. Chavis, screen, that would be good. That's what I want to see. And it's in the drop box. That 2.1 million also includes the million anticipated for the Child Care Center project. Okay. So I don't like that state. Is this where I'm finding it? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that's conscious. So here you have on page of the PDF2 we start with the HRC. So we have the breakdown of HRC and then we go down to whoops and which you're in the one that's two issues 20 to 25 budget PDFs over yet and community services. I'll send the job box. Which going forward for other people's budgets, you guys want to see this. I can print it. If Dropbox is not best, we can figure out what we're the best for you. Okay, so it does look like the full request has been included in here. Correct. Everyone's full request has been included. That's the question I was looking for to do. I was answering it, asking it all the wrong was fine. Yes, all the full requests are in the very, very budget. Well, you got that negative number in there for the HRCEO. Let's bring it down to a 3% increase. And 144 down. We're anticipating you bringing it down. So yeah, well, I see the unapproved funding. That's the number. OK. All right. Now, did was that the number that you corrected because the original number in their home? Okay. This is this is the 3% and then we'll come down to a bit of whatever number you know I'm saying right now we're going to get 2.5 but this is a decrease 2, 3% to a 3% increase for HRC. Yeah, we had a 347, 516 as they showed as their actual and Dan had a 361, 310 number as the actual. And so I was just asking, did you add, which one did you add the 3% to? 361, 210. Right. just asking did you add which one did you add the 3% to 3.61 to 1. Right. Yeah. Correct. OK. Thank you. OK. And then so just flagging then also that this doesn't include the Ag Alliance at the 4th request of 22,000. Okay. Um, Is there anything else that we've discussed within our budget that are that we may want to revise commissioner Corrigan you said you weren't fully comfortable with the 22,000 ask and that you thought it should be more of an inflationary factor. Yeah, these these we're not even to that point. We're just looking at their presentations and then we'll sit down with him and he'll projected out over 30 years and usually that's where we'll make our corrections on these numbers. So we don't want to flag anything for them now to say. Oh, we can absolutely. I mean, I'm fine with including the Fulask. I just want to make sure we're, you know, sometimes when we some time passes, we, you know, follow the thread. I think the more direction you see where we are in the process and let's us get things. Well, you know, I agree with Commissioner Corrigan. We always have increased with, you know, the CPR. Right. And if there was 20,000, I would suggest we increase it by the CPR. Well, that's fine as long as you want to apply that same logic to everybody. Right? Well, I that would be what we would do with HRC, correct? Yeah, but what I say everybody, I mean, search and rescue is asking for much more than CPI, right? They're asking for... Yeah, but they've had an increased line item too. They added a new line item. So did the community accident, I mean, the entire store. Yeah, everybody would be happy to add a line item if we left them. I don't know. We have any choice but to cover their insurance. No, we know we could not cover it and they could do more fundraising. I mean, that goes for everybody on this list. There's nobody here that were required to fund, right? This is all optional. So, but you're saying you wanna be consistent across the board? No, no, I'm not saying. I mean, I guess I would like to be. I'm just saying we have to recognize that sometimes we will and sometimes we won't. So. Okay. I get that. I don't have a great answer for you here right at the moment. I mean, this is the, I mean, this is what we deal with, which is, but you talked about it earlier, the inertia. Once you put something into the budget, in a given year, it seems to stay there forever, right? And not to say these aren't good things. These are all worthy causes. But I don't think we have time today to beat each and every one of these to death, but you know, I'm happy to try to take another look at it. It's not a huge percentage of our overall budget. We're going to be looking at much larger numbers when we get into each of the individual departments. Well, can we play, let's make a deal? Sure. You know, I mean, it's hard for me to think that we're haggling over $2,000 for the Ag wines, but it appears that we are. So I just want to remind you guys that they didn't come in for a capital ask. And we did give the Veterans Center $100,000 and we gave the Hayden Housing Authority for Prairie center $100,000. And we gave the Hayden housing authority for Prairie. I'm $200,000. So in the past, we have made out of budget capital allocations. So if we're going to handle them down on their operating... Oh, yeah, Sony, I'm not haggling over the $22,000 for the Ag Alliance. I'm just worried about all of these things put together. So. I just mentioned something I didn't, Sonia mentioned were the ARPA redeveloped funds. And I think we just need to realize that that opportunity is going away. So we just need to be strategic as you look at where to invest. Because these are going to be general fund dollars, not