[23:05] Clear Creek Board of County
Commissioners is back in session. Uh,
[23:10] first on the agenda is public comment.
Is there anyone in the room for public
[23:14] comment?
Yes, sir. to um please state your name,
[23:19] approximately where you live.
>> Sure.
[23:21] » And you have three minutes.
>> I'll do it in one.
[23:24] » Okay. [laughter]
>> Uh Frank Brown. I'm in St. Mary's
[23:27] Glacier. And today I'm just here for one
purpose which is I've been asked by the
[23:32] CCLTA which is an advocacy group for
lodging short-term and tourism in uh
[23:37] Clare Creek County to present formal
objection a formal objection letter to
[23:42] resolution 26-55
uh to you guys to the commissioners. It
[23:47] was emailed to each commissioner
yesterday explaining a long list of
[23:51] reasons this board should not proceed
with this ballot initiative and has the
[23:54] support of nearly 100 individuals and
businesses in Clear Creek County. And
[23:58] I'd like to have it submitted for the
record
[24:01] and I brought copies, hard copies. Any
of you did not get it in the email. You
[24:06] got it.
>> Was it email or a text? You said email.
[24:10] » Email.
>> There's a hard copy in front of you,
[24:12] Rebecca.
>> Thank you.
[24:12] » Anybody need a hard copy?
>> Oh, fancy. Got it.
[24:15] » That's perfect. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Good job.
[24:21] » All right. Is there anyone else in the
room for public comment? Yes, sir.
[24:25] » Hello.
>> Good [clears throat] morning.
[24:27] » Morning.
>> My name is Noah. Uh I live in Idaho
[24:30] Springs. Um I'm actually um a short-term
rental host myself and I just wanted to
[24:37] um I'm relatively new to the county.
I've been living up there for about
[24:40] three years now. Um we have been really
hit hard by um beetlekill. Uh we've got
[24:47] an active infestation going on. We've
got hundreds of trees on my property
[24:50] that that I've spent the better part of
the last year trying to to bring down.
[24:55] Um and I ran into a little bit of
trouble with um a mismatch between sort
[25:00] of my desire to get these trees down and
then the cost associated with having um
[25:06] the county permit um necessary
excavation to reach the tree sites. And
[25:11] I just wanted to suggest that if the
county wants to come up with a solution
[25:16] to the beetle pill problem that actually
incentivizes residents to spend their
[25:23] hard-earned money and time to bring down
those trees that the county ought to
[25:27] make it um as little difficulty to
actually accomplish that goal. Um, so
[25:33] instead of a project um costing $20,000,
which is what I have already spent on
[25:38] it, it's going to cost another $40,000
to get um uh engineers, surveyors, soil
[25:44] engineers, um a couple of other, you
know, things related to the to the
[25:48] county's sort of um requirement for
[clears throat] excavation permits even
[25:54] for small um tracks of very stable land.
Anyway, I just wanted to suggest that no
[26:00] one is I would have never undertaken the
project. I would have just let the trees
[26:03] fall down in the next windstorm over the
next 10 years. Um, but I know that
[26:07] that's not actually good for the county.
That's not good for the people who live
[26:09] here. The trees are sort of an eyesore.
I live close to town. If there's a fire,
[26:13] it's huge amounts of fuel. So,
[clears throat]
[26:16] I just would like the county to be aware
that there seems to be an incentive mis
[26:20] mi mismatch. Um, and I doubt that
anything will ever come of it, but I'm
[26:25] going through all those processes now. I
intend to finish my my goal of having
[26:29] these trees um and my property kind of
restored. Um but it's a pain. And then
[26:34] also on the short-term rental thing, uh
I disagree with the tax um as well, but
[26:39] um I know you guys need revenue. Um I I
would say encouraging businesses in the
[26:44] the county to thrive or or having an
environment where they can thrive is
[26:49] probably going to bring more revenue to
the county than making it more expensive
[26:53] for people to spend the night here. Um,
[clears throat] finally, when my
[26:58] short-term rental came up, uh, for
renewal this year, um, I've, this would
[27:02] have been our third year, I believe,
and, um,
[27:07] we were denied based on a new way that
the rules were being read. Um, there
[27:11] wasn't a phone call from anybody. It was
just a, you know, blank denied sort of
[27:17] email, uh, generic email. And
it seemed like a phone call would be
[27:23] great. um when you're talking about, you
know, you're you're not it like the
[27:28] amount of panic that I'm sure other
people are feeling if a new rule if a
[27:32] existing rule is being read differently.
Um and they don't so much as get a phone
[27:37] call. Um
>> okay, you'll need to wrap it up.
[27:39] » No problem. Thank you very much. I just
would would work, you know, on on making
[27:43] sure that the community actually feels
like they're not being lorded over and
[27:46] instead that they are being um helped
through the the care of their property.
[27:50] Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments. Thanks for
[27:53] coming. Anyone else? Uh, anyone online?
>> We do have quite a few few people
[27:58] online. Um, if you are online and would
like to provide a public comment, please
[28:02] raise your hand and I will allow you to
speak.
[28:08] Okay, we have uh Chuck.
I'm going to move him over. Okay, hold
[28:14] on one second.
[gasps]
[28:30] Chuck, you can go ahead with your public
comment.
[28:32] » Can't get my timer to work.
[28:42] » Can't hear him, but he is there. You
might have to unmute, Chuck.
[29:01] I'm not hearing anything from him. Um,
Chuck, we can't hear you. We're going to
[29:06] go to the next person until you find
your unmute button. Oh,
[29:09] » he joined again in a different one. So,
let's try that one.
[29:17] All right, try again.
[29:23] you're on um a computer, your computer
might be muted and not through Zoom. So,
[29:27] check that your computer isn't muted.
>> Computer is not muted.
[29:32] » There we go. I can hear you now.
>> I I I apologize. I'm not good with
[29:36] computers.
>> No.
[29:37] » Um please [clears throat] tell us your
name and approximately where you live
[29:41] and um give us your comment in three
minutes.
[29:45] » Yes. My name is Chuck Long Henry. I live
at St. Mary's Glacier have for about 7
[29:50] to eight years. I am also on the board
of directors for the Metro District as
[29:56] well as director of operations for Metro
St. Mary's district. Um my my comments
[30:03] would be
to put this on a ballot before even
[30:08] getting public input in a public forum
certainly doesn't seem fair. Oh,
[30:14] » okay. You need to tell us the subject
matter you're talking about.
[30:18] » The STR
the STR tax increase.
[30:22] » Okay.
>> So,
[30:25] » go ahead.
>> There's been no public input
[30:29] in an open setting. There's been no town
halls.
[30:33] The board seems to just think it's okay
to go from a 2% tax to a 6% tax. That
[30:40] tax is going to affect my income and a
lot of other people's as well as the
[30:45] county's income.
And this should be put before the voters
[30:51] of the county and not simply made up and
implemented by three county
[30:57] commissioners. No disrespect meant by
that, but this is has far-reaching
[31:03] implications for STR owners, tourism and
money coming into the county. If
[31:10] somebody can go to Loveland or Summit
and they're only paying a 2% tax and
[31:17] we're paying 6%, they're going to choose
that area. So, that's kind of my
[31:23] comment. I think that this should be
tabled until the commissioners hold a
[31:28] public forum, a town hall style meeting
to get the input of the residents that
[31:34] this affects and then go from there. Uh
that's all I have. Thank you.
[31:40] » Uh thank you uh just for the public's
information. Uh if we do decide to move
[31:46] forward with this, it will be on the
ballot. We conducted six town halls
[31:50] across the county discussing this. Is
there anyone else online?
[31:56] » Um, if you are online would like to
provide a comment, please raise your
[31:59] hand.
[32:05] Nope. No more hands raised. All right.
Thank you. I'm closing public comment.
[32:11] Uh, first up is the board serving as the
local licensing authority. Uh the first
[32:17] on the ballot is consideration of
recision of July 21st, 2026, approval of
[32:23] change of ownership from XLNY
LLC to Mr. Engineering and Automation
[32:31] LLC, avoiding the license transferred to
MR Engineering and Automation LLC, and
[32:38] reinstating the retail marijuana
products manufacturer license in the
[32:43] name of XLNY
LLC. Um, our uh senior parallegal,
[32:50] Nanette RER.
>> Good morning. Thank you for your time
[32:53] today.
So, as the memo indicates, on July 1st,
[32:58] the board approved a change of ownership
for this business from XLNY to MR
[33:02] Engineering. And at that time, we
approved the transferred license for the
[33:06] same term expiration date to the new
owner. And typically, the new owner
[33:13] comes in and takes possession of the
business. Everything works fine and
[33:18] goodbye and good luck. In this case,
because the license was expiring so
[33:22] quickly and due to a delay in the
a significant family event is what we'll
[33:28] call it, um, for MR Engineering, they
are requesting that we resend the change
[33:33] of ownership to allow XLNY to renew
their license, which expires October
[33:38] 23rd. It's just a procedural piece. The
MEED has already contingently approved
[33:43] the [clears throat] transfer as the memo
states. This will not affect the
[33:47] standing with me. This is just a local
licensing authority piece to allow XLNY
[33:52] to renew their license and keep it
current until the transfer of ownership
[33:56] is completed. They are anticipating
bringing back the transfer of ownership
[34:00] application at the first meeting in
November to get this completed again to
[34:04] complete the transfer.
So, we're asking the the board kind of
[34:10] undo, how do we word that, Peter?
license transfer,
[34:15] » restore the license back to XLNY so that
they can renew it,
[34:19] » right? And so typically we would do this
administratively with a with a headnot,
[34:23] not this exact, not the reversal, but
the the actual renewals and things. So
[34:28] I'm actually fine um in terms of
procedure if you just do a headnod. So
[34:33] basically what we are asking is exactly
what is stated, what has been stated and
[34:38] we just like administrative approval for
that. Typically the chair would be the
[34:42] one, but in light of the unique
circumstances, we just would probably
[34:46] just want head knots from all the board
members.
[34:49] » Um, here's mine.
>> There's yours. That's good. Okay.
[34:54] » Excellent. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[34:55] » Thank you.
>> Moving on.
[35:00] Uh, TKN Industries LLC doing business as
the Tricom Collective. Uh,
[35:09] » go ahead. Okay, this is a standard
renewal of the licenses held by TKN
[35:14] Industries LLC. They have a retail
marijuana products manufacturing and a
[35:19] medical marijuana infused products
manufacturing licenses. All the
[35:22] departments have indicated their
approval for the renewal. So, we would
[35:26] recommend that the chair
administratively approve the renewals of
[35:28] these licenses.
>> Okay. Uh, may I have a motion?
[35:34] » No motions needed. Just a headnob. Same
thing.
[35:36] » Here's my headnob. I mean, we call it a
headnob, but really we're memorializing
[35:40] it for the record. Yeah.
>> Excellent. Thank you very much.
[35:43] » Thank you for your work.
>> All right, we're back in regular session
[35:47] as the Clear Creek Board of County
Commissioners. Uh, starting with a
[35:51] communication update. Megan Hiler
Wilson.
[35:54] » All right, thank you. We've got a few
ones here today. Um, I do want to point
[35:58] out that tonight Evergreen Fire Rescue
is hosting an evacuation planning
[36:03] workshop that's happening from 6:00 p.m.
to 9:00 p.m. And that'll be at the high
[36:08] school middle school um in Evergreen.
So, if you want to learn, ask questions,
[36:12] um, anything,
>> sorry, Evergreen High School or Floyd
[36:14] Hill High School?
>> No, Clear Creek High School in
[36:16] Evergreen. Yep. Right on the hill right
there. Um, yeah, no worries. So, if you
[36:20] have any questions or anything like that
about evacuation, fires, or anything
[36:23] like that, go there. they'd love to
answer your questions, teach you some
[36:27] things, um all that kind of fun stuff.
And then, um also, um on the same topic
[36:31] of fires, Clear Creek County is now in
stage one fire restrictions. This still
[36:37] means we're in fire restrictions. So, um
if you want to know what that entails,
[36:41] uh you can go to our website. It's right
at the top on the alerts and you can
[36:44] read about the rules. So, we still need
to be cognizant that we are still in
[36:48] fire restrictions, Clare Creek County.
All right. Uh last thing, um I want to
[36:52] point out how you can see old, uh Clear
Creek County Commissioner meetings. Um
[36:56] you can see them on YouTube or on our
Facebook page or you can see them on our
[37:00] website. I'm going to share I was going
to share my screen
[37:06] um so I can show you
really quick. All right. So if you head
[37:12] to our website, see this here on the
left? We just redid the website last
[37:16] year and I made it so it's super easy.
If you click on public meetings, you can
[37:19] see all of our past public meetings. You
can see their recordings. You can see
[37:23] their agendas. Um, and see right here it
says board of county commissioners in
[37:27] session. That's the meeting we're in
right now. So, it streams live on our
[37:31] website. So, it's sorted by date. You
can go through there. If you have any
[37:34] questions, please reach out to me. I
want everyone who's watching this. And I
[37:39] want every resident to know that you can
find these on your own. And we are not
[37:42] trying to hide anything. Everything is
online. We have to show you. So,
[37:45] anyways, if you have any questions,
email me. I'm happy to point it out. But
[37:48] there you go. That's all I got.
>> Thank you, Megan. County Commissioner
[37:52] updates. Who would like to go first
today?
[37:55] » You can go first. Uh first off, we had
the employee recognition. We had a good
[38:00] time um visiting with staff and
recognizing those that were nominated.
[38:06] Um Rebecca and I attended the Dr. Cog
ceremony. Uh there were a lot of great
[38:11] projects that were um awarded there as
well. and I attended the C3 Fest for the
[38:18] emergency services. A lot of community
came out. It was nice to see the kids,
[38:22] get to see all the emergency vehicles
and talked to the um staff. Uh and then
[38:29] we had our last town hall that uh was up
in Floyd Hill. That was uh pretty good
[38:35] attended, good questions, and um that
was the last of our town halls. So,
[38:40] we're done with all of those. and we did
have six of those to get input and have
[38:45] conversations with our community. And
that's it for me.
[38:49] » Thank you, George.
>> Morning, colleagues. Um, shorter list.
[38:56] Thankfully, we've got a lot today. Um,
on the 15th, we are going to be
[39:01] discussing several statewide ballot
measures for a position. You may have
[39:05] seen the news that uh, Initiative 175
will not be on the ballot. that was the
[39:12] uh road funding measure.
So, I'm asking that we obviously don't
[39:16] need to consider a position on that. And
initiative 195, I had not mentioned to
[39:21] you. It had not caught my attention. Um
I'm asking that we add that one to the
[39:25] agenda if it's okay with you. Initiative
195 would require local law enforcement
[39:30] to uh coordinate with ICE for the
purposes of immigration enforcement. uh
[39:35] we can discuss what the position should
be, but I wanted to ask you for consent
[39:39] to put initiative 195 on the agenda for
the 15th.
[39:47] » I see Jody with a thumbs up.
>> Oh, sorry.
[39:50] » Yes.
>> Okay. Um second, I just want to let you
[39:53] know I've had a lot of SDR outreach um
over the years. Have have had a lot of
[39:59] conversations with a lot of different
operators as we've gone through several
[40:02] iterations of rules. Um, just wanted to
know that a lot of people have reached
[40:07] out and I've had a lot of good
conversations. Um,
[40:11] next, uh, we did the Click Creek Wershed
Forest Health Partnership did a fire
[40:17] mitigation tour. Um, projects in
different phases from we just finished
[40:22] to we're kind of in the middle to this
is what it looks like when we know we
[40:26] have work to do. Really, really great
tour. All of the metro area um, news
[40:31] agencies were there. There was a lot of
television news from it. There was a
[40:35] Denver Post oped. Uh, one of the
statements in that op-ed was that it's
[40:40] very clear that the metro area has to
figure out how to get work done in the
[40:43] small counties
>> that they rely on.
[40:45] » Um, so that was a really great time and
um um you can see some news about it.
[40:51] And then just lastly, I just want to
compliment the sheriff on uh his
[40:55] approach to the fire ban.
[clears throat]
[40:59] Um he was collaborative. he went in with
the forest service which is I think on
[41:04] our way down best practice. Um and so
just want to give a shout out that to
[41:10] the sheriff that um especially the first
adjustment after our new ordinance I
[41:16] kind of had my eyes on whether that how
that was going to go and I think it went
[41:19] really well. So compliments to Ron Paul
and that is all for me.
[41:23] » Thank you. Uh quickly the all three of
us attended the um Colorado County's
[41:29] Inc. meeting in Leadville uh to discuss
upcoming legislation.
[41:35] Uh all three of us had a um a seed dot
tour and an Argo visit with Congressman
[41:42] Nagus and Congressman Rascin.
Uh I attended the Central City Clear
[41:49] Creek Super Fund site update with uh EPA
and Colorado Department of Public Health
[41:54] and the Environment.
Uh you might have noticed we had an
[41:59] extra BOCC meeting uh last month. Uh
that was to uh make sure we're able to
[42:06] uh conduct all the business we needed to
conduct without uh staying here till
[42:09] 9:00 at night. Uh we had um uh Jod and I
attended the Dr. Cog the Denver Regional
[42:17] Council of Government's Awards dinner in
Denver
[42:21] and uh we all or Jod and I at least I
could see you there. um [clears throat]
[42:26] attended the C3 Fest at the ball fields
in Idaho Springs which was put on by our
[42:30] safety organizations and it was a really
great family event. Um lots of kids were
[42:36] there ooing and eyeing over the big
equipment and I think they picked up a
[42:40] lot of good information about uh fire
safety and um
[42:46] uh you know safety from crime. uh they
were giving out uh what do they call
[42:52] [clears throat] lowjacks or something to
attach to your steering wheel to prevent
[42:56] your car from being stolen. So if you
missed it this year, come next year. Uh
[43:02] we all attended the employee recognition
lunchon at Loveland Ski Area thanks to
[43:06] Loveland. We had a great dinner and uh
when the rain came, they brought us all
[43:11] inside so we could um continue the
celebration.
[43:16] And that's all for me. Thank you.
[43:21] Uh, county manager updates, rolloffs.
>> Um, not a lot. Um, we are still working
[43:26] on some of the road system from the rain
we've been having. Um, which has kind of
[43:30] put us a little bit behind on some other
stuff. Um, but we're going as fast as we
[43:34] can. One thing I did want to mention is
that leaf peeping might be coming very
[43:38] early this year,
>> midepptember.
[43:41] So just for the our our residents and
any visiting public like the management
[43:47] plan that you know happened last year
will probably happen again in some
[43:50] extent maybe not to the scale because
we're not expecting as much color in
[43:54] general. However, you know prepare for
what that feels like on the weekends.
[44:00] You know um we'll manage as best we can
but you know it you know I think our
[44:04] peak day our peak weekend last year was
was 50,000 people. So [clears throat]
[44:09] » um on Guanella Pass alone. So that
doesn't include all the other places in
[44:15] the county where the leaves change. So
um we're we're working towards um
[44:20] finalizing that management plan again
like similar to last year.
[44:25] » Thank you.
>> Um that's it for me.
[44:29] » All right.
[44:33] We are early
for um a CPR context contest winner.
[44:41] Are are you handling that or were you
waiting for someone?
[44:44] » Uh they were supposed to be here. I know
Mayor Harmon was supposed to be here.
[44:48] » Okay.
>> Well Well, let let's wait for them. Um
[46:24] approved enough to actually
[46:28] sign any.
[46:32] Okay, let me just turn the other camera
back on.
[47:09] Board of County Commissioners is back in
session after a brief uh power outage.
[47:16] Um moving on to
um we're going to skip item eight for
[47:21] now just because we're ahead of
schedule. We will return to that.
[47:30] Uh, moving on to the consent agenda.
Uh, does anything need to be pulled?
[47:38] » I'm going to suggest that you read it
first and if anything needs to be
[47:42] pulled.
>> All right. Uh, consent agenda. Item A,
[47:47] consideration of approval of the warrant
register. Item B, consideration of
[47:52] approval of written minutes for the
board of county commissioners meetings
[47:56] for January 20th, 2026,
February 3rd, 2026,
[48:03] February 10th, 2026,
February 17th, 2026, and February 24th,
[48:11] 2026.
Item C, consideration of letter of
[48:15] support nomination for Clear Creek
County Ambulance Service of the Year.
[48:21] Item D, consideration of approval of the
employment agreement with the county
[48:26] attorney.
Item F, consideration of approval of the
[48:30] employment agreement with the county
manager. Item G, consideration of
[48:35] approval of contact contract for PW26-03
pavement marking project with D2
[48:44] striping.
Item H, consideration of acceptance of
[48:49] public road easements granted by the
United States Forest Service for Little
[48:54] Bear Creek Road, uh, County Road 151,
Raven Ridge Road, County Road 422,
[49:03] Van Eden Road, Morrison Lane, County
Road 232,
[49:09] South Spring Gulch Road, County Road
130, and Cinton Road, County wrote 470
[49:21] and uh I skipped D, excuse me.
Consideration of approval of
[49:26] intergovernmental agreement regarding
Proposition 123, shared affordable
[49:32] housing credits.
Moving on to item I, consideration of
[49:39] approval of a statement of work with the
Colorado Department of Public Health and
[49:43] Environment regarding implementation of
the Child Fatality Prevention Act and
[49:49] Maternal Child Health.
Thank you. Uh, may I have a motion?
[49:55] » Move we approve the consent agenda as
read.
[49:58] » Any discussion?
>> Um, just we need a second.
[50:01] » Oh, sorry. Any second? Uh second. Any
discussion?
[50:06] » Thank you.
>> Um couple comments. Um item C just EMS
[50:12] has been nominated for the ambulance
service of the year through MSAC. That's
[50:17] not a small thing. There are a lot of
EMS agencies. Of course, we think ours
[50:21] is the best and best of luck to them.
It's an excellent letter. Thank you,
[50:24] Colton. Um and then I'm just glad to see
us deepening our relationships with uh
[50:30] other jurisdictions around housing. Item
D. um is a great step um in the right
[50:35] direction there.
>> That's all for me.
[50:39] » Thank you, Jody. Any discussion?
>> Okay. All right. All in favor? I
[50:44] » I
>> I
[50:45] » uh consent and agenda is approved.
And we have some people in the hallway.
[50:52] Are they here for
>> item eight CPR contest winner?
[50:58] » Yes. But let me check if Clark is going
to be here.
[51:00] » Okay.
[51:19] just as
[51:25] you can move on to the next one while
we're waiting if you want.
[51:29] Possible.
>> Sure.
[51:33] All right. Um, moving on to the board of
county commissioners action items.
[51:40] Consideration of approval of resolution
26-55
[51:45] resolution providing for the submission
registered qualified electors of
[51:51] unincorporated Clear Creek County and
the incorporated municipalities within
[51:56] the county except for the town of
Georgetown. A question authorizing an
[52:01] increase in the county's existing
lodging tax from 2% to 6% to provide
[52:08] funding for public infrastructure
maintenance or improvements, public
[52:12] safety, child care and housing for the
tourism related workforce and
[52:17] advertising and marketing local tourism.
said question to be submitted at the
[52:23] election to be held November 3rd, 2026,
prescribing the form of ballot question
[52:29] for submission at said election and
providing for certification of the
[52:34] election question the county clerk and
recorder.
[52:39] Do we have uh a motion for that
approval?
[52:49] Um,
I thought we might have some discussion.
[52:52] » I thought I had to move and have it
seconded and then the discussion.
[52:56] » Yeah, generally we get a motion second
and then discussion and then if it
[53:01] discussion doesn't go there, the motion
either fails and you do another motion
[53:05] or you can amend the motion.
>> I don't know how my colleagues would
[53:07] know what kind of motion I have in mind
without discussion.
[53:12] » I just read it. you it
>> I mean I I what if I want to change the
[53:16] ballot language?
>> You you can move then you don't have to
[53:20] make a motion either. I mean that's
it it's fine. We don't follow Robert's
[53:26] rules per strictly. So that's absolutely
fine if you just want to have a
[53:30] discussion that's okay. I'm not going to
worry
[53:33] » okay
>> procedurally either but typically what
[53:35] would happen is you would move get a
second. Move to approve, move to deny,
[53:41] you know, and then you have a discussion
and that's where you have the discussion
[53:44] and then you make a friendly amendment
to
[53:47] » George. Are you moving to deny?
>> I am not making a motion.
[53:52] » George can make a motion.
>> So if I make a motion, do I need to read
[53:54] the whole thing again since she did or
motion?
[53:57] » I think you can based on that you can
move to approve as indicated on the
[54:01] record.
>> I'll move to approve as indicated on the
[54:04] record.
>> Uh do I have a second? second.
[54:07] » Uh, any further discussion?
[54:16] » Yes, colleagues, I wanted to just I
think I think there's a lot of value
[54:20] associated with having a discussion
about whether this should be on the
[54:24] ballot, putting it on the record,
describing the process we went through
[54:27] to get here. I would not have been
offended by a staff presentation about
[54:32] that. Um, but I think we can put it
together. Um I so I just want to explain
[54:37] why I sort of started this hearing the
way I did. Um
[54:43] colleagues, I've heard from a lot of
folks about this. Um there are
[54:47] short-term rental operators that we we
all heard. I don't need to reiterate
[54:51] their points. Um one of the things I
want to share is that I think
[54:58] we have also a work session on the
short-term rental rules. Um,
[55:05] and I think that
there are fair comments being made about
[55:11] the combination of going from 2% to 6%,
the fees and the regulatory um, hurdles.
[55:20] Um, and so
Peter, you're going to tell me that we
[55:24] should not discuss these two things at
the same time. Definitely not in any
[55:27] complexity. Um, but I do think that I I
do support this measure. The public
[55:32] clearly um sees value as well. Um they
see value in trying to help our
[55:41] visitors, trying to find a way for our
visitors to help us pay for public
[55:45] safety and infrastructure. They see
value in us investing in housing and in
[55:50] child care. Um and the
stakeholders that are lodging entities
[55:58] themselves clearly value
marketing investments. Um and while I
[56:05] wanted to comment a little bit on that
while uh these this letter this formal
[56:09] objection we have which we got yesterday
and I read much more carefully the
[56:14] version that we got a couple weeks ago
but I did respond to that email to
[56:19] clarify um
this states that
[56:25] the overall amount of funds allocated
from the tax to promote tourism will go
[56:31] down. Um, colleagues, in my response, I
just I want you to know that I shared my
[56:35] recollection of the public meetings
we've had to date or that our intent is
[56:39] actually the opposite. Um, going from
language that says you can use no more
[56:44] than 40% of a 2% collection to saying we
can we have to use at least 10% of a 6%
[56:50] collection um, enables the board legally
to spend more on taxing on marketing
[56:57] than we have in the past. Um and I
remember discussions
[57:02] particularly in the work session in May
around wanting to make sure that in a
[57:07] down year we can increase that
percentage um so that the tourism bureau
[57:11] board can stay whole organization.
Um and wanting to have the flexibility
[57:16] if we find like a marketing initiative
that we think is high impact or
[57:19] particularly meaningful. Um
so I wanted to provide that
[57:24] clarification and I just want to pause
there. Am I am I wrong as far as the
[57:29] intent of the board would be to in the
budget should this pass or not to try to
[57:34] budget to the tourism bureau
approximately what we did last year?
[57:41] Am I misremembering the conversation in
our work session in May?
[57:45] » No, you're correct. Um,
[57:49] I too have had those conversations and
when I talk to the short-term rental um
[57:56] community, I also say, what if in a
world we could have the tourism board
[58:01] work more for the short-term rental um
and get them filled up instead of just
[58:06] maybe on weekends or what they have now.
I think that this measure um could work
[58:11] for everybody so that we have more money
to put towards the tourism, towards
[58:15] housing and child care and then have
more for our budget instead of and and
[58:21] that does leave a little bit of fluid
talk like so if you needed more it's up
[58:25] to Right.
>> No, no, it's um
[58:29] » at least
>> at least
[58:30] » at least. Yeah. So that's right. um at
least so as things change, if you have
[58:36] harder years, you can change that a
little bit. Um I like that idea because
[58:41] when I see things advertised, I I do
think we can do better. Um and hopefully
[58:48] that's a goal that we're working
towards,
[58:51] » right? And and it it benefits us all to
have a healthy short-term rental um
[58:58] business.
And we also, it benefits us all to have
[59:04] adequate public safety resources to help
take care of our visitors who um might
[59:11] have accidents on our 14ers or even
downtown or in their vehicles driving
[59:17] through. So, I think this is a help for
the community at large. Thank you. Any
[59:26] further discussion? Yeah, I wanted to
ask um one of these bullets, this is a
[59:30] question for you, Peter. Um, one of
these bullets say that there are legal
[59:35] concerns that remain unresol unresolved,
including
[59:39] a lack of transparency, missing written
BOCC
[59:43] meeting minutes.
Um,
[59:48] are you aware of any legal requirements?
Peter, I'm looking at the second bullet
[59:53] on the second page. Are you aware of any
legal requirements that we have not met
[59:59] » with regard to minutes and open
meetings?
[1:00:02] » Any anything procedurally that that is
required for us to be able to legally
[1:00:07] put this on the ballot?
>> No. Um, we
[1:00:11] comply with the appropriateness of the
ballot language. It's consistent with
[1:00:15] you would see in other counties as well
on similar ballots. Um, it complies with
[1:00:20] Taber. The notice is appropriate.
I read the um submission that is in the
[1:00:27] public record from the travel alliance
and I'm sorry if I'm getting their name
[1:00:32] wrong and um their concern even about
endorsement of this through the fair
[1:00:38] campaign practices act. Um again we're
we're covered by Colorado's requirements
[1:00:44] as well which is different from the Fair
Campaign Practices Act but I'm not
[1:00:48] concerned about any of that. As far as
the minutes go, um I saw a comment that
[1:00:53] some of these minutes were not online. I
do believe that is something that we are
[1:00:57] looking into because when the county
changed its um when we updated the
[1:01:03] website essentially to include all of
the accessibility aspects, everything
[1:01:07] that happened, you may recall that
initially we took things down to make
[1:01:10] sure we were not in violation. And so
it's a gradual process to get them back
[1:01:14] up. Um, and I I'll absolutely the county
manager can speak to those efforts as
[1:01:18] well, but I want to assure you that
those those minutes will be back up and
[1:01:23] available in the interim. Fortunately,
um, our Zoom our board meetings are
[1:01:29] handled via Zoom and they are then also
simalcast um on YouTube for the record.
[1:01:35] So, if somebody went back, they can
search for a date. Sometimes YouTube is
[1:01:39] a little quirky in finding that date,
but Megan's always available to be able
[1:01:43] to at least send somebody a link if need
be. If for some reason one of our board
[1:01:48] meetings has not made it to the YouTube
link, then we can just correct that by
[1:01:52] getting it added up.
>> I will add if I you if you don't mind,
[1:01:56] yeah, like you said, YouTube can kind of
be weird and especially when you stream
[1:01:59] them live, it doesn't really sort them
by date. So, I would recommend, like I
[1:02:04] showed in my um update, going to the
website, clicking on public meetings,
[1:02:07] and then you can search by date, and if
you click on a meeting, it's got the
[1:02:11] agenda and the recording on there right
there. So, I would recommend doing that.
[1:02:16] » But anyway, the the comments of of the
alliance are well taken, understood. But
[1:02:20] I if anything, I appreciate the ability
to doublech checkck everything that has
[1:02:24] been asked about. So, I think we're
good.
[1:02:28] And as far as the minutes go, we are we
are working to get them approved and
[1:02:31] back online. We are a little behind. Um
we were we do have the full stream
[1:02:35] online, so that's a much more thorough
examination of everything that happened
[1:02:40] in that meeting than summarized minutes.
Um but yeah, we um
[1:02:47] I will take personal responsibility. We
did not give it the priority it probably
[1:02:51] deserves. And I think in cases like
this, it can create a little bit of a,
[1:02:55] you know, element of confusion. and you
know, so we'll get that corrected as
[1:02:59] soon as we can.
>> Thank you, Jody. Any questions?
[1:03:04] » No, I just wanted to say to when people
say that we're just going from 2 to 6%,
[1:03:08] we are putting it on a ballot for the um
community outside of Georgetown to vote
[1:03:15] on this. If this is from 2 to 6, we're
not strictly deciding that on our own.
[1:03:21] This is just letting the voters decide
that,
[1:03:24] » right? As is required by Taber,
>> right?
[1:03:28] » All right. Any further comments? Um one
comment from um for me was that uh and
[1:03:35] maybe this was addressed or or mentioned
um the aspect of community engagement as
[1:03:41] the board had mentioned um the chair
mentioned there were what six town halls
[1:03:47] which this was one of the discussion or
topics but additionally um and if I if
[1:03:53] this was referenced you had the survey
that went out to the community as well
[1:03:57] um and that survey informed the board
the board's uh decisions here or
[1:04:03] determinations of where they wanted to
go. So, I just since George had
[1:04:07] mentioned staff presentation, I just
wanted to throw that in there.
[1:04:10] » It's Thank you. Good point.
>> Um I I do have some other one of the I
[1:04:18] don't think it was in in this one. It
was in a previous outreach maybe a
[1:04:21] couple weeks ago. Um there was the
suggestion that we propose going from 2%
[1:04:28] to 4%. Um and see how that affects the
industry um with a subsequent increase
[1:04:36] later if we see that it is not affecting
the industry. I just wanted to address
[1:04:41] that. Um I think the legal analysis and
Peter I'm looking at you to correct me
[1:04:45] if I'm wrong. I think the legal analysis
is that voter authorization to collect
[1:04:50] up to 6% is not a requirement. The board
could reduce that rate if we see
[1:04:55] evidence that we are harming that
industry or that that that tax rate is
[1:04:58] harming that industry.
>> I So that that is correct. So this this
[1:05:04] ballot language will allow the board to
determine a rate up to 6%. Up to and
[1:05:11] including 6%. The board doesn't have to
do that, but I do need to note that if
[1:05:16] the board starts at 4%.
It is likely we would need to go back to
[1:05:22] the voters for the board to then go up
to 6% at a later time because once you
[1:05:28] establish a rate wherever you land on
that, um the question as to whether that
[1:05:34] increase in taxes, even though it's by
the board, still requires voter
[1:05:39] authorization notwithstanding the
language. So we would if anything as far
[1:05:43] as a practic practical standpoint you
would either start at four and just stay
[1:05:47] at four or go down or you would start at
six and go down or stay. Um but going
[1:05:53] the reverse doesn't really work.
>> Thank you.
[1:05:57] » All right. May I have uh
>> um well there there's one other thing
[1:06:02] that I think is worth discussing and um
you stated it
[1:06:07] after well I guess two people are just
out of the moment. Um, you stated after
[1:06:11] the
public comment, I just want to
[1:06:16] reiterate, um, we had six town halls
this summer. We brought it up and asked
[1:06:22] for feedback in all six town halls. Um,
we have discussed this extensively with,
[1:06:28] um, municipal leadership. Mayor of Idaho
Springs is in the room. Um, he we're not
[1:06:33] going to ask him to confirm that here.
Um, but I also I just want to talk a
[1:06:38] little bit about the assertions about
how
[1:06:42] lodging taxes are being used for
marketing. There's an assertion in here
[1:06:46] that lodging taxes are not being used to
good effect in Clare Creek County with
[1:06:51] the lodging taxes.
Um, I'm looking at our tourism bureau
[1:06:55] director, uh,
>> who is in just wrapped up her first year
[1:06:59] as tourism director.
>> [laughter]
[1:07:02] » Um,
I don't disagree that we had a bad
[1:07:06] marketing strategy for decades in Click
Creek County. I do disagree that we have
[1:07:10] a bad marketing strategy today. And I
want to encourage anybody that's
[1:07:13] interested in understanding more about
that marketing strategy to uh, tune in
[1:07:18] for our agenda item uh, that is talking
about that updated marketing strategy
[1:07:23] and everything that we did. Um, or
contact the tourism bureau board itself.
[1:07:28] I want to make sure that lodgers know
that they are eligible to serve on the
[1:07:32] tourism bureau board and and direct
marketing efforts. I also want to share
[1:07:38] that conversations about marketing
specific businesses are pretty thorny.
[1:07:43] Uh we tend to in marketing focus on
trying to get more people into our
[1:07:48] economy and be fairly neutral about
where they land specifically in our
[1:07:51] economy. So, I don't know that
it would be a great strategy or um
[1:07:59] have the right impact to say, you know,
we want you to go to this specific
[1:08:02] short-term rental here or to like boost
Airbnb's website. Um, so I wanted to
[1:08:09] sort of address that too. My intent here
is just to address some of the highle
[1:08:12] concerns. I think that's the last one
that's worth mentioning. Um, otherwise,
[1:08:16] I mean, this is pretty clear to me that,
and I know I'm not the only one, um,
[1:08:22] when I ran for office, I told voters
that I would not cut services without
[1:08:28] giving them the opportunity to pay for
those services first.
[1:08:32] This is implementing that promise. We
are offering voters the option to find
[1:08:36] other ways to pay for the services that
we know will not exist if we don't have
[1:08:42] either more stuff get built or higher
tax rates or some combination thereof.
[1:08:48] So that's my last comment on it. This is
[laughter]
[1:08:50] » all right. So I just need to clarify one
thing. The taxes will not go up for
[1:08:54] community residents. These are taxes on
uh lodging. So your hotels and your
[1:09:01] short-term rentals. um it's not attacks
on our current um population which
[1:09:08] already passed a tax on themselves last
year to help our uh public safety
[1:09:13] professionals. So this one is help us
help the tens of thousands of visitors
[1:09:20] we get in our tiny little county of 9100
people. um this helps them uh by
[1:09:28] improving our services so that as I said
when they get hurt climbing our 14ers we
[1:09:34] have people out there to help them. So
that's all I'll say on that. Are we
[1:09:41] ready for a motion? We had a motion.
Yep.
[1:09:44] » Are we ready for a vote?
>> I don't have anything else.
[1:09:48] » All right. All in favor? I I
>> I motion passes. Thank you.
[1:09:56] All right, we are moving back in the
agenda since we got ahead of ourselves.
[1:10:01] Um, and this is the CPR contest winner,
Idaho Springs.
[1:10:07] » I'll have uh Clark come up here if you
don't mind.
[1:10:11] And um, Idaho Springs, you can also come
up here. Um, Clark, you might be able to
[1:10:15] give us more information about how many
people you had trained, etc., etc. And
[1:10:19] here's your guys' certificates.
>> Here's your certificates.
[1:10:23] Congratulations.
>> Appreciate it. Yeah. So, we had a
[1:10:27] » taking a photo.
>> You can sit if you'd like to.
[1:10:29] » Sure.
>> Um we reached out to our all of our m
[1:10:34] municipal leaders the the mayor's
meeting. Um
[1:10:39] we're doing a big initiative really this
summer which we kind of just slowed down
[1:10:43] coming into the fall uh
>> to get as many folks uh CPR certified in
[1:10:49] the community that we could. Um, and
Mayor Harmon and and uh his associates
[1:10:54] in Idaho Springs really stepped up and
uh gave us a few opportunities to train
[1:10:59] their city council and their public
works folks. Um, and out of theaters we
[1:11:05] got the most trained in Idaho Springs. I
think probably got 20 folks
[1:11:09] » out of your group. Um,
>> it was wildly successful.
[1:11:12] » Yeah, it was wonderful.
>> So, so my my little training in Dumont
[1:11:15] doesn't count for that.
>> [laughter]
[1:11:18] » Um and it was awesome and through the
collaboration of of a lot of people uh
[1:11:22] we trained about 450 people this summer.
>> Awesome.
[1:11:25] » So really excellent work. Um so we just
appreciate all that and appreciate you
[1:11:30] all. Well, Ken, thank you enough. And uh
I was u pleasantly surprised with uh the
[1:11:37] level of interest uh the people uh
coming out uh very clearly. We're were
[1:11:43] passionate about this and uh uh we
appreciate the opportunity uh to to
[1:11:49] learn and uh and uh hopefully uh you
know to save lives if if god forbid you
[1:11:54] know somebody needs CPR. uh 450 that
that is really for as small as our
[1:12:00] community is that that's a very high
percentage. Uh thank you for for uh
[1:12:05] stepping up and uh and making this
possible.
[1:12:08] » Sure.
>> I can't thank you enough.
[1:12:10] » For background, Clare Creek County um
espec specifically Clare Creek EMS is
[1:12:13] working to become a heart-safe
community. So we're trying to train at
[1:12:16] least 15% of the population in CPR to
strengthen the chain of survival as they
[1:12:21] call it. So um as everybody knows, we do
not have a hospital in Clear Creek
[1:12:25] County. So CPR right when a cardiac
arrest happens really matters um and uh
[1:12:30] really helps people survive obviously in
the long run. So that's why we're doing
[1:12:33] this and Clark has been amazing in doing
this and I'm really excited that we're
[1:12:37] going to continue doing this in years to
come. So
[1:12:39] » Oh yeah. Thank you very much everybody.
Appreciate it.
[1:12:41] » And and just one plug for Clark. I I
I've been you know doing CPR training
[1:12:47] off and on over the last you know 40
years or whatever. um more often on, but
[1:12:52] he had me on this very sophisticated
mannequin.
[1:12:55] » I had no idea all these years I wasn't
pushing hard enough and I had to get
[1:13:00] that green light and that was hard.
>> So, I learned a lot. Thank you.
[1:13:05] » Thank you, man.
>> Yeah, kudos. Thank you. Same. um that
[1:13:10] mannequin like I had done it with all
the other the kind of and that that
[1:13:15] changed the game for me and you realize
that it is so much more um you know
[1:13:20] thinking about breaking ribs and stuff
like that but when you're in the moment
[1:13:23] and you see that green light which in my
mind you can just kind of get that feel
[1:13:28] um it was great and thank you for doing
that and how close to that 15% are we
[1:13:34] » you know actually I think um we can't
measure all of it right because there's
[1:13:38] so many people that are certified But I
think that we're pretty like pretty much
[1:13:42] there. Um we're hoping to do some stuff
with the high school come this fall and
[1:13:47] then we're going to be submitting our
application in full which is a lot of
[1:13:50] things beyond just that but a lot of
other things that happen in our
[1:13:52] community for this chain of survival. Um
so yeah I think I think this year we're
[1:13:56] going to submit an application and see
what happens.
[1:13:58] » Do you do anything like uh at the mine
at Henderson or I'm just
[1:14:02] » they have their own team and I think
they're all well squared away so we
[1:14:05] don't work with the mine. spoken to the
mind. Um, but I think they're pretty
[1:14:09] squared away.
>> Okay.
[1:14:10] » Yeah. But I appreciate that.
>> Very good. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:14:14] » Just a quick comment for me. Just
>> I guess I'll start. Yes. Thank you Idaho
[1:14:19] Springs for for leaning in. Um
um we're really really grateful to have
[1:14:24] you as partners and supporters of Clear
Creek EMS. Um, and on our consent agenda
[1:14:29] as a letter of support, Clear Creek EMS
was nominated the Colorado Ambulance
[1:14:34] Service of the Year uh for MSAC. Um,
>> excuse me.
[1:14:39] » I don't know how we can better
demonstrate the way you deserve this
[1:14:41] award. Uh, Clear Creek EMS triples the
national average cardiac arrest rate and
[1:14:46] they're not satisfied.
>> I mean cardiac arrest survival rate.
[1:14:50] » What did I say?
>> Arrest rate.
[1:14:52] » Arrest rate. [laughter]
We
[1:14:56] » were about average on that.
>> We strive to be below average on that.
[1:14:59] But um I mean it's it's just it's I'm
I'm continuously astounded by your
[1:15:03] pursuit of excellence and um thank you
so much.
[1:15:07] » Yeah. Thank you all and I appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
[1:15:10] » Take a little break for Megan to take
their photo.
[1:15:12] » Sure. Okay. Going on a brief break.
Thank you. Yeah.
[1:15:17] » You want
[1:18:21] All
[1:18:26] right. County Commissioners is back in
session in order to go into executive
[1:18:31] session for the following reasons.
Um, based on that motion, pursuant to
[1:18:37] CRS 246424B
and E for the board of county
[1:18:41] commissioners to confer with the county
attorney for the purposes of receiving
[1:18:45] legal advice on specific legal questions
pertaining to potential liability and
[1:18:49] risk risk exposure arising from public
safety responses and determining
[1:18:53] positions relative to matters that may
be subject to negotiations. developing
[1:18:57] strategy for negotiations and
instructing negotiators with regard to
[1:19:01] addressing that potential liability and
risk exposure. And pursuant to CRS
[1:19:05] 246424B and D for the county attorney to
meet with the board of county
[1:19:08] commissioners for the purposes of
receiving legal advice on specific legal
[1:19:12] questions pertaining to the
intergovernmental agreement between
[1:19:14] Gilpin County and Clear Creek County for
the operation of an animal shelter and
[1:19:19] determining positions relative to
matters that may be subject to
[1:19:21] negotiations developing strategy for
negotiations and instructing negotiators
[1:19:26] with regard to the IGA. And
>> second
[1:19:29] » perfect.
>> All in favor? I
[1:19:32] » I
>> motion passes. We'll go into executive
[1:19:35] session and be back in
>> 25 minutes.
[1:19:40] » All right, let's go for a half hour.
>> Okay.
[1:57:42] Board of County Commissioners is back in
public session after our executive
[1:57:46] session at which uh no decisions were
made and no minutes were kept. Uh we are
[1:57:52] moving on to
uh sorry
[1:57:59] a work session with the tourism bureau
um regarding their website and messaging
[1:58:06] presentation with the tourism bureau
director uh Jess Jones and with Matthew
[1:58:10] Mson. Do you want to come join us?
I want nothing but
[1:58:20] » Megan doesn't bite.
>> Well, maybe
[1:58:25] say
>> Yeah, right.
[1:58:34] » Sorry, I had a bit of an asthmatic
episode and it's just lingering.
[1:58:37] » Oh, shoot. Oh, I hate that. Comes
upstairs to something blooming.
[1:58:42] » Ragweed. Well, and I was just in Texas
for about a week. Oh my gosh, they have
[1:58:48] so much more weather that comes with
growing all the weeds that you can
[1:58:53] » struggle through. So, a
>> All right. So, um let's see. You have a
[1:58:59] presentation for us?
>> I've got a little bit of one. Um so,
[1:59:04] this will be part of Matt's
presentation. I'm sorry.
[1:59:07] » No, no, no. You're totally fine.
>> It is no problem. We have so much to
[1:59:10] cover. Um, so we already know who the
tourism bureau is when we were
[1:59:15] established, but we have some really
exciting things going on this past year.
[1:59:19] As George recently mentioned, it's been
my one year. And so, we kind of wanted
[1:59:23] to chat with you guys a little bit about
what we've done, but more importantly
[1:59:26] about
>> this Wednesday.
[1:59:32] » Yeah,
you don't have you don't have to.
[1:59:36] » Okay, cool. [laughter] Okay. I was like
22 pages. So
[1:59:41] [clears throat] um so this past year
we've been listening you know we've
[1:59:45] heard a little bit about the previous
times with this board the distrust
[1:59:48] within our community lack of visitor
resources and a way that we can connect
[1:59:52] better with our businesses. From there
we've really been trying to establish
[1:59:57] channels to communicate with us to make
time with us and to be a part of our
[2:00:01] initiatives. Um
one of the first things we did was start
[2:00:06] to strengthen our partnerships. So, we
have got Idaho Springs, Empire, and even
[2:00:10] Silver Plume coming to the table and
speaking with us about what their needs
[2:00:14] are as a county. We love to be the
umbrella of everything, but we're not
[2:00:18] so, you know, shy to everyone's unique
um circumstances when it comes to
[2:00:23] tourism in their areas. Um, we've also
partnered with not just municipalities,
[2:00:28] local businesses, lodgers, public lands
managers, nonprofits, the Colorado
[2:00:33] Tourism Office, our own economic
development corporation, and all sorts
[2:00:38] of entities that really want to help
elevate us to our next step. So,
[2:00:43] all of that to say, what have we done?
Um, during my first month here, we did
[2:00:48] apply for a grant um that we received
$73,500.
[2:00:54] So, yes, we do use our lodging, but
we're always trying to find other ways
[2:00:57] to leverage to make it stretch just a
little bit farther. Um, from here, we
[2:01:01] started our trails to town project. Um,
that kind of jokes here because this is
[2:01:05] kind of where it was birthed. Um, we've
always heard the urge to get people off
[2:01:10] the trails and into our cash registers,
but maybe we're looking at the overall
[2:01:16] picture and we needed to dissect it a
little bit more. Thank you, Colton, our
[2:01:19] county manager, for providing us a ton
of data to really figure out what
[2:01:23] segment we're missing. Um, I think we've
talked about it a ton here that 20 to 30
[2:01:28] outdoor adventure people who want to
come up, do something for free, and
[2:01:32] maybe have those home habits that take
them back down the hill. Um, we wanted
[2:01:36] this pocketbook guide to kind of inspire
them to see what they don't know is here
[2:01:41] in town. Um, everyone has that local
brewery by their spot, but they do do
[2:01:45] they know about the history that we have
here? we have other spots. Um, so it's
[2:01:49] really going to be that touch point of
telling a story while making sure you're
[2:01:52] getting a little bit of that exposure
for what we have to offer here.
[2:01:58] Um, currently right now we are still in
design phase. I just touched bait with
[2:02:02] um, Ember Designs um, and we should be
getting something a little bit more
[2:02:06] flushed out by the end of this month.
Uh, we did apply for round two earlier
[2:02:12] um, last month actually. Uh so we'll be
hearing about that in October and we did
[2:02:16] apply for the full 73,500
and this will be a digital component
[2:02:21] along with a full marketing strategy. So
5,000 will go to website 68,500
[2:02:27] will go into marketing for this specific
campaign.
[2:02:31] » And I'm sorry, have you gotten the grant
already or you just applied?
[2:02:34] » We just applied for it. We'll know in
October.
[2:02:37] Some other ways that we've wanted to
connect and touch base and be
[2:02:40] collaborative, we've started our tourism
forum. So, we have every second
[2:02:45] Wednesday at 10 a.m. over at the
Majestic. We want to meet with our
[2:02:48] partners, hear what we're doing, hear
what they're doing, and more ways that
[2:02:51] we can layer and work together. There's
also the point of the pot. If we're all
[2:02:56] going after the same marketing
opportunity, then we're all putting our
[2:02:59] dollars in one bin. This is an
opportunity that we can stretch things
[2:03:02] and go a little bit further. So, um, one
example is if Idaho Springs is going for
[2:03:07] a commercial on apps and streaming
services, we have another opportunity to
[2:03:11] go with live TV streaming and on demand.
We're not going to go for the same
[2:03:15] entities. We might have the same
demographics, but that way we can
[2:03:18] stretch uh and get into people's minds a
little bit better.
[2:03:23] Um, the other opportunity we were
recently started was our lodging round
[2:03:27] table. Um, as a lodging board, we want
to make sure that we're partnering with
[2:03:31] those short-term rentals that you've
been uh hearing from more of our lodging
[2:03:35] partners. And we actually do have two
open positions on our board right now if
[2:03:39] anyone is interested in coming,
supporting us, our efforts, and really
[2:03:43] having a hand in the say.
[2:03:47] And this is when we get to Matt. So,
when it when I came into my first year,
[2:03:52] I wasn't new to this. I've sat on the
board for about two years. and we kind
[2:03:56] of had the same understanding of
hearing. We want a refresh. We want
[2:03:59] something a little bit more engaging. We
might not love being cartoony. So,
[2:04:03] what's the opposite of that? I don't
know. I put out an um an RFP and we
[2:04:09] resource some really great talent,
including Matt. So, this is Matt Mson.
[2:04:14] He is with Creative Trajectory. We have
hired him on for a couple of our
[2:04:18] projects here. Um mostly with our
destination rebranding, our strategy.
[2:04:24] Um, we've got our whole website that
we'll touch base on just a moment and
[2:04:27] our social media. So, I'll let you take
away.
[2:04:32] » Jess set this up really wonderfully. um
she came into this and she really
[2:04:37] listened to everyone was saying about
the county and she didn't make
[2:04:41] assumptions and that's what I really
tried to do when I came in to help you
[2:04:45] guys or the county which was listen to
what everyone has to say and then let
[2:04:50] that kind of inform the direction of the
entire brand and I sat down with a lot
[2:04:55] of the people on the board. I've talked
to a lot of businesses. I've had a
[2:04:58] wonderful opportunity to also work with
um people in Idaho Springs. Sadi is one
[2:05:04] of them and create kind of a larger
tapestry of a brand. What I really heard
[2:05:10] and what really stood out to everyone I
think is adventure belongs to everyone.
[2:05:15] And so often when we're down in the
Front Range, we hear that the mountains
[2:05:19] aren't for certain people and they don't
have the ability or the understanding to
[2:05:25] come up here. And I think that's a huge
component of it is it's not just
[2:05:28] bringing people here, but educating
people to have the best experience
[2:05:33] possible. That's another core component
of the website is the website right now
[2:05:38] is an incredible directory.
Unfortunately or fortunately, Google
[2:05:42] does a really good job of telling you
where stuff is and what it is. What we
[2:05:46] needed to do is kind of how do we
connect those dots? So instead of going
[2:05:50] to the Argo, how do we get people to
become interested in the Argo and then
[2:05:56] stay at the campground and then eat at
the restaurants and extend the stand?
[2:06:02] How do we turn $1 into $5 or
>> $100 into a million dollars? So that's
[2:06:09] what the focus of the website really is
is it's creating kind of an editorial
[2:06:13] experience that's very welcoming, but
kind of encourages people to stay in the
[2:06:17] county. again. And then going back to
with lodging being kind of the funding
[2:06:23] for this, I wanted to really make sure
that we were representing our lodging
[2:06:27] partners as best as we can because at
the end of the day, they're kind of the
[2:06:31] people footing the bill for this and I
want to make sure that they're seeing
[2:06:34] the value and like the things that
they're doing. Especially, this is
[2:06:38] totally unrelated to uh I was just
informed of the increase recently. This
[2:06:43] is something that just kind of like came
up uh organically is being like, how do
[2:06:47] we represent our partners? Not only
because they're paying for it, but also
[2:06:51] if someone stays in the county, that's
not just a lunch, that's a breakfast,
[2:06:57] that's a lunch, that's a dinner, that's
an overnight stay, and then hopefully
[2:07:00] just more and more. It's growing our
Yeah. shopping. And it's not increasing
[2:07:05] the burden on our infrastructure because
we're seeing really high peaks. It's
[2:07:10] kind of like how do we spread that out
and flatten the curve? As much as I hate
[2:07:14] referencing that time in history, um if
we can go to the next slide, if you
[2:07:19] don't mind, another big component of
this is how does everything work
[2:07:23] together? How does social media inform?
And like especially I've talked to so
[2:07:29] many people in and outside of work that
vacations in today's modern time, you're
[2:07:37] experiencing everything digitally before
you experience it physically. You want
[2:07:41] to see like what it looks like. You want
to see what the food is it like at a
[2:07:45] restaurant. You want to see what the
experience is like. And you want to have
[2:07:49] like a good understanding. So, that was
kind of the core thing that I came in to
[2:07:54] the tourism board with is like, how does
everything fit together perfectly? I've
[2:07:58] worked in agencies and I've been harped
on by creative directors about like the
[2:08:03] font has to be the exact same through
every piece that we use, but then they
[2:08:07] would just completely like silo their
social and their like um media
[2:08:11] campaigns. So, how do we create kind of
a really consistent flow? And we've
[2:08:15] already started that with we have a
wonderful influencer that we've worked
[2:08:19] with, Miranda in the mountains. We went
out, we shot a bunch of content with
[2:08:23] her. So now when she puts stuff out on
social, which is our it's her and uh
[2:08:28] Emily who is fighting for the top spot
as the biggest impact of kind of
[2:08:34] engagement for our county. um those two
people, how do you when you come into
[2:08:40] her page and you kind of meet the county
through her perspective, we get to carry
[2:08:45] that through this entire experience and
like show her eating in the county, show
[2:08:48] her staying in the county, show her
having a great time. Here are some
[2:08:52] numbers. I think they're very
impressive, but to you guys, they're
[2:08:55] just numbers. So, I just wanted to make
sure that we uh knew that we're moving
[2:08:59] in a very positive direction. We're up
about 75%
[2:09:03] um in for views over the past 90 days.
90 over 90,
[2:09:09] » which is where we've been. Um
and again, we're not just
[2:09:14] » on your social media.
>> Yep. This is on our social media page.
[2:09:18] And it's not just about like views for
views sake. It's about again creating
[2:09:22] the story, making this a very welcoming
place, and creating information that
[2:09:26] people kind of want to dig their teeth
into.
[2:09:28] » What social media are we looking?
Facebook, Instagram,
[2:09:32] » Tik Tok.
>> Tik Tok.
[2:09:34] » Okay.
>> Where the different generations are at.
[2:09:39] » Yep.
>> Yes.
[2:09:41] » And what's really interesting is you're
able to see how well they perform. Like
[2:09:45] you can talk about, you know, a younger
demographic on Instagram and our most
[2:09:49] recent reel got us over 2,000 views and
then just finally pushed us over 800
[2:09:54] followers.
>> Oh, 20,000.
[2:09:55] » 20,000.
>> 25,000. 2,000.
[2:09:58] » Oh, sorry. numbers are [laughter] hard.
Quad shot. Um, yeah, 20,000 even more
[2:10:03] impressive. But then if you look at the
same reel on Facebook, this is again
[2:10:06] just something about Silver Plume just
showing the town. It's nothing pushing.
[2:10:10] There's not really a big call to action,
but they have over 99 likes. We're over
[2:10:14] 5,000 views there. I actually think it's
11,000 views if I looked right this
[2:10:18] morning. But we really are starting to
see like people aren't just scrolling,
[2:10:22] liking it, and moving on. We're actually
showing up in feeds and making that
[2:10:26] secondhand connection so that get
inspired to come here.
[2:10:29] » Okay.
>> So, we're we're hitting all of our
[2:10:31] pillars, but no matter where you look,
it's all the same. It's not like we're
[2:10:35] getting one reel from an influencer,
paying them out, and then just moving on
[2:10:38] to the next thing. Matt's really trying
to make sure we're telling the story.
[2:10:41] And what you see on one platform is what
you see on our website, how you see us
[2:10:45] interacting as well.
[2:10:49] » Cool. And then we're going to get into
even more granular stuff.
[2:10:54] How does the website work? And I touched
on it just briefly. Oh, sorry.
[2:10:57] » Next one.
>> Yes, please.
[2:10:58] » Oh, sorry. Okay. No, you're totally
right.
[2:11:00] » I I [laughter] realized you weren't
looking. I gave you that.
[2:11:02] » No, that's all right. Sorry.
>> See the multitasking.
[2:11:05] » So,
another part of it is we look a lot at
[2:11:08] the data and what's happening, but it's
also about having a vision for like what
[2:11:12] we want Clear Creek County to be in the
future. And that's moving from a pit
[2:11:15] stop, a Maverick, like cinnamon roll to
something that people can experience.
[2:11:21] And like I'm just as guilty of it as
everyone else. I've driven past Silver
[2:11:26] Plume. I've driven past Empire, all
these beautiful cities so many times and
[2:11:30] never was inspired to come check it out
like I have recently. Silver Plume is
[2:11:36] just abs. I mean, Idaho Springs is
awesome. I love it. But there's silver
[2:11:40] plume has been the most unbelievable
kind of gem that I found and I think
[2:11:44] people are really responding to that
online is it's so charming and you've
[2:11:48] pulled off on that thing and you just
see the like mechanic and you're like
[2:11:52] this is all there is and that's what's
so wonderful about social media is it
[2:11:56] allows people to like have these
experiences that are continued and you
[2:12:00] can continue to have this kind of a
relationship.
[2:12:03] But this talks a lot about what the
website is designed for. So, we're
[2:12:07] bringing them in through social media.
Someone who's seen these reels and maybe
[2:12:10] wants to find out some more. We want
them to recognize kind of the value of
[2:12:14] it. Um, see the different pillars that
we have, which is like on trail, in
[2:12:20] town, on snow, which is also going to be
a big initiative coming up in the
[2:12:25] winter. Um, we want them to feel it, be
inspired to stay, and then we want them
[2:12:30] to build out their day so that they know
exactly where they're going to go. And
[2:12:34] then we want them to come back because
they've had such a wonderful time. We're
[2:12:37] also looking a lot at how we're going to
expand this outside of the Front Range.
[2:12:40] There's a lot of people in the Front
Range, but they can drive home. You
[2:12:45] can't drive home if you're in Nebraska.
You can't drive home if you're in Texas.
[2:12:48] And if we can start to target those
audiences, that's where we're going to
[2:12:51] see a really exponential growth in kind
of spending.
[2:12:54] » And when he says target, he means in a
very meaningful way. We are again not
[2:12:59] trying to just bring anyone willy-nilly
here. We want the right visitor. We are
[2:13:05] trying to do a little bit more with our
stewardship initiatives because as much
[2:13:08] as I can talk about Plume to these
influencers who can feel my energy, we
[2:13:13] know that not everyone loves a busy
street or dog poop bags left around or
[2:13:18] businesses not visited. So, there is a
balance to this. So, don't feel like
[2:13:23] we're just trying to say everyone come
on in.
[2:13:26] » Um, and we'll expand on some other
projects that we have going with that
[2:13:29] too. And then I do want to point out
some of what you're seeing is Matt's
[2:13:33] rebrand. These are some of our colors.
You saw our lo I know, I know you see
[2:13:38] some some of our logos and our colors.
Um we are still finalizing this with our
[2:13:43] board, but we're pretty comfortable
getting this out there, getting it done
[2:13:47] because we're ready to get launched. So,
we do have our monthly meetings every
[2:13:52] second Thursday of the month. So, that
will be next week. Um we'll be getting
[2:13:56] out our materials at the end of this
week. um they go out on our newsletter,
[2:14:01] they're on the website. Um and then you
can always email ways to get involved.
[2:14:04] But um I'm feeling really proud about
what we're doing. Sometimes it feels
[2:14:09] when you're on an island, you don't
really know what to do, but since
[2:14:12] bringing in Matt, we've been able to
take our two big ideas and bring them
[2:14:17] all together, and it's been a really
nice partnership. He also does work with
[2:14:21] Idaho Springs. I'm sure you've seen some
of their uh what do they call it? A
[2:14:25] co-op uh co-op opportunity. Um, so
Matt's been in the area. He's really
[2:14:30] excited to learn, dove right in, and
he's, you know, building it from the
[2:14:35] ground up with us.
>> A couple questions on this slide. One
[2:14:38] is, um, and just, this is just curiosity
under measured in moments. It says not
[2:14:43] altitude gained. What are you trying to
communicate there?
[2:14:46] » Yeah. So, that's a really good point
that we got. Um, when I came in, I had
[2:14:50] these ideas and perceptions of like we
need someone on top of a 14er with like
[2:14:54] the sun in the background and it's like
as gnarly as possible. And then talking
[2:14:58] through things, we deconstructed those
ideas so that it's the mountains for
[2:15:02] everyone and going back to adventure
belongs to everyone. Whether you're in a
[2:15:06] wheelchair, whether you're 75 years old,
you can come here and you can have a
[2:15:10] really wonderful time. You don't have to
do the most incredible gnarly thing
[2:15:15] possible, but you can,
>> right? And you can take a gondola to the
[2:15:19] top, still get great views. You don't
have to be a mountain biker. Um I I was
[2:15:24] hiking there with girlfriends and they
let hikers go down the up trail.
[2:15:29] » Yeah.
>> Safer than going down the downtra
[2:15:31] hikers. And it was a lovely hike, you
know, very manageable. And um so yeah, I
[2:15:38] I love this approach. And you know,
without dissing our our mountain bikers,
[2:15:43] but you know, it's like
we've got it it's it's a bigger pot than
[2:15:49] people may think.
>> Yeah. I think the numbers on mountain
[2:15:52] biking are
it's like the industry is like $500
[2:15:56] million, which like is a very very small
portion of everyone,
[2:16:02] » right? So it's as much as mountain
bikers are a draw and we've seen a lot
[2:16:06] of success in communities like Fruda,
it's not the majority of the people
[2:16:11] coming to visit our county. And that's
why we need to represent everyone and
[2:16:14] create a really welcoming environment as
well as an educational environment,
[2:16:18] which is why social media is so great is
because you can kind of sprinkle stuff
[2:16:22] onto people. I also I want to ask uh
because you brought it up just just sort
[2:16:27] of
target audience a lot of conversations
[2:16:31] about target audience over the years.
>> Um
[2:16:34] as I understand it we and this is not a
binary we can choose to try to do both
[2:16:39] but
I think we were starting to shift
[2:16:43] towards wow look who's already here and
how can we influence their behavior? how
[2:16:47] can we get them to shop, right? Blah
blah blah. Verse how do we select who we
[2:16:52] want to come here? Um, give me can you
give me a sense I I know it's not one or
[2:16:56] the other. Can you give me a sense of
where you see value and how you're
[2:17:00] prioritizing those two opportunities?
>> Yeah, I I mean you can break it down as
[2:17:05] easy as day trippers and overnighters,
but we kind of look at it as everybody.
[2:17:09] Um, you've got people that I will use my
inexperience to help educate them on
[2:17:13] what's more safer for them to do. And
you've got people who already know what
[2:17:16] they like to do. I think it's just
knowing the right people through like
[2:17:21] the data we've gotten, watching our
trends, but making sure like every
[2:17:25] demographic behaves differently. Like
our historians are already here. They
[2:17:29] are staying by night. They are going
into it, but we can't forgive them
[2:17:32] either. So with our Trails to Town
pocket guide, we're trying to get one,
[2:17:36] but hopefully it does inspire a few
others. It's it's a juggle. Matt,
[2:17:43] » um
I think this is a trap that DMOs fall
[2:17:46] into a lot is it's like what are we
doing and who's already here and then
[2:17:50] like how do we squeeze them more but
it's going back to what Jess says is it
[2:17:57] has to be both and we have to
continually be like drawing in new
[2:18:00] audiences because a brand that relies on
its previous audience to kind of survive
[2:18:07] is a brand that's going to die just
slowly over time because someone, you
[2:18:11] know, comes here, has a negative
experience, god forbid, they don't come
[2:18:15] back. Someone
>> and they tell everyone about it, so then
[2:18:19] that will affect other people's ability
to come back here.
[2:18:23] » Um, and then like your your historians,
as we'll call them, maybe they age out
[2:18:29] of travel and they're no longer like
kind of coming into this area to do
[2:18:32] these things. So, we need to think about
like what does it look like in 5 years?
[2:18:35] What does it look like in 10 years? And
start kind of just planting those seeds
[2:18:39] of Clear Creek County. And that's a huge
other thing that we've kind of started
[2:18:45] to address is we've got two camps and
I'm going to be very transparent. We've
[2:18:50] got camps that people think Clear Creek
County is not a nice place, which we're
[2:18:55] working very hard to change their
perception because it is a very nice
[2:18:58] place. And we have people that don't
know about Clear Creek County. So, how
[2:19:01] are we approaching those people? And how
is that messaging kind of different for
[2:19:05] both of those two audiences? And there
is overlap, but at the end of the day,
[2:19:10] we've got kind of two hurdles to
overcome, but as soon as we overcome
[2:19:13] them there, we're going to see a great
amount of and I'm always cautious of
[2:19:18] growth, but we're going to see like a a
great opportunity for the county to grow
[2:19:22] and progress into something that we all
are very proud of.
[2:19:27] » Thank you.
>> Yeah. So, I didn't get this slide deck.
[2:19:32] Is this
>> I cut it down. It This was in the other
[2:19:35] one. I just removed all the um words
from it cuz otherwise everyone would be
[2:19:40] staring at it like So, I apologize if I
changed it a little bit.
[2:19:44] » We'll make sure this is distributed
especially record.
[2:19:47] » Yeah, I mean this is good. Yeah, that
was uh I got feedback from my board
[2:19:51] yesterday that was like there's a lot of
words on it and then I realized that I'm
[2:19:55] going to be presenting in this format
and I'm like no one wants to be
[2:19:58] squinting at stuff. So,
>> um [clears throat] yeah, I we we tend to
[2:20:03] read everything ahead of time, so it's
it's nice to get the words first and
[2:20:07] then the presentation.
>> Okay, sweet. We can keep I'll just like
[2:20:11] put this at the bottom somewhere.
>> Uh
[2:20:15] is it that one? Oh, yeah. I see. It's
it's kind of compiled.
[2:20:19] » Yeah, sorry. I just pulled out some
stuff to speak.
[2:20:22] » So, our annual report that we did
submit, we're trying to make that a
[2:20:25] little bit more business facing so that
way it can live on our website. We can
[2:20:29] distribute it and people can be in the
know about what we're working on. But,
[2:20:33] um, yeah, we did get feedback. We're a
little wordy marketers.
[2:20:37] » Well, I mean, I understand that if
you're marketing, but when it's
[2:20:40] presenting to the board, we like to read
things.
[2:20:44] Thanks.
My comments are um I just wanted to say
[2:20:49] there's been a lot of change and um when
we talk about
[2:20:54] um seasonal things and we just saw you
know the worst rafting season, the worst
[2:21:00] skiing season in a really long time and
I just want to commend on trying to get
[2:21:06] things kind of backup plans. Um now we
have a campground, now we have a
[2:21:11] gondola. you know, things are kind of
evolving and changing, so people can do
[2:21:15] other activities than just the typical,
even back in my day, we didn't have
[2:21:20] rafting. Um, it was kind of just the
skiing and people came up and we saw
[2:21:23] what happened to Idaho Springs.
Georgetown was flourishing. They had the
[2:21:27] train, had all their stuff going Idaho
Springs. It was a ghost town. You know,
[2:21:32] all the um the businesses had spiderw
webs and
[2:21:36] » What year was that about?
>> In the 80s.
[2:21:38] » In the 80s. Okay. So before you were
born,
[2:21:41] » you don't know that born before the
first text message.
[2:21:46] » So I think like between marketing and
working with the businesses, you can
[2:21:49] really see how things can fluctuate
really fast. Um and I think that's what
[2:21:53] we're trying to get a hold on is how we
can, you know, get people up here spend
[2:22:00] day or days, you have the day trippers,
and give them options of family oriented
[2:22:05] things or aging community things. And um
you know, I've seen I mostly travel
[2:22:11] through Ido Springs on I7, so I'm seeing
how those parking lots are filled or not
[2:22:16] filled.
>> Um and now I'm noticing them kind of
[2:22:19] picking up a little bit more. Um and I'm
not sure if it's the hot weather, you
[2:22:24] know, in Denver, getting people to come
up. Um it's cooler, so they can sit at
[2:22:29] the park. And um was George, did you
tube in Clear Creek in Idaho Springs
[2:22:34] area? I have been tubing in Clear Creek.
>> Yeah. So, I've always wondered like why
[2:22:40] do we have tubing when crafting season
mellows out?
[2:22:44] » We could have probably tubed in Clear
Creek a good portion of the summer. Um,
[2:22:49] » that strain
>> that's not a safety recommendation.
[2:22:52] [laughter]
>> Those are things that I kind of think of
[2:22:54] like you're an outfitter strain on your
emergency services like is it allowed is
[2:22:58] my first question.
>> Oh, before you promise,
[2:23:01] » right? Because here in Georgetown you
can too, but after Cooper's on the creek
[2:23:05] down.
>> So like what are the rules in Idaho
[2:23:07] Springs? So I just don't it's very
strategic. You don't want to just put
[2:23:11] things out there because they're well
because people will do them.
[2:23:14] » What does that look like? So Golden does
do that, right? And why and how? And um
[2:23:19] a lot of long was packed and filled. Um
I had several meetings down there and
[2:23:24] I'm just thinking
why is that different? It's the same
[2:23:27] creek. Um, but it's strategically the
rocks are placed differently just like
[2:23:32] they changed that creek for rafting. Um,
but it maybe it's not just tubing. Maybe
[2:23:37] it's picture taking. There's just so
many different activities to do in their
[2:23:41] creek.
>> Yeah.
[2:23:43] » It's crazy how many people you could get
them to change their behavior a little
[2:23:48] bit.
>> Well, it's interesting. I I spent, you
[2:23:50] know, 25 years commuting to Denver
>> and some people in Denver have this
[2:23:56] attitude that like, you know, I7 up
mountain is this wall, you know, they
[2:24:02] they don't go up there. And so I think
that's probably why a lot of people just
[2:24:07] stop at Golden. So everything you're
doing is, you know, helping them get
[2:24:12] over the wall.
Well, and one initiative that we did
[2:24:16] take on is outlining what do we have in
the county? Like we do know the big
[2:24:21] adventure drivers, but it like one thing
we did try to launch this past winter
[2:24:24] was find your seat in Clear Creek.
Whether you're at breakfast in glass, a
[2:24:28] lift chair, what do you want to do? I
honestly do more of the aging, you know,
[2:24:33] hobbies. So, I would love to find a nice
place to go knit for a while. But it
[2:24:37] it's how so from there we worked with
our lodgers and they're like we want to
[2:24:40] know places to recommend hiking places
for outfitters bird watching like what
[2:24:45] can you give to us to put into visitors
firsthand. So we're taking these
[2:24:49] relationships and building upon that and
hopefully you'll start to see it more in
[2:24:53] an overall marketing strategy and not
just these little one-offs. And is that
[2:24:57] in the short-term rental places too? Do
they have things like we don't have a
[2:25:01] rat card per se? We do have some
short-term rental like managers or
[2:25:05] owners come to the lodging table. Um we
do have a lodging newsletter that
[2:25:09] specifically goes out or if they're
already uh subscribed to our other one
[2:25:13] » that lodging round table that is that is
also a subcommittee of the resilience
[2:25:19] work, right? Like or is that a separate
group? I'm
[2:25:20] » really sure. I think it's a separate
group.
[2:25:22] » Same people.
>> I haven't seen anyone from there.
[2:25:26] » Okay.
>> I think we're kind of rogue. Well, I
[2:25:29] mean, convene, you know, like that's
that's great. This No admonishment
[2:25:33] intended. I was just
>> No, no, no. And we recognize like as a
[2:25:36] board there's some conversations that we
don't touch. We don't get involved with.
[2:25:40] We do like to listen to know what's
going on, but like as you've mentioned,
[2:25:44] those individual like advertising is
something we haven't really done because
[2:25:48] of that equity and making sure
everyone's represented in a fair way.
[2:25:52] But it is always something we can
explore. I do want to get a rat card
[2:25:56] into those businesses, but that's a
little
[2:26:00] a little hard just because she doesn't
access them.
[2:26:04] » Is that something that that the RV park
passes out with the coupons on?
[2:26:08] » That is her own individual business
drive, the discovery pass.
[2:26:13] I'd be happy to
>> because that's something I'm thinking
[2:26:16] like with that all around thing when
they walk into that STR or they go stay
[2:26:20] at the camping or they stay at a hotel
if there's something at the front that
[2:26:25] » other things you
>> brochures and visitors guide
[2:26:28] » I think since this past year we've been
doing a lot of who we are rebranding we
[2:26:32] haven't made or put money towards a lot
of those marketing materials it is on my
[2:26:35] list but then you have the struggle with
distribution we don't get the direct
[2:26:40] emails or like information on who to
contact for short-term rentals. We're
[2:26:44] just kind of saying hey into the
universe and seeing who whispers back.