external funding. So we're sure that the ARPA is going to be consumed by the projects and P.B.A.M owner? Not yet. There's a gap in there. We're not positive on that. We'll know probably in another two months if there's additional change orders, but there may be a little bit left, but it won't be substantial. I mean, every one of these things, I mean, take the housing authority, for example, at one time there was kind of a gentleman's agreement that over time the housing authorities request would go to zero and that kind of never really happened, although it was reduced quite a bit over the years. And then you have the mill levy that they have right now. You can make a case that the taxpayers are already subsidizing the housing authority through the millevee and shouldn't need an additional subsidy from the county. We continue to do that for what I believe are largely symbolic reasons. But each and every one of these, there's a different set of questions around them. Well, I think you make an interesting point with the housing authority because the housing authority boundaries are different from the route county boundaries. So not all around the county is participating. So, you know, go back to that spreadsheet, Jennifer, the one that had the comparison year to year of all of these things. There's a net increase of what $560,000. A lot of that has to do with the million dollar contribution to the Child Care Center. And then that's been kind of offset. there was a pretty big number in there what two or three hundred thousand dollars that were not spending on the core trail. Extinction. I mean if there was some way to look at the entire package of all of the community service funding and say hey we need to limit this total number once you've set aside those one shot deals looking at the things that we keep doing year after year after year and maybe not limiting it to the rate of inflation but some number 7%, 8%, I don't know what, but just finding a way to get our hands around this. So it doesn't just keep growing every year by 10% or 20%. Yeah, well, we went through that exercise when I was at the city and that, you know, it was a really interesting thing to do about it was tying it to the actual overall budget number. So it's taking a historical look back at how is our spend in this particular category over time and then as a function of the budget what does that mean as a percentage of the budget. It then index the number to the budget. I mean and I I think, you know, those kinds of exercises are interesting and all well and good, but at the same time, you know, as the budget number fluctuates. I mean, well, our stuff is fluctuating. That's the city with other sales tax when from money hours is, I mean, other than the additional sales tax money is fairly steady state. But I mean, I guess what I'm saying is that indexing it in that way sometimes results in not a cap. So you're suggesting more of a cap approach to the way that this might grow. Yeah, I am. And I think it would be nice to take a run at the spreadsheet where we strip out those one-time numbers and get back to those items that are that we have been subsidizing year after year after year and getting our mind around that. Does that make sense, Dan? Yeah, I don't think it's I think we could get to that. I think you know, just looking at this right now. I mean the two numbers that I I still don't quite understand is those friends of the amp on the amp of alley foundation or whatever it's called there. And if those are going to be ongoing or not. I think we can come up, Dan, if you could, I think you understand what I'm looking for is that the typical year after year items, let's see what those numbers add up to once we strip out the one-time items. Okay, so basically- And maybe make some hard decisions. Either A, we're going to chop somebody hard, like the housing authority, for instance, or B, no, we're just going to accept the fact that it's grown this much. So, in concrete terms, looking at our budget, it sounds like we have two follow-up items. One is the one you've just requested from Dan, which I think makes a lot of sense. And then the other is just looking at the do's and subscriptions. We want to just put that on agenda into the future and have a conversation. Is there anything else that we need to revisit about our budget? Right, probably. Probably. Do you have... Is there something else you'd like to inform us of? There's lots. Lots. But, okay. So you're good. We will talk about HRC. You've got human services going up. That's the million dollar contribution. The childcare center. Recreation is decreasing this year. You will wrap up the core trail project with a $300,000 contribution. Safety includes increased asks for search and rescue. Pre-trial services decreased. We have not heard anything about that, so we don't see that coming forward. Just real quick, if we drop back to the million dollar contribution to child care center, we're going to see 200,000 this year and 800 next year. That's it. Yeah. It's in 20, 24. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And in million and 25. No, 200 this year, 800 next year. Oh, 800. Oh, 200 is out of the million. Yes. 800 or 200 is out of the million. Yes, that was how Commissioner Corgan cut the deal. Nice deal. 200 this year 800 next year and then we're done on that project. So yeah. Okay, well it sounds like we're getting close to wrapping up budget discussions. Dan and Shay and today are having a chat. Is there anything else do you want to make us aware of or to flag that you need feedback on early on or have we done reasonably well with this today? We do have museums, PDF. And these are both our approved new love A's that are essentially. Passes. I think the one on the off-app is also the proposal that we're going to see from the start preservation board to get some dedicated funding. Are that we don't need to go in those details, but just to make you aware that I start preservation board is positioning for some regular funding, which has been zero funding for actually the past There are admin time and meeting meals have come out of the moth have 3% But it's never been spent Hmm. It's never been spent. All. We've had to madman, but they've been in for the story preservation board. They they had dollars there for a budget, but we've never spent any dollars for that budget. I don't know what magic happens down there. Is that what you call it? I don't know if you allocate funds to a historic preservation board at the beginning of a year. And then we spend down or if you just allocate whatever time we actually spend to historic preservation board. Does that make sense? Yeah. I'm just sort of. Yeah. We just don't. I just don't see any num actual dollars means bet on the historic preservation. Yeah, I mean, we have a budget. If I go back historically, there hasn't been any. Well, they have not historically met as often as they should. Okay. So I just not to get us to off track of this mentioned that that's something that's coming forward. Yeah. That's all. OK. All right. Nothing else, ma'am? Anything else? Commissioner? No, I'm good. OK, so I think we're moving off budget. And just in order to be consistent, we're now about eight minutes behind. So running late is the theme of the day. We have scheduled for 320 abatements. Do we have anyone who wants to frame this up or did? Shall I do the best again? Is Gary not coming up on this? No, Eric is here actually said looks like he's going to come on up. Okay. Just give us a brief overview. I think. That's my will. I think you can reject the invitation if you'd like. I can. I'm trying. I don't point men. So, yeah, this is just following our hearing officer abatement process. There were more familiar with one of these submissions than the other. But basically, the process is the hearing officer makes a determination and a recommendation for to the board on adopting the recommendation, rejecting the recommendation or entering a modification or amendment to the recommendation, you can reject it. If you reject it, you likely defer back to the assessors request, which is outlined in the abatement petition and recommendation. And the materials that are posted online are the materials that you should limit your discussion to or decision on. In the past, you have done on mass approvals of the recommendations or you've also had instances where you've pulled a recommendation for further discussion and making your you you set us CBOE so it's ultimately your decision. So does everybody understand the question at hand here? Yes I do believe I do. Okay, and Mr. Bergen, you're in good understanding of what's going on here. I'm pretty good understanding. I mean, it's just a question of whether or not we believe this, these properties actually qualify for the Ag exception. And for the record, I'm sorry I should have stated that the assessor has the ability pursuant to our hearing officer process to notify this board if there is a significant concern or question about the hearing officer's recommendation recall in the past. I want to say two years ago that occurred with some frequency on vacant vacant land recommendations and you did receive an objection from the assessor as to the abatements concerning the six lots in horseback at stage coach. So there was, there was some confusion about assertions or withdrawals that the petitioner themselves may have made, but that's been kind of resolved. Is that correct, Eric? I'm as confused, I'm left as confused as I was yesterday evening, Gary did come up and talked me this morning and noted that he had misunderstood some communications with his staff. So right now, I think just what's in the packet is what you're limited to and the withdrawal that took place was at CBOE, but all six of these parcels were correctly considered by the hearing officer. So the question is the same, do you accept the recommendation from the hearing officer or do you do something different? So to be clear, our assessor was testifying that they did not agree or that they did not think that ag status was appropriate and ag status was denied at the assessor level, correct? Correct. I'm not sure I would use the word testify. There was a presentation of material to the hearing officer based on the note denial at the assessor level. So this is now at your stage for the abatement and I can summarize the evidence that's before you if that's helpful. Yeah, I'll only focus on the horseback at stage coach abatement rather than the other one. I don't even know. Fairfield is a feel like it. Yeah, I like taking one by one. Okay. Essentially, the assessor presented to the hearing officer that the lots are extremely small and not amenable to ag use and the ag statute requires there to be a profitability to the Ag use. What profitability