[2:26:48] » Well, I would think you could get a list
of short-term rental owners uh just from
[2:26:53] public records.
>> We'll see cuz I think when this 2 to 6%
[2:26:57] they're going to want a little more out
of this or putting more into it. They're
[2:26:59] going to want more out of it. Well, they
should already be interested in getting
[2:27:02] engaged with us. We've been doing a lot
this past year that we would love to
[2:27:06] showcase and hear more from. Um,
and and I know like a periodically
[2:27:11] produced visitor guide. I don't know
that we have to refresh it every single
[2:27:15] year.
>> Oh, it's getting refreshed then.
[2:27:17] » That's a great
>> But the digital ones are easier to
[2:27:19] refresh than your pocket ones.
>> People's [clears throat] uh
[2:27:22] » we have to redo the whole thing with the
brand right now.
[2:27:25] » Yep.
>> Visitor guide has been for that.
[2:27:28] » Yeah. To to put in short-term rentals,
etc. Um
[2:27:31] » uh the other struggle with that though
is so Deanna reached out and personally
[2:27:35] got permission for discount codes. As a
lot as our board, we really struggle
[2:27:39] with trying to ask businesses to take on
more of a burden with those discounts.
[2:27:42] If they offer, wonderful, but we don't
want to take that opportunity away from
[2:27:46] someone if they're not willing to do
that. You know, we want to be as
[2:27:49] collaborative as possible,
>> right?
[2:27:52] » Um
[2:27:56] one of the things on my list to say is
just I really liked the booklet
[2:27:59] initiative. I would love to see us do
more of that. I I hope we continue to
[2:28:05] focus on I appreciate the way you
discuss that we need to consistently
[2:28:09] renew and market and have new people
coming in because people that come find
[2:28:14] other destinations etc. Right? People
change their habits. Um and I hope that
[2:28:19] we still look at the central goal of a
visit. A visit is checking the box when
[2:28:25] that is a visit in our economy and not
when it's a visit outside of our
[2:28:29] economy. Is that is are are we still
aligned with that strategy?
[2:28:33] » That is the strategy of the board of
county commissioners for our lodging tax
[2:28:38] board. We're mostly just visitor
education to know about the county and
[2:28:41] welcome them here. We're not an economic
driver.
[2:28:46] » I
think we Let's just put a marker there.
[2:28:49] Okay. Let's let's try to have a focused
conversation on that because I know that
[2:28:54] we appoint the board. Um and and I hope
like I know I want to have board members
[2:29:00] on the tourism bureau board that want to
say the goal is getting people into our
[2:29:05] economy. Um and and I know like this the
conversation about how to accomplish
[2:29:10] that is a rich one and it does involve
talking about adventure, right? So I'm
[2:29:14] not pushing back on the use of adventure
or anything like that. I just I hope
[2:29:17] that the top goal remains
getting people into our economy,
[2:29:23] » right? As opposed to, hey, Floyd Hills
is a great mountain biking park. Go up
[2:29:27] and then go home and have a beer. Like,
no, go up and come into Idaho Springs
[2:29:31] and have a beer.
>> So, just a refresh of our mission. It's
[2:29:34] to position Clear Creek County as
Colorado's premier mountain destination
[2:29:38] by inspiring curiosity, fostering
stewardship, and connecting visitors
[2:29:42] with that authentic local experiences
while supporting businesses, benefiting
[2:29:46] our communities, and protecting our home
and heritage. It doesn't necessarily say
[2:29:50] economic driver. We do want that, but
it's it's part of that game. You know,
[2:29:55] they they learn about one spot on the
edge of our county and then they come
[2:29:59] back a little bit further. like it it's
changing every touch point into
[2:30:03] something else or converting every touch
point into something else. We're
[2:30:07] obviously not just saying, "Hey, go
mountain bike everywhere." We've been
[2:30:10] really strategic about placing the
adventure back to the towns or just
[2:30:14] showcasing our towns.
>> I I think that works, George.
[2:30:19] » Well, I think um we touched on that with
the destination, staying the night,
[2:30:25] keeping them here, adding the breakfast,
adding the afternoon, adding the
[2:30:28] shopping. That definitely is already
part of the drive and has been the
[2:30:32] discussion. It's just not highlighted as
dollar to cash register.
[2:30:37] So like that is a mission and overall
getting the new audience and having stay
[2:30:42] here and retain them. We're looking at
connections with retention, reminding of
[2:30:48] how romantic we are and then also
offering people a place to slow down.
[2:30:52] That's going to bring people to the
registers.
[2:30:56] » Great. I mean, yeah, and I appreciate
you bringing up the mission statement. I
[2:31:00] there's you you a mission statement has
two goals, right? You're trying to sort
[2:31:04] of
record what your purpose is for your own
[2:31:08] purposes, right? And I think there's
there's because you're a marketing
[2:31:11] agency, there's an external facing
component. So, I know that this mission
[2:31:14] statement won't only speak to those
priorities, but I do think that this
[2:31:18] mission statement could be in better
alignment with what the board has
[2:31:21] consistently stated it wants these
dollars to be used for.
[2:31:26] » Absolutely. I mean, we're still through
our rebrand. We haven't touched our
[2:31:29] vision and mission statements yet.
That's just what it's historically been.
[2:31:32] Yeah,
>> we do want to push economics. It's just
[2:31:35] education versus economics. One is a
little bit obviously return right then
[2:31:40] and there. The other one takes a little
bit more longevity.
[2:31:43] » Yeah. And education is like what? Trying
to get people to um
[2:31:46] » just know about it because especially
think about when you're going around,
[2:31:49] you may not know what county you're in.
So, we're having the overall goal of
[2:31:54] making sure you know what county you're
in, what town you're in, where your new
[2:31:57] stop is going to be, where you're going
to take your parents when they visit,
[2:32:00] you know, all those fun things. It is in
our drive and I'm always totally down to
[2:32:05] talk about that.
[2:32:09] » Yeah. um a DMML from my perspective and
colleagues if I'm if I'm
[2:32:14] » DM
>> a destination management marketing
[2:32:17] organization from my perspective
has two goals right
[2:32:25] get people to behave better that are
already here
[2:32:27] » stewardship
>> and drive economic outcomes
[2:32:32] um
>> so if we're reliant on that then I think
[2:32:37] we would say
[2:32:41] that we would only be talking about
venture for the purpose of getting
[2:32:44] someone closer closer to our businesses
and for the purposes of getting someone
[2:32:49] to adventure in a way that's not
damaging.
[2:32:51] » Right. [clears throat] It's not an end
in itself.
[2:32:54] » And adventure is such a loose term.
>> Yeah.
[2:32:56] » Like what I consider adventure is a nice
walk by that wheel and then sitting
[2:33:00] there and doing my crossstitch. You
know, it could be riding up that
[2:33:03] gondola. It could be riding down your
mountain bike. Adventure is really up to
[2:33:06] the beholder. That's why adventure is
for everyone because adventure is
[2:33:10] anything.
>> I I really like your mission statement.
[2:33:13] I think it hits on all the points that
George was promoting and and I like
[2:33:17] adventure is for everyone. I I think
this is really good.
[2:33:21] » I like adventure is for everyone, too.
And I and um um so so that's
[2:33:28] I I wanted to address that. Um I know
that's going to continue to be a rich
[2:33:33] conversation.
>> Can I speak on that quickly? Um, I think
[2:33:37] it would be unethical for us as a DMO to
take money from our lodging partners and
[2:33:42] then not create value in a way. I don't
think we're doing it and just spoke on
[2:33:47] this so directly that it's like this
dollar comes in and this dollar is
[2:33:53] turned into $6 that like is spread
throughout the community. It's really
[2:33:57] about like inspiring, changing the
perception of Clear Creek County from
[2:34:02] somewhere that might not have originally
been a place that you wanted to visit to
[2:34:08] somewhere that you're inspired to come
and spend time at. So, every everything
[2:34:13] we do is really focused on bringing
people here in a sustainable way. And
[2:34:18] ultimately, if we're doing our jobs
correctly, then it should uh result in
[2:34:23] dollars. It's just we want to make sure
that we're building a really sustainable
[2:34:28] product through and through.
>> I get that too listening to people and
[2:34:32] they're like, "Oh, Idaho Springs." Or,
"Oh, Clear Creek County." Um, totally.
[2:34:37] My kids, um, the millennials and the Gen
Z's, they say that. And how we get that
[2:34:42] to to change people's opinions, I don't
know. Um, and it's hard because that is
[2:34:48] something that's kind of like stuck. And
when I hear them, I'm like, "What are
[2:34:52] you talking about? Why are you saying
that? And maybe I've even said that
[2:34:55] stuff in the past. Um because I've had
bad experiences in places and how you
[2:35:00] get that how you get people to change.
And I have to say when Rebecca and I
[2:35:04] campaigned, we learned so much about
Clear Fit County just getting out and
[2:35:09] it's like, wait, we have that here. Um I
didn't know that even growing up here
[2:35:14] and
I don't know how we advertise certain
[2:35:18] things. Um because the businesses should
be advertising some of that, right? Um,
[2:35:22] but getting people to change those same
patterns I think is such a huge thing.
[2:35:27] And I am going and doing business in
other places that I would have never
[2:35:31] thought to do that just by changing my
behavior by campaigning.
[2:35:36] » One of the things that I feel like has
guided almost everything that I've done
[2:35:39] in my career is the easiest way or the
fastest way for someone to let go of
[2:35:44] fear is to give them a story to like to
change their mind or their perception of
[2:35:49] stuff. And that's what me and Jess are.
>> Okay. I'm sorry. Um, would somebody shut
[2:35:54] the door
>> or coming from the basement?
[2:35:59] » Oh, no.
>> Work in the basement.
[2:36:02] [laughter]
[2:36:05] » On top of it, he's
>> a
[2:36:07] » basically Halloween season. [laughter]
[2:36:12] » Thank you.
>> Um,
[2:36:14] » sorry.
I I I appreciate you centering this on
[2:36:18] the relationship with lodgers because I
think I mean that was on my list to
[2:36:21] discuss as well. Um I've heard it stated
here that lodgers pay the lodging tax. I
[2:36:27] don't think that's accurate. They
collect and remit the lodging tax.
[2:36:30] » Visitors pay it.
>> Um
[2:36:34] I we clearly have a a public benefit
associated with with using these dollars
[2:36:41] to get people into lodging
establishments, right? So, I'm not
[2:36:43] saying we shouldn't do that. Um, but I
think we need to make sure we have the
[2:36:47] order of operations correct.
Our obligation around the use of these
[2:36:51] funds is to the voters.
>> Um, it is it is not to the lodgers. Uh,
[2:36:56] the lodgers, we are grateful that they
collect and remit that tax and we
[2:37:01] certainly view them as an important part
of this economy and and an important use
[2:37:05] of these dollars is making sure that
those places are full, right? Um, so, so
[2:37:10] in no way am I saying that we shouldn't
be trying to use these dollars for
[2:37:14] economic benefit or for larger benefit.
Um, I'm I'm I'm questioning
[2:37:20] how and I'm sensing that from my
perspective,
[2:37:25] from this conversation I'm having to the
last one I'm having, we've taken some
[2:37:29] steps backward from what I thought we
were really aligning around a strategy
[2:37:35] of we all understand our top goal, a
successful visit, is one that has a
[2:37:40] spend.
Um, and I when I asked that question, I
[2:37:44] didn't get the kind of enthusiastic
response
[2:37:47] that I thought I would hear. So, I just
I just want to reiterate that's that's
[2:37:52] all. I don't I don't think I'm
suggesting that we waste those dollars
[2:37:57] or that we not use them to benefit.
>> Let me
[2:37:59] » our economy.
>> Let me make it a little more colorful.
[2:38:02] It's not It's not that it's not our
goal. It's just if you have that as our
[2:38:07] goal all the way over here, we as a
board are seeing all the steps on how we
[2:38:11] get there. Whether it's a visitors here
and we can convert it to something else
[2:38:14] or a visitors on the front range and
we're just inspiring them to even look
[2:38:18] on our website. It's a lot of touch
points, but that is there. But we also
[2:38:22] have to focus on all these other little
initiatives that will make an impact
[2:38:26] like our trails to town pocketbook
guide. Hopefully that will change those
[2:38:29] kind of behaviors. But we can't forget
the people who are already here at a
[2:38:33] restaurant. Maybe they should take a
stroll and find something in a retail.
[2:38:36] We've got a lot of things playing in the
air.
[2:38:39] » Yeah, definitely. Totally get that
strategy. Okay, I'm off of that hobby
[2:38:42] horse. Um,
>> can I just say one thing? It definitely
[2:38:47] remains my goal to get people from up
there down here to spend.
[2:38:53] » Where where's up there?
>> Up there. Like people who are going up
[2:38:56] the mountains, not spending any money.
>> Oh, okay. The free stuff.
[2:38:59] » Yes. Yes. The free people. [laughter]
just coined a phrase. Um,
[2:39:05] » but I do think there's two major
categories of people up there. There's
[2:39:09] people who don't go there because they
don't want to spend money, and there's
[2:39:12] the people who are uneducated. So,
through this effort, we can tackle one
[2:39:18] of them. I I don't maybe not tackle is a
good word, but we can definitely
[2:39:22] influence one of them to come down. the
other one I think we can throw millions
[2:39:27] of dollars at and they're not going to
spend money, you know, and so hopefully
[2:39:32] that, you know, helps in in what you're
saying.
[2:39:36] » 100%.
>> Yeah. Good. And that's Oh,
[2:39:40] » oh, and that's also where like looking
at different like bringing different
[2:39:45] people into the county who are more apt
to spend money in the county is
[2:39:51] something that needs to be a focus
because like she said, the free people
[2:39:54] will always be free. The people that
have their granola bar and their like
[2:39:58] gels in their backpack and they come up
here and they hike and they like shoot
[2:40:02] back down to Denver to eat more granola
somewhere will always do that. What we
[2:40:07] need to do is we need to understand food
has the potential to really grow our
[2:40:11] economy and that's something that we've
been focused on while doing that in a
[2:40:15] very sustainable educational way
>> such as um I just wanted to touch base
[2:40:21] on some of the strategies we've already
implemented and some of the things to
[2:40:24] come. Um you know Matt's been in here
doing a lot of our social media. We're
[2:40:29] also starting to work on not just our
photography and like our content folders
[2:40:33] so we know what to post. We're also
trying to make sure that we're getting
[2:40:37] um some more impactful engagement. So,
one thing I'm really excited to
[2:40:41] introduce is a partnership with I70
things. They are one of the premier
[2:40:44] accounts on our highway. A lot of people
look to them for weather, traffic
[2:40:48] reports, and we've kind of had this
problem for years. Relief peepers, they
[2:40:53] come, they they don't really know what
to do. They just do what the news told
[2:40:57] them, and then they get stuck. And we
really want to have a better hand in
[2:41:01] supporting our EMS services. We are
following um Jenny, our PIO over at the
[2:41:06] sheriff. We're following Megan. We are
not taking a lead in this. We're trying
[2:41:10] to help with it. So, something that's
different again, we're not just asking
[2:41:14] for them to post with us. We're asking
for a post, a call to action to a
[2:41:17] website where we'll have all the
information, whether it's alternative
[2:41:21] hikes if you're in the area, places to
eat while you're here, um emergency
[2:41:25] contacts, how to park, all of those
things that we've been pushing out. We
[2:41:30] want it all in one place, especially
with someone who has a great name behind
[2:41:33] that. Um, I'm very thankful for Matt for
helping us source that and a few other
[2:41:37] ones as well, just so people get that
secondhand experience or they get the
[2:41:41] information they're seeking so we could
have a say and how we behave.
[2:41:46] » What do you mean by a great name behind
that?
[2:41:49] » Uh, I7 things is a really substantial
name in social media.
[2:41:52] » Okay. Okay. A lot of followers.
>> Okay. Like if there's an accident on the
[2:41:56] highway, most people are going to their
phone to Instagram to look at that
[2:42:00] account. I believe it's 434,000
followers right now. What about Reddit,
[2:42:04] too?
>> You're going for that 35 to 40
[2:42:07] millennial.
[laughter]
[2:42:10] » I love a Reddit thread. I do get my news
from Reddit, believe it or not. Um, it's
[2:42:15] not something we've officially like
touched on right now. I think we're just
[2:42:18] trying to like check our boots on like
the major platforms. it is something we
[2:42:22] can look into but not quite on our
board. Uh because these again are just a
[2:42:28] few of the initiatives that we've been
working on. There's only so much work
[2:42:32] for one person to do. That's where I go
to as Reddit.
[2:42:36] » So um
>> you're millennial.
[2:42:40] » Yeah. I get a lot of information,
especially about Cler Creek,
[2:42:44] » you know, and if you're going to go
skiing, you can check Reddit and they'll
[2:42:47] tell you, hey,
>> mile mark or whatever, you know, there's
[2:42:50] an accident and I'll see stuff there
before I see stuff in other places, too.
[2:42:54] » Fair, fair, fair. Okay, I'll add that
one to our list.
[2:42:57] » Where to go to eat?
>> I just have I just have two other
[2:43:00] things. One is you already mentioned it.
Idaho Springs collab strategy. Yes. I
[2:43:03] really love and and I would love to see
us duplicate that. That is tricky
[2:43:07] because we're equitable in order to have
fairness. We just haven't done
[2:43:12] individual highlights. We have had
people reach out on how to do that. We
[2:43:15] want to get creative with our board on
the direction of that. Matt and I have
[2:43:20] gone back and forth. I mean, pretty much
every conversation on that. Um, but that
[2:43:24] also takes away the opportunity for the
businesses who can't afford that. Even
[2:43:28] if it's a small reduced fee, you want to
make sure people can buy into it. But if
[2:43:34] if the limit if funds are limited,
especially as we leave leaf season into
[2:43:38] that shoulder, I don't want to make
financials be a strain. It could be a
[2:43:42] lottery system. There's a lot of ways we
can play with it, but you know, if the
[2:43:45] goal is to support the businesses, I
want to make sure it's an equal
[2:43:48] opportunity.
>> Um
[2:43:52] I I hear you. Yeah. And I don't I don't
think we should spend every dollar on
[2:43:56] that,
>> but I do think we should spend some
[2:43:58] dollars on that. The co-op is funded by
the businesses that are being featured
[2:44:03] on it. So Tommy Knockers, Club Hotel,
um,
[2:44:08] uh, Slaymakers, all put in a certain
amount of money and Diargo is now on the
[2:44:14] co-op put in a certain amount of money
that's kind of matched by Idaho Springs.
[2:44:19] So that's where but that was because we
weren't able to pass the funding to like
[2:44:24] do any social media stuff uh without
that co-op. Clear Creek has the money.
[2:44:31] The struggle is really creating an
>> Hold on. Hold on. [laughter] Hold on.
[2:44:37] » We had We had zero.
>> Get creative with the funds.
[2:44:40] » We had zero dollars in Idaho Springs. So
that's what that was born out of. um
[2:44:45] this we just need to make sure that
businesses feel like it's fair and
[2:44:48] equitable and that's really been our
struggle.
[2:44:51] » I totally get that. Y um
>> one thing that I want to go back to hers
[2:44:54] is creating new opportunities because as
marketers the more we have to talk about
[2:45:01] is actually really beneficial for us and
you want tubing. I want tubing. I think
[2:45:05] everyone here wants to Oh
>> in a safe manner.
[2:45:07] » Yeah. In a safe manner. We want
everything. So, how do we bring more
[2:45:13] oper more businesses here? And that's
something that we can do our best to
[2:45:18] promote, but I don't think we're in a
place to like create those necessarily.
[2:45:22] » This is why alignment with the EDC is so
crucial because the EDC does recruitment
[2:45:27] and retention of businesses, helps them
understand what the market looks like,
[2:45:31] what they can offer, that they might
want, and then you all are on the other
[2:45:35] end communicating what we have.
>> And we're working on a strategy with
[2:45:39] them right now. So, I believe Lindsay's
even in a meeting right now going with
[2:45:42] their new website to recruit more
businesses and we're trying to find a
[2:45:45] strategy. So, once they're done, they
found it, they got funding, they're
[2:45:49] here, what's that next step for our
board to come and support their
[2:45:52] longevity in the area. So, those talks
are being done. Um, and then one thing I
[2:45:57] really do want to highlight is the CTO
has a destination blueprint program.
[2:46:01] This is a free program that's a three uh
system kind of. They start with
[2:46:05] assessments. They come in, they survey
us to death, then they'll sit down with
[2:46:09] us, talk to us about what we learned.
Um, that stakeholder meeting will be
[2:46:13] October 29th at Club Hotel from 8:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. I'll put that
[2:46:17] everywhere. You'll get an invite, of
course. Uh, we just finalized that date
[2:46:20] and I meet with Beth this afternoon. But
this program was highly competitive.
[2:46:25] Only four entities received it this
year. That's at least half of a
[2:46:28] reduction from what they've seen. So,
after the assessment, they'll go to
[2:46:31] planning. They'll come and tell us what
we've learned and then we'll go into
[2:46:35] implementation. That's a hundred free
hours of consulting from the CTO to back
[2:46:40] up whatever we want to do. Uh me and
Beth have worked really hard and we're
[2:46:44] kind of understanding we want a roadmap
for the county's future, but also kind
[2:46:48] of the strategic plan for me and our
board so we cannot just do these three
[2:46:52] months. What do we want to do? We really
want to have something overall. So
[2:46:56] that's really where some of these bigger
ideas are going to come into. and we're
[2:47:00] really excited for that. Um, I'm just
going to run through a few more things.
[2:47:04] We've touched base on our trail map and
visitor guide. We have a new rebrand. We
[2:47:08] have more images. We're really trying to
take this from a directory to be a
[2:47:12] little bit more magazine directory. It's
very white paged and we want it to be a
[2:47:17] little more pizzazzy so people have an
interest. We partnered with the trails
[2:47:21] team. Thank you so much for giving us an
updated map and accuracy of those. Once
[2:47:26] that trail map portion is done, I spoke
with um Ira Happy Llama, our printer
[2:47:31] yesterday. We're just finalizing some
things. Um then we're going to be
[2:47:34] looking into our visitor guide and
really having itineraries in there more
[2:47:38] than just here's businesses you can ask
questions to. Here's your story, find
[2:47:43] yours or not stories. So sorry,
we're friends. Um, so, uh, one thing
[2:47:51] that I'm kind of jazzed about is we are
up for an award for the Colorado
[2:47:56] governor's, um, expl
explanary destination stewardship
[2:48:00] initiative. This is because of our
trails to town guide. We're not just
[2:48:03] telling people where to go or what to
do. We're actually trying to put in
[2:48:06] those leave no trace, how do you behave?
Um, the CTO and leave no trace came
[2:48:11] together a few years ago for do
Colorado, right? For do Clear Creek
[2:48:15] County, right? love to have those
assets, but it's really also making sure
[2:48:19] that economic driver is in there as
well. So, we are a part of their
[2:48:22] programming. We have their tools and
assets. Um, and the people who run that
[2:48:26] program are also with this destination
blueprint. So, we have the right people
[2:48:30] here helping us.
>> I want to say that's pretty much it. You
[2:48:35] know, we're just gearing up for our next
steps. This is just kind of where we've
[2:48:39] been, but I hope hearing from you guys,
we can build a little bit more for our
[2:48:42] future. We've got, you know, our budget
planning about 90,000 usually for
[2:48:46] marketing. We'll get creative with it.
Um, if we do get this other grant,
[2:48:50] that's about $147,000
coming in to boost our marketing. So,
[2:48:56] and we'll find more.
Any other questions,
[2:49:01] comments, concerns?
>> No. Thank you very much.
[2:49:04] » Thank you very much.
>> Yeah. And we were wondering where that
[2:49:07] was with the the award. So,
>> um, yes, we are, we have the tourism
[2:49:12] conference at the end of this month on
the 24th. If anyone wants to join, I can
[2:49:16] get you a dinner ticket. Um, but we'll
know that night. Um, we are competing
[2:49:20] with Breen Ridge and Grand Junction. So,
that is a high honor for me. And I hope
[2:49:24] that we continue our stewardship
efforts. You know, never want to make
[2:49:29] » until it's announced.
>> Until it's announced. So they did that
[2:49:32] cuz I was up for the rising star in
tourism award and they do it right then
[2:49:36] and there and you're like yeah who did
it? Wait, that's me. Oh, you got it.
[2:49:41] Yeah, that was two years ago though. So
all right, we're looking for right now.
[2:49:46] » Absolutely.
>> Before you all go, thank you. The
[2:49:48] rebrand is incredible. You all have
taken so many positive steps in the last
[2:49:51] year. Uh I don't want I don't want my
observations to like have a negative
[2:49:56] tone to them. Uh overall, I'm really
really happy and and specifically I want
[2:49:59] to thank you Nicole Members. You've been
on the tourism bureau board, I think,
[2:50:02] since before I was elected. And
>> that's my girl.
[2:50:05] » You've stuck it out through a lot of
stuff and provided a ton of value. I
[2:50:08] just want to name you and thank you.
>> Yep. And we like to listen. You know,
[2:50:13] feedback is always feedback. Uh we're
only the experts for what we know and we
[2:50:18] want to know what you guys know. So,
always bring things forward. It's never
[2:50:21] it's never a fight. It's always a
listen.
[2:50:24] » It's an important place to live, too.
So, I think that goes far.
[2:50:29] Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[2:50:32] » And we have five for transition.
>> Absolutely. Um we need to take a five
[2:50:36] minute break and we will be right back.
Thank you.
[2:58:43] come up.
[2:58:47] She has things to say, but you can just
tell her to come up if you want.
[2:58:52] » She's our valued consultant.
>> I know. Yeah. Hi.
[2:58:55] » Um Joanne, as our valued consultant,
would you please join us up here?
[2:59:00] » I think the plan was that she was going
to come up when she wanted to speak. Is
[2:59:05] that correct?
>> Kind of me and Curtis.
[2:59:07] » Okay.
>> I mean, she's welcome to sit up here,
[2:59:09] but I I think we already worked that
out.
[2:59:12] » All right.
>> Didn't we work it out already?
[2:59:14] » Not with me.
>> With Joanne and with Sarah.
[2:59:20] » We did.
[2:59:23] No, I agree with you.
>> Thank you.
[2:59:28] » George agrees with me.
>> It's
[2:59:32] We all agree.
[3:00:09] Thank you. Thank you. Clear Creek, Clear
Creek Board of County Commissioners is
[3:00:15] back in session. Uh next on the agenda
is a work session uh presentation and
[3:00:20] discussion of C dot reporting
requirements of R25-47
[3:00:25] for areas and activities of state
interest case number SI2023-00001
[3:00:32] which is the Floyd Hill construction and
of resolution 25-46
[3:00:38] for areas and activities of state
interest case number SI2025-00001
[3:00:45] one peak period shoulder lane
operations. Um, Sid, would you like to
[3:00:50] join us?
>> Want us all just to come up?
[3:00:54] » Any anyone who needs to participate,
please come on up.
[3:01:00] » We can
>> Thank you, commissioners. Thank you for
[3:01:02] having us here today. Got a good
presentation for you.
[3:01:06] » Um, our start, uh, I'm Kurt Bianc. I'm
the C. Floyd Hills project director and
[3:01:11] with me I brought a great panel of
experts here to help answer any
[3:01:16] questions about the presentation. So
I'll let uh our folks introduce
[3:01:20] ourselves here. Piper.
>> Yeah, nice to see you commissioners.
[3:01:22] Thank you for having me. Piper
Darlington. I'm the director of the
[3:01:25] Colorado Transportation Investment
Office. We are responsible for operating
[3:01:29] the express lane current express lanes
and will be responsible for operating
[3:01:33] the Floyd Hill Express Lane that's under
construction.
[3:01:37] Hello, my name is Edgar Badama. I'm on
the Floyd Hill project. I'm the
[3:01:41] construction project manager.
>> Hi there, I'm Saca Sers. I lead
[3:01:45] communications for the Floyd Hill
project. And I'm Adafasi. I'm a project
[3:01:49] manager in the environmental department
for the I7 corridor. So, I help manage
[3:01:53] all the environmental stipulations. And
then I just wanted to point out in the
[3:01:56] crowd, we have a couple subject matter
experts as well. Jenny Karns, who is our
[3:02:01] noise and visual expert, and Joshua
Giovanetti, who uh is our water quality
[3:02:05] expert today.
Hey, thank you and and thank you for our
[3:02:09] quick tour uh last week with the
congressman.
[3:02:13] That that that gave us a good good
flavor of what's currently going on.
[3:02:18] » Absolutely.
>> Changes all the time. Garrett,
[3:02:21] » before we get going, um just in terms of
process, do you want staff to present
[3:02:26] the memo or should we skip the memo and
just go right to C DOT's presentation? I
[3:02:31] think you're a little bit flexible on
how you want to approach this. So
[3:02:35] » we can skip the memo for me. Read it. I
don't know.
[3:02:38] » Figured.
>> I've read it.
[3:02:39] » Read it. Okay.
>> Okay. Great.
[3:02:41] » In the interest of time. Sure. Thank
you.
[3:02:43] » And then the other thing I'll just note
is since this is all most of our first
[3:02:47] time doing this with these reporting
requirements, we don't have to discuss
[3:02:50] it today now, but maybe just be thinking
about how we want to do this in the
[3:02:55] future. What's working? What's not what
not working for
[3:02:57] » for in terms [clears throat] of process.
Yeah. Okay. Thanks.
[3:03:00] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[3:03:04] So to get us started, I just want to
review how we got to where we are here
[3:03:07] today with the um timeline and just
review uh some of the reports that we
[3:03:13] submitted as well. So back in November
of last year, we met with county staff
[3:03:18] um and determined what the reports look
like, how they were, and um county staff
[3:03:25] asked for only raw data with no seed dot
analysis for the reporting requirements.
[3:03:28] So if you look at the reports
data with no commentary from us on it on
[3:03:35] June 15th we submitted all of the
reports uh per the 1041 requirements. Um
[3:03:42] July 30th COT and Clear Creek County met
to discuss the reporting per the
[3:03:48] stipulations. And that brings us to
today uh where we are here to report on
[3:03:54] uh the requirements per the
stipulations.
[3:03:57] Um, couple things to just note here.
Because this is the first round of
[3:04:01] reporting delivered, we can't really
compare it back to anything. So, next
[3:04:06] year it'll look different since we're
have a couple years of data that we
[3:04:09] reported on. Um and just also to note
there, you know, this is joint between
[3:04:16] the Floyd Hill project and CTIO as well
and they are under different permits and
[3:04:22] C dot has still approached tracking and
reporting them in a separate manner and
[3:04:27] not didn't combine them.
So I'm going to start with Floyd Hill
[3:04:32] and then um we're after that we're turn
over to CTIO and Piper to go through it
[3:04:37] here. Um just a quick review of the
reports that we submitted per the 1041
[3:04:43] permit. Uh we submitted an air quality
report, a noise monitoring report, a
[3:04:50] water quality report, a safety report,
and then traffic counts.
[3:04:59] So our start with the traffic counts, we
submitted raw data. I put it in just a
[3:05:04] little bit better format here to present
on. Um, we looked at different Fridays
[3:05:10] per the 10:41 requirements. The Friday
of before Memorial Day, the Friday
[3:05:15] before Labor Day, the Thursday before
the 4th of July, the Friday before the
[3:05:19] 4th of July, Friday before MLK day, and
Friday of President's Day. And so
[3:05:25] looking at the the traffic numbers here,
Friday before 4th of July was the
[3:05:30] busiest day in 2025.
Um, per these reports. Um, and then and
[3:05:37] that's for westbound I70. People
traveling westbound. Traveling
[3:05:40] eastbound, it was President's Day was
the busiest day. The Friday before
[3:05:44] President's Day. And just to give you,
you know, I won't go into all of the
[3:05:48] data here, but you can see the amount of
traffic that diverts at Empire gets off
[3:05:54] in the westbound direction, which is a
decent amount um from the amount of
[3:05:59] traffic that travels through the
Veterans Memorial Tunnels or through
[3:06:02] traverses through the Floyd Hill
project. And then you can see a drop as
[3:06:05] you get up to uh the Eisenhower Johnson
memorial tunnels.
[3:06:16] So, I will turn over to Edgar to review
our safety the crash data for the Floyd
[3:06:21] Hill stretch of I7. Sounds good. Thank
you, Kurt. Uh, for 2025,
[3:06:27] we managed to get data from U. Colorado
State Patrol and Idaho Springs Police.
[3:06:33] Um the total volume of uh crashes was
122 crashes for this um portion of I7
[3:06:41] from mile post 241 to 248 which is
basically the Floyd Hill construction
[3:06:47] zone. Um the severity of the crashes,
there was one fatality and uh 32
[3:06:55] injuries. Uh with the one fatality being
um on the reporting for that data or for
[3:07:02] that accident, it indicated that it
involved police police activity and um
[3:07:10] some sort of pursuit um on that
incident. So it wasn't necessarily
[3:07:14] related to uh construction activity. Um
the top cra uh top crash types that were
[3:07:22] involved were rear ends with 42 and same
direction sidewipes with 35 accidents.
[3:07:30] um for the the conditions of the
accidents about 70 for 76% of the
[3:07:36] accidents which is 93 crashes there were
the highway was fine you know it was dry
[3:07:42] clear conditions
um and when we had the most accidents
[3:07:49] those accidents happened in July and
August with 14 accidents um each each of
[3:07:54] those two months and then our lowest
month was um in November
[3:08:00] And then between the 122 accidents, it
was split fairly split between the each
[3:08:07] direction of I70 with 60 accidents going
eastbound and 62 accidents going
[3:08:13] westbound.
>> So fairly
[3:08:17] split.
>> Yeah.
[3:08:19] » Thank you, [clears throat] Edgar. And I
do I just do want to highlight the only
[3:08:23] data sources we were able to get was
Colorado State Patrol and Idaho Springs.
[3:08:26] We did reach out to the county sheriff
and do as well and they didn't have any
[3:08:32] reporting that they took that was the
feedback that we got from them. So those
[3:08:36] were the only data sources where we were
able to pull from.
[3:08:42] With that I will turn it over to Abby.
>> All right. Well I'm sure um you are all
[3:08:47] familiar with the air quality monitoring
that we're required to do as part of the
[3:08:51] Floyd Hill project. Um, it originally
started as part of SB21-260,
[3:08:56] which is state statute, requires us to
monitor air quality on any regionally
[3:09:02] significant transportation capacity
project. Um, but we're also doing some
[3:09:06] air quality as part of the requirements
of the 1041 permit. Um, so as you know,
[3:09:12] we've uh partnered with you all to build
a particulate matter dashboard that's
[3:09:16] live um and you can access at any time.
We have that running 24/7. Um we do
[3:09:23] sometimes have communication issues here
and there when we're you know uh fixing
[3:09:29] the monitors or something of that nature
but uh for the most part it is running.
[3:09:33] We'll continue this particulate
mattering monitoring through uh 20 2031.
[3:09:38] Um and after the construction is
complete we've committed to adding an
[3:09:43] additional 6 months of gas monitoring.
So that will mirror our preconstruction
[3:09:48] requirements. Um, we're not required to
monitor gases through construction per
[3:09:54] uh SB21-260.
Um, but in order to compare conditions
[3:09:59] before construction and after
construction, we have committed to
[3:10:02] adding that on. And uh, we do provide
you all with an annual summarized
[3:10:07] reports that includes analysis of any
air quality alerts that we have. So, um,
[3:10:13] there is an internal and an external
level for particulate matter. When that
[3:10:18] level is reached, we're required to
investigate whether or not it was caused
[3:10:22] by construction activity, wildfire
smoke, or perhaps something else. Um,
[3:10:27] » backups.
>> Yeah. Whatever it might be. Um, and
[3:10:30] thankfully, all alerts that we've gotten
to date have been on days where we've
[3:10:34] had really poor air quality because of
wildfire smoke. Um, so we haven't
[3:10:39] actually had any that are attributed to
construction at this time. Um, so the
[3:10:44] annual summarized report does include an
analysis of any of our alerts that we
[3:10:48] have. Um, and we're happy to walk
through you with those with you at any
[3:10:52] time. And additionally, you can sign up
for uh, air quality alerts through the
[3:10:57] link that's um, included in the in the
um, slides if you want to get those
[3:11:02] directly um, in your email. You can move
on to the next slide.
[3:11:08] We're also required to report on noise.
That's part of our 1041 environmental
[3:11:12] stipulations. Um, so we have committed
to identifying a noise monitoring
[3:11:18] location for each of the four
construction packages. We tried to
[3:11:22] strategically choose locations that
would be representative of a user,
[3:11:27] recreational user on the greenway trail
or rafter um someone who might be trying
[3:11:32] to recreate throughout the Floyd Hill
project area. Um, and we take noise
[3:11:37] measurements four times a year at those
four locations. That's during peak and
[3:11:41] off- peak traffic during summer and
winter. So, once during the busy season,
[3:11:46] the busy ski season, and once during our
busy summer recreation season. Uh, with
[3:11:52] this noise analysis, we've also tried to
understand when peak and off- peak
[3:11:57] traffic actually is. Um, and we have
found that it's basically peak traffic
[3:12:03] is essentially between 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. on Fridays with off- peak
[3:12:08] being anywhere outside of commuting
hours during the weekdays. So, we do our
[3:12:13] best to get out there during those
times. Again, this was the first
[3:12:17] required monitoring session, so we'll be
able to do some more comparison once we
[3:12:22] have additional years of data. Um, but I
also wanted to point out too that in our
[3:12:26] NEPA mitigation commit commitments, um,
the project is committed to abiding by
[3:12:31] local noise ordinances. So, I know noise
is a big issue. It's a very difficult,
[3:12:38] um, it it's very difficult to to measure
depending on where you are in time and
[3:12:44] in space. Um, so there's a lot of
factors that make it difficult to
[3:12:49] measure noise, but um, I think keeping
measurements at these four locations
[3:12:53] throughout construction will be
representative of someone who might be
[3:12:58] um, trying to recreate in in the project
area in the future.
[3:13:03] You can move on to the next one.
Um, so this is just an overview of the
[3:13:08] noise monitoring locations again um,
representing each of the four
[3:13:12] construction packages. um and they are
offset from the road just a little bit.
[3:13:17] Um this is a little different than we
typically do noise monitoring. Noise
[3:13:22] monitoring is a very prescribed process.
Um but that being said, um it's these
[3:13:28] locations aren't necessarily uh
representative of a specific receptor,
[3:13:33] which is typically how we measure noise,
right? Maybe the community center or a
[3:13:38] school or a church or specific
residents. these represent more a larger
[3:13:43] area. Um, so we'll have to see as time
goes on kind of uh how noise changes in
[3:13:48] those locations, but we take traffic
counts as well when we're doing our
[3:13:52] noise monitoring so we can kind of
compare um what traffic is at that point
[3:13:56] in time.
>> Um, so [snorts] you think after
[3:14:01] construction
[3:14:04] that the monitors should move? Is that
>> um
[3:14:09] » I don't think so. We tried to choose
locations and and it's to be clear, it's
[3:14:13] not a monitor that stays out all the
time. It's something that we do and we
[3:14:16] go out and bring our monitor.
>> Okay.
[3:14:18] » Um and these locations should be
relatively stable throughout
[3:14:23] construction. Um we tried to choose
locations that would be either in in the
[3:14:28] future under the roadway. Um, so our
hope is that when we raise the roadway
[3:14:34] and um, vehicles are above someone who
might be using the trail that hopefully
[3:14:38] it's a more pleasant experience. Um,
that's the goal. And again, these should
[3:14:43] still be accessible throughout
construction and after.
[3:14:48] » I'll I'll [clears throat] just share
>> a concern. Um, part of our intent is to
[3:14:53] understand how
construction itself is affecting the
[3:14:58] noise. I think part of the intent of the
1041 is to understand how the project is
[3:15:02] affecting noise in the corridor because
it's it's going to result well likely
[3:15:06] will result in more cars further west.
>> Um it would make sense to me that we
[3:15:11] would be focused on noise monitors to to
get some baseline there to have do noise
[3:15:17] monitoring near sensitive receptors like
you mentioned. Mhm.
[3:15:20] » Um I hear frequently from a couple parts
of Idaho Springs where there's
[3:15:25] inadequate noise barriers. Um and and I
know I'm not like further west of Idaho
[3:15:32] Springs are also important receptors. Is
there any ability or appetite to
[3:15:37] establish a baseline?
>> We're definitely willing if there's a
[3:15:40] specific location you're concerned
about, we're definitely willing to
[3:15:43] adjust those. That's kind of just what
we were doing before the 1041 was even
[3:15:47] in place. Um, but we're willing to
adjust those as you see fit. I was I
[3:15:53] have been thinking that um new uh
multi-resident uh buildings like on the
[3:15:58] west end of Idaho Springs might be a
good place for that. Um, and then I also
[3:16:03] want to point out too that the other
1041 permit, the um, CTIO
[3:16:09] um, permit does add additional
locations. Um, and those are more
[3:16:13] focused on residents because they've
been measured since 2018 when the lane
[3:16:18] was in place. So, we can take a look at
those and compare them. And it's easy
[3:16:23] enough to add a fifth location or change
one of these um, if there's a location
[3:16:27] you're specifically concerned about.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[3:16:31] » Yeah, of course.
[3:16:38] » All right, I'll pass it off to Josh to
outline our water quality efforts.
[3:16:44] » Hello. Um,
so what we're looking at here, um, are
[3:16:49] our project area water quality sampling
locations. Um, these include,
[3:16:56] let's see, three continuous monitoring
stations. Now, um,
[3:17:02] let's see if they're named 3-1,
uh, 4-1 download or I guess down by
[3:17:09] sample four. And then there's a new one
we installed. I'll talk about later at
[3:17:13] CC.
>> Yeah, I I apologize. I can't read the
[3:17:17] numbers on there. Kind of tell us where
they are.
[3:17:20] » One is upstream um right below the
Veterans Memorial Tunnels.
[3:17:24] » Thank you. Um the other one is at the
bottom of the hill um right by the raft
[3:17:29] uh takeout
>> and those two have been there for
[3:17:32] decades
of other monitoring requirements and
[3:17:37] other um kind of NEA um programs we
have. And then the new one um is called
[3:17:44] CC5 and it's installed along Highway 6
further downstream. And the idea of that
[3:17:50] was to capture um the modifications we
did to the uh to going down the hill
[3:17:56] itself, the widening of the the hill and
Johnson Gulch. I think
[3:18:01] » so. Um we also have on this site or on
this screen
[3:18:07] uh intra project u grab sample
locations. Um so we submitted a discrete
[3:18:15] sampling plan and the and the intent
there is to um look at different small
[3:18:22] catchment characteristics whether they
have deicer um more forested bridges
[3:18:28] essenti a lot of times above and below
throughout the project and monitor and
[3:18:32] see how the um the actual mitigation uh
the design performs throughout the
[3:18:39] project. So what we're getting now is
essentially baseline.
[3:18:43] » Um it is being influenced a little bit
by construction, but we're getting
[3:18:46] baseline and then as each one of these
structures come online,
[3:18:50] » we we hope to see some changes or um we
look to see um how well our mitigation
[3:18:56] is is functioning.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it'll definitely
[3:18:59] be interesting to compare it to the the
final um configuration of the roadways
[3:19:04] and see if Clear Creek gets cleaner or
there's the deicer problem.
[3:19:10] » Yep. Um and this is really interesting
information too. Um there's a lot of
[3:19:14] interested groups in Aqua and Trout
Unlimited and um been a lot of
[3:19:18] discussion at the tunnel around deicer
inputs to uh the creek. Um and a lot of
[3:19:22] the um information we're collecting is
is uh new and enlightening. So this is
[3:19:30] an exciting time actually for research.
>> Um so this is the sampling plan. We did
[3:19:35] four sample events last winter. Um three
of them were standard sample events
[3:19:40] capturing uh typical seasons. So
December, February, and May. Um and then
[3:19:45] one was this posttorm event.
>> What was the last one?
[3:19:50] » Post storm. So
>> and that's part of our plan. Um
[3:19:56] there was a control site the the one
modification we are having to the plan.
[3:20:00] We had a control site on Beaverbrook. Um
we expected it to be uh a good location
[3:20:08] for control. It turned out to have
really high TDS um which [clears throat]
[3:20:13] in influenced our chloride calculation.
So we ended up moving our control site
[3:20:17] over to Fall River. Um, and that one's
perform looks looks much better. So, we
[3:20:23] submitted a modification to the plan.
Um, you'll see
[3:20:26] » what was wrong with beaver broke.
>> Uh,
[3:20:28] » probably the water treatment plant.
>> Water treatment plant. Yes.
[3:20:31] » Thank you.
>> Yeah, chloride's kind of a it's we
[3:20:36] calculated and so
[3:20:42] um driving.
>> Oh, never mind. I've got a couple
[3:20:45] questions, but I want
>> Sure.
[3:20:46] » If you want to go back, you can.
>> No, no, no. I I want to hear the the
[3:20:49] full what?
>> Okay. Yeah. So, this is essentially the
[3:20:52] results of the first um discrete
sampling plan. So, the grab samples four
[3:20:56] times a year. Um and so what we're doing
here is essentially establishing
[3:21:01] baseline. You're not you don't really
see any trends yet. This is our first um
[3:21:06] kind of year and don't see a lot of
above and below or you know what would
[3:21:11] we expect to what we expect in the
future to provide potentially this delta
[3:21:16] of
um more natural versus built out in uh
[3:21:21] cont contributing basins.
>> Um actually I do have a question on
[3:21:25] this.
>> Sure.
[3:21:26] » I'm reading in the staff report that in
late February, early March 2025,
[3:21:32] we were seeing
concentrations around 591 milligrams. Is
[3:21:38] that milligrams, micrograms per liter?
Um this data looks significantly
[3:21:43] different. Is this a different time
period? Well, I think the Are you sorry,
[3:21:47] are you reading from the analysis that
the county provided?
[3:21:51] » Yeah, it says
>> so it's it's very confusing and I just
[3:21:55] wanted to this is actually good to have
this conversation because there's data
[3:22:00] from the continuous monitors which are
taking a sample an average sample every
[3:22:06] hour. So that's CC1 through CC5 which
may be where that data was pulled from.
[3:22:13] And then there's the discrete sampling
plan where we're going out and taking a
[3:22:16] grab sample at these distinct times
which is probably why you're seeing
[3:22:21] different information. So as part of the
submitt we also had to provide data from
[3:22:27] the continuous sampling plan.
>> Okay. Got it.
[3:22:30] » Yeah. So
>> this this is now that I read it this is
[3:22:33] clearly from the continuous sampling.
>> There's there'll be a following slide.
[3:22:36] » Yeah.
>> There's a lot going on.
[3:22:41] Um, one thing to note also is everybody
knows this is a really low water year.
[3:22:45] Um, that graph on the right is uh the
June July uh melt period. Um,
[3:22:54] » so we'll have
>> normal versus this year
[3:22:58] » 2025 versus 2026.
>> You think you'd see higher
[3:23:01] concentrations in a high precipitation
year or a low precipitation year? So
[3:23:05] we've done a lot of multivaried uh
statistical analysis on on the
[3:23:10] conductivity and so far the only thing
we find a true hard correlation with is
[3:23:16] flow. So it's dilution. Um so the more
water in the stream the lower the
[3:23:22] salinity.
>> The only solution to pollution is
[3:23:26] » you [laughter] go
Richard Nixon.
[3:23:33] This one is very difficult because that
is very true.
[3:23:36] » It's true.
[3:23:40] » And so let's see next one. Here we go.
Here's the uh so the second requirement
[3:23:46] was to install a new continuous
monitoring location. Um our first
[3:23:51] location was just downstream of the raft
takeout around the bend. I think there's
[3:23:57] a public mining claim there or
something. We had a lot of vandalism
[3:24:00] issues. Uh you can see pictures down at
the bottom. That was it. First couple
[3:24:04] times we had it, it was it was thrown in
the creek multiple times and
[3:24:08] » why it up. I don't know. We had a we had
a pretty nasty note left for us. So I
[3:24:15] don't know why. I think a couple
particular individuals did not enjoy our
[3:24:20] monitoring no matter what we did. So we
moved farther downstream um just a
[3:24:26] little bit. It still has the same still
capturing the same um impacts of Johnson
[3:24:30] Gulch and the um the east the first
package of Floyd Hill. Um
[3:24:37] » so the upper picture is where you moved
it to.
[3:24:38] » The upper picture is where we moved it
to and it's underneath the camera. Yeah.
[3:24:42] Um it's also by the uh there's a the
climbing
[3:24:48] wall I didn't put on the map's back a
little ways, but it's just down around
[3:24:51] the bend. There's a there's a huge
climbing uh trail and and face here. So
[3:24:56] this is where a lot of climbers park
[3:25:00] and that is the initial data. Uh it's up
and running. Things seem to be working
[3:25:03] well. Um so we'll continue to report out
on that. Next slide.
[3:25:10] And then here's your general um sorry
George's question. Um
[3:25:16] we have so now we now have five monitors
throughout the watershed. Um, I only put
[3:25:24] the three here that are around the
project area just so you can kind of see
[3:25:28] them. We are about to have a public
dashboard which um, Aqua will um, it'll
[3:25:34] be on Aqua's website and I'm sure we'll
you all get a chance to take a look at
[3:25:38] all that when it's up and running. Um,
and it will be this information, this
[3:25:42] data that'll be on that dashboard. Um
and what you see here is
[3:25:48] kind of our typical
trends um as
[3:25:55] um spring melt comes. Let's see if this
is not set up in the right the way I
[3:25:59] would like to present it. Let's see. It
increases. So let's start with this.
[3:26:03] This is kind of summer. It'll increase
through the fall and the winter. It'll
[3:26:07] peak around January, February, March.
Depending on the winter, you'll have
[3:26:13] some storm spikes and then as spring
runoff occurs, you see it come back down
[3:26:18] for the summer and then it kind of
repeats. So, it's a
[3:26:23] um [clears throat]
kind of a sinosoidal data trap.
[3:26:28] Um
and so it'll be interesting to see these
[3:26:33] peaks. um for this project it's about in
in my our our strategy our mitigation
[3:26:39] strategy was keeping the peaks um as low
as possible. So one of the things we're
[3:26:44] really watching for are the peaks
[3:26:48] and like I said you guys can dig into
this data when it becomes live on um
[3:26:53] Aqua's
website. Did you present you can
[3:26:58] » we submitted data from from the proposed
dashboard? Yeah. And I think another
[3:27:04] thing to note with that too is that
you'll be able to look back um to when
[3:27:08] we started collecting data which will be
useful.
[3:27:12] » Right. This is the list.
>> Oh, did you have a baseline before you
[3:27:15] even started work
>> for continuous data? We did. Um CC5 the
[3:27:21] new station obviously we've only started
collecting data in June but the other
[3:27:24] four stations have been up for several
years.
[3:27:27] » Right.
[3:27:30] And I think
>> um okay so then I'll get to what I'm
[3:27:35] trying to understand as I look at this
data.
[3:27:38] The
the high end especially at CC1
[3:27:44] clearly is above the long-term threshold
for safety for aquatic life right which
[3:27:49] is around 230.
Um,
[3:27:54] what I don't know is how
what constitutes long-term versus
[3:28:00] short-term. Short-term is 860, right?
So, we're not ever hitting like short
[3:28:03] term like we might have just killed all
the fish in one hour. Um, how long do we
[3:28:09] think these salinity levels are lasting?
And and how does that compare to the
[3:28:13] definition of a long-term
>> measurement?
[3:28:16] » So, that's the difference between acute
and chronic standard. um
[3:28:20] those so in
I'm not sure which values you're
[3:28:26] referencing. There's also there's so
there's a 1988 EPA study um that had uh
[3:28:32] mortality using fathead minnow which is
to kind of a standard water quality
[3:28:36] aquatic life indicator. So that's an
indicator species study. Then there's
[3:28:40] two Canadian um studies that in Canada
they've put a little bit more um aquatic
[3:28:47] require regulation in Colorado on our um
streams.
[3:28:53] Um and then there is the
aesthetic safe drinking water act value.
[3:29:00] So we have essentially right around 250
240 250 260 it's kind of your your
[3:29:07] chronic and then the 860 is the acute
one from this from the 1988 study. Um
[3:29:12] those are in hours so I think it's 72
hours for the
[3:29:18] acute and then it's um
I'd have to go back and look. There's
[3:29:24] one presentation I did where I had to
find this for you all. Um but so far we
[3:29:30] are not at we have never quite violated
that the long-term values because what
[3:29:35] these are these are spikes that go up
for like an hour and they come back
[3:29:38] down. Um CC1 is the the one that's no
high so and sitting right next to the
[3:29:43] tunnel. Um that one
is um the one of most concern. Um we're
[3:29:51] working with CPW as well. They're doing
some they did some fish salinity
[3:29:55] studies. I don't know if you've been
involved um with any of that, but they
[3:30:00] found that trout and a lot of aquatic
species avoid the high salinity rather
[3:30:05] than stay in it to to die essentially.
>> Um but they're further investigating
[3:30:10] species distributions. So,
um
[3:30:14] it gets pretty complicated pretty
quickly.
[3:30:18] » I appreciate you helping me. I know
better how to interpret this data after
[3:30:22] hearing you. So, thank you.
>> Yeah. And I'm I'm I'm open for like a
[3:30:25] more in detailed discussion um some some
other time.
[3:30:31] Anything to add?
>> Oh, I don't think so. Um yeah, I mean I
[3:30:36] think the main point is that we've just
seen with um greater flow that they'll
[3:30:41] hit it'll hit a spike after a storm
event and then come right right back
[3:30:46] relatively right back down. but
definitely doesn't um stay above that uh
[3:30:51] chronic or acute value for more than a
full 24-hour period. Um which again
[3:30:57] makes things complicated for us to
mitigate, but um it's definitely a hot
[3:31:02] topic and um we're always investigating
new products we can use um application
[3:31:08] rates and trying to get more information
on that. So it's definitely a work in
[3:31:11] progress, but this data helps.
Um, not to correct the record here, but
[3:31:18] offer on the EPA
table for chloride for clic
[3:31:24] is long-term exposure.
>> Four days.
[3:31:25] » Four days.
>> Four day average concentration.
[3:31:28] » Four day average concentration. And then
the Canadian study is
[3:31:35] seven. Yeah, seven days. So lower
exposure threshold but longer time.
[3:31:42] So, [clears throat]
[3:31:46] » and I I know that uh Clear Creek has had
its ups and downs. Um, in the mining
[3:31:53] heyday, I mean, I heard stories of at
one point Clear Creek was orange because
[3:31:58] of all the mining runoff. So, um I I
understand we're in a different position
[3:32:04] now, which is good.
But that that may I don't know if that
[3:32:08] affects underlying death or not, but
that's why I asked um you know about the
[3:32:14] the long-term studies.
[3:32:19] » I mean there's there's definitely a
we've changed we used to use sediment or
[3:32:24] sand and switching over to liquid deicer
has changed things. Um
[3:32:30] sand is also bad for aquatic life. Oh, I
mean
[3:32:35] » um and yeah, we're still understanding
more about how changing products can
[3:32:39] impact the level in the creek.
>> And the liquid deicers, that's still the
[3:32:45] um I forgot the term for it began with
an M. The the
[3:32:49] » magnesium chloride.
>> Yeah, that's one that's not toxic but is
[3:32:53] really salty.
>> Yeah, it's it's essentially rock salt.
[3:32:56] Like sodium chloride is table salt.
Magnesium chloride is just a different
[3:33:00] salt. Um, and of course with these
liquid deicers, there's some proprietary
[3:33:06] information or ingredients that they'll
put in in addition to the salt, um, to
[3:33:11] make it more or less effective at
certain temperatures. Um, so C dot uses
[3:33:16] a variety of different products, meaning
a variety of different concentrations
[3:33:21] and and types. Um, but yeah, it's
definitely something we're we're
[3:33:26] learning more about. Mhm.
>> If you would uh there's a organization
[3:33:31] called Clear Roads and I do a lot of
research on on this topic. This is a
[3:33:35] national issue. Um
>> and so you can uh find out a lot of
[3:33:40] information. Um SE dot's a member of
that organization and our maintenance
[3:33:45] superintendents are all um heavily
participated and invested in that.
[3:33:49] » I'm sorry you inspired another question.
>> How do we compare?
[3:33:54] This is a national issue. uh do these
concentrations look higher than other
[3:33:59] portions of the in transportation
system? I think problem is lack of data.
[3:34:04] Um like because there's no EPA
requirement there's I don't know if
[3:34:09] you've seen comparable data but
>> yeah I would say
[3:34:13] » it's hard to find
>> um it's a similar issue the we have um
[3:34:18] we have a very unique issue. This is the
highest interstate um and so um that CC1
[3:34:25] is going to be higher than than most of
the national trends down here. Um
[3:34:30] uh it's it's a little bit lower. So we
we've um worked a lot with FHWA, USGS.
[3:34:37] Um they have a winter maintenance um
kind of program. Um a lot of it's
[3:34:42] centered on the east coast. A lot of
studies are coming out. The them Oregon
[3:34:49] mountain passes in Oregon are the ones
that are most applicable to us. Um
[3:34:55] » but uh there's an opportunity for this
to kind of be like a leading edge of
[3:35:00] some interesting stuff.
[3:35:04] I think I think the other major
difference too is like we just don't
[3:35:07] thaw here, right? In other states, they
apply the product and then you get sun
[3:35:12] in the afternoon and it melts it and the
temperature rises. Here we, you know,
[3:35:16] it's it's harder to keep the roads
clear. But
[3:35:19] » even with all of our sun,
>> I I think the elevation and extreme
[3:35:24] weather definitely plays a role in us
having to use product. So,
[3:35:34] » all right. Thank you. Turn over to Piper
to
[3:35:38] » Sure. Thank Thanks for running the
slides, too, Kurt.
[3:35:41] » No, you can you can hold them. That's
it. If that's all right. Yep.
[3:35:43] » Um well, appreciate the opportunity to
be here. Um commissioners again you know
[3:35:48] similar to Kurt we're following a
similar timeline but obviously we have
[3:35:51] been engaging um with a project
leadership team through the CSS process
[3:35:56] to you know secure some additional hours
and days. Um we were really successful
[3:36:01] in working with through the CSS process
with county staff to come up with a
[3:36:06] really creative solution where we have a
a kind of a flexible pod of hours and
[3:36:09] days that we're able to use as needed.
And you know, as you can see up there,
[3:36:13] we did present to um this body back in
May on sort of the outcome of that when
[3:36:19] our permit was approved sort of
authorizing, you know, the expansion of
[3:36:23] fixed hours and days and then some
flexible hours and days. So, you know,
[3:36:27] since then, you know, we have been
obviously working with S DOT and the
[3:36:31] county. We participated in that same
meeting that Kurt mentioned. Our
[3:36:34] operations manager came and presented
some reporting on how the mexels are,
[3:36:38] you know, operating trends that we're
seeing. Um and again here we are um on
[3:36:43] September 1st, 2026. So similar timeline
but with a little bit more history
[3:36:47] certainly on um the hours and days and
that permit process and where these kind
[3:36:52] of uh requirements and stipulations um
emerged from. Abby, did you want to
[3:36:58] highlight anything on the notes there? I
mean I think they're sort of similar
[3:37:01] comments from the C do permit timeline.
>> I don't think so. Just Yeah, similar
[3:37:05] similar. We don't have much to compare
to. Um and again just waiting for some
[3:37:10] changes to be finalized before we move
forward with some of the uh reporting
[3:37:14] that we've committed to. Okay. So
certainly a lot of partnership with
[3:37:18] Abby. She's really helping us to make
sure that you know this is all standard.
[3:37:22] She's helping us with a lot of those
environmental requirements. So certainly
[3:37:26] a lot of collaboration between um the
teams there.
[3:37:29] » Okay, great. So So between your staff
and our staff, we've resolved the 1041
[3:37:34] questions.
I think um
[3:37:38] » session.
>> Yeah, the main thing we're waiting on is
[3:37:40] just having something in writing to so
we can finalize some of um like the
[3:37:45] purchase of the air quality monitors
isn't specifically in the permit. Um and
[3:37:49] just before we spend that money, we want
to have it memorialized in some way. And
[3:37:53] I know um we got the letters back from
Garrett and Colton kind of memorializing
[3:37:58] that. I just haven't had time to get a
signature on my end. So, we're just
[3:38:03] trying to work on finalizing that.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, next slide.
[3:38:08] » So, again, you know, similar reports
that we're required to provide. Um, we
[3:38:13] are not going to go into kind of the
same level of depth that Abby did for
[3:38:17] the C dot permit. We're really going to
focus specifically on signage and
[3:38:21] communications related to the, you know,
express lane and the the Floyd Hill
[3:38:26] Express lane that's currently being
constructed. But just to recognize that
[3:38:29] we've obviously been working with Abby
and you know the same team on some of
[3:38:34] the similar requirements that we have in
our permit for the operating hours and
[3:38:38] days for the Mountain Express Lane.
>> Oo to that point. Um
[3:38:46] this is my commute. I'm I represent east
or the uh east end of the county west
[3:38:52] evergreen and so I commute from there to
here. So I know Floyd Hill very well.
[3:38:57] fascinating changes. Um, but people are
used to speeding along I7.
[3:39:05] And although you have all of the 45 mph
signs and you have construction
[3:39:10] equipment everywhere,
is it possible to get a sign that says
[3:39:17] lanes narrow? Because people are acting
like they're on I25 with, you know,
[3:39:23] shoulders and everything else. And this
won't help all the speeders, but it
[3:39:29] might make some people go, "Oh, there's
a reason." Not just construction safety,
[3:39:35] but the fact that these lanes are
narrower than they're used to, and
[3:39:39] perhaps they should slow down.
>> That's great feedback. Thank you,
[3:39:42] Commissioner. We should have narrow lane
signs out there. Now, you're making me
[3:39:45] question. I got to go out and double
check that they're
[3:39:47] » Thank you. No, I have not seen them.
>> Okay. They should be as you come down
[3:39:51] the hill.
>> Yeah.
[3:39:52] » Got to I got to go verify they're up.
>> Okay. Thank you. and I will I will look
[3:39:56] more closely, but I I've actually been
asking for this, Abby knows, for for
[3:40:01] about a year now. So, thank you.
>> Good. Thanks for playing.
[3:40:05] » Um Abby, do you want to cover this one?
>> Sure. Yeah, I would I could just talk a
[3:40:09] little bit about um the air quality
monitors that we're proposing. Um I can
[3:40:13] talk specifically about what they're
capable of measuring if you're
[3:40:16] interested. Um, but we did get one um
question about whether or not these
[3:40:21] would be tied into the Floyd Hill
dashboard and they will not be um a we
[3:40:27] cannot put them on the same system and
uh dashboard as Floyd Hill. However, we
[3:40:32] want to make sure that you have full
access to the data. Um so definitely
[3:40:36] willing to have you be the owners of
that. Um and also open to talking about
[3:40:42] locations. Um because the original air
quality monitors were in the same
[3:40:46] locations, well there was three. One was
at the Dumont Firehouse, one was on top
[3:40:51] of the Idaho Springs Health and Wellness
Center, which is the same location as
[3:40:55] one of the Floyd Hill monitors, and the
third was at the Floyd Hill Firehouse,
[3:40:59] which is the same location as the other
Floyd Hill monitor. So you essentially
[3:41:02] will have two monitors um where you can
place anywhere you're interested in the
[3:41:07] corridor and learning more about air
quality. Um, and I previously said that
[3:41:12] we needed a power supply and I looked
into it. They are solar powered, so that
[3:41:16] kind of opens up opportunities. Um, our
air quality specialist did provide a
[3:41:20] couple of um, recommended locations, but
again, we're willing to work with you on
[3:41:24] that and help you get those up and
running.
[3:41:28] » Thanks, Abby. U, next slide, Kurt.
>> Next slide.
[3:41:35] On
>> on air quality before we get to Sure. I
[3:41:38] think we're gonna
We're getting into the conditions on the
[3:41:42] other resolution.
>> We'll need to read into the next agenda
[3:41:44] item when we get to section.
>> Um on air quality
[3:41:53] » um
[3:41:57] are you still measuring gaseous
pollutants?
[3:42:00] » We are not. But these are capable of
measuring gaseous pollutants. Um should
[3:42:04] be noted though they're not regulatory
grade. Um, so again, can't be used, um,
[3:42:10] to help with any, you know, work with
the EPA or non-attainment, but it will
[3:42:14] give you an idea of air quality in the
in the area. Um, if you were to get a
[3:42:19] regulatory grade monitor, it would be
significantly more expensive. Um, but
[3:42:23] this should provide baseline data for
you on gas. And again, um, the Floyd
[3:42:28] Hill monitors will collect gaseous
pollutants six months after construction
[3:42:33] as well, so you could compare that
information.
[3:42:36] And then I think I I have a similar
question. I'm not I think it might
[3:42:39] actually be the other 1041, but um air
quality monitors, these three are going
[3:42:46] to go further west. That's is that
>> they can go wherever you want them to
[3:42:50] go. Um and again, they're solar powered,
so there's some more flexibility there.
[3:42:55] I again, I think like the west end of
Idaho Springs would probably be a good
[3:42:59] location. Um, I also, you know, thought
about like Clar Creek County High School
[3:43:04] or something like that, but um, yeah,
it's up to you where you want to place
[3:43:08] them. Um, we could place one of them at
the Dumont Fire Station, which would
[3:43:13] give us comparable um, data to what we
were collecting before. Um, but since
[3:43:17] there's already monitors at those other
two locations, I would recommend putting
[3:43:20] the two in somewhere else.
[3:43:26] » Okay, I think that's I think that's good
for now.
[3:43:28] » Yeah. And one more thing to note on
these monitors too. They don't require
[3:43:31] calibration. That was a problem with the
um other monitors that we had out that
[3:43:35] were became defunct um you know without
regular maintenance and calibration and
[3:43:39] filter changes they became obsolete. But
these are um much more you know leave it
[3:43:45] stick it out and forget it which I think
will be uh e easier to use and uh will
[3:43:50] provide better data long term.
>> Is that what happened to the previous
[3:43:54] ones? The calibration problem.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We just we didn't have a
[3:43:58] contract with the uh consultant that was
keeping those maintained anymore. And
[3:44:03] after I don't know I don't can't
remember the last year data I provided
[3:44:07] maybe 2020 that's about the time that
they started to fall off.
[3:44:11] » Okay.
>> And we'll work through that with them. I
[3:44:14] mean, yeah, these these are like kind of
Toyota Camry's like they're not they
[3:44:19] just don't take a lot of maintenance,
which is good because the bigger and the
[3:44:22] more regulatory grid ones can take up to
daily maintenance and it's colossally
[3:44:26] expensive and if you miss any of that
then it's no good and you have to throw
[3:44:29] out all the data.
>> So, this one I think is a good baseline
[3:44:32] that we can hopefully sustain over the
long term because that's what we're
[3:44:35] trying to see is like long-term change
especially if we start getting
[3:44:39] significantly more traffic through the
canyon because of the Flint Hill
[3:44:42] project, right? If we If we start having
maintenance issues, then we're going to
[3:44:46] it's going to be very difficult to make
a coherent case to anyone who's educated
[3:44:50] on this stuff to to like really take it
seriously if we're not on top of
[3:44:55] maintenance. And these are these are
amazing. And
[3:44:58] » even even the Floyd Hill monitors you
have now, they're out there monthly
[3:45:02] » calibrating and filter changes and
>> yeah, [clears throat] it's so
[3:45:08] » well and I like the idea of at the
firehouse at the Dumont firehouse too
[3:45:12] because once that gets opened up and all
that moves into that area what's
[3:45:17] changing
>> absolutely
[3:45:18] » getting worse. Sure.
>> Yeah,
[3:45:21] » these take some maintenance. Um, but
we'll work that out with them. But
[3:45:25] that's much it's in it's measured like
six months, not every month or every day
[3:45:29] or every week or
>> the last thing I wanted to ask about is
[3:45:34] is the the alert system.
>> Um, you're stating that construction
[3:45:40] activity was ruled out as a cause of
alerts. Is there a way that we can take
[3:45:45] a look at at how you're arriving at
those conclusions? Yeah, we have um some
[3:45:51] an the analysis that the consultant
that's doing that provides to us in the
[3:45:55] report. Um but again, that's only for
the Floyd Hill project um because that's
[3:45:59] required by the state statute. Um I I
mean to to date it's been
[3:46:07] there's poor uh air quality because of
wildfire smoke and it's been quite
[3:46:11] obvious but they do um they are required
to submit um a report of what was what
[3:46:18] construction was happening that day
around the time of the air quality alert
[3:46:21] and yeah we're happy to share that
information with you.
[3:46:24] » Thank you. That's all on air quality for
me.
[3:46:30] So, chair, if you could read in Joanne
has something to say.
[3:46:32] » Sorry.
>> Okay, Joanne, you'll have to come up
[3:46:35] here by the microphones. [clears throat]
[3:46:45] » Thanks, Garrett.
[3:46:51] » Hello, everybody. [laughter]
I've been listening and I've I've been
[3:46:55] following your presentation and I think
that this Floyd Hill project is is doing
[3:47:00] what it's supposed to do and the reports
are giving you the information that we
[3:47:06] intended when we started all this that
you would have. But I do have a couple
[3:47:11] of questions about the data uh that was
in the report. And the first one I had
[3:47:17] regards the uh traffic counts. And these
traffic counts appear to be done on the
[3:47:26] heavy westbound days, right? When people
are heading up for the holidays,
[3:47:33] right? Friday, Friday, Friday, Thursday,
Friday. So, as someone who lives here,
[3:47:42] the westbound traffic for the holidays
is starting to spread out. I think that
[3:47:48] Thursdays are becoming interesting days
as well. But probably the most intense
[3:47:54] days happen when people are coming back
when that Monday or that Sunday
[3:48:01] afternoon or evening. So, do you have
data that you can show on on the return
[3:48:07] days? Because I'm I'm kind of inclined
to think traffic is heavier on any given
[3:48:14] return day than it is on the Fridays
before they head out. So, if that could
[3:48:21] be provided, I think it would help us
understand the impacts in Clear Creek
[3:48:25] County as well. So, that's that's my
first comment. I can absolutely I can
[3:48:31] provide you with the link. This data is
public
[3:48:34] » and I can provide you with the link and
the station number and you can go in and
[3:48:37] you can pull data from
>> Yeah.
[3:48:39] » any day
>> of the year.
[3:48:41] » Yep.
>> Or email that to you.
[3:48:42] » Yep. Okay. Thanks. Um then the next
question I have relates to the uh crash
[3:48:49] data. The 20 25 crash.
>> Sorry to interrupt you. I I appreciate
[3:48:53] that as a now solution. Maybe for the
next presentation you can include
[3:48:57] Fridays and Sundays.
Okay.
[3:48:59] » Yeah. Instead of instead of you
searching for it.
[3:49:02] » I mean, if you if for this time, I'm
fine with that as a response, but moving
[3:49:06] forward, let's definitely practice this,
too. It's a really great point.
[3:49:08] » Okay. Do you do you agree, Ponies?
>> Yeah, I definitely changing. Mondays are
[3:49:13] getting pretty tough these days because
I think we're seeing traffic spreading,
[3:49:18] which probably is a good thing. Um, but
anyway, um,
[3:49:22] » so can I ask one question? Thank you.
So, you you mentioned Thursdays. So the
[3:49:27] next year report, just so we're clear,
do the the Fridays that we identified in
[3:49:32] our meeting and then do Sundays and then
you said Thursdays too or just Friday,
[3:49:37] Sunday?
>> We're starting to see Thursday heavy I
[3:49:40] think.
>> Yeah,
[3:49:41] » as I heard what what I heard from your
your comment is that Sundays like
[3:49:46] understanding eastbound traffic surges
is is the missing piece. Not so much
[3:49:50] what's happening on Thursday,
>> the heavy return traffic to the metro
[3:49:54] area. So that might be on some Mondays,
too.
[3:49:56] » Yeah. Yeah. Sundays and Mondays
>> like like you know on a third three-day
[3:50:00] weekend.
>> Yeah. If I could articulate a little I
[3:50:03] think what
we see a lot of traffic jams on Friday
[3:50:08] because we have the Floyd Hill
bottleneck right existing right now with
[3:50:12] the two lane situation. the eastbound we
might see
[3:50:16] it's like a heavier average car count
throughout the entire day because all
[3:50:20] three lanes are generally operating
because the bottleneck is in Dylan and
[3:50:23] not here right [laughter]
and so um I think just understanding
[3:50:28] that that flow right just someone who
people who live and experience here like
[3:50:32] those Sundays it's all day right whereas
Friday it's a little like this surge and
[3:50:37] drop kind of
>> well and and also there's so many people
[3:50:40] have a four day week so they might leave
Thursday But then there are people with
[3:50:44] a five day week, so they leave Friday,
but they all have to be at work on
[3:50:48] Monday. So that's why we particularly
get hit on Sundays.
[3:50:52] » Okay, happy to do that.
>> Can we just note that on our methodology
[3:50:55] letters?
>> Yeah, to add
[3:50:58] » just Yeah,
>> thanks. Thank you. Thank you.
[3:51:02] » And the Thursday.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[3:51:04] » Thank you.
>> Thursday.
[3:51:09] » Okay. So then the crash data, um, I can
I understand Colorado State Patrol is a
[3:51:17] major source of data for crashes, um,
and the Idaho Springs Police,
[3:51:23] but when we started all this, we were
relying on data that would be collected
[3:51:31] um, through our dispatch system. And so
you that's I think a piece that you're
[3:51:36] missing when you're saying that you're
not getting stuff from the sheriff and
[3:51:41] » we dispatched and they said that that
was too big of an effort for them to
[3:51:45] provide to us.
>> Oh really? But
[3:51:48] » and I don't think they had all the data.
>> But but there was also a change in
[3:51:53] dispatch, right? We used to have Clear
Creek County Sheriff doing the dispatch
[3:51:59] and maybe they were having trouble,
you know, getting granular on the data,
[3:52:04] but now we have Jeffcom, right? Did
>> we reached out to Jeff?
[3:52:08] » Is that right?
>> We can we got the data. We worked it out
[3:52:12] with the team. We can get the granular
data from JeffcomCom. What we need them
[3:52:15] for is state patrol because we can't get
that right. So state patrol and
[3:52:21] um
um
[3:52:25] » springs
>> um
[3:52:26] » and fire maybe.
>> No. Um this um
[3:52:31] gosh people that help on the accidents
that aren't cops. Uh safety patrol. That
[3:52:36] was the other missing piece that I think
we've worked out among staff about what
[3:52:40] data is actually we can actually get and
we'll get the job comp data. We can ask
[3:52:44] Jeffcom for that granular data. They
push back if someone else does because
[3:52:48] they're not paying,
>> right? So, we've been asking, we we can
[3:52:51] get that easily and we've been getting
that. So,
[3:52:53] » okay, because I have to tell you, I went
to the C3 event on Saturday and I
[3:52:58] chatted with the Jeffcom people and they
were just so delightful and they said,
[3:53:03] "We can get you anything you want to
know." [laughter]
[3:53:07] » So, I, you know, I would urge you to
make sure we get Jeff come in on the
[3:53:11] whole deal. So, it sounds like Joanne,
you need to coordinate with Colton to
[3:53:15] get that information.