there was, it was diminimous, I think $27 was one example that the assessor presented to the hearing officer as part of the leasing. There was some information that in the future, the properties may be used for paying, but that's really not at issue because it's not the future. It's past use. That's than the assessor also offered that there were, there's either heavily wooded areas that are not suitable for grazing or paying, and then also weeds, not including noxious weeds on the property. And then the petitioner presented evidence that the six lots are being used for profitability. So there were some. She presented solid evidence from a leesor that they were that they were paying for the leasing of that land and also the hanging of the land and then additionally like I said the future haying potential. There's a lot of interesting questions here that I won't bother you with today but they'll come up in the future. So Eric just does a point of procedure. At this point we do not have to call on anyone. The petitioner was around. This is just a discussion between us sitting in this row. Yes. OK. So making sure. I mean, where are you out on this? You know, as I look at this, I don't really see an agricultural operation there. So my thought is that I would look to uphold the assessor's recommendation. Yeah, I tend to agree. I mean, I think the evidence that's been presented, the key to me and all of it is just the diminimous economic nature of the agricultural operation as it is claimed to be. I don't think it meets the standard. Not in my mind, no. Mr. Corrie, what do you think? Yeah, I mean, if this qualifies as an agricultural operation, I'd be challenged to imagine what doesn't. Exactly. So on your front yard, if you didn't moat all the time, you could probably get two or three bailouts. Exactly. And get ag status. So. I thought I'd put a worse in my backyard, they get two or three bail and get ag status. So I'm not gonna put a worse in my backyard, even though horses aren't ag. So getting a little steer to hang out with. I feel that, I mean, I understand, you can see the receipts that were presented and they are dated and they show dollar amounts and number of bails. And I think ultimately, I can't remember where I read it, but you know, there's some, the up the language for determining ag status that the operation has to have some kind of a profit-motivated intention. And it's extremely hard for me to agree that this is being done with the intent to produce a profit. It feels fairly transparent to me that it's being done with the intent to produce a profit. It feels fairly transparent to me that it's being done with an intent to get Ag's data sent their property. So I'm gonna be in favor of upholding the assessor's recommendation and rejecting the determination of the hearing officer. Great, what sounds like we're ready for a motion. There are some recommended motions in the packet. If anybody is ready, I am ready. I move to approve the assessor's recommendation that schedules R6552115, R6552116, R6552117, R6552118, and R655521119, remain classified as vacant land. Second. All right, we have a motion to second any further discussion. All those in favor? Stay on. Aye. Aye. Okay, so now we move on to the fair field in. This one looks pretty much simpler than the previous, and since you did the fact that it appears they weren't in business as of 1222 So, I think you can do it. We have any discussion on this. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. I think you can do it. We have any discussion on this? Are we ready for a motion? Yes. All right. In the matter of where's my number? At one point. In the matter of later second, that number's not right? Are you looking for the parcel? Yeah. The P77. Is that the right number? It. The P77 is at the right number. It's a P771 certificate. Okay. In the matter of P771 0 819. Fairfield in personal property. I move to uphold the assessors' clerical error, not in business as of 1-1-20-22, and accounts should not have been deactivated. Taxes levied in error. Do we need the refund amount? And the refund would be for... You have the hearing officer form that is on the agenda. Assessors recommendation. Witness mutual agreement. Assessors petition. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. And the tax refund is $5,777. $80. Second. All right. We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? $5,777.80. Second. All right. We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Well, that was long and action packed day. Thanks, Jen and Chair Corrigan for packing the agenda with so many items. You know, yeah, some days are like that. Wait till next Tuesday season. Do you have anything else for us, Commissioner, Oregon? I guess, you know, you guys might think it's a long day. It's almost six o'clock here. So that's true. It is well-powered. Half hour isn't it? That's right. All right. Well, everything going okay back there? No, but that's fine. Whatever. It's just going. So, these are just going. Do we still anticipate seeing you end of the week or just out of the air? You know, I might extend till Sunday instead of Friday, but I have to be back on Sunday so I can drag the dock here around on Monday. Oh, that's right, Labor Day. I'll be back for that one where the other. I'll make sure to pass along that that is your motivation for returning to Rout County. Okay, see you. Thank you.