>> Okay. Thank you. Let's see. I think
[3:53:19] there's one more.
[3:53:25] Oh, okay. No. Uh, the noise monitoring
and the, uh, water quality stuff. Um, I
[3:53:32] realize we're talking about the Floyd
Hill project right now. Um, but there is
[3:53:36] a lot of data on water quality that is
historic. And if you want to see trends,
[3:53:43] um I think inviting the Upper Clear
Creek Wershed Association to participate
[3:53:49] and and talk with you about data if if
that's where you want to see some
[3:53:54] historic stuff would be a good idea. And
I know that C do participates with Aqua.
[3:53:59] And I know that the data from 20 years
ago isn't necessarily
[3:54:04] uh relevant to what you're talking about
here today at this very report, but I
[3:54:11] think that you will find interesting
trends that are worth tracking if you
[3:54:17] work with Aqua as well. Um yeah,
>> it is relevant, right? because
[3:54:23] ultimately this board has a decision
about the long-term operations of the
[3:54:27] PBSL to make and so it is very very
relevant. Thank you for pointing that
[3:54:30] out.
>> Yeah.
[3:54:31] » Yep. And then let's see.
Oh okay. Oh, in addition about the water
[3:54:38] quality, I think it's going to be really
important regarding the the salinity
[3:54:45] data
once everything is in operation and
[3:54:49] everything is I don't know if you are
hearing people marvel at what we will be
[3:54:56] seeing as we come down Floyd Hill,
approach Floyd Hill from the west. But
[3:55:02] people are marveling and they're saying
we're going to have traffic way up there
[3:55:07] and it'll be up there in the wintertime
and who knows what climate change is
[3:55:13] going to do. I mean, are we going to
have absolutely no problem with highways
[3:55:17] icing in the future? Or are we going to
have continuing and more intense
[3:55:22] problems with highways icing? And so
tracking the chlorides and tracking the
[3:55:28] deicing stuff I think is going to be
important especially once we are in
[3:55:33] operation. And I know that the design
has accounted for
[3:55:39] drainage and and finding ways to make
sure that the drainage that's coming off
[3:55:44] of these structures has a place to go
before it goes directly into the creek.
[3:55:49] And hopefully we won't be having a
terrific impact with salinity in the
[3:55:55] creek once everything's in operation and
all of the drainage structures are
[3:55:59] working. But I think continuing to pay
attention to that is going to be
[3:56:03] critical for uh people who care about
the creek. So those are my comments.
[3:56:09] Thanks. I think the presentation was
great.
[3:56:12] » Thank you.
[3:56:16] » Thank you Joanne.
So are we moving on to the next work
[3:56:20] session?
>> Yes.
[3:56:22] » Uh everyone gets to stay.
Um this is a work session presentation
[3:56:28] and discussion of C dot requirements for
condition 9 of R25-46
[3:56:34] for areas and activities of state
interest case number SI 2025-00001
[3:56:42] peak period shoulder lane operations.
Thank you.
[3:56:47] Thank you, Commissioner Lloyd. So, first
I want to start by saying I really
[3:56:51] appreciate all of the engagement from
the board, but specifically staff. We've
[3:56:56] had a lot of good conversations um you
know, since the permit was approved, you
[3:57:01] know, a little over, you know, a year
ago. And really, I think out of those
[3:57:05] conversations, I think we both recognize
there are so many we are there are so
[3:57:09] many areas for collaboration. You know,
I think we all agree that safety is
[3:57:15] designing and operating a safe project,
right? When Floyd Hill opens, how is
[3:57:19] that going to function with the existing
express lanes that are there? You know,
[3:57:22] obviously, we're already sharing data
resources. Obviously, we've talked a lot
[3:57:26] about data that the Floyd Hill team is
bringing, but CTIO has a wealth of data
[3:57:31] that we are generating from those
express lanes and our express lane
[3:57:33] equipment, and we've been sharing that
with staff. So I think really just a
[3:57:37] recognition that you know we are also
focused on collecting similar data to to
[3:57:41] evaluate how those express lanes are
operating. So really a commitment to
[3:57:46] transparently sharing information that
we have with you all so you can use that
[3:57:50] for decision- making. Um and a really
just an emphasis that we're we both have
[3:57:55] the same view that we want to educate
the public on how to use the facility
[3:57:59] safely. How does signage play into that?
How does communications play into that?
[3:58:04] How are we going to make sure that
drivers, you know, know what to expect,
[3:58:07] especially out of state drivers or
tourists that are here to ski in the
[3:58:11] winter time, hopefully with better this
year. Um, but you know, our express
[3:58:15] lanes actually see higher traffic in the
summer. So, how are we going to educate
[3:58:19] drivers? Making sure they know what to
expect, right? Once the Floyd Hill
[3:58:22] facility is open, how is it going to
connect with the existing express lanes
[3:58:25] that are already there and operating?
So, I think we realize there's a lot of
[3:58:29] areas for just shared continued
collaboration. we are really on the same
[3:58:33] page with a lot of these topics. So
today I'm really going to focus on two
[3:58:38] two of those areas that relate as it
relates to condition 9 which are you
[3:58:42] know what is our plan for signage and
really what is our plan for
[3:58:45] communication and how are those things
going to work together to really notify
[3:58:49] drivers um especially as we lead up to
tolling commencement of the Floyd Hill
[3:58:53] lane but also po post opening of the
Floyd Hill Express lane. How are we
[3:58:57] going to evaluate that signs are
working? How are we going to evaluate
[3:59:00] that our communication strategy is
working and you know how how would we
[3:59:04] make changes? What are what information
are we going to use? So really my goal
[3:59:07] today is just to reconnect with the
commissioners, talk about signage.
[3:59:10] Obviously Kurt is designing a project
that has signage. So he's going to
[3:59:14] contribute to sort of the first part and
the discussion on signage and I'll talk
[3:59:18] a lot about communications. Clearly
Staca Sers is here to also talk about
[3:59:21] communications. She's on the project
now. Um so she'll kind of provide some
[3:59:26] input too on um how the Floyd Hill
communications work that's already being
[3:59:30] done can help we can help leverage that
as we look to sort of launch tolling um
[3:59:34] with the Floyd Hill lane that's going to
open.
[3:59:37] » Next slide.
>> Yeah. Um just just one quick question
[3:59:40] again on signage. Sorry. Um the top of
Floyd Hill I mean looks wide open and
[3:59:47] wonderful. It looks great. Um, but is it
going to be narrower as it um extends
[3:59:57] through the county or I I mean I I guess
it has to be through Idaho Springs. So
[4:00:04] still still still need to put people on
notice that it's not
[4:00:09] » open commissioner in in the interim we
will continue to have those narrowed
[4:00:13] lanes and we're going to move traffic
around for construction but um after the
[4:00:18] Floyd Hill project's done everything
will be up to standard. So we will have
[4:00:21] the standard 12T lanes. There will be a
buffer which is at the top of Floyd
[4:00:26] Hill. Those are 12t lanes. So those lane
widths will be the same
[4:00:29] » throughout the entire stretch of Floyd
Hill until it ties in to the Mountain
[4:00:33] Express lane. Um, and then there will be
a buffer 2 to 4 ft buffer separating the
[4:00:42] Floyd Hill Express lane from the two
general purpose lanes. So there'll be a
[4:00:46] buffer in between similar to what you
see down in Denver. And then there'll be
[4:00:50] standard shoulders.
>> And how are you going to do that without
[4:00:53] building out into Idaho Springs? I have
a slide on it coming up.
[4:00:58] » Okay. [laughter] Thank you.
>> Well, you know, obviously I'm not an
[4:01:02] engineer, so I am relying a lot. My team
is working with Kurt on how the project
[4:01:06] is being designed, you know, from a
signage perspective. So, I'm going to
[4:01:09] let Kurt just talk a little bit about
the approach to the signage on the
[4:01:14] project that's being constructed. Um,
since he obviously is an engineer and
[4:01:17] can speak a little more eloquently to
that than I can.
[4:01:20] » Thank you, Piper. Yeah. And and so one
of the things that we really look for
[4:01:24] and are actually required to do is to
keep signage consistent throughout the
[4:01:29] state and the country as well. And so we
have a manual of uniform traffic control
[4:01:36] devices that we use that really
designates how we sign our highways. And
[4:01:43] so that's what we use when we do design.
And I know that that's the approach to
[4:01:48] the express lanes as well. We want that
all to be consistent across the state
[4:01:52] because drivers need to know what to
expect and we look at consistency across
[4:01:56] the country as well for those out of
state drivers and um everyone that's
[4:02:02] coming through here. You know, we look
at different methods that we can do for
[4:02:07] signage. We have our variable message
boards that we use and can use to
[4:02:13] designate when the express lane is open,
the mountain express lane is open. But
[4:02:19] essentially, we come at it from approach
of consistency to make sure that we're
[4:02:24] doing the same things and that everybody
knows what to expect. And then there's
[4:02:28] also different guidance out there that
you don't also want to oversign things
[4:02:32] because when you put so many signs out
there, then people stop paying attention
[4:02:35] to it. And so there's it's kind of a
balance of making sure that we sign
[4:02:39] things correctly to making sure that,
you know, we're not oversigning things
[4:02:43] through here. So, you know, that being
said, we can absolutely look at the
[4:02:48] transition between this full-time told
express lane that is Floyd Hill going
[4:02:54] into the shoulder running lane that is
open. And I think what you see up on the
[4:02:58] screen there is an example of a sign
that we could put near the entrance to
[4:03:03] the um the shoulder running lane um that
we could do something like that. And I
[4:03:09] think that's something that we can
continue to work through. But a lot of
[4:03:12] the signage that I will show here is
required and is consistent in the state.
[4:03:18] And so I want to talk about the
transition as well. So if you know where
[4:03:24] this area is, you can see the chain up
station right there. This is right just
[4:03:28] the tunnel is to the right. And then as
you go around the corner there, you get
[4:03:32] to that first exit of Idaho Springs,
exit 241. And so this is the transition
[4:03:38] between the Boyd Hill lane and the
shoulder running lane in the signage as
[4:03:45] well. So you come out of the tunnel and
you're running in the standard lane, the
[4:03:49] the 12T express lane.
>> And then we're getting up to right
[4:03:53] across from where the chain up station
is. And so then you can see the dotted
[4:03:59] lines. Hopefully you can see that on
there. So that's where you have to make
[4:04:02] a choice. It's where you're given the
choice. If the and you're in the express
[4:04:07] lane and the mountain express lane is
closed, the shoulder running lane is
[4:04:10] closed, you have to merge back into
traffic. Now, when it's open, those
[4:04:15] signs that you see there will say open
and then you have to make the active
[4:04:20] decision to cross the dotted white line
to get into the
[4:04:25] shoulder running.
>> So, just because they're used to it open
[4:04:27] coming down Floyd Hill, it's not
necessarily open at the bottom of Floyd
[4:04:32] Hill.
>> Correct. Okay.
[4:04:33] » The agreements that were made between
FHWA and the county.
[4:04:37] » Great.
>> You know, there we will be closed on
[4:04:39] days when the 247 Floyd Hill lane is
open.
[4:04:43] » Thank you.
>> But this is just to look at the
[4:04:47] different types of signage that we use
to identify when the lane's open and
[4:04:52] then the the decision that you can make
at the bottom of the hill so you're not
[4:04:57] forced into a closed shoulder running
lane.
[4:05:00] » You know, we talked about that in
design. We work closely with our
[4:05:03] stakeholders, with the county at the
table as well um to make this what we
[4:05:08] deem the safest
uh safest way to make that decision to
[4:05:13] move into the lane when it's open or to
merge back into traffic when it's
[4:05:17] closed.
>> And there will be no modifications to
[4:05:22] the PP shoulder lane. Correct. Past
>> remain at 11 ft.
[4:05:26] » Yes. Pass this white project ends. Thank
you. Once you get just off the screen to
[4:05:33] the left and as you get closer to um
Idaho Springs exit, all that is
[4:05:38] remaining the exact same.
>> Thank you.
[4:05:41] Maybe just also add to what Kurt said.
You know, I asked my team sort of for a
[4:05:45] summary of, you know, we obviously have
a lot of existing signage out there to
[4:05:49] to Kurt's point. So, you know, we have
roughly 35 signs in each direction
[4:05:55] currently related to tolling and to the
safety and toll enforcement program,
[4:05:59] which is as a quick reminder, you know,
we have the authority to issue fines for
[4:06:03] people that drive in the shoulder when
it's closed,
[4:06:06] » right?
>> Also, multiaxle vehicles who use that
[4:06:08] lane when it's open because they are
prohibited.
[4:06:11] » Uh, and so, you know, and we have seen
incredibly encouraging statistics from
[4:06:17] the STEP program specifically, right?
We've reduced multi-axxle vehicles to
[4:06:20] almost zero
>> because they talk to each other and
[4:06:23] they're learning.
>> They're learning. They're they're
[4:06:25] getting the message. Um and as well, you
know, the multi the people driving in
[4:06:30] the lane when it's closed has also
dropped to almost zero. And so we're
[4:06:33] going to we are going to continue to
operate safety and toll enforcement. It
[4:06:37] will be active on Floyd Hill as well.
So, you know, we have a lot of existing
[4:06:41] signage out there both eastbound and
westbound. 35 signs in each direction,
[4:06:46] both related to tolling and steps. So,
you know, they're going to get familiar
[4:06:50] coming down Floyd Hill with the current
signage and that will continue all the
[4:06:54] way through. So, signage that exists
today. And then obviously we'll be we'll
[4:06:57] include, you know, signage related to
the safety and toll enforcement and as
[4:07:01] well, right? A lot of that is $250 fine.
We have static signs that say do not
[4:07:06] cross solid when told. So, there'll be
similar signage as well that'll be
[4:07:10] consistent throughout the existing
facility that we have there both
[4:07:14] eastbound and westbound and Floyd Hill.
So there is quite a bit of signage out
[4:07:17] there already today to Curt's point. So
I think you know this will sort of add
[4:07:21] more signage um on the Floyd Hill
section there. So you know to Curt's
[4:07:26] point we really want people to to be
aware of the decision to make a safe
[4:07:31] choice to make that transition safely.
So you know I think um we CIO has an
[4:07:35] engineer on staff that has been working
with Kurt's team. Um we've thought
[4:07:39] through how this will operate from kind
of a standard operating procedure
[4:07:42] standpoint. um we have very clear
processes for opening that shoulder lane
[4:07:48] and closing the shoulder lane. So I
think we'll we'll we are actively
[4:07:51] working on how this is going to operate
together as well.
[4:07:54] » No, I I I use it um as needed and I
really appreciate it. So yeah,
[4:08:00] » it's good to hear.
>> The last thing that I will add is if you
[4:08:03] see the arrows there, so the default is
if you can't make that decision, then
[4:08:07] you see the arrows that will force you
back into the two lanes and won't get
[4:08:11] you into the Mountain Express lane. And
so that's another safety
[4:08:16] » take on it so that they're not in the
the Mountain Express lane when it's
[4:08:20] closed.
>> Are you planning to do anything
[4:08:25] or or what plans do you have to
communicate to drivers that choose to
[4:08:29] get onto the Peak Period shoulder lane
that they're getting onto a lane that is
[4:08:34] narrow?
I think Kurt gave that example on the
[4:08:38] last slide of kind of some supplemental
signage that we're looking at. Um, right
[4:08:42] now we're looking at signage that would
indicate that it's a shoulder.
[4:08:46] » Um, [clears throat]
>> I I don't know if we've explored signs
[4:08:49] that say specifically narrow or I would
have to ask.
[4:08:53] » I think there's an opportunity that we
can revisit that. I mean, we did talk
[4:08:57] » a lot about signage and design for the
>> Floyd Hill. Well, I I love the fact that
[4:09:03] you're using the word shoulder because
that to any driver means, oh, that's
[4:09:08] something you pull off on. Oh, this is
special. So,
[4:09:11] » and and I think that was great feedback
from the county. You know, is there
[4:09:14] something we can do with supplemental
signage? And I think the answer was yes.
[4:09:18] And we we've worked with FHWA and we're
coming up with some options on what
[4:09:22] those signs could be. So, this is one
example, but I think we could certainly
[4:09:25] look and see if there's an option to
use, you know, narrow or
[4:09:30] » I'm not stuck on a specific
>> Yeah. No, but it's a good piece of
[4:09:32] feedback. So, I think this was just one
option that we picked because I think we
[4:09:35] did hear from the county that it was
important to differentiate the shoulder
[4:09:39] piece. So, thank you.
>> Um, yes. Good. I I appreciate the
[4:09:42] feedback, but I think this is sort of
one option. Still kind of a work in
[4:09:45] progress.
[4:09:49] » So, what are the events from a C do
perspective that would prompt a review
[4:09:54] of signage? And you know, I think we're
not just going to build Floyd Hill and
[4:09:59] then just walk away and deal with it,
right? So, if we start getting a lot of
[4:10:04] complaints and we see confused drivers,
we're going to relook at it, you know,
[4:10:09] and if we hear feedback from you guys to
say, "This is not working well." We've
[4:10:13] done that in the past and and we know,
you know, former commissioner from the
[4:10:18] county drove Floyd Hill and didn't like
our transition that was in the tunnel.
[4:10:23] and we looked at that and we made the
change. So that's just an example of
[4:10:27] like, you know, when we hear feedback,
whether it's from locals, from citizens,
[4:10:33] if we see crashes, if we see problems
with that transition when it opens,
[4:10:37] we're going to monitor it and we're
going to look at it and we're going to
[4:10:39] look at at the safety of it, including
the signage as well. Um and then um
[4:10:47] before and after safety and operational
studies uh to determine, you know, is
[4:10:52] this successful? Is this working? So, I
guess my main point is we're not just
[4:10:56] going to walk away and and let everybody
deal with it. We're going to make sure
[4:11:02] that it is safe and when it's
operational.
[4:11:05] » From your perspective, will we have a
role in scoping those studies? Because I
[4:11:09] know when we've had safety conversations
over the past, there's been a lot of
[4:11:12] dialogue about the right thing to
measure. At one point, we were seeing I
[4:11:15] think accident volume being reported and
we were looking at rate wanting to look
[4:11:19] at rate stats. I can't remember the
specifics, but
[4:11:21] » yeah.
>> Do do we have a role in scope in that
[4:11:23] study?
>> I you know, this is from our traffic
[4:11:27] group that they do and and um Floyd
Hill, but I can get you more I I don't
[4:11:32] see why not, but uh I can get you a
better answer to that once to talk to my
[4:11:36] traffic folks. That's the one expert I
didn't print.
[4:11:39] » Agreeing on what we should be measuring
on the front end is way better than
[4:11:42] arguing about it on the back end.
>> Agreed.
[4:11:44] » Well, and I would think so, too,
especially if it was a complaint coming
[4:11:47] from,
you know, residents in your county. I I
[4:11:52] think that would seem reasonable.
>> We can certainly follow up. Okay.
[4:11:57] » And we're have the opportunity to
monitor it before we're even the Floyd
[4:12:02] Hill project is gone. So there'll be a
period of the
[4:12:06] the transition and we're keep an eye on
that. So we'll be out here.
[4:12:13] » Um so transitioning a little bit, you
know, I think the the two things we
[4:12:16] heard, right, was more information on
signage plan and what are we
[4:12:20] communicating, right? How are we going
to be communicating to drivers? What are
[4:12:24] we telling them? And also just a little
bit about, you know, what is kind of the
[4:12:27] timeline for a communication strategy.
So really wanted to focus a little bit
[4:12:31] today. um drawing from some of our
experience experience launching you know
[4:12:36] other express lanes facilities you know
across the larger metro area and sort of
[4:12:41] what we've learned from those and how
this is going to be different clearly
[4:12:44] this is a this is going to be a very
different facility and how it operates
[4:12:47] together so you know in general our
approach to communication is first and
[4:12:51] foremost education we want people to
understand that it's told how to use the
[4:12:55] ingress and eress zones so where they
can enter where they can exit safely um
[4:13:00] you know really a how-to that it's told,
how you pay a toll, how you use the
[4:13:04] express lane safely, and what does the
signage mean? You know, second is really
[4:13:08] building relationships with stakeholders
in the areas where we have express
[4:13:11] lanes. You know, we I know Stacia has
already built great relationships with
[4:13:15] your public information officer through
the Floyd Hill project. And, you know,
[4:13:19] on other corridors, we have had great
partnerships with um MPOs and
[4:13:24] stakeholders where we're opening express
lanes. I25 is a is a recent example. we
[4:13:28] were able to partner with um CSU Fort
Collins, for example, because a lot of
[4:13:33] students are going to be driving in
those express lanes. So, I think we're
[4:13:36] really looking to build long-term
relationships with stakeholders because
[4:13:40] these lanes are going to be open and
operating there for many years. And so,
[4:13:44] we really want to have established
strong partnerships from the beginning.
[4:13:48] So, uh they can help us communicate out
information to constituents or, you
[4:13:53] know, community members that may have
questions. So that's a key piece of our
[4:13:56] communications approach. I alone can't
get the word out, right? So we are going
[4:14:00] to be really relying on people to help,
you know, get our messages out there and
[4:14:04] um make sure that their uh communities
know how to use safely. And again,
[4:14:09] specifically to this project, I think we
have a real opportunity here to continue
[4:14:13] utilizing the CSS process that exists to
date on this project to look at how
[4:14:19] we're managing and evaluating the
facility moving forward. Right. To
[4:14:23] Curt's point, this isn't just a we're
going to open the lane and go away, but
[4:14:26] I think the CSS process creates a really
unique opportunity for us to continue um
[4:14:32] re-engaging on how the facility is
working and how communication plays a
[4:14:36] part in that. So that would be sort of
our general approach to communications
[4:14:40] um across our network, but obviously
what we would be specifically focusing
[4:14:45] on here on this facility and just the
unique nature of the relationship that
[4:14:48] we have with Clear Creek through the
permit and through sort of the CSS
[4:14:52] process process that exists on the
corridor today.
[4:14:55] » Next slide, Kurt.
>> So to give you a sense of like when we
[4:14:59] might be communicating information
publicly, this is sort of an example
[4:15:03] timeline that I put together for you
all, right? We're still a ways out from
[4:15:07] tolling commencement on this project
when we would generally be out talking
[4:15:11] about tolling rates, things like that.
So, we're still a ways out from that.
[4:15:15] But the good thing is that we have a lot
of opportunity to craft a strategy
[4:15:19] together that's going to look and feel
like it meets the needs of your
[4:15:24] community, but also those traveling
from, you know, the front range, etc.
[4:15:27] So, um, you know, really today, I think
this starting to just put out
[4:15:32] information on Floyd Hill websites and
some other, you know, existing media
[4:15:36] that we have on just what that
transition is going to look like so that
[4:15:40] people know it's coming. But really
throughout 2027 is when we would really
[4:15:45] start working on the plan. What are the
materials we're going to develop?
[4:15:49] working with you all um with the
appropriate staff people on ideas who
[4:15:55] might be able to you know help amplify
our message. We generally as part of our
[4:16:00] communication and outreach develop a
pretty extensive toolkit that we
[4:16:04] distribute to stakeholders um so again
that you can be distributing
[4:16:08] information. We're going to be working
on our partnerships. So really all my
[4:16:12] point to you all is over the next year
we really have a lot of opportunities to
[4:16:17] connect and and make sure that we're
aligned on what that strategy is before
[4:16:21] it goes public and that it's really
meeting the needs of this specific
[4:16:24] project. It is because it is very
unique. Um and clearly you know Stacia
[4:16:29] already has a lot of relationships on
the corridor and projects. We want to
[4:16:32] leverage that as much as possible. Uh so
really we would be looking to start
[4:16:37] talking more publicly about tolling.
January of 2028 is our rough timeline.
[4:16:43] Roughly four months out is really when
we start having information be more
[4:16:47] public about tolling is coming, what you
can expect. Um so we would then be
[4:16:51] implementing our communications plan,
distributing tools.
[4:16:55] » Okay. So I'm a little confused. Sure. Um
tolling isn't anything new except on the
[4:17:00] upper part of Floyd Hill and through the
um tunnels.
[4:17:03] » Yes. Yes. Exactly. But we would want
certainly want to be communicating that
[4:17:09] » tolling is new on Floyd Hill, right?
>> But also how to use the facility, right?
[4:17:12] That there is a transition point and
there so figuring out how we communicate
[4:17:17] the new lane integrating with the
existing shoulder hard running shoulder
[4:17:21] lanes. You know, how do you know when
they're open? How do you know when
[4:17:23] they're closed? So I think making sure
that our communication strategy isn't
[4:17:27] just focused on Floyd Hill recognizing
that it's going to connect into an
[4:17:32] existing facility there. So um we really
would be starting to go live again.
[4:17:37] Beginning of 2028 is when we would be
doing more paid media. We have had a lot
[4:17:43] of success with geo targeting. So
Spotify, Pandora. We have developed 30
[4:17:48] secondond how-to videos that have been
successful. We already have an existing
[4:17:52] one on how to use the current mountain
express lane which has been really
[4:17:56] popular. So again we would be leveraging
all of C DOT's channels co-rip uh you
[4:18:02] know sea dots owned kind of websites
certainly working with news media on the
[4:18:08] launch we've had a lot of success and
partnerships with you know news stations
[4:18:12] radio etc. So really again uh maybe next
slide Kurt so you could see maybe a bit
[4:18:16] of a sense of like how we're going to be
communicating. We're going to leverage
[4:18:20] every tool in the toolbox. Like we we
have done tolling launches before. So we
[4:18:25] have a lot of great partnerships we want
to leverage. For example, I70 things has
[4:18:29] been a really good partner for us
throughout operations of the amount
[4:18:32] express lane. So again, continuing to
sort of leverage some of these
[4:18:36] communication channels and points to
create a really comprehensive, you know,
[4:18:41] media plan when tolling is going to
commence is really our strategy here.
[4:18:46] And maybe I don't know, Staca, do you
have anything to kind of add on maybe
[4:18:48] what's been successful with Floyd Hill
Construction and you know how we could
[4:18:52] maybe tap into that?
>> Yeah, so we have a lot of great
[4:18:55] resources already for the project. So we
have our weekly eblasts that go out uh
[4:19:00] so we can
>> all the great text messages.
[4:19:02] » Yes, the text messages which we can
communicate a little bit about the
[4:19:06] upcoming tolls starting on those text
messages and then include a link that
[4:19:11] points people to the website for
additional information. Um we have our
[4:19:17] hotline that you can call into which we
can certainly put a message on there uh
[4:19:21] to provide additional information. Our
website again is also a really great
[4:19:26] resource um which we are going to be
linking to. Um and then uh Kurt and I do
[4:19:33] a lot of community presentations as
well. So, when we're ready to start to
[4:19:37] communicate this information, we'll go
out and include this information in our
[4:19:42] presentations as well and connect with
community leaders, uh, elected officials
[4:19:47] to educate folks as much as possible
about what the tooling will look like
[4:19:51] and also the transition point. And then
Megan's part of our, uh, PIL meeting.
[4:19:57] Um, so it's our public information
leadership team and that also includes
[4:20:00] folks from Gilpin County, um, I70
coalition, all of our PIOs along the
[4:20:06] corridor. So that will help us to
maximize our communications efforts
[4:20:10] around the upcoming tolling and again
the transition point, which I think is
[4:20:14] really going to be the most critical
piece of this um, when educating the
[4:20:18] public about what to expect.
Um, and I wanted to talk a little bit to
[4:20:25] I just to touch on like the wrap up the
last point on the timeline. You know, to
[4:20:28] Curt's point, we really communications
for us is really ongoing. There'll
[4:20:32] certainly be a big push to to Staca's
point around kind of what we call
[4:20:36] tolling go live, but we we really are
going to be monitoring and doing, you
[4:20:41] know, some level of ongoing
communications. We do on all of our
[4:20:44] corridors to really again make sure that
people are still getting the message.
[4:20:47] And I'll on another slide I in the
future I'll talk about like how are we
[4:20:52] evaluating that? Where are some gaps
potentially that we're seeing? So we do
[4:20:56] have you know a lot of opportunities to
refocus communications um supplement
[4:21:02] communications sort of as we go. So
certainly we'll be evaluating outside of
[4:21:06] that big push. There will be ongoing
comms right throughout the corridor um
[4:21:11] well into 2028 and beyond. So, just to
highlight that and one thing I that's
[4:21:17] very unique to this corridor is
obviously the amount of out of state
[4:21:20] drivers that we get on this home.
Certainly, you know, tourists looking to
[4:21:25] ski or just recreate over the summer and
the winter season. CTIO actually already
[4:21:30] has a lot of really unique partnerships
that I think we can leverage here. One,
[4:21:34] we have great relationships at the
airport with the rental car agencies,
[4:21:38] especially related to safety and toll
enforcement. This partnership originally
[4:21:42] started because we didn't want people in
rental cars, you know, getting a
[4:21:46] violation for not knowing the rules of
the road, right? So, we have a lot of
[4:21:51] great partnerships already established
with rental car ent um agencies at the
[4:21:56] airport to start with. So, certainly
providing them more information,
[4:21:59] especially on Floyd Hill is opening. You
know, again, the unique nature of travel
[4:22:04] if you're going to choose the express
lane,
[4:22:06] » road conditions, don't have summer
tires. Yeah, I'm sure I I would defer to
[4:22:10] you on how we're communicating more
largely about, you know, chain laws or
[4:22:16] things like that or driving conditions
more generally. [clears throat]
[4:22:20] » Yeah. So, um we are developing great
relationships with the rental car uh
[4:22:25] companies, especially Enterprise. Um
they've been including us in meetings
[4:22:29] with stakeholders prior to the winter
season to talk about the updated
[4:22:33] passenger traction laws uh and chain
laws as well. Um and we just updated our
[4:22:39] rack cards. So, um cards that will be
put into every vehicle uh that folks are
[4:22:46] renting and especially before they head
up to the mountains. And those cards
[4:22:49] include um information about the
traction and chain laws and then also
[4:22:53] includes information about how to use
the mountain express lane and some of
[4:22:56] our other toll lanes um across the
state. So that information is going out
[4:23:01] and that's a partnership that we
continue to cultivate and try to bring
[4:23:05] as many C dot voices to the table when
talking with those folks.
[4:23:09] » That's good.
>> I would love to see an example of that
[4:23:11] rat card.
>> Yes. Yeah.
[4:23:13] » I'd love the opportunity to comment on a
draft.
[4:23:16] » Yeah.
>> Yes. It has been finalized and it's been
[4:23:19] sent out, but I will uh send it to you.
>> And I think we'll be developing some
[4:23:25] specific materials for people to have
like at the counter for example. So
[4:23:29] happy to share those too as we work on
developing them. Um so I think there's
[4:23:33] some good opportunities we can continue
[clears throat] to share drafts of sort
[4:23:36] of what we're communicating as well. Uh
again just highlighting you know we have
[4:23:40] partnerships already with you know the
tourism offices. So we're already
[4:23:44] thinking creatively about how we can you
know show videos at maybe some of the
[4:23:48] welcome centers. Like I mentioned we've
had a lot of success with these little
[4:23:51] 30-se secondond clips on sort of how to
use the express lane um safety and toll
[4:23:55] enforcement. So really trying to
leverage those and get them to to as
[4:23:58] many audiences as possible. Uh we have
great partnerships already with some of
[4:24:04] the ski resorts. We've had a lot of
successful partnerships knowing that
[4:24:07] people are driving through Clear Creek,
right, to get to skiing in the
[4:24:10] wintertime. So really trying to just
leverage where we can get get to out of
[4:24:15] state drivers, get to tourists to get
our message across with again our goal
[4:24:19] being how to use the lanes um how to use
them safely and you know to Staca's
[4:24:24] point sort of um being aware of other
laws too that are going to impact their
[4:24:28] trip along I70.
>> That's great. Thank you.
[4:24:31] » Next slide, Kurt. And so you know kind
of at a basic level so what if what are
[4:24:36] we communicating um out to people as
part of these campaigns? So I just chose
[4:24:40] a few examples of ones. The one on the
right there is from our launch when we
[4:24:46] launched tolling on Central 70 which
will take you out to the airport. So
[4:24:50] really expressing you know tolling is
starting. The example on the left is
[4:24:54] from our safety enforcement campaign
cross the line pay the fine which has
[4:24:58] been very successful and impactful. We
even have a few examples that are with
[4:25:03] pictures that are from this uh corridor
specifically. So again, this is just
[4:25:08] some examples of what we're
communicating, right? That tolling is
[4:25:10] launching. Again, that safety and toll
enforcement will be launching, how to
[4:25:14] use them safely, how to pay a toll, um
directing them to more information, um
[4:25:18] where they can find it. So these are
just a few examples from prior
[4:25:22] campaigns. So, we haven't developed any
collateral yet for for this campaign,
[4:25:26] but we would certainly be working on
those over kind of that 2027 time period
[4:25:30] and would welcome, you know, input
[clears throat] and collaboration as
[4:25:33] SATA mentioned through some of those
some of those channels.
[4:25:36] » I' I've I've driven uh was that C470
some of those roads
[4:25:41] » and um I've noticed that the double
white line is down the hill, but we just
[4:25:46] have a single yellow line. Is that going
to change once everything's
[4:25:51] » So, I'm going to talk about Floyd Hill
and Floyd Hill will not have the yellow
[4:25:56] line. It will have double white lines
with a buffer separating the express
[4:25:59] lane.
>> Once you get to that transition and make
[4:26:02] the transition from there on,
everything's staying the same with the
[4:26:05] yellow line.
>> Okay. And then that's another hint for
[4:26:08] drivers that
>> something's changed.
[4:26:11] » Yeah.
>> Next slide, Kurt. Again, here's another
[4:26:15] example. I mentioned we put together
these stakeholder toolkits and this is
[4:26:19] an example actually from this corridor.
So we we've had a lot of success with
[4:26:23] these kind of tear off sheets. So if you
want even you could have information
[4:26:26] here right kind of a take as you go. So
again this is an example of kind of a
[4:26:30] fact sheet with information that we
would be developing and updating clearly
[4:26:34] but this is an example of a current one
that we have from this corridor
[4:26:37] specifically. So again, trying to find
lots of different channels and lots of
[4:26:40] different um materials that we can put
out through different channels for
[4:26:44] people to um get information on how to
use the express lanes and the rules of
[4:26:48] the road clearly here on no oversized
vehicles and no weaving.
[4:26:53] Next slide, Kurt. Uh I think that great
tea up to this actually, Commissioner
[4:26:57] Lloyd, on the difference in the
striping. You know, we are obviously
[4:27:00] going to focus on the unique nature of
this corridor specifically. there's
[4:27:05] going to be different operating rules.
You know, obviously Floyd Hill Lane will
[4:27:09] operate in one direction only. So,
communicating visually with examples is
[4:27:14] going to be important. So, showing
striping, showing signage on what people
[4:27:18] can expect. And again, I I mentioned the
video. We've had just a lot of success
[4:27:22] with those on how to enter and exit.
[clears throat] So, these are some
[4:27:24] ideas. Um, but certainly showing what
that striping looks like and how it's
[4:27:29] different and what drivers can expect
will be sort of a key piece of of some
[4:27:33] of this collateral that um, we're going
to be developing. So, just wanted to
[4:27:37] talk a little bit about some specific
messaging considerations that we will
[4:27:41] um, focus on for this particular project
and corridor.
[4:27:45] Did you have anything to add to that,
Staca? Okay. Okay.
[4:27:49] » So, I talked a little bit about and I
think some feedback that we heard from
[4:27:52] you all is how do we know that this is
all working? Um, and so, you know, to
[4:27:55] Curt's point, this is definitely not a
set it and forget it. I think CTIO
[4:28:00] already regularly surveys drivers. We
have, you know, a survey that goes out.
[4:28:05] So, we've been doing this since 2016
regarding, you know, we ask all kinds of
[4:28:09] questions about the lanes, how do you
use them? We add questions related to
[4:28:13] STEP. We'll certainly probably add
questions related to Floyd Hill and
[4:28:17] Mexel. So, again, would certainly
welcome your input into that. So, we do
[4:28:21] regular surveys. We we've talked a lot
about data throughout both presentations
[4:28:26] and we have a lot of data coming from
the safety and toll enforcement program.
[4:28:30] So, who is getting violations? We know
if people are out of state drivers. We
[4:28:34] can know if it's a rental car plate. We
also can see where there's pain points,
[4:28:38] right? Is there a high number of
violations coming from certain ingress
[4:28:42] and egress zones or specific areas on
the road? So, we have already been using
[4:28:46] that data in the metro area to make
adjustments to striping and signage in
[4:28:51] some cases. So, we would certainly be
doing that here because we are
[4:28:54] collecting a lot of really useful data
from that safety and toll enforcement
[4:28:57] and we would certainly use that to help
inform potentially uh you know striping
[4:29:03] and signage changes but also
communications um efforts, right? Maybe
[4:29:08] we're seeing a lot of out of state
drivers receiving violations. How can we
[4:29:12] double down on our efforts to reach
those drivers? So again, just to say
[4:29:15] we're really going to be trying to
leverage a lot of the data that CTIO is
[4:29:18] collecting as part of its tolling
program, you know, and again, just
[4:29:21] hearing from you all u as we do with our
other stakeholders on how the program is
[4:29:25] working. What are you hearing from your
constituents? As Kurt mentioned, are you
[4:29:29] hearing that there's confusion on
signage um or maybe that people don't
[4:29:33] understand how to use the lane? That
would really be an important feedback
[4:29:36] loop for us. And again, just really
trying to have regular touch points with
[4:29:40] a variety of industry groups and tourism
stakeholders. um as they gather input
[4:29:45] from visitors to ski resorts or hotels
or other you know facilities um along
[4:29:50] the corridor. So just wanted to
highlight that.
[4:29:54] Next slide Kurt. And again just to end
on some next steps just to remind the
[4:29:59] commissioners you know again there's a
lot of touch points that we already have
[4:30:04] as part of the permit where we're going
to be evaluating operations. So we have
[4:30:08] you know one we need to revisit the oper
operational limitation. So that's the
[4:30:12] hours and days that we have, you know,
to open the hard running shoulder lanes
[4:30:18] when Floyd Hill opens. So just how is it
all operating? Are those hours and days
[4:30:22] meeting the need? What is the demand
look like? Um and obviously we still
[4:30:27] have the 2035 date in there and you know
we have already started gathering data
[4:30:32] to help inform that process so that we
can start a CSS to look at what does the
[4:30:36] future look like you know because there
is still that 2035 date. Well, that's
[4:30:41] that's that's interesting. Um,
>> you know, I
[4:30:46] I don't have a problem paying for a toll
when I really have to get somewhere and
[4:30:51] everything's backed up. Um, and I kind
of feel like I'm doing everybody else a
[4:30:56] favor by not standing in that, you know,
sitting in that line. I can just go on
[4:31:00] the express lane. Um, I forgotten that
it was ending. Uh, so I personally don't
[4:31:07] have a problem with it continuing, but
that's just me.
[4:31:10] » Yeah. [laughter] But yeah, so I mainly
my goal here was just to remind remind
[4:31:14] the commissioners that we still do have
these requirements, right, to evaluate
[4:31:18] how all this is working together when
Floyd Hill opens our hours and days
[4:31:22] meeting the need and then really
starting to work together through a CSS
[4:31:26] process on what does the future look
like beyond 2035.
[4:31:32] » I I have a question about I mean this I
think
[4:31:36] But I I have an observation and I'm not
sure that there's a question that can be
[4:31:39] answered today that's sort of behind it.
So we have two 1041s here. One is about
[4:31:44] Floyd Hill. The other one was about
expanding the operational hours of the P
[4:31:48] period shoulder lane. It's the one
that's about the operational hours of
[4:31:51] the P period shoulder lane where we have
this condition about renaming the not
[4:31:58] renaming going back to the original name
of the P period shoulder lane. And I
[4:32:01] know there's been an exchange of letters
and I know that this presentation is is
[4:32:05] kind of intended to satisfy the board
that there are other ways to satisfy the
[4:32:10] intent of condition 9 beyond a rename.
Am I am I summarizing accurately so far?
[4:32:16] » That's my understanding as well. Yes.
>> Um
[4:32:20] and then what I hear in terms of the
things that we can do to satisfy the
[4:32:25] identified need that we agree on now are
things that will start in 2028.
[4:32:30] I wonder and I'm looking at this and I I
noticed that um this 1041 says that the
[4:32:36] name needs to be changed by June 1st,
2026. And I wonder I'm not trying my
[4:32:42] intent here isn't to insist that you all
go change the name right now. My
[4:32:46] question is do you have ideas that can
help you become compliant with the
[4:32:50] intent of item 9 before 2028?
I think you know in talking with again
[4:32:59] this in talking with staff right about
really what the intent is behind the
[4:33:02] condition it was it was recognizing that
there's safety concerns right and
[4:33:06] there's operational strain in the county
right with your emergency responder
[4:33:10] services so I think we took the approach
for this presentation on okay if the
[4:33:14] focus if the if the the the intent
really behind that condition is
[4:33:20] recognizing that there is there's
concerns about safety and impacts to the
[4:33:24] county and how can we um agree on
strategies to help address that? Um
[4:33:30] that's where the focus was on signage
and communication because we heard
[4:33:34] expressed to us that that was really a
focus for for the county was what can we
[4:33:39] do with signage? What can we do with
communications?
[4:33:42] So I think we put some force some ideas
on kind of those some of those
[4:33:45] supplemental signs commissioner Marlin
on you know can we do something with you
[4:33:50] know signs at the start right that
identify it as being a shoulder lane or
[4:33:55] uh narrow right so I think we are trying
to look for solutions that do that do
[4:34:00] address those concerns and sort of
partially meet the words on the page for
[4:34:06] condition 9 with some of those
supplemental signs.
[4:34:11] » Thank you. And that you think that might
happen before 2028?
[4:34:14] » Um the supplemental signage I would have
to I
[4:34:17] » Yeah, I mean we need to figure out what
that is and we're out there.
[4:34:20] » Yeah, we're already working. Yeah, we're
already working with FHWA.
[4:34:25] » Um
>> clearly that we just need a an approval
[4:34:28] or a variance from them because these
aren't sort of standard in MUTCD. But
[4:34:31] that that isn't that's not a problem,
right? We've already really worked with
[4:34:35] FHWA. FHWA attended our meeting with
county staff and that was something we
[4:34:39] talked about. So, I think yeah, that's
absolutely something we're working on
[4:34:42] right now.
>> Thank you. I look forward to, you know,
[4:34:46] it could be helpful if you wanted to
summarize what you intend to do before
[4:34:50] 2028
>> to [clears throat]
[4:34:53] uh be compliant with item 9.
>> Sure.
[4:34:55] » Um that might be a nice next step as
well.
[4:34:58] » Um I I certainly would love for you to
be compliant with the 1020 1041 before
[4:35:03] 2028.
>> I would agree.
[4:35:08] And I think I can summarize too, you
know, also hearing from you all on that,
[4:35:12] you know, 2027 timeline of how what does
engagement from you all look like on a
[4:35:17] communications plan because I think
that's really where we have a lot of
[4:35:20] opportunity to collaborate and what are
we saying, you know, and making sure you
[4:35:25] all feel like we're
messaging specific concerns of the
[4:35:30] county and how are we translating that
to education, too. So I I think we can
[4:35:33] include that as part of some of those
supplemental signage is my intent is
[4:35:38] really to engage you all in the
communications piece in the leadup you
[4:35:42] know and not do that in a vacuum. So I I
we can highlight that as well but would
[4:35:46] really love feedback from commissioners
and your staff on how we can do that
[4:35:50] most effectively targeting some of those
existing touch points that exist on the
[4:35:55] Floyd Hill project. So I think yeah
happy to kind of put that put that in
[4:35:58] writing.
>> Okay. Thank you. Great. Any further
[4:36:03] questions?
[4:36:06] Great. Well, thank you. Oh, wait a
minute. Joanne has her hand up. Okay,
[4:36:10] you have to come up again.
[4:36:15] Um,
thanks. This is a really informative
[4:36:20] discussion about how we're going to be
managing as this Floyd Hill project
[4:36:26] comes into operations. And on one of the
earlier um the earliest um
[4:36:34] slides we talked about I does it mention
how yeah part-time shoulder lane express
[4:36:42] lane how how will
the um trucks semis be using the Floyd
[4:36:51] Hill express lane? We had discussions at
the tech team about this.
[4:36:57] » So we Yes. And you're right and and I
remember those discussions very well
[4:37:00] because Floyd Hills in a very unique
spot in the recent years a law was
[4:37:06] passed that um doesn't allow trucks to
be in the left lane. So then the left
[4:37:13] lane technically on Floyd Hill would be
the uh Floydill Express lane. And I
[4:37:19] believe we landed on no trucks in the
express lane for Floyd Hill.
[4:37:23] » Yeah, that's what I thought we did too.
I just wanted to see if that was
[4:37:26] actually
>> because I believe part of the tech team
[4:37:30] discussion was if trucks are in the
express lane on Floyd Hill coming into
[4:37:37] the peak period shoulder lane, there
would be very difficult transitions and
[4:37:42] very unsafe. Is it what we thought?
Okay. So that still is in place. It is.
[4:37:47] » Yep. Okay. Keep it simple. And then when
they get the no trucks sign.
[4:37:50] » Yeah.
>> Further up, um, they're like, "Oh, yeah.
[4:37:53] Right. Nothing new."
>> Is that a conditioner? I thought that
[4:37:55] might have been a conditioner. 1041.
>> I think it is. Yeah.
[4:38:00] » Um, there's pavement markings and
signage already in the east package.
[4:38:04] » Oh, great. Um, and then I did have some
questions about the uh reports that were
[4:38:11] supposed to be submitted, the
environmental reports for the peak
[4:38:14] period shoulder lane, and that wasn't
part of any of the discussion here
[4:38:18] today, but I did read the staff report
on it, and there were some things that
[4:38:23] were not found in the submission for the
peak period shoulder lane annual
[4:38:29] reports. Correct.
And I don't know if there's anybody at
[4:38:34] the table here who was involved in the
submission of those reports.
[4:38:39] » Were there spec if you let me know what
those specific items were. I can
[4:38:42] certainly run them down.
>> Yeah, I was just going to ask if Shredda
[4:38:47] knows. She's online here and she looked
through. But
[4:38:50] » yeah,
>> I'm happy to follow up if there was
[4:38:52] something missing.
>> Yeah. And there's
[4:38:54] » you're talking about the categor the
table the categorical exemption table.
[4:38:58] » Right. Right. that that carried over
from the first eastbound and westbound
[4:39:03] resolutions. They were carried over into
um uh 2546.
[4:39:09] » Yeah.
>> So, we should we should have seen them.
[4:39:12] » They didn't show up.
>> That's right, Garrett. Uh we don't have
[4:39:16] the CATX table that was mentioned in the
previous permits. Um in addition to a
[4:39:22] couple of them, uh sorry, I'll just
quickly look into the table and see
[4:39:26] what's missing. Um
we don't have a couple of dashboards
[4:39:33] that we are missing and also the cadex
table.
[4:39:38] Um
yeah I think those are the two main
[4:39:42] items that we are still looking to
receive.
[4:39:47] » So we'll work to identify what we might
be missing.
[4:39:51] » Please do. Yeah we can follow. There's a
ton there's as you know there's a ton of
[4:39:54] reporting information and
>> and I are new to this so we're trying to
[4:39:59] play catch-up and figure out what was
done in the past and with your help Joan
[4:40:02] I think we'll get
>> and I know I know this is
[4:40:05] » the size of the spreadsheet is horrific
>> um but there were and then there was one
[4:40:12] other thing um that on the annual
reports that CTIO or HPTE or C dot sends
[4:40:22] to FHWA about the operations of the
PPSL.
[4:40:26] » The county was supposed to have received
copies. We did provide a copy of that.
[4:40:31] » Okay. And and were there a series of
years like because I think the PPSL
[4:40:38] » uh the first one started operations in
what 20
[4:40:42] » 17 or something?
>> Late 2015.
[4:40:45] » We can provide the historical all of the
reports. Okay.
[4:40:48] » I was looking for those. I couldn't find
them. I couldn't find them on the C dot
[4:40:52] website and I had a file a freedom of
information
[4:40:56] » act request. It was bizarre.
>> Well, with accessibility where we've had
[4:41:01] to take down a lot of old data to
[laughter] and we hear you same
[4:41:05] » here. So,
>> okay, Max, [clears throat] please just
[4:41:09] » email me. We can send
>> email you directly.
[4:41:12] » Yes, of course. I can help you with
that. I have somebody that manages all
[4:41:15] of our website and what's put up there.
We also have a new operations manager,
[4:41:18] Alex, that is taking over some of this.
So maybe please let me know if we missed
[4:41:22] something. We did send you last year's
report, but I didn't send you prior
[4:41:26] years, but if that's helpful, I can
absolutely send you
[4:41:29] » historical. It's an annual report that
we've been producing. So I'm happy to
[4:41:33] provide those.
>> Great. Because I think I think progress
[4:41:36] uh of of whatever traffic management,
traffic improvement,
[4:41:41] » yeartoyear is is important for us to
see.
[4:41:44] » Absolutely. And I think Alex um
discussed maybe some trends that we were
[4:41:47] seeing and kind of some [clears throat]
takeaways from the port report but you
[4:41:51] know happy to bring that also to the
commission and I think they they
[4:41:54] presented as well at the collaborative
effort meeting in April on some trends
[4:41:58] and things that we were seeing. I think
there's been a lot of interest in winter
[4:42:02] season and how construction has impacted
the lanes. So happy to happy to also
[4:42:07] provide those historical reports. Yeah,
a lot is not up pointing right now.
[4:42:11] » Yeah. and our our records just in full
transparency at the county are a little
[4:42:16] spotty cases. So I've done my best but
yeah
[4:42:20] » catch back up. Absolutely. So but yeah
let me know on the cadex table maybe
[4:42:23] that maybe I'm just not familiar with
that. Okay and then whatever dash
[4:42:29] » let's connect on that get what you need.
And then specifically, there is one
[4:42:34] problem area that just in my traveling
back and forth from where I live to
[4:42:41] where I visit,
hang out, I've seen an issue that um
[4:42:48] that is supposed to be reported on in in
these um yearly uh reports and that is
[4:42:54] the sedimentation basins that were
constructed with the peak cleared
[4:42:59] shoulder lanes. And there is one in the
DLD neighborhood that is really
[4:43:05] attracting attention of people who live
near it. Most of those sedimentation
[4:43:09] basins are not where people live and so
nobody really pays attention. But the
[4:43:18] one that is near a ne it's in a
neighborhood is in Len and it's not
[4:43:24] functioning and it looks like a swamp
and it's a trash collecting area and it
[4:43:30] has never I don't know when it was clean
if it was ever cleaned. It's supposed to
[4:43:34] be cleaned. Never cleaned. And
although this summer has not been an
[4:43:39] issue um with mosquitoes until maybe
now, I don't know, maybe just have shown
[4:43:45] up, but in the past it was a mosquito
breeding area and so the county took
[4:43:53] care of it without talking about it. But
it's at the point now where I don't
[4:43:58] think the county can take care of what's
going on with that sedimentation basin.
[4:44:03] And I think that um either it needs to
be thoroughly cleaned and the road that
[4:44:09] is used to approach it needs to be
repaired or redesigned or some something
[4:44:17] needs to be done because the people who
live there shouldn't have to deal with
[4:44:20] that.
>> Yeah, we we've been aware of that. It's
[4:44:22] an ongoing issue and we we've talked
with the the property owner next door
[4:44:27] and um are definitely aware of the
issue, but it's severely eroding and
[4:44:31] undercutting the road now. So, it's
going to have to be like an emergency
[4:44:35] maintenance repair at some point.
>> Health safety and not environmentally
[4:44:40] accomplishing what it's supposed to
accomplish.
[4:44:42] » It's a it it's been ongoing for a while.
So, we're definitely aware of it, but it
[4:44:47] has been cleaned out and I was I didn't
realize that the county had done that or
[4:44:51] maybe it's just
>> I don't know the county cleaned it out.
[4:44:53] I used to toss mosquito donuts to keep
the mosquito. I know that's the extent
[4:44:58] of a
>> I don't know if it's been not as much of
[4:45:00] an issue this year because of the lack
of snow and rain that we've had, but
[4:45:04] we're definitely tracking it.
>> Oh, but but if you if you need pictures,
[4:45:08] I've got pictures of of the condition
and it's that's not the way it was
[4:45:12] designed to function.
>> It's it's definitely not functioning
[4:45:15] properly. I will agree. [laughter]
>> Thank you.
[4:45:20] » Hey, thank you.
comments
[4:45:23] and and thank you all. This has been
really great.
[4:45:31] » Appreciate the opportunity to come.
>> Oh, well with you all.
[4:45:35] » We do appreciate it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Commissioners.
[4:45:44] » Stacia Maddie did a good job corelling
us all for the um congressman's tour.
[4:45:50] » Yes. sad to miss it, but I'm glad that
we finally made that work out.
[4:45:54] » Yes. Yes.
>> Good. Thank you.
[4:45:56] » Thank you.
[4:45:59] » All right. Um, we will take a short
break for lunch.
[4:46:06] » That will depend.
>> Say what?
[4:46:09] » 8 minutes.
>> I'm going to suggest maybe just a five
[4:46:13] minute break and
>> All right, fine.
[4:46:15] » As long as
>> or do whatever. Oh, that's so obnoxious.
[4:46:20] But I'll I'll eat fast. Okay, we're
going on a fivem minute break. Thank
[4:46:24] you.
>> That button
[4:56:54] Creek Board of Transitioners is back in
session. Uh we will be serving as the
[4:57:00] board of equalization for the uh next
subject. Uh assessor Donna G.
[4:57:05] » Hello.
>> Hello. So every year the assessor um
[4:57:09] files the assessment abstract of
assessment with the suite and then
[4:57:15] provides a report with you of our
assessed value. Um
[4:57:20] and I have provided you a copy of that
abstract of assessment um and added a
[4:57:26] breakdown by um your subasses and your
classes. Um and the taxable local value
[4:57:35] for your local governments is 391
173 240 with an exempt value of 47 286
[4:57:46] 460 for overall value of 438459700.
[4:57:54] » Did you direct me to the page for
reference?
[4:57:56] » It's the very last page.
>> Thank you.
[4:57:58] » Correct. I'll wait till you get there.
[4:58:03] Is this person?
>> I'm sorry. Do I need to No, not yet.
[4:58:08] » Not yet. Not yet.
>> Okay.
[4:58:19] » Okay. So, taxable local includes
residences and business
[4:58:23] » vacant and our personal property state
assessed
[4:58:28] and commercial.
>> Thank you. Okay.
[4:58:30] » What changes do we how is this changed
from the last one? Is there is there a
[4:58:34] change in revenue coming from this?
>> Um it is an increase from um the
[4:58:39] previous year. Is that what you're
asking?
[4:58:40] » Yeah. From
>> Okay. And most of that is from the state
[4:58:44] assess since we are in an intervening
year. Our values shouldn't change except
[4:58:48] for new construction is what you want to
look at in this report
[4:58:51] » and shifting. Is this the year where
those shifting values?
[4:58:55] » Those rates are changing this year,
aren't they?
[4:58:57] » They did.
>> Yeah. So for the school it went down up
[4:59:00] to 6.8 or not for the local government
6.8 schools remaining at 7.05 from the
[4:59:07] previous year
>> and commercial went down
[4:59:09] » and commercial went down from 27 to 26%.
>> So I think not to step on it but but
[4:59:16] because we are overexposed to
residential that change was beneficial
[4:59:20] to our assessed value
>> or made our assessed value go up. I
[4:59:24] don't know if I would call that
beneficial. Um whereas other counties
[4:59:27] that are overexposed to commercial,
there's one down.
[4:59:31] » We have a do we have a sense of just
like estimated revenues from property
[4:59:36] tax next year?
>> So we'll hit the cap again and now we're
[4:59:38] going to hit a cap a third time because
that rolling cap that 10.5% still
[4:59:43] applies.
>> So we [clears throat] hit the cap last
[4:59:45] year, we're going to hit the cap again
this year, especially with this. So now
[4:59:49] we're going to have to provide a tax
credit as a mill like we did last year.
[4:59:53] And then we'll potentially hit the cap
again. Now the third year
[4:59:57] » I we thought when we hit it one year
then the next year was good.
[5:00:01] » 10.5% rolling cap. So for some counties
where their assessed value went down the
[5:00:06] cap doesn't apply. But ours went up. So
because it's a rolling cap.
[5:00:11] » It's 10.5% over the last two years. So
we're going to hit that
[5:00:15] » and we get no benefit for being a teeny
tiny little county.
[5:00:18] » We're hit the cap three times probably.
No.
[5:00:21] » At the end of it, it'll net up probably
another half a million dollars for
[5:00:24] general fun. Okay.
>> 5.25% growth. Yes. If we hit the cap,
[5:00:28] that's how much I look at last year's
budget number. Exactly.
[5:00:31] » I say times 5.25%.
>> All right.
[5:00:34] » So, I'm imagining when people get the
this this news, they're going to think
[5:00:38] that we did this the county.
>> No. The state decided to lower the
[5:00:44] commercial assessment rates, commercial,
agriculture, everything that was at 28%.
[5:00:51] And they paid for that by raising the
residential
[5:00:54] Wow.
>> So, we don't have any control over that.
[5:00:57] We netted out as a winner. Some people
or as someone who's went up the some
[5:01:03] people's prices went down a lot. I mean,
if they're very heavily exposed to
[5:01:08] commercial people and but again, this is
why you have we have to be careful about
[5:01:12] making broad tax directives when it come
or like assumptions about property tax
[5:01:18] because everybody's situation's
different, right? Some people's are
[5:01:21] going to go down, some people are going
to go up. very little of that is
[5:01:24] actually in our control. So,
>> all right.
[5:01:27] » Thank you.
>> Yeah.
[5:01:28] » Um
>> Okay. Thank you. Yep. So,
[5:01:30] [clears throat] for the taxable school,
it was 4173
[5:01:35] 280. The exempt school was 46511850.
[5:01:40] For a total school of 463,
685130
[5:01:45] and that was an increase from the
previous year.
[5:01:51] Okay.
Thank you, Assessor G. Del.
[5:01:57] » Okay. Um, moving on the board.
>> Oh, sorry.
[5:02:01] » May I have a motion?
>> I'll make a motion for the approval and
[5:02:04] acceptance
abstract of assessment.
[5:02:09] » Any further discussion?
[5:02:13] Hearing none. All in favor?
>> I.
[5:02:16] » Motion's approved. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. Uh moving on, the board of
[5:02:20] county commissioners uh will be
returning acting as the board of county
[5:02:24] commissioners uh for action items. First
on the agenda is
[5:02:31] hearing with Alita uh TRU
uh case number 26-41.
[5:02:39] » Great. Okay. And this one's um not going
to be a refund of taxes. Mobile homes
[5:02:45] under $28,000 are tax exempt. We are
correcting the characteristics on this
[5:02:51] one. We're changing the condition from
average to fair and the mobile home is
[5:02:57] in the process of getting demoed.
>> Oh, okay. Uh, do we need a motion to
[5:03:04] approve that?
>> Yes.
[5:03:05] » I may I have a motion?
>> Do we want to have any discussion on it
[5:03:11] first or
>> No, we're going to have a motion. We're
[5:03:13] going to have a second. Then we're going
to have discussion.
[5:03:17] » Okay. I will make a motion for the
sessor's recommendation to approve
[5:03:21] petitioner's request for refund of
taxes. No refund will be issued as the
[5:03:27] account is tax exempt.
May I have a second?
[5:03:33] » Second.
>> Uh any discussion?
[5:03:37] Hearing none in favor. Sorry.
[5:03:49] I was still looking at the abstract of
the
[5:04:03] know that this is being demoed.
>> Would you say you was moving it to poor
[5:04:09] or to fair? To
>> fair to fair.
[5:04:11] » They're the same value also. Okay.
And it's being demoed, right?
[5:04:16] » And it's being demoed. Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. [clears throat]
[5:04:22] » Okay. Uh, all in favor?
>> I
[5:04:25] » I
motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to
[5:04:29] uh Michael uh Dailyaly, case number
26-09.
[5:04:35] » Okay. Um, this one is a request for
abatement for 2024 and 2025.
[5:04:43] the property according to state statute
if the property owner protested the
[5:04:47] value they cannot do an abatement. So
for 2023 and 2025
[5:04:54] um we did
the properties were protested. So we
[5:04:59] already went through the process of
um denying the requests and then um it
[5:05:05] was not taken to the next level which is
the CBOE. So they un they are unable to
[5:05:11] do an abatement request. So it was
denied.
[5:05:14] » Is Mr. Daly here or
>> Yes, he is.
[5:05:19] » I need to make sure that he has an
opportunity to speak.
[5:05:24] » I have included in the packet the
comparable sales for 25 and 26
[5:05:29] supporting the value. We did make an
adjustment um in 2020.
[5:05:38] Which one is this one? And for 2025,
we adjusted the value from 795910
[5:05:45] down to 782 880 based on those comps.
And then the supports the comps for
[5:05:53] the next year, which is the
[5:06:03] Hey, there it is. the 2020
the 2023 and 2024 values were corrected
[5:06:10] and then the 25 and 26 the comps did
support the value with no adjustment.
[5:06:20] » Thank you.
>> Thank you Colton.
[5:06:26] » Okay, are we ready for um Mr. daily to
come up
[5:06:31] to join us and um just uh introduce
yourself.
[5:06:36] » Hi, I'm Michael Bailey.
Lived in the county for about 30 years.
[5:06:42] Believe my daughter went to school with
your son. [laughter]
[5:06:46] » Yeah. Oh. Oh, sure. Yes.
>> Uh first off, I wanted to thank Miss G
[5:06:53] for the work that she's doing. Thank
you. I know it's a difficult job. Uh,
[5:06:58] and I certainly appreciate it being
done. I understand the compact between
[5:07:02] us citizens and the government. Uh, so
this is not just some silly little tax
[5:07:09] protest. Um, it's for me it's kind of a
tale of two different uh appraisals.
[5:07:15] Um, I got the appraisal [clears throat]
from the county and was a little
[5:07:19] shocked. It seemed a little bit high.
Um, and I had to recently get a new
[5:07:24] mortgage uh for the house.
And in part of that mortgage, I was
[5:07:31] supposed to get an appraisal. So, I paid
uh money to have somebody come out to my
[5:07:37] house and spend a good hour and a half
on my house, under my house, in my
[5:07:43] house, taking measurements, asking
questions, etc. And I have given a copy
[5:07:49] of that appraisal to Miss G. And that
appraisal came in at, I believe, 675.
[5:07:57] which is more than $100,000 less than
the county values it. And so I'm here
[5:08:06] today to question the appraisal and hope
that my particular appraisal that I pay
[5:08:13] for would do me some good.
>> Right. I may I of course. Okay. So by
[5:08:20] state statute we
[clears throat] our values are two years
[5:08:24] in a rear. So what for the 23 and 24
values those were based on sales that
[5:08:30] occurred July 1st 2020 through June 30th
2022
[5:08:35] and then the 25 and 26 values were based
on sales that occurred um July 1st 2022
[5:08:43] through June 30th 2024. So, we'll do
reassessment in 2027
[5:08:49] and that'll be based on sales that
occurred July 1st, 2024
[5:08:54] through June 30th, 2026. That's when we
can consider the appraisal.
[5:09:01] » Um, I didn't speak with you directly. I
came into the office to file that
[5:09:06] protest. I spoke with Mr. View, uh, one
of my, uh, anyway. Um, and I believe you
[5:09:13] overheard that conversation and
mentioned that I could use that
[5:09:16] appraisal. And so you're saying now I
have to wait to use the appraisal or
[5:09:22] » it it can it has to be considered in the
period that our valuation is in. So the
[5:09:28] appraisal was done July 28, 2025, which
would be used in our next assessment
[5:09:33] period.
>> So we could consider it in that period.
[5:09:37] All right.
>> Yes.
[5:09:42] Um, [clears throat]
so again, a discrepancy over $100,000.
[5:09:48] Can you explain how
>> Mhm.
[5:09:50] » And if you want to go to the comparable
sales, um, there is a set one for 23 and
[5:09:57] 24.
>> And my assessor
[5:10:00] did the exact same thing except he
included a lot more sales.
[5:10:06] » Right. We include we do a mass appraisal
in our office. We don't do sideby-side
[5:10:12] appraisals. So we do the mass appraisal
based on sales that occurred with
[5:10:17] similar characteristics. Then when you
do an abatement or protest, we narrow
[5:10:22] down those sales to more comparable
properties. So for the 203
[5:10:29] and 20
4 sales
[5:10:35] where we did the adjustment from 795910
to 782880.
[5:10:40] I do have them dated on the top right
corner so you can just tell which one is
[5:10:45] which which years. The value of his
property is 782880.
[5:10:49] Then we had a sale that came in right at
782880.
[5:10:53] This is for the 25 and 26. And then um
we had a second sale that came in at
[5:10:59] 873,928
and a third sale that came in at 902160.
[5:11:06] Is it is it reasonable just to I mean
I'm just going to try to say this
[5:11:11] concisely in a way that I can understand
it. We have an appraisal that estimates
[5:11:15] a value in March of 2026.
These taxes are based on what we
[5:11:22] estimated the property to be worth at
worth some time before that.
[5:11:26] » So when you're looking at the 2025 and
2026 one, those are sales that occurred
[5:11:31] um July 1st, 2022 through June 30th,
2024. And the appraisal that um Mr. Deli
[5:11:38] provided me was as of July 26, 2025.
>> Oh,
[5:11:42] » which would be our next appraisal
period.
[5:11:44] » Okay.
I thought I I misread the stamp that was
[5:11:48] on that document. Anyway, um
>> and then there's also the 23 and 24
[5:11:55] comparables, which was again sales that
occurred July 1st, 2020 through June
[5:12:00] 30th, 2022. And if you want to look at
page two of those comparables,
[5:12:06] [clears throat]
um that the value is supported at
[5:12:09] $531,530
is the value. And then we had one come
[5:12:14] in at 711870,
one come in at 619240
[5:12:20] and one that came in at 587120.
So they are all above
[5:12:26] his price for his
>> home.
[5:12:29] » So So just just a point of
clarification. Um his home is 2021
[5:12:34] Beaver Lane.
>> 221 Beaver. Yes.
[5:12:37] » 221. Sorry. Um, and that one comes in at
531. 530. That is correct.
[5:12:46] » So I I don't understand how it came in
at over 700.
[5:12:53] That the 700 one was for 25 and 26 and
the ones that you're seeing for 23 and
[5:13:02] 24, they had that $55,000 adjustment.
>> Oh, right. Okay. Okay. And there is no
[5:13:07] adjustment for 25.
>> And
[5:13:10] » there will be an adjustment for 26.
>> Prices have gone up since.
[5:13:14] » Correct. We saw about a 30% increase.
>> Okay. So, I don't want to look at the
[5:13:21] one for 531.
If I keep scrolling down, will I find a
[5:13:26] different one or
>> do you mean comparable sales? Um
[5:13:33] when
>> yes you you want to go down from there I
[5:13:37] think.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[5:13:39] » Uh if you look at the right there that's
2023 2024.
[5:13:44] » Okay. So am I looking at 20 23 24 or 24
25 26.
[5:13:50] » Um the one I just talked to you about
the 531 530 value. That one is for 23
[5:13:56] and 24.
>> Okay. And that included the $55,000
[5:13:59] adjust.
>> Okay. And was that one um taxed
[5:14:03] appropriately?
>> Correct. No, we did adjust that one.
[5:14:06] » Oh, you adjusted it down.
>> Adjusted that one.
[5:14:08] » Okay. All right. So, you're not um
challenging that one. Correct.
[5:14:14] » He's challenging 24 and 25.
>> Okay.
[5:14:18] » In which both were protested.
And so like for the purposes of this
[5:14:23] board's legal
limitations and duties, um we cannot
[5:14:30] consider an abatement request if a
protest was already issued and it was
[5:14:36] not appealed to the board of
equalization. Right.
[5:14:37] » That is correct.
>> And so legally speaking, this board's
[5:14:40] only option is to deny this request. Is
that correct?
[5:14:43] » Unfortunately.
>> Okay.
[5:14:44] » Okay.
>> I don't have any further questions. Um,
[5:14:48] I I I am interested to see what happens
uh moving forward with the value of this
[5:14:56] property because it's it's concerning to
see um
[5:15:01] um this most recent information. But I
don't think that that's relevant to this
[5:15:05] hearing.
>> But but that you can come back to us and
[5:15:09] challenge next year. He can challenge 26
doing 27 but it the result would be the
[5:15:15] same because the values are set for
22year periods.
[5:15:21] » Okay. So the comparable
>> when can he next legally challenge this
[5:15:25] » um he can do 27 when we do reassessment
he can do a protest in 27. Okay.
[5:15:31] » Send out notice of evaluation.
>> Okay. So that's what I meant by next
[5:15:33] year.
>> Correct.
[5:15:36] protest it
>> and he'll we'll see the value go down
[5:15:41] because in 26 with taxes due in 27 we
are having to give adjustments again
[5:15:48] which is
>> because of the state
[5:15:49] » correct which is 10% off the first
$700,000 of value. So he's going to
[5:15:54] automatically see a decrease of the
[clears throat] off the six. What is it
[5:15:59] the value 782?
>> I I want to make sure I because I think
[5:16:04] I just got confused again. But okay. Um
>> there is no other lane to protest tax
[5:16:08] bills delivered for 25 or 26. Right.
>> Right. Because he didn't go to the BOE.
[5:16:13] » Right. Okay. So
>> he would have had to go to the BOE.
[5:16:17] » One way to answer your question is never
>> for for that particular protest.
[5:16:22] However, if he objects to the valuation
this year for his taxes in 2027, he can
[5:16:29] protest that
>> if result will be the same
[5:16:33] » meaning by that
>> because there was a protest done and the
[5:16:37] values don't change from the 2-year
period. So, we comparable sales will
[5:16:42] still stand.
>> Okay. So, but you're saying okay so the
[5:16:46] what his you already answered this but I
just want to clarify that I'm saying
[5:16:50] this right. M
>> if he protests the value in 2027
[5:16:58] um that the valuation 2027 for the 2028
tax year
[5:17:02] » that he can protest.
>> That is correct.
[5:17:04] » Okay.
>> He'll get a notice of valuation on um
[5:17:08] May 1st.
>> Okay. So, so what he needs to do is when
[5:17:12] he gets that next year,
that's when he needs to not just send
[5:17:18] you a letter and say I think it's wrong.
If you deny that then he has to appeal
[5:17:23] to the board of equalization.
>> That's correct.
[5:17:26] » Okay.
>> You have to go through the whole entire
[5:17:28] process.
>> Okay.
[5:17:30] Do do you understand?
>> Yes.
[5:17:32] » Okay.
>> Am I understanding too that you've
[5:17:35] already kind of made the decision that I
didn't really need to show up that this
[5:17:39] didn't do any good?
>> And I had mentioned that to you.
[5:17:43] » You never said a word to me about you
don't really need to show up. You said
[5:17:48] if you want to show up,
>> you can show up, but I had to explain
[5:17:51] that it was going to be denied.
>> Did you didn't say anything about Did
[5:17:55] you write it in an email? Do you have a
copy of that?
[5:17:58] » In any case, I'd suggest that if and I
understand the concern here, but if we
[5:18:02] could probably close up this hearing and
move on. I think we need a motion if I
[5:18:07] missed it. Okay.
>> Well, thank you for coming. I mean, I
[5:18:11] think it's valuable to talk to us and
we'll keep an eye out for it next time.
[5:18:15] uh and understand that uh this was
frustrating.
[5:18:19] » Yep.
>> Um I agree with the assessor's
[5:18:22] recommendation. Would you like a motion,
>> please?
[5:18:26] » I move we accept the assessor's
recommendation to deny the petitioner's
[5:18:29] request for abatement of refund of taxes
on case number 26-09.
[5:18:34] » Second. Uh any further discussion?
>> Uh hearing none. All in favor? I
[5:18:41] » I
thank you for coming, sir.
[5:18:46] » Can I ask one last question? Is my
senior tax exemption in place?
[5:18:52] » I believe it is.
[5:18:59] » Mr. Deli, we can get that information to
you and we'll provide that information
[5:19:02] to you.
>> Great.
[5:19:04] » Thank you. And thank you for
>> Okay. Uh moving on to um case number
[5:19:12] 26-16.
>> Uh Mr. Selco.
[5:19:26] I'm going uh we have somebody raising
their hand. I'm going to provote them to
[5:19:30] the list.
[5:19:36] » Excel goes online. Yes. Okay.
>> Thank you. Um Mr. Sulco, would you uh
[5:19:42] introduce yourself?
[5:19:46] » And then we'll hear from the assessor.
>> Hi, my name is Kirk Sulco. I live at 26
[5:19:51] South Freeman Street.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um assessor G.
[5:19:55] » Yes. Um on September, this is case
number 2616.
[5:20:02] Um, this assessor is recommending a
denial. On September 2nd, 2025, the
[5:20:07] property owner requested a decrease in
square footage because of the 57 rule,
[5:20:12] and that has to do with sloping ceilings
because it limits the square footage.
[5:20:17] The rule states that the building code
requirements for slope ceilings in attic
[5:20:21] spaces or rooms under a roof, whereas at
least half of the finished floor area
[5:20:26] must have a ceiling height of 7 ft. And
then any area with a height under five
[5:20:30] feet does not count towards the floor
area. So we did do that adjustment. Now
[5:20:36] Mr. Celco is requesting an abatement for
2025
[5:20:43] um indicating that there's only one
bedroom. Um there we have it as three
[5:20:49] bedrooms. We did a inspection at the
property and the two upper floors are
[5:20:55] clearly bedrooms for advalorum purposes.
We value bedrooms at his current use.
[5:21:04] » So you mean you saw evidence they were
being used as bedrooms?
[5:21:06] » That's correct. Mr. Sco was kind of so
we can do the measurement.
[5:21:14] » What were the ceiling heights? They were
under seven feet. So
[5:21:18] » that's correct. That's why we were
>> Let me know when I can speak because I
[5:21:21] don't want to speak over anyone. So,
just let me know when my the ball's in
[5:21:25] my court.
>> Yep. Yep. You You'll get your turn. So,
[5:21:28] um, Assessor G, you had a question from
Georgia.
[5:21:32] » I couldn't hear what Georgia asked.
>> Sorry. I'll try to speak up a little
[5:21:35] bit. I had just asked whether she saw
evidence that these spaces were being
[5:21:39] used as bedrooms.
>> Okay.
[5:21:40] » Yes, that's correct. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, notwithstanding the fact that
[5:21:45] portions of it are under the seven ft,
they're actually being used as bedrooms,
[5:21:50] then they count as bedrooms.
>> Correct. The square footage was reduced
[5:21:55] for the 57 rule.
>> Oh, okay.
[5:21:58] » So, we did reduce it and provided a
refund to Mr. Selco. However, for ad
[5:22:03] valorum purposes, we do it as its
current use.
[5:22:07] » Okay. So, um you reduce the square
footage that would um decrease his
[5:22:14] taxes, right?
>> Correct. Okay. All right. Um Okay. Um
[5:22:19] Mr. Selco,
[5:22:23] » may I speak?
>> Yes, please.
[5:22:25] » Um so, last year, uh she is correct. The
the 57 rule was used, but it was only
[5:22:32] 50% of it used. the five foot and above
um was only used and what the seven foot
[5:22:41] and under wasn't used. Um I I really
don't understand because if a bed is in
[5:22:49] a bedroom that makes a bedroom, there
was no other furniture. I can't bring
[5:22:54] dressers up there. There's it's under
seven feet the bedrooms
[5:23:00] which the 57 rule states it has to be
above five feet and over seven feet
[5:23:07] period. I like to follow rules. So she
Donna did not measure last year. She did
[5:23:15] measure this year. So I don't know why
it's being denied. She measured under
[5:23:19] seven feet, which the rule says the
ceilings must be at least 7 feet.
[5:23:25] Period.
[5:23:30] » Assessor G.
>> Yes, we did reduce that square footage
[5:23:33] for that 57 rule and
>> that was only for the five foot.
[5:23:39] » Hold on. Hold on. Let her finish.
>> You could see the documentation provided
[5:23:43] by Mr. sell code indicating that um and
we did measure so we do know that it is
[5:23:49] the 57 rule so we reduced the square
footage by 200 upstairs
[5:23:53] » that was last year you did not measure
last year you measured two weeks ago
[5:23:58] which is why I'm dumbfounded that you
would deny it because it was under seven
[5:24:04] feet was that correct Donna
>> that we did adjust the square footage
[5:24:10] » when did you adjust it you adjusted it
last year for 200 square feet. That was
[5:24:14] the five feet around the slope ceiling.
That didn't take into the fact the 7
[5:24:20] foot of the 57 rule.
>> We're pretty close to the square
[5:24:25] footage. We're not going to be able to
get it exact, but we're pretty close to
[5:24:28] the current square footage with
>> not on my not on it's a one-bedroom, one
[5:24:32] bath with the ANC, which is the
appraisers used this as of two years
[5:24:37] ago. The rule states the ceiling height
has to be above 7 feet. Did you measure
[5:24:44] a a ceiling height above 7t? Donna,
>> you saw us do it. Yes.
[5:24:49] » The two bedrooms were not over.
>> Madam Chair, what I'd like to suggest is
[5:24:55] that one person be allowed to offer
testimony to the board at a time and
[5:25:00] then the board deliberate based on that
or ask any questions it may have.
[5:25:05] » Thank you. And then if there's any
member of the public that wishes to
[5:25:07] speak to, it has that opportunity, but
we usually don't open it up during these
[5:25:11] hearings.
>> Uh yes. Um our our council just advised
[5:25:15] that we we really can't allow you to
start arguing with our staff. You can
[5:25:20] make your statement and she can make her
statement and then we will make a
[5:25:24] decision.
>> Okay. But she just
[5:25:28] incorrectly said that the ceiling
heights were above 7 ft. She measured
[5:25:34] two bedrooms that were under they were
6'5
[5:25:38] which is under 7 feet. The other room
was above 7 feet but the pinnacle it the
[5:25:46] first part of the rule says that 50% of
the rule had 50% of the ceiling height
[5:25:51] has to be there. The room was 12 feet
and it was only 51 in. So that room does
[5:25:58] not constitute square footage on the 57
rule.
[5:26:03] Okay, thank you. Uh, Assessor G, can you
explain?
[5:26:07] » We did the measurements. The center of
the rooms are
[5:26:13] correctly
being assessed for square footage. We
[5:26:16] took out the sides that were under the 7
foot rule.
[5:26:21] » I did that last year.
>> Yes.
[5:26:23] » All I asked you to do is come measure.
>> Okay.
[5:26:26] » Sarah, can I can I request that Mr. Elco
not speak unless requested to speak.
[5:26:32] » Yes.
>> Thank you.
[5:26:33] » Which I just explained. Um Okay. So when
you went out and measured
[5:26:38] » Mhm.
>> Uh this is the information you found.
[5:26:42] Yep.
>> And you reduced his tax burden by 200
[5:26:46] square ft.
>> That is correct.
[5:26:47] » Okay.
>> That was last year. Megan,
[5:26:49] » I mean, sir,
>> I [clears throat] would request that the
[5:26:54] board simply ask questions at this point
of whoever it has questions of and then
[5:26:57] deliberate.
>> Okay. Um, uh, Assessor G,
[5:27:03] are you satisfied based on the state
rules that your measurement this year is
[5:27:11] adequate in order to assess the value of
this home?
[5:27:14] » As close as we can get. Correct.
>> Okay.
[5:27:18] colleagues,
[5:27:25] » I need to make sure I understand this
and I'm struggling. So, rooms with low
[5:27:29] ceilings don't get counted as rooms,
right? Um, so you measured where there's
[5:27:35] low ceiling, you took that out of the
square footage, the finished square
[5:27:38] footage of the house.
>> That is correct.
[5:27:39] » And
so, um,
[5:27:44] so you reduced the square footage. It's
close. You are also you are continuing
[5:27:48] to count those as rooms.
>> That is correct.
[5:27:50] » And that's because you saw evidence that
they are used as rooms.
[5:27:53] » That is correct.
>> And state law says that when that you
[5:27:56] used a phrase that I want to make sure I
understand um you [sighs]
[5:28:02] you go by use, you go by actual use of a
space.
[5:28:06] » That is correct.
>> Okay.
[5:28:07] » Brad alarm purposes.
>> Okay.
[5:28:12] » Jody, do you have any questions?
I am somewhat still confused because
[5:28:17] it's the square footage is taken off.
200 square ft is taken off.
[5:28:23] I'm assuming he is wanting pretty much
all but some inches of the room. So it's
[5:28:29] not like the whole room can be used.
That is his argument. Am I understanding
[5:28:34] that correct? Well, she already took off
part of the No, but he's basically
[5:28:38] saying none of the room meets that
criteria. He said there's only inches in
[5:28:44] the middle that would be in your Okay.
>> I don't believe that that's true. There
[5:28:52] there was clearly more than inches that
are can be used
[5:28:58] » above the 5T.
>> That's correct.
[5:29:00] » 57 rule.
>> And I could you explain the 57 rule
[5:29:04] again? Mhm. Um the 57 rule um is
sloping ceilings in attic spaces or
[5:29:11] rooms under a roof where at least half
of the finished floor area must have a
[5:29:16] ceiling height of 7 ft.
And any area with a height under 5t does
[5:29:23] not count towards the floor area.
>> So that's
[5:29:29] 2 feet of wiggle room. I don't quite
understand.
[5:29:33] Oh,
>> so if he has less than half of the room
[5:29:37] that is seven feet. So you're saying
more than half the room is at least
[5:29:41] seven feet.
>> Oh,
[5:29:43] » it's not.
[5:29:47] » George, did you have a question of
assessor?
[5:29:50] » No, I have a question.
>> Okay, go for it. You can ask him
[5:29:54] directly. Perfect.
>> Am I Am I understanding the protest
[5:29:59] correctly?
I'm I'm seeing
[5:30:03] square footage. But I think maybe the
the most meaningful assertion here is
[5:30:07] that there's only one bedroom in the
home. Am I understanding you correctly?
[5:30:11] » Are you talking to me?
>> Yes. Yes.
[5:30:14] » To be honest, I'm 6 foot three. Those
rooms, because they have beds in them,
[5:30:19] the bed is able to get up to this the
half floor. I can't. There's no
[5:30:25] dressers. There's no anything. So, if I
go to sell it, people will see a bed,
[5:30:31] but there's nothing else. If I had put a
dresser on the wall, my head would hit
[5:30:36] the slope ceiling before I even got
three feet to a dresser. So, in essence,
[5:30:42] this 57 rule, and let me read what what
I've written. The 5-7 rule based on ANC
[5:30:50] Z765 standards dictates that for rooms
with slope ceilings, only areas with a
[5:30:57] ceiling height of 5T or greater can be
included with the gross living area. And
[5:31:04] this is what we did not do last year. I
I abated the taxes last year. I did the
[5:31:13] measurements that reduced the square
footage from 200.
[5:31:18] All they did was measure the ceiling
height two weeks ago and it was below 7
[5:31:25] ft. So the and on the rule, the 7 foot
of the 57 foot rule states and at least
[5:31:33] 50% of that finished area must have a
ceiling height of at least seven feet.
[5:31:40] Must. So if the ceiling height is not
seven feet, this rule is
[5:31:47] saying that that half floor is not
finished square footage and my tax base
[5:31:53] should be yes. A one-bedroom, one bath.
The only the only
[5:31:59] » Thank you.
>> the
[5:32:01] Thank you. I I want to ask a followup.
>> You are asserting 1,114
[5:32:07] square feet as the as the square footage
of your home. Correct. the correct of
[5:32:11] the 57 rule from the ANC measurements.
Yes, that is the correct.
[5:32:17] » Thank you for that.
>> I just want to follow the rules.
[5:32:21] » Um,
okay. Let me I'm bouncing around because
[5:32:24] I I need to go to this other thing in
the agenda. Bear with me.
[5:32:29] Um,
[5:32:34] I Peter, have you looked into that law
>> specifically? No, I can't speak to that.
[5:32:43] » Assessor G, I don't hear you contesting
that that's how the rule works.
[5:32:46] » Correct.
>> Um, I what I'm trying to figure out. So,
[5:32:49] what what is I'm not seeing comps in the
packet. What is the square footage of
[5:32:55] the home as in in your records? We had
the first floor at 10,042
[5:33:00] and the second floor at 418
and that's what we were provided by Mr.
[5:33:06] Selco last year. Then we went out and
confirmed that that measurements are
[5:33:10] correct.
>> I Mr. Selco, I really want to encourage
[5:33:13] you to wait till we ask you a question.
Thank you.
[5:33:17] » Um,
[5:33:20] will you say those numbers one more
time? said 1,00
[5:33:23] » 1,042
for the first floor and then the second
[5:33:28] floor is 418
[5:33:34] » if you don't take this.
[5:33:42] » So the assessor is asserting colleagues
that we have a 1,460 foot home with
[5:33:47] three bedrooms. the
>> the assessor is assuming a 1470 square
[5:33:53] foot home
418
[5:33:58] » 1042 + 418
>> I think that's
[5:34:01] » 1470
>> 1460 I'm not I'm not
[5:34:04] » 1470 but anyway
[5:34:11] » I'm using a calculator
>> okay so what do you have
[5:34:16] » 1460
[5:34:19] Yes, you're correct.
>> Okay,
[5:34:21] » that's it.
>> Um, I'm not trying to get stuck on that.
[5:34:23] So, so colleagues, I'm just trying to
wrap my head around this. We have an
[5:34:26] assert the assessor's office's records
show 1,460 ft of the home
[5:34:30] » and it's a three-bedroom home. The
applicant is stating that that the the
[5:34:34] actual square footage of the home is
1,114 ft and it only has one bed.
[5:34:41] I I would I hear I hear the assessor
saying with respect to the bedroom
[5:34:45] counts that we count bedrooms when we
see beds and rooms.
[5:34:48] » Current Yes. Correct.
>> Colleagues, I would propose to you that
[5:34:51] that we decide that this is a
three-bedroom home based on the evidence
[5:34:56] provided of the assessor
and then we can start to talk about the
[5:35:00] square feet. Does that sound reasonable?
it.
[5:35:04] » Do you mind if So, if there's three
bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs,
[5:35:08] you're missing it's four bedrooms and
one bath. If we're going to use the use
[5:35:14] example, correct?
>> Did you Did you find four beds or just
[5:35:17] three beds?
>> Um I not the count bed count, it's the
[5:35:21] current use.
>> There was There's a futon bed in the
[5:35:25] yellow room. There's two queens in the
one room, the north side. There's a
[5:35:30] queen in the left. The all I have is
beds. There's no furniture because I
[5:35:34] can't get them up to the half floor. Do
you understand? Those are not bedrooms.
[5:35:40] If you can't function and put clothes
into dressers and whatnot,
[5:35:45] » do you
>> It would looked appear to be a couch to
[5:35:50] us
>> or like you said,
[5:35:53] » which would be pulled out, but we wanted
to measure the room so I had it upright.
[5:35:59] » Mr. Soo, thank you. So, um,
you observed three bedrooms in the use
[5:36:06] given you in the home. I know I don't
think that we're here to discuss whether
[5:36:11] we should actually go reappraise this at
a fourbedroom home. I think we're here
[5:36:14] to discuss whether the assertion that it
has one bedroom or whether it has three
[5:36:18] bedrooms is the conversation we're
having. Colleagues, I suggest we we
[5:36:24] well, I'll just say it like this. I
agree with the assessor. The assessor
[5:36:27] says that we go based on use, not height
of the ceiling. the assessor noticed
[5:36:31] beds. Uh maybe Mr. Sco is lucky that one
of them didn't appear to be a bed when
[5:36:35] they were there and so it just says
three beds bedrooms and I'm good. And
[5:36:39] then and then I think the more
complicated piece of this conversation
[5:36:42] is the square footage. Um but so I
wanted to try to address the more simple
[5:36:46] one
or do you think that this should be
[5:36:49] adjusted for the number of bedrooms?
>> Well, uh I don't think it should
[5:36:53] [clears throat] be adjusted for the
number of bedrooms. Um, but I I do see
[5:36:58] that she took off 200 square ft of the
size of the home, which helps um the
[5:37:05] homeowner.
Um,
[5:37:10] Jody.
>> Yeah. I mean, based on what Donna said
[5:37:15] with the square footage um and its use,
that rule only applies if they're not
[5:37:22] using it as a bedroom. Correct.
So based on the rules that Donna is
[5:37:28] stating
[5:37:32] have no
other option but to deny
[5:37:37] um because I think it's the policy that
if you can use it as a bedroom which
[5:37:42] they are um that is what's in question.
>> What policy is that
[5:37:50] » you state that policy
>> for advalorum purposes? um it is
[5:37:54] assessed for its current use.
That's not a building thing. We are
[5:38:00] going by what we are required to do.
>> So then it would be a four
[5:38:04] bedroomedroom, one bath with that
argument. Correct.
[5:38:08] » Yes, but I don't want to increase your
value.
[5:38:11] » That's fine. I want to follow the rules.
>> Yeah. Um,
[5:38:15] » we can look at that next assess
reassessment period,
[5:38:18] » but but it doesn't say anything about
sir. I really got to I really want to
[5:38:22] ask you again to respond to questions
only.
[5:38:26] » Um, and
shoot, I just lost my train of thought.
[5:38:30] How come we don't have any comparables
on this one?
[5:38:32] » Because that wasn't the problem. He
wasn't saying my value is too high.
[5:38:37] Okay, he's saying the 57 rule. So, we're
focusing on the 57 rule and the bed and
[5:38:42] bath counts. Do you do do you comply
this this ANC57 rule is a rule that you
[5:38:47] do comply with? Right.
>> If we are aware of the situation
[5:38:51] » if you're aware of the situation
>> and my only other thing would be do we
[5:38:54] have original plans for the house that
we can utilize and any permits for any
[5:38:59] updates that were done to the property.
>> I'd be willing to look at those. So
[5:39:05] to count what what I'm hearing what I'm
reading is that to count any portion
[5:39:12] of that of a room
>> must be seven feet.
[5:39:17] » Um I'm sorry. At least 50% of the
finished area of the room has to be
[5:39:21] seven seven feet. Is that correct? Is
that that that's what I'm reading off of
[5:39:25] the petition. Is that is that correct?
>> My understanding is that we're only
[5:39:30] going to assess on the square footage.
That's a certain height.
[5:39:34] » You your understanding is you only
assess on a square foot.
[5:39:36] » We're gonna assess on what is
>> the the petitioner is is stating I I
[5:39:43] think I understand this correctly. The
petitioner is stating that
[5:39:46] zero square footage should be counted in
those rooms that have slope ceilings
[5:39:51] because because there because there's
less than 50% of the square
[5:39:56] I'm sorry of the area of those rooms is
seven feet. Are you familiar with that
[5:40:01] portion of the rule?
>> Not for adorum purposes. We're gonna
[5:40:04] assess what is usable.
>> For adalorum purposes, you assess what's
[5:40:08] usable. You don't refer to these ANIE
standards for abilorum purposes.
[5:40:12] » Well, if I had like previously we had it
the whole room, we did reduce for what
[5:40:17] was not usable. So I mean the where I'm
struggling with this is either if we're
[5:40:22] using ANIE if if ANIE helps us
understand how to measure square footage
[5:40:27] and ANIE says that at least 50% of the
room needs to be higher than seven feet
[5:40:32] then the next question is is 50% of the
room higher than 7 feet.
[5:40:40] » It was it was 12 feet.
>> That's I'm sorry that's a question for
[5:40:44] the assessor
>> with best guess. appear to be
[5:40:49] » what?
>> Would you like me to take away his
[5:40:53] ability to talk?
>> I'm deferring to the chair to manage the
[5:40:57] » Oh, and the chair is doing a bad job.
Um,
[5:41:03] » and we got to keep in mind this is
advelum. We do for ad valorum purposes.
[5:41:07] » That's right. Like there's two different
rules here that one applies this way and
[5:41:11] then the other one applies if we're
using that one rule the use then it it
[5:41:16] is what it is.
>> It is what it is on our purposes.
[5:41:19] » Okay.
>> You know that space could be used. So
[5:41:22] we're going to include it in our square
footage.
[5:41:25] » And um what what's the difference in
price? He he thinks it should be 300 and
[5:41:29] what did
>> we have it currently valued at?
[5:41:34] 548
>> 519470
[5:41:37] for the residential part and 28520 for
the land for a total of 548260
[5:41:46] and he's wanting a value of 300,000.
>> Um I just I just want to read colleagues
[5:41:52] I think I finally got the answer that
I'm looking for. Um
[5:41:58] I'm just I'm just reading off of a
Google search. ANIE Z765 is a voluntary
[5:42:03] industry guideline.
>> It was made mandatory for mortgage loan
[5:42:06] approvals approvals,
not mortgage underwriting rules. They do
[5:42:11] not automatically apply to ADORM
property tax valuation. Adorum property
[5:42:15] tax assessments are governed strict
strictly by state property tax laws,
[5:42:19] local assessor regulations, and state
specific appraisal manuals rather than
[5:42:24] these ANIE standards that are being
requested in the abatement request. All
[5:42:29] right,
>> Peter, do you agree with what I just
[5:42:31] read?
>> Yeah, absolutely. Um,
[5:42:34] » okay. And so you assessor Gave him the
benefit of the doubt by reducing the
[5:42:41] value by the 200 square feet.
>> That's you're calling you're not calling
[5:42:44] it usable where it's below.
>> Yeah, we we did reduce it for his
[5:42:47] original request in 2025.
>> Okay. So, colleagues, may I have a
[5:42:51] motion?
>> Yeah, I agree with the assessor on this
[5:42:54] one.
[5:42:58] Um, I'd like to make a motion on case
number 26-16
[5:43:03] consider
the assessor's recommendation to deny
[5:43:07] petition for abatement or refund of
taxes based on those two procedures
[5:43:15] » as discussed. Second, uh, any further
discuss colleagues?
[5:43:20] » Um, I learned a lot with this. I did
know about the 57 rule, but I did not
[5:43:25] know about the other one. Um,
um, that's very interesting.
[5:43:32] And I guess it if if I was the
homeowner, I would be a little bit
[5:43:35] confused. Now I understand that. So
hopefully you can understand that and in
[5:43:40] the future.
>> Okay. Uh, thank you. I hear have a
[5:43:46] motion.
Second discussion. All in favor? I I
[5:43:54] » the the motion or the uh appeal is
denied.
[5:43:58] » Great. Um moving on to uh
case number 26-17
[5:44:06] through uh cases
26-40.
[5:44:11] » These are all the same situations. And
um I don't know if we have Andre online.
[5:44:17] » I do see Andre.
>> Okay. Just a quick question. Are we are
[5:44:21] we trying to treat these under one
hearing or are we trying to do
[5:44:23] » Yes.
>> Okay. We don't have to do 14 separate
[5:44:25] hearings. Correct.
>> I don't think so.
[5:44:29] » So again, we value as a use as of
January 1st. Mr. Alvarez did do a split
[5:44:35] in his land creating a new subdivision
in Empire which is West Fork. Um during
[5:44:41] reassessment last year, it appears that
the property was
[5:44:46] valued as its current use
as of March instead of as of January. So
[5:44:53] on this case, I am requesting an
abatement be done on these accounts. I
[5:44:59] have provided you with a spreadsheet
with a list of the accounts, what the
[5:45:04] current actual value is, what the
adjustment will I'm recommending
[5:45:09] for these properties, and that will
bring it back to its original value as
[5:45:13] it was as of January 1st of 2025.
[5:45:19] » Okay. Um, uh, Mr. Avorez, uh, do you
have any comments?
[5:45:26] No, Donna did a great job working
through and understanding what happened
[5:45:29] in the past. It was just a a date issue
and uh I agree with her um amount of
[5:45:36] abatement that she calculated. I thought
it was very very helpful.
[5:45:40] » Thank you.
>> All right. So, between all 23
[5:45:42] properties, I am requesting a refund of
11,398.
[5:45:47] » All right. May I have a motion? I'll
make a motion for case number 26-17
[5:45:53] through 26-40
for the assessor's recommendation to
[5:45:57] partially approve petitioner's request
for abatement or refund of taxes and
[5:46:01] order directing of refund of 2025 taxes
in the amount of 11,398
[5:46:06] proit by all jurisdictions receiving
pavement thereof.
[5:46:11] » Second.
>> Any further discussion?
[5:46:15] » Just a quick comment. This was a very
complicated conversation a while back
[5:46:19] and I'm grateful that you guys figured
it out.
[5:46:23] » All right. All in favor?
>> Hi, Andre.
[5:46:27] » Thank you so much, Donna. And and Chris,
what's the address you have on record
[5:46:30] for this ownership entity? I
discontinued a certain mailbox. I want
[5:46:34] to be sure it doesn't go to the wrong
address.
[5:46:36] » Yep. I have
[5:46:41] I'll email it.
>> Yes. Let's
[5:46:43] » We'll do it later. Thank you guys. Good
luck.
[5:46:46] » Thank you.
>> Appreciate it.
[5:46:48] » Good call.
>> All right. The board of county
[5:46:52] commissioners is moving back to his
regular session, a work session on
[5:46:57] short-term rental ordinance. Uh David
Danielson.
[5:47:00] » Hey Dave, if you don't mind, I think
this one's going to take a while. Could
[5:47:03] we have the sheriff go first?
>> Yeah,
[5:47:05] » that's okay. Sheriff,
>> of course. First, thank you.
[5:47:08] » Uh, we will be having a work session
discussion on study from speed cameras
[5:47:13] with Sheriff Ron Thornton
[5:47:18] » and I might suggest we
>> see your five or
[5:47:22] » between these two break.
>> Yeah.
[5:47:25] » Okay.
>> Thanks.
[5:47:28] » Share for you all. Oh, I sent just the
basically
[5:47:34] » they should have.
[5:47:38] » Great, Sharon.
>> Uh, thank you very much.
[5:47:42] Uh, before we even get started, I just
want to make a couple of things clear so
[5:47:48] there's no confusion. Uh, this is not a
proposal. This is not this is just
[5:47:56] information based off the study that we
had just a random particular vendor do
[5:48:03] based on speeds in areas that we get a
lot of complaints from. This is just
[5:48:10] information for you guys. It's not me
proposing we do this. It's not me
[5:48:15] proposing we go with this vendor. This
is just the information that was
[5:48:20] gathered over a fiveday period. 7-day
period approximately. Yeah. About a
[5:48:24] 7-day period.
>> So, if I added up all the fines and all
[5:48:27] the speeding things on this, I wasted my
time.
[5:48:30] » Um, no. [laughter]
Uh, this is uh it was for you guys to
[5:48:36] consider if this is something you would
want to look at.
[5:48:40] » This is not in lie of a procurement
process is what he's saying.
[5:48:43] » Yes.
>> Talking about we haven't procured
[5:48:45] anything. We haven't selected a specific
vendor. We're just talking about the
[5:48:48] information that this study came up
with.
[5:48:51] » So, I just want, you know, make sure
we're all on the same page with this.
[5:48:56] Uh,
so I'll start off on the fat the photo
[5:49:02] radar summary. Uh,
we had u
[5:49:07] we teamed with a private vendor, you
know, just analyze several different
[5:49:11] locations
uh that we get a lot of complaints
[5:49:14] about.
uh the viability is based on a certain
[5:49:19] number of violations at this particular
designated locations.
[5:49:24] In general, a minimum of 500 violations
per month is needed for a given location
[5:49:31] to essentially pay for itself. Uh there
would be no out-of pocket cost to the
[5:49:36] county whatsoever.
Uh
[5:49:40] that includes the speed, the
photo radar, the video, the speed
[5:49:46] violation capturing equipment, the
violation processing and everything.
[5:49:51] Uh out of the locations that we looked
at, there are four locations
[5:49:57] uh that would probably be viable
uh with a number of
[5:50:07] speeding
violations that came through during that
[5:50:11] given time. Four of those locations out
of the seven or eight were uh deemed vi
[5:50:18] viable from this company.
Uh
[5:50:23] at the request of the vendor, uh the
locations we set up were eastbound
[5:50:29] Alvarado Road just north of Alvarado
open space, westbound Alvarado Road,
[5:50:36] north of the open space,
eastbound Fall River Road just south of
[5:50:40] Woodpecker Gulch, and then westbound
Fall River Road south of Woodpecker
[5:50:44] Gulch. Uh eastbound Highway 103 at mile
marker 3,
[5:50:51] westbound at mile marker 3 on Highway
103.
[5:50:55] Um eastbound around the 27,000 block of
Colorado 103 and then westbound around
[5:51:02] the 27,000 block of Colorado 103.
>> So is that up by Echo Hills or
[5:51:07] » uh it's on the Evergreen side. It's a
little a little couple miles east of
[5:51:13] there.
>> Thank you.
[5:51:14] But if you look at the on during that
time frame there
[5:51:21] seven day period
>> if you averaged it out for the month
[5:51:28] on westbound Fall River Road coming
downhill
[5:51:32] you're looking at 3973
[5:51:37] violations.
uh on westbound Highway 103 at mile
[5:51:41] marker 3, you're looking at over 5,000
for the month.
[5:51:46] And then eastbound and westbound total,
uh you're looking almost 4,000 eastbound
[5:51:53] and 6,500
uh almost 6,500 going uh westbound.
[5:52:02] So if you decided that you wanted to do
something like this uh the initial imp
[5:52:08] implementation
the vendors usually see an approximate
[5:52:13] 80 to 85% reduction in the quantity of
violations through word of mouth, social
[5:52:19] media and stuff like that. And it could
go as low as 60% but the actual
[5:52:25] reduction wouldn't be known until the
cameras were put in place.
[5:52:31] uh for their system to capture enough
violations to be viable and self-
[5:52:35] sustaining. They are recommending that
we would if we decided to do this that
[5:52:40] we adopt
that anything 6 miles an hour or over
[5:52:46] would be a citation.
>> Mhm. Uh and if that was to be the case,
[5:52:52] you'd have to adopt an ordinance to
implement that.
[5:52:56] Uh generally they're saying about 70% of
the violations result in fines being
[5:53:02] paid.
Uh the f I'm sorry
[5:53:06] » by the other 30%
waved just unpaid. Uh
[5:53:13] it's some of them are contested some of
them we have and we'll get into that. Uh
[5:53:18] some of the things that each fine, each
photo that's saying you were speeding at
[5:53:25] this location at this date and time, it
has to be reviewed by somebody and it
[5:53:30] could be, you know, we may look at it
and see, you know, okay, we don't have a
[5:53:35] good clear license plate you, you know,
or something like that. So that would
[5:53:38] just be thrown out. Mhm. [clears throat]
>> So that would be some of the reasons
[5:53:43] that
>> okay
[5:53:46] » the other 30% and some of them would be
contested, some of them just like would
[5:53:51] not be paid and I'm not sure if that
would go to a collection agency through
[5:53:57] this company or a company or whatever.
>> Yeah, I think I think in many cases uh
[5:54:03] they probably never do receive payment
for a certain percentage of these
[5:54:06] violations. I think that's the reality
of of this type of enforcement.
[5:54:10] » In an arrangement like this, is the fine
owed to Clear Creek County or is the
[5:54:15] fine owed to the vendor?
>> The the vendor processes all of the
[5:54:20] fines and then they will submit that
money to Clar Creek County itself.
[5:54:25] » Oh, so it is it is owed to us, but the
relationship establishes them as the
[5:54:29] collection agency. I I think that's how
it works now. But without having a
[5:54:33] contract in place to look at, it's hard
to be specific on that. But they do
[5:54:36] collect them and uh they cannot specify
a per citation
[5:54:43] charge that they would they would apply
for their own benefit. Uh it's it's I
[5:54:48] think that violates the statute, but the
way for them to determine, but basically
[5:54:52] if you were to average it out, if I
understand correctly, and this is if
[5:54:55] comes out to about $12
>> um approximately for their entire
[5:55:00] process.
>> Oh, for their work on
[5:55:02] » for everything for everything they work
on. So if you have a $40 fine,
[5:55:06] » approximately 12 of that and this is
just an approximation would go to them.
[5:55:10] They have
>> I certainly hope our fines are larger
[5:55:13] than that.
>> Fines are set by statute. step set by
[5:55:16] statute and that was the next thing. Uh
the fine amounts the 6 to 24 mile per
[5:55:22] hour set by statute is up to $40
>> only.
[5:55:27] » And then the 25 mph and over it can be
up to $120.
[5:55:34] Uh ideally the self the system would be
self-supporting. The funds submitted by
[5:55:39] the vendor to the county would come to
us. I think it's quarterly or monthly.
[5:55:44] I'm not sure. I think it says it in
here. But number eight goes answers that
[5:55:49] question.
The vendor reviews all the violations to
[5:55:53] ensure viab viability before they send
them to us uh for review.
[5:56:00] A designated employee will then have to
review all these violations before
[5:56:04] sending them the approval. Once they are
approved, the vendor handles all the
[5:56:10] mailings, the fine collection, the court
packets, and if a violation is
[5:56:15] contested, there's no court appearance
required by CCSO.
[5:56:20] Uh the actual number of violations from
a stable system, you know, that would
[5:56:25] help us determine the workload of how
much one employee has to review.
[5:56:33] Oh, but the big kicker here is also
there's a risk of vandalism to the
[5:56:40] cameras.
The vendor, they cover the cost of the
[5:56:44] first camera that's vandalized
and after that any instances of
[5:56:49] vandalism is our responsibility.
>> How how discreet are these or legally do
[5:56:55] they have to be visible or can we do
like game cams?
[5:56:58] » No, they they have to be visible. You
have to have signage. You have to say
[5:57:03] photo radar in use.
>> Okay. Can we say photo photo radar in
[5:57:07] use and uh under camera observation?
[laughter]
[5:57:12] » Well, I think you know without looking
at the statute itself, my estimation is
[5:57:16] the statute is going to mandate certain
requirements we have to meet in order to
[5:57:20] apply these cameras. I think the statute
is somewhat restrictive
[5:57:24] » so that these really are not meant to be
money makers. These are meant to promote
[5:57:28] public safety
>> and they [clears throat] don't want, I
[5:57:31] think, a jurisdiction viewing this as as
a way of attaining income for the county
[5:57:37] or the city. That's really not the
purpose here.
[5:57:39] » What about for the sheriff's office?
>> Same thing. I'm afraid
[5:57:42] » 60 though, right? When the 60 to 80% of
the people change their behavior, that's
[5:57:47] your goal is what you're
>> Absolutely. We want to change behavior.
[5:57:50] You're absolutely right on that.
>> How Oh, go ahead. No, no,
[5:57:55] » how good are the cameras? Would they be
able to capture those motorcycles that
[5:57:59] are going 100 miles an hour
>> if they've got a plate visible? But
[5:58:03] that's just it. 99% of the motorcycles,
they have the flip up license plates
[5:58:08] » and so there's not
>> totally illegal, right?
[5:58:10] » 100%.
[clears throat]
[5:58:13] » So I do we get to influence how much do
influence do we have over the location
[5:58:18] of the cameras?
>> Um, we have
[5:58:22] a great deal of influence over where the
location is. I'm wondering because where
[5:58:26] I'm hearing about this most colleagues
most recently at least is the Pine
[5:58:30] Valley neighborhood.
>> And when I look at where the the camera
[5:58:35] is located,
it looks like it is after the first exit
[5:58:41] to the Pine Valley neighborhood. I can
show you on my screen. It's just one of
[5:58:44] the slides. Um, I think I see Pine
Valley kind of cutting off there and
[5:58:50] it's so it's after if you're headed
westbound
[5:58:53] after someone would turn off onto Pine.
>> And I just wonder I was a little
[5:58:57] surprised when I saw that because I just
wonder if
[5:59:00] trying to control behavior
downhill of that exit on Pine Valley is
[5:59:07] more helpful for safety. Well, the first
exit there or the first entrance into
[5:59:12] Pine Valley if you're going west is just
right is not far past the county line.
[5:59:18] » Uh,
jurisdiction problems. Okay.
[5:59:21] » Jurisdiction issues and to be able to
get from the county line and to be able
[5:59:26] to get sign enough signage up in place
is going to be an issue.
[5:59:30] » Okay. uh mile marker 27
uh is is still in a fairly curvy
[5:59:36] section. And we can see in the actual
speed study survey that they sent out uh
[5:59:42] we were still getting a an exuberant
number of
[5:59:48] uh speeders through there. If we moved
it another mile up the road, uh there's
[5:59:56] this real long straightaway and that's
where me personally I sit to run traffic
[6:00:01] because they come around that curve and
they take off.
[6:00:04] » Right.
>> And you know we but we have the ability
[6:00:08] to say yes, we want these cameras at
this location.
[6:00:12] » Yeah. And and we also get a lot of
complaints from Echo Hills people about
[6:00:17] some speeders up there. What happens if
a guy say lives up there, goes across
[6:00:22] that every single day, speeds, doesn't
pay the ticket. What happens to that?
[6:00:27] » Can we arrest her?
>> Oh, that is
[6:00:32] » my understanding is that is a civil
infraction. Uh
[6:00:36] » even multiple
>> the the vendors, they are the ones that
[6:00:41] would probably try to take that person
to collection. We don't have to do
[6:00:45] anything. All we have to do is approve
it. Now, what their process is to try to
[6:00:51] get that amount, I'm not sure. And this
was just, you know, we just used it.
[6:00:56] This vendor is a very reputable vendor.
Uh, so I'm sure they ran into this
[6:01:02] » in that area. It just is a matter of how
many dollars that accumulates at $40 a
[6:01:07] piece. Just say it would take a very
long time for somebody to make it worth
[6:01:10] to really go after.
>> I would assume so. Yes. So he could just
[6:01:14] keep speeding through there and
>> Okay.
[6:01:20] » Um but
>> I I'm curious as to why it's uh 6 miles
[6:01:27] an hour above the limit versus 10 miles.
>> Yeah, I think I can answer that for you.
[6:01:32] Um I think that from the vendor's
perspective it's not viable for them.
[6:01:36] » Oh
>> obtaining enough violations
[6:01:40] » for to you know make it worth their time
and money to put in.
[6:01:43] » It's kind of encouraging that [laughter]
they're we have to go that low for
[6:01:48] » Yes. And and of course once these would
be out for a while they're their sense
[6:01:52] of based on their experience is that
we'll see far fewer violations.
[6:01:56] » Y
>> it's those numbers that are really going
[6:01:58] to be the determiner of whether this is
viable long term. and uh they think if
[6:02:03] uh you know if they did their reductions
by percentage I think there were some
[6:02:07] locations that probably could result in
about 500 violations. Now of course you
[6:02:12] know winter may be different than
summer.
[6:02:14] » Oh yeah.
>> They did this in the uh early summer as
[6:02:16] I recall and
>> and so we could see a reduction in the
[6:02:19] numbers of people
>> doing this in in the winter months.
[6:02:23] » Perhaps they average out and make it up
in the summer months. Um, I also just
[6:02:28] for information purposes, um, I've been
inquiring about obtaining a copy of an
[6:02:32] RFQ from from somebody and what this
vendor has told me from their experience
[6:02:36] here, at least in Colorado, is they
haven't had to use those because this is
[6:02:40] basically revenue neutral. And so
there's newly no money that I know of
[6:02:45] going out up front from anyone. And in
fact, I think the contract, if I
[6:02:49] understood them correctly, is that if
for some reason the system loses money,
[6:02:53] we don't pay it. It's on them. Correct.
So basically we don't have a lot of risk
[6:02:58] here in that regard.
>> Uh now I guess if somebody starts
[6:03:02] shooting up the cameras then then our
risk probably increases because
[6:03:06] » well would it be useful to have our own
cameras observing these cameras to see
[6:03:13] who's actually
>> vandalizing
[6:03:16] » because we know they're going to.
>> I'm not arguing with it at all. I I I
[6:03:20] think that's probably prudent. At some
point we may need to do that or we might
[6:03:23] need to do that. We could get lucky and
go six months out of the year and nobody
[6:03:27] even bothers. But knowing people and
human behavior as I do, someone's going
[6:03:31] to get
>> and and I was told even when I was
[6:03:34] campaigning not to bother putting
campaign signs on 103 because
[6:03:40] » Oh, [clears throat and cough]
did I did I hear you suggesting that you
[6:03:47] may not you might not go to an RFP
because we're not actually paying the
[6:03:52] vendor. This was the vendor's um
>> okay
[6:03:56] » that they don't use they haven't had one
submitted yet because their clients
[6:04:00] other jurisdictions um I guess have
viewed this as revenue neutral and so
[6:04:04] they didn't feel the necessity.
>> Okay,
[6:04:06] » that's their perspective
>> and we don't have an upfront cost that
[6:04:08] we got to purchase all this equipment or
do anything like that.
[6:04:11] » That's their perspective. What's your
perspective?
[6:04:13] » No, we've already relayed I've already
relayed my perspective to the sheriff's
[6:04:17] office. We made it very clear.
>> What did you make clear? Let us just get
[6:04:22] the specifics of the details and and
work on the procurement side outside of
[6:04:26] the meeting. I think we need to look at
the contract and and
[6:04:29] » request for proposals is either needed
or you have to do a cooperative purchase
[6:04:33] based on our purchasing policy. One of
those is required. From my
[6:04:37] understanding, the vendor actually may
have some agreements already with some
[6:04:41] other municip some municipalities in the
state. Um, if that's the case, we under
[6:04:47] our purchasing policy can simply
piggyback onto that um, RFP process if
[6:04:53] it's been within the last couple years.
>> Yeah. And I think they do have
[6:04:56] agreements. I'm not advocating at this
point that we do any. I'm just telling
[6:04:59] you what they told me
>> when I was inquiring about RFPs. This is
[6:05:02] the response I got back from them that
they don't have record of RFPs that I
[6:05:06] know of in Colorado. I think they had
one in Connecticut
[6:05:09] » that they talked about. So,
>> it's possible that information didn't
[6:05:12] get to you. I'll I'll forward the email
I sent to the sheriff
[6:05:16] » and send it to them.
>> The one concern that I see about this,
[6:05:18] especially after seeing um the the CTIO
presentation and they show one of their
[6:05:25] big huge green boxes vandalized and
thrown into the creek um that looked
[6:05:30] like it was on a concrete pad. Um and
somebody left a note. I'm not sure what
[6:05:35] they were thinking, but we have the
flock issue and people not understanding
[6:05:39] the difference between Avisa's flock and
all that in today's times, what does
[6:05:43] that look like with
>> that is my concern because it's going to
[6:05:48] be their somebody see the signs, they'll
see the camera and they're going to
[6:05:52] automatically assume it's flock. And I
think personally I think we will be
[6:05:59] liable for a lot of damage damaged
equipment stuff in the long run. And
[6:06:07] what was the
cost associated
[6:06:12] uh to replace it was it was substantial.
>> Yes, each camera is extremely expensive.
[6:06:19] Now [clears throat] it also sort of
depends on is the camera completely
[6:06:22] destroyed or is a single component
within the camera system damaged which
[6:06:26] they can replace. Um, every situation
would be different, but I think if we
[6:06:30] were looking at camera entirely
destroyed,
[6:06:35] and this is just vague off the top of my
head, 10 to 20,000 bucks for a camera or
[6:06:40] something.
>> About 20,000.
[6:06:41] » Oh, close to 20,000.
>> 20,000. Okay, now we understand the
[6:06:45] business model.
[laughter]
[6:06:49] » There's no way that cost $20,000 to
>> behaving people.
[6:06:52] » Um, okay. So, a couple of things that uh
are on my mind.
[6:06:59] One is just as you're having
conversations with vendors, um I've been
[6:07:02] following this and what other counties
are doing fairly closely. Other counties
[6:07:06] and cities that have done this um have
gotten some pretty problematic feedback
[6:07:11] about how these private courts go.
Uh, I I heard one story where somebody
[6:07:18] um was forced out of one of the express
lanes by a construction project. The
[6:07:24] camera saw her leave the lane,
>> mailed her a ticket.
[6:07:28] » She provided evidence that, you know,
that lane was under construction at that
[6:07:33] time and and she actually got a denial
within a couple of minutes of sending
[6:07:38] the email. So, it appeared that this
company was issuing automatic denials.
[6:07:44] Um, and and I've heard some other
stories that are kind of like similar
[6:07:47] similar theme. Of course, civil
liberties matter, being able to confront
[6:07:52] your accusers, all that stuff. Um, so I
just I just want to ask as you're
[6:07:56] talking to vendors, you just ask them
how they handle denials. Can they
[6:08:00] establish to you that they actually look
at them? Um,
[6:08:03] » well, even if they didn't, we are. Every
violation, we look at it.
[6:08:07] » Do you look at the denials, too? don't
know about the done else that it might
[6:08:11] even be interesting to hear some stats
about like okay of of the protests that
[6:08:15] you get how many are successful and how
many are not. Um because because my
[6:08:21] understanding is this person's made a
pet project and they're still she's
[6:08:23] she's still just like making phone calls
to a company that's not answering and
[6:08:27] continuing to send. So that's one thing
I just is a is a little bit of a flag.
[6:08:32] Um this is not a reason I think like I'm
not saying this is why I don't support
[6:08:37] doing this. I can't think of another way
for us to try to address the safety
[6:08:41] issues that are happening than than
doing speed cameras.
[6:08:44] » And um
>> is there any way of having a big sign
[6:08:48] saying
>> only reads license plates? This is not
[6:08:56] [laughter]
>> I suppose anything's possible. You know,
[6:08:59] people can get mad at getting a photo
radar ticket, too.
[6:09:01] » Oh, yeah.
>> Or they can say, "Ah, they're they're
[6:09:03] lying. It really is a fly camera." you
know, they're particularly paranoid fish
[6:09:06] might be.
>> Geez. Bless you.
[6:09:10] » Um
>> I'm imagining the blow up frog guy on
[6:09:13] there and above it says not a flock
camera.
[6:09:15] » It's like a friendly reminder.
>> But go ahead. I was just going to say
[6:09:20] this is, you know, according to
our problematic areas that we get all
[6:09:27] these complaints. I mean, this was a
7-day period. And if you look at
[6:09:32] » just 103 westbound,
uh, based off of their daily averages,
[6:09:38] you're looking at 24,73
speeders in a month. And,
[6:09:47] you know, we can try to address as much
as possible,
[6:09:52] but we're never going to be able to
reach these type of numbers. You're not
[6:09:56] catching every one of these. Uh but
you're looking at 124 a month average is
[6:10:03] 51 mph over the posted speed limit.
[clears throat] 141 46 to 50. And you
[6:10:10] know it's a it is definitely a problem.
These complaints are legitimate.
[6:10:15] » But this is just information for you
guys because I know you guys receive the
[6:10:19] complaints as well as we do.
>> And it's just, you know, how can we help
[6:10:24] mitigate this feeding issue? And this is
just one option
[6:10:29] » for $20,000 a pop. I think we can afford
a couple uh or several uh game cams to
[6:10:37] keep an eye on who's who's the prone to
vandalize them.
[6:10:43] » I would be concerned if if the company
if one of them was vandalized. I mean,
[6:10:47] it's it's one thing to cut the head of a
camera off and it disappears. Well,
[6:10:50] that's a that's an expensive deal, but
if somebody takes a shot at it or bends
[6:10:55] it or something, seems to me that they
can probably repair it for less than the
[6:10:58] full cost of the camera. Every situation
is going to be different,
[6:11:01] » right? Go ahead.
>> I can I can also add that um
[6:11:07] this company, they strike me as so far
being pretty honest about things. They
[6:11:12] don't they don't seem to be, you know,
trying to uh unduly manipulate
[6:11:18] uh things with this. They seem to be
pretty upfront with it. But you never
[6:11:20] know till you're, you know, you're in
contract with someone how they're really
[6:11:24] going to behave. Um, I mentioned to this
person that, hey, you know, we may have
[6:11:28] to, you know, this may have to be put
out to RFP at some point. We don't have
[6:11:31] any problem with that whatsoever because
we're beating everybody else's.
[6:11:34] [laughter]
Um, but I think the latest model these
[6:11:37] days, the model seems to be
self-supporting. They don't charge the
[6:11:41] client upfront, this sort of thing. And
I suspect that the other companies are
[6:11:45] probably doing something similar. There
have been a few jurisdictions in
[6:11:48] Colorado that got themselves in quite a
bit of a bind using photo radar cameras,
[6:11:53] not necessarily with this vendor, but
just in general. They decided they
[6:11:57] didn't like the limitations apparently
of the state's fine by statute and they
[6:12:02] decided they were going to set their own
>> and they set them way high. Somebody
[6:12:06] figured this out. I think they ended up
refunding
[6:12:10] hundreds of thousands or a million
dollars. It was pretty ugly. So yeah,
[6:12:13] there are certainly some safeguards
>> and and I'm
[6:12:18] you know from a legal standpoint there's
a posted speed limit and if you violate
[6:12:24] it you violate it. It's kind of like you
know no-brainer. Um but why do we have
[6:12:31] to have a big sign saying photo radar
equipment right here? I mean
[6:12:36] » it' be entrapment. Why is it in travel
if they're knowingly violating the law?
[6:12:42] » Anyway, that that's a irrelevant aside,
but
[6:12:46] » I'm speculating.
>> What does the installation look like? Is
[6:12:49] it off of polls existing or do you have
to put
[6:12:53] » They would have to They get the word
needed either the county permit or C dot
[6:13:00] permit process and then they put
everything out.
[6:13:03] » I I'm curious about what you were
speculating about. Oh, lost my train of
[6:13:07] thought here. The statute. I I'm
speculating that the reason this is so
[6:13:11] restrictive
>> uh and that they want, you know, if
[6:13:14] their signage is required and everything
and we want to be complying is again, I
[6:13:18] don't think the state wants this to
become a money maker. I don't think they
[6:13:20] want people to perceive this as uh some
kind of an alternative tax no
[6:13:27] » on citizens. People don't want their
government sneaking around on them.
[6:13:30] » They're speeding. They're speeding. You
know, it's it's you know, every decent
[6:13:35] driver is aware of how fast they're
going.
[6:13:38] » The politics for my mind in this are
really clear. Maybe it's because I spent
[6:13:41] time at the capital talking about this
I70 uh talking about putting speed
[6:13:46] cameras on I7.
>> Um and and maybe it's just because I
[6:13:50] agree with this sentiment. People don't
want their government sneaking around on
[6:13:53] them, right? It's law enforcement is
supposed to be upfront and blatant and
[6:13:59] » 40 miles an hour.
>> Uh, you know, so
[6:14:01] » you going 70, right?
>> I just I just know that like the the
[6:14:06] kind of backlash that you could get over
trying to hide speed cameras is probably
[6:14:10] not worth
>> Well, no, we wouldn't do it because of
[6:14:12] the state law, but I, as I said, that
was irrelevant. Sorry for wasting time.
[6:14:16] Um, one more topic which is, um, when I
was looking through statute last winter,
[6:14:22] I saw CD dot has a process to allow
this. Have you guys looked at that or
[6:14:25] had conversations with CD dot? I think
we're not like in writing like yes, you
[6:14:29] definitely can, but we can say, "Hey,
look at all the driveways on this road.
[6:14:32] You should call this residential and let
us do this."
[6:14:35] » Is that how you plan to do it?
>> C do is is going to coordinate the
[6:14:39] cameras, I believe, on Interstate 70. I
think that's their main focus. I think
[6:14:43] what we're doing here are county
highways or county roads. Uh they're
[6:14:47] » that's a state road, right? 103
>> and that C dot would have to be involved
[6:14:50] in that one.
>> Okay.
[6:14:52] » Oh, so you think C do DOT may install
the 103 count?
[6:14:55] » They won't. They would just there's just
a permitting process for it
[6:14:58] » for their rightway
>> or their Oh, okay. So, what I'm
[6:15:02] referring to is just the authority that
we have to install cameras at all.
[6:15:06] Right. And and we have authority to
install cameras in pretty limited
[6:15:09] context. Um, one of the ways that you
can derive that authority is to like
[6:15:14] count the driveways that that are
accessed, right?
[6:15:17] » Residential
>> and and say, "Look, look at how many
[6:15:19] driveways are accessing Highway 103
right here. This is a residential road.
[6:15:22] We need to put a camera up."
>> Um, but we don't have to get into that
[6:15:25] here. I mean, it's I I think it's
probably worth it to have a conversation
[6:15:29] with CO about how they're interpreting
statute and our authority to install
[6:15:33] these cameras and where.
>> Yeah. Yeah, just to be clear, we can't
[6:15:37] install these cameras on state roads in
coordination with C do until we've
[6:15:42] updated our model traffic code. We need
to be under the 2024 model traffic code.
[6:15:47] » Okay. Well,
understand that may be something that's
[6:15:50] in process or look being
>> I reached out to the sheriff's office a
[6:15:53] couple weeks ago about it. I haven't
heard back.
[6:15:56] » Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm certainly willing to
get it on the calendar as soon as you're
[6:15:59] ready.
>> Listen, this is something you just
[6:16:02] discussed.
uh about these problem areas. We had the
[6:16:07] study done and this is just presenting
the evidence
[6:16:10] » that they submitted to us and
>> uh
[6:16:15] it's not a revenue generation thing with
you know just the amount of it the
[6:16:19] amount of the fines which is set by
statute
[6:16:22] » uh and they're taking a portion of that
just for their processing. So uh and
[6:16:28] paying for the equipment. It's not about
a revenue generation. It's hopefully
[6:16:34] uh 103 and Fall River Road. Fall River
Road is definitely the residential area.
[6:16:41] 103 we could easily be within the
residential requirements on 103. Plus,
[6:16:47] you have all the bicyclists
>> that are riding up through there. But
[6:16:51] when you're looking at an average speed
of
[6:16:55] uh 66 mph or 71 mph in a 35 mph zone,
that that's a problem. Yes. And
[6:17:02] » yes,
>> the fact that, you know, we would have
[6:17:06] to have hundreds of deputies just every
just lined up sitting there waiting on
[6:17:12] them and it's just impossible for us to
be able to make that kind of impact.
[6:17:18] » Well, I I totally support this. I just
think we need to have cameras on the
[6:17:23] cameras to help protect our investment.
>> Oh, and you wouldn't be the first
[6:17:27] person, I think, who has suggested that
in general. I mean, I I really like
[6:17:32] this. I think I think I'm hearing that
we all want to support you in doing
[6:17:35] this. Uh I know you've seen in our
goals, we've we've said support the
[6:17:40] sheriff's office pursuing speed cameras.
So, is there anything specific that you
[6:17:44] need from us other than saying thank you
for taking this step?
[6:17:48] » No, I mean, uh I would think what would
need to be done next would be we've got
[6:17:56] to get our model traffic code updated.
Okay.
[6:17:58] » Get get that set up. And then if we just
once we get to that stage, if we want to
[6:18:04] continue pursuing this, then we could
look at other vendors and you know go
[6:18:09] through this whole RFP thing uh and
figure it out and you know narrow this
[6:18:14] down. And I said this information was
just one vendor, one study over a week
[6:18:20] period.
>> Wow.
[6:18:22] » And so I just wanted all I wanted to do
was we had been talking about this. We
[6:18:27] got the information. And I wanted to
present the information and the findings
[6:18:31] just for that seven.
>> I had no idea it was this bed. I've had
[6:18:35] a lot of complaints as I'm sure my
colleagues have too. And
[6:18:39] » I had no idea. Thank you.
>> I get to see the bottom of the Idaho
[6:18:42] Springs right from my house. Yep.
>> And I just watch these trains of
[6:18:45] Corvettes
>> both directions and just and you can see
[6:18:49] them speed as soon as as soon as they
hit that speed limit sign, you can see
[6:18:52] them just take off.
>> Yeah.
[6:18:55] That's not and this is was done during
the summer like you said during the
[6:19:00] winter time you're probably going to
have a huge drop off. Uh
[6:19:05] so I think you know
over a year's time you're probably going
[6:19:11] to come out maybe breaking even or just
you know even
[6:19:16] » we're not going to we don't get build
from this company
[6:19:20] or anything. they just take that
percentage and then that's
[6:19:25] » and you know when we do get these up I
think we should probably do a campaign
[6:19:29] through our uh public information
officer to let people know this is not a
[6:19:35] money maker it's safety and um
>> and
[6:19:40] » even give some of the stats which I
think are appalling
[6:19:42] » I I would like to see during your guys
when you know we're out and about is
[6:19:48] talking with the community and see you
know what are their ideas how we can
[6:19:52] help mitigate this.
>> Uh, you know, engage the community in it
[6:19:57] because there, you know, initially I'm
sure there's going to be a lot of
[6:19:59] community members that get caught
speeding.
[6:20:02] » Mhm.
>> And
[6:20:03] » I'll have a conversation with my
husband. [laughter]
[6:20:06] » Um, but, you know, I just think, you
know, the majority of the people that
[6:20:10] come through here coming over 103 going
up Fall River Road is people visiting.
[6:20:17] It's not necessarily the residents. Not
saying we're not residents. We don't
[6:20:22] speed or anything like that, but the
majority of the traffic that comes
[6:20:27] through this county is the visitors and
how can we address that? What tools can
[6:20:34] we use to address this problem because
we certainly can't afford to put or
[6:20:40] can't staff that many people to try to
address this problem.
[6:20:45] But
>> there's areas I think about like when I
[6:20:47] go up to Boulder and I change, I'm a
little more conscious of my speed
[6:20:51] because I know
>> and I think that's a whole idea is to
[6:20:54] get people's behavior to change and
>> correct
[6:20:57] » um you know as word gets out of course
somebody from Illinois or whatever
[6:21:00] that's that's a whole different thing
but locals people that are day trippers
[6:21:04] or whatever that are constantly coming
up I think I think it could be
[6:21:08] successful
>> people renting a sports car for the
[6:21:10] weekend just a sign itself. Yeah. And
change people.
[6:21:14] » Uh, you know, the cycling community up
on Highway 103, they're they love seeing
[6:21:20] us up there and, uh, they stop and talk
to me a lot when I'm up there and, you
[6:21:26] know, get their input. How can we help
them? What can we do to make it safer
[6:21:30] for them?
>> And this is just a piece of technology
[6:21:35] that can help
[6:21:39] mitigate a little p a little bit of the
problems. Mhm.
[6:21:42] » But I think that a huge portion or
there's going to be a large number of
[6:21:47] people that are going to see these as
flock cameras
[6:21:51] and that we're going to have some
vandalism to them [clears throat]
[6:21:58] » and and probably your worst violators of
this will the sport bikes probably won't
[6:22:03] do much to deter them.
>> Yeah. They don't I mean they come up
[6:22:06] there they flip the plates up or just
remove them purposely because they
[6:22:10] intend to
>> right
[6:22:11] » drive in this fashion and they're not
inclined to be held accountable for it
[6:22:14] and they don't intend to stop.
>> Wow.
[6:22:19] » Um
>> and sorry go ahead.
[6:22:21] » The only you asked what other solutions
we're hearing from people. The only
[6:22:26] other one I hear
that feels viable is, and I think it has
[6:22:30] engineering challenges, is, you know,
speed bumps,
[6:22:35] » but the snow plows wouldn't like that.
>> Engineering challenges.
[6:22:38] » Fire truck probably wouldn't like it.
Snow plows.
[6:22:41] » The first person who gets thrown off
their motorcycle or ends up in a ditches
[6:22:45] that the county looks like it has deep
pockets.
[6:22:50] » Yeah, we tend to do pretty good in those
challenges. Anyway, um um that's I I
[6:22:55] said that was my last thing a while back
and
[6:22:57] » but
[6:23:00] uh
[6:23:05] yeah, in the
exhibit B
[6:23:10] for the attachments,
uh it's got a breakdown of the fees and
[6:23:16] stuff. And the last bullet point out of
me, you know, it's a costneutral
[6:23:22] service. Uh, and there and there it
says, you know, even if we terminated
[6:23:28] the agreement and there was any amounts
unpaid or whatever, you know, they're
[6:23:33] not going to there's no out of pocket
from the county. It's just going to be a
[6:23:37] wash.
[6:23:41] And then
sorry.
[6:23:44] » Do you support moving forward with it?
>> I don't.
[6:23:52] Excuse me.
>> I don't I'm not 100% against the idea. I
[6:23:56] just think right now is not a good time
with the sentiment toward
[6:24:03] uh the big uh the flock, the big push
against flock and everything. uh and
[6:24:08] with the
you know there's going to be asking the
[6:24:12] same questions with this how are what
data is being collected are you tracking
[6:24:16] us you know how is this and is is this
really any different than a flock system
[6:24:22] besides this one gives you a ticket and
flock didn't
[6:24:26] so there I'm not 100% against it I'm
just not don't think it's now is a good
[6:24:32] time with the my personal opinion
>> and the They gave the there's the four
[6:24:39] different locations. Um
would you want all four if to move
[6:24:45] forward say in a different world or
would you pick one of those locations?
[6:24:51] » I would prefer I would want uh the four.
>> And so on the replacement of the
[6:24:57] cameras, is that one per location like
the first one gets vandalized or is that
[6:25:02] one per contract?
per there's per camera per location.
[6:25:08] So,
>> you know, my my other concern is the
[6:25:13] cost of the vandalism because if we're
responsible
[6:25:17] » um that that could add up.
>> I I wouldn't try to persuade you.
[6:25:24] It's worth chasing this down and knowing
knowing what it looks like so that
[6:25:32] we can continue to evaluate how
conversations about cameras are
[6:25:34] evolving. Uh you make a good point
around I mean people are on social media
[6:25:39] bragging about tearing down flot
cameras.
[6:25:41] » Um
>> we could see that situation resolve
[6:25:46] itself as early as next session, next
legislative session. Uh maybe not,
[6:25:51] maybe. Um,
>> is now to to make yourself a fake flat
[6:25:57] camera so you can walk around and
pretend like you cut one down.
[6:26:00] » Yeah.
>> Oh, no. [laughter] Don't end up in jail,
[6:26:02] but you still look like a hero.
>> But so I I think that's that's what I
[6:26:06] would try to persuade you is is this
worth continuing to try to chase us down
[6:26:09] and we can evaluate how this situation
is evolving. Um, what I think about the
[6:26:14] people of Clear Creek, and I could be
wrong on this, but I've been talking
[6:26:19] very, very openly about trying to use
speed cameras, and I think the people of
[6:26:22] Clear Creek will thank you, and they are
the people that we answer to. It is, and
[6:26:26] that so I would like to continue that
conversation. You like I said, I'm not
[6:26:30] 100% against this. I think we need all
the help we can get to hand, you know,
[6:26:35] with these problems. But also, I don't
want to increase,
[6:26:41] you know,
liability to us with the cost of having
[6:26:46] to replace cameras and stuff like that
until we get a until there's a better
[6:26:51] answer for this flock de debate.
>> And but I think it's something we can
[6:26:59] continue to look into and It sounds like
the process is going to take a while if
[6:27:03] we need to change our regulations. Yes.
>> You need to because of our county
[6:27:07] regulations. Um
>> other bids.
[6:27:11] » Correct. And I don't see this being
something you know
[6:27:17] would happen this year. It would be
spring summer of next year before this
[6:27:21] would be viable.
>> Okay.
[6:27:24] » But during
>> and maybe the hoopla will die down a
[6:27:28] bit. It's possible
these kind of numbers that in seven days
[6:27:34] is that shows you how huge the problem
is and we [clears throat] need to do
[6:27:39] whatever we can to try to help mitigate
that.
[6:27:45] » Sheriff did mention that these violation
numbers you're seeing here are based on
[6:27:50] enforcement at 6 milesPH over the speed
limit. Mhm. [clears throat]
[6:27:53] » So
that's going to catch that's going to
[6:27:56] raise some eyebrows I think being at six
over
[6:28:00] » and without that apparently the court
and the bender anyway their opinion is
[6:28:03] it probably wouldn't generate enough
violations. So just I think things
[6:28:07] something to be prepared for. Uh people
may perceive that as well clearly you
[6:28:11] did that because you just want to you
know get the cash out of us.
[6:28:15] » You know we we can help pass the word
too. you know, if it's not really viable
[6:28:20] until next year in our town halls, we
can say um this is revenue neutral um
[6:28:27] for the county, but it's safety huge.
>> It's all about safety.
[6:28:32] » Yep.
And with Fall River and Highway 103 are
[6:28:39] the two
the largest amount of visitors are going
[6:28:44] through those areas
>> that are not local and don't understand
[6:28:48] the terrain or don't understand the the
side traffic on the roads and stuff like
[6:28:53] that or the neighborhoods.
>> And this would definitely help. And like
[6:28:59] you know Jody said, you know, we know
when you go to Boulder, you know, you
[6:29:04] you okay, we know Boulder has these and
you change your driving habits and
[6:29:10] hopefully that would get out after a
period of time. And that's what would
[6:29:14] happen here. People change their driving
habits when they're here instead of
[6:29:18] treating it like a racetrack.
>> Yeah. It's like the attitude of, oh,
[6:29:24] we're going to go up to Clear Creek and
we can do anything we want. It just
[6:29:27] really is annoying.
>> Agreed.
[6:29:31] [laughter]
>> But uh we can continue looking into
[6:29:36] stuff and uh keep moving this forward
and uh just give you regular updates as
[6:29:42] we go.
>> Sure. And with respect to the
[6:29:44] regulations, we can get our ducks in a
row before you pull the trigger on.
[6:29:47] » Yeah. And because the 2024 uh model
traffic code that's something was
[6:29:52] already working on and it's being worked
on uh outside of this. So uh it's not
[6:29:59] like we we're waiting on that or you
know that's a key element.
[6:30:03] » Great. But we'll just keep uh working
toward this and then uh
[6:30:09] hopefully by spring summer of next year
we'll be able to have uh something in
[6:30:15] place and be able to address some of
these things come in.
[6:30:20] » Great. Well, thank you. Thank you very
much.
[6:30:25] » Thank you guys.
[6:30:31] » We are going to take a five minute
break. word be a little bit longer.
[6:30:34] » Uh 10. How much?
>> Uh 15 minute break. Thank you.
[6:30:40] » You t
[6:45:05] Fair Creek Board of County Commissioners
is back in session uh for a work session
[6:45:11] presentation and discussion of
Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Um,
[6:45:16] uh, short-term rental ordinance. Uh,
David Daniels.
[6:45:20] » Hi.
>> Hi.
[6:45:22] » Obviously, we're here for short-term
rental ordinance update. A little bit of
[6:45:25] background on the short-term rental
ordinance. It was adopted in December of
[6:45:29] 2024. Prior to that time, short-term
rentals were regulated through the
[6:45:33] zoning code as a permitted special use.
Staff has now administered the
[6:45:37] short-term rental licensing program for
over a year. During that time, they've
[6:45:42] seen and experienced how the ordinance
functions administratively. We've noted
[6:45:46] some areas of improvements that can
strengthen, clarify, and add
[6:45:49] efficiencies without changing the
policy's intent. Today, we're seeking
[6:45:53] the board's um direction before we
proceed with any proposed changes or
[6:45:58] updates to the Redline ordinance. Um
planning and building services have
[6:46:03] conducted a community engagement survey
to receive program feedback, understand
[6:46:07] the community priorities, and to guide
decisions where appropriate. Items uh
[6:46:12] covered were insurance requirements,
proximity requirements, the STR cap, and
[6:46:17] provided an opportunity for written
response for the respondents to discuss
[6:46:21] anything regarding the ordinance.
These were the areas staff had the most
[6:46:26] interaction with license holders and
non-licensed community members.
[6:46:36] the process overview, what we're going
to um get into through this update, our
[6:46:41] proposed steps and where we're at now.
Staff has reviewed the existing
[6:46:45] ordinance. We've made initial redline
changes in development. We've completed
[6:46:50] the community engagement uh survey and
right now we're seeking the board's
[6:46:55] feedback. Today we're going to um review
the community engagement survey,
[6:47:00] identify the board's priorities,
concerns, and direction. And uh we're
[6:47:04] not going to make any specific recommend
recommendations or changes to the
[6:47:08] ordinance today.
After today, we're going to have
[6:47:11] additional work sessions. There's
proposed two of them. In between those
[6:47:15] two work sessions, we're going to engage
the community members again with another
[6:47:19] community engagement survey. There'll be
a first reading and an order for
[6:47:24] publication and then a second reading
for final adoption. The ordinance is
[6:47:28] proposed to become effective 30 days
after that initial um or that second
[6:47:33] reading.
[6:47:38] Uh what is the timeline for this
ordinance update? Currently, we have
[6:47:42] targeted to have the ordinance updated
by the end of 2026.
[6:47:47] That means there would there would be
multiple work sessions coming up in
[6:47:51] October and November and uh first
reading at the end of November with the
[6:47:56] second reading in December.
[6:48:05] Megan, if you would pull up the survey
overview for me.
[6:48:15] » You're looking for this one.
Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. So, our community
[6:48:21] engagement survey was conducted between
April 23rd, 2026 and June 21st of this
[6:48:27] year. It's important to note that the
survey was distributed to all STR
[6:48:31] license holders. We have their contact
emails. Uh we directly emailed them,
[6:48:35] informed them of the the survey. Of all
of those STR license holders, about 25%
[6:48:41] of them did provide a response. Uh the
general public was notified through the
[6:48:46] planning and building services
notification. So they would only have
[6:48:50] gotten a notification if they signed up
for the planning and building services
[6:48:53] notifications. And it was also posted to
our short-term rental web page. Other
[6:48:58] than that, it would have been um just
general word of mouth and circulation
[6:49:02] for the general public.
[6:49:06] During our um engagement survey, we
received 130 responses. uh 129 of those
[6:49:12] were anonymous. Uh 57 were unlicensed
community members. So we have about a
[6:49:19] 50-50 representation of license holders
and non-licensed holders.
[6:49:27] Majority of the respondents were
standard license type holders. Um these
[6:49:31] all selfidentified. The remainder were
primary resident license type holders
[6:49:36] and weight list applicants. We did want
to make sure that we included weight
[6:49:39] list applicants in there.
[6:49:46] The first item they were asked about
were insurance requirements, whether
[6:49:50] those were reasonable or unreasonable.
Uh the insurance requirement was one of
[6:49:54] the most contested parts of the
ordinance 19 for us over the last year.
[6:49:57] We had a lot of interaction with
short-term rental license holders
[6:50:00] regarding the specific requirements of
that insurance. Um staff had created the
[6:50:06] review authority does have some
authority to create internal processes
[6:50:09] and procedures. We have adapted those
internal processes and procedures to
[6:50:13] help smooth out some of those insurance
requirements currently but we would
[6:50:17] suggest updating and making some
adjustments to the insurance
[6:50:20] requirements for clarity and um just
building them out. Go ahead.
[6:50:26] » Yeah, this is
>> common themes that we received from the
[6:50:30] respondents were the requirement should
uh use language that matches commonly
[6:50:35] available STR insurance products.
I don't know how real that is or how
[6:50:40] obtainable that is. Every carrier seems
to have their own version and they're
[6:50:44] still very um early in their
development. So, there's not really
[6:50:48] standardized language across insurance
products for short-term rentals um
[6:50:54] policies.
They would like the acceptable proof of
[6:50:59] insurance clearly defined. Um staff has
defined and communicated uh how we would
[6:51:05] like to see that proof of insurance
clearly. Uh currently, we could include
[6:51:10] that into the ordinance. uh guest
personal property and theft language
[6:51:13] should be removed or clarified and
minimum limits or acceptable
[6:51:17] supplemental uh platform coverage should
be stated. Generally stating um our
[6:51:23] short-term rental license doesn't
establish the minimum coverages. It
[6:51:27] doesn't say, "Hey, you shall have
minimum $10,000 theft coverage or
[6:51:31] $300,000 personal injury or anything
like this." So technically speaking, any
[6:51:36] minimum insurance requirement would be
meeting the requirements of the
[6:51:40] ordinance. So, if um that's one area if
we chose to build that out,
[6:51:46] we could um develop or if we decide that
the insurance requirement is really
[6:51:50] something that we shouldn't be involved
with, that's another potential option
[6:51:54] going down the road.
[6:51:58] Uh boundary and adjoining STR
restrictions. Um
[6:52:03] most everybody was aware of the rule. Um
most everybody didn't think the rule was
[6:52:09] very effective. Um there was a number of
applicants or respondents that the
[6:52:15] abounding property requirement did
affect them uh directly. Our weight list
[6:52:20] is currently dying individuals long.
Seven of those individuals on the wait
[6:52:26] list if offered if a license did come
available would not be eligible for a
[6:52:31] standard license type because of
adjoining property requirements.
[6:52:36] » Uh let me to get on the wait list you
have to I thought you had to
[6:52:40] successfully apply to get onto the
weight list. So yes, there's a there's
[6:52:45] an application process. They have to
demonstrate the insurance requirements
[6:52:50] or they don't actually have to
demonstrate the insurance requirements
[6:52:52] initially. Pass a STR safety inspection,
right? Um so we go out, we do a safety
[6:52:58] inspection, they do the initial
application and review fees, we receive
[6:53:02] those, then they get on the wait list.
you would still need to be on the wait
[6:53:05] list um to maintain a spot if you did
have an adjoining property that was
[6:53:09] restricting you from getting licensed
because you don't know if your
[6:53:11] neighboring property when or if your
neighboring property is going to release
[6:53:15] their STR license. It might be your
neighbor releases theirs and you're
[6:53:18] immediately that next person available.
[6:53:22] Comments related to the adjoining
property requirements. Um they describe
[6:53:26] them as arbitrary. Um they say that they
can at times um
[6:53:33] really restrict specific properties for
a long duration of time because of they
[6:53:39] have a 4.5% cap limit
just because they have the unfortunate
[6:53:44] of having a neighboring property
adjoining them. They feel like they're
[6:53:46] treated differently even though the
ordinance applies broadly across to
[6:53:50] everybody. um somebody's eligibility
could be affected for several years with
[6:53:54] the adjoining property requirement as
currently written written.
[6:54:01] There's a number of individuals um that
are out there that are looking at
[6:54:06] properties in Clear Creek County that
have contacted staff and directly ask us
[6:54:11] if a property is eligible for a
short-term rental license because some
[6:54:16] individuals do know of the joining
property restrictions. And we've had um
[6:54:20] communications from listing agents where
individuals have backed out of real
[6:54:25] estate transactions because of the
availability of a short-term rental
[6:54:29] license.
>> The standard
[6:54:33] » sounds like the regulations are working
>> at time
[6:54:36] » if we don't want to have STR
>> ghettos.
[6:54:40] STR what?
>> Ghettos.
[6:54:42] » Oh.
>> Yes. So it it is working for density for
[6:54:47] sure. [clears throat] it is a functional
tool for density. Um it
[6:54:52] it may or may not
be adjusted, right? Um and that's really
[6:54:57] the direction that we're going to be
seeking from the board today.
[6:55:05] Standard license cap of the 130
respondents, 113 stated they were aware
[6:55:10] of it. Uh 70 of those response responses
indicated they thought that the cap
[6:55:16] balances impacts and property rights. Um
thanks
[6:55:20] » 58 supported maintaining the cap, 48
supported increasing the cap and uh 22
[6:55:27] supported decreasing the cap. Now this
isn't a broad representation of the
[6:55:31] community as a whole. Once again, I just
want to state that the short-term rental
[6:55:36] license hold soldiers were directly
engaged by email. Um
[6:55:42] though it does seem like these responses
lean towards slightly increasing the cap
[6:55:47] potentially.
>> That's because it's from the short-term
[6:55:51] rental owners.
>> Potentially. That's why I wanted I
[6:55:54] wanted to be very clear that we
submitted this directly to the
[6:55:58] short-term rental license holders.
>> Okay.
[6:56:01] » When I look at page four of what's in
the packet, I see 17% want to see it
[6:56:07] decrease. 44% want to see it be
maintained. Um, that's pretty close to
[6:56:12] the number of of local respondents.
[clears throat]
[6:56:15] » So, I think I mean not hearing something
different from the public than we heard
[6:56:20] when we were camping as far as
>> how many they see.
[6:56:28] » Uh, the primary residence license
structure, primary residence rules
[6:56:32] appeared to be frequently written in as
comments. We did provide that um for
[6:56:37] written in communications. Um
most of the common concerns with the
[6:56:44] primary residency licenses were um
clarity and consistency in the residency
[6:56:49] requirements. Um there was concerns
about costs and um administrative burden
[6:56:54] for primary residence license holders.
uh concerns about false or inaccurate uh
[6:57:00] primary residency claims and requests
for more flexibility for uh legitimate
[6:57:05] primary residence situations.
[6:57:12] Some respondents want stronger
verification and auditing to prevent
[6:57:15] misuse of the primary residence license
uh program. potential areas for
[6:57:20] reviewers clarity in the annual
residency verifications establishing a
[6:57:24] clear complaint and audit process for
suspected false claims. There are
[6:57:27] internal processes that we've already
developed to address some of these
[6:57:31] claims. Um they're actually working very
effectively and not that we're asking
[6:57:36] for specific direction right now, but
staff would be proposing to include some
[6:57:40] of those currently prop um current audit
processes into the ordinance.
[6:57:50] fees, weight lists, and license access.
Um cost and access concerns were the
[6:57:55] most common written in uh some of the
most common written in themes. Fee and
[6:57:59] cost issues appear in 49% of the 49 of
the responses. Uh while weight list
[6:58:04] access and issues appeared in 18 of
them. Um transfer or sale concerns
[6:58:09] appeared in 17 responses. this last
ordinance adoption, the transfer of
[6:58:14] short-term rental licenses at home sales
did change. So, that's why we saw some
[6:58:18] of those responses. Um, those licenses
were previously transferable upon home
[6:58:24] sales to encourage some rollover and to
um allow some of those licenses to
[6:58:29] change hands. Uh, the ordinance in
ordinance 19 from the uh zoning
[6:58:35] regulations prohibited that transfer.
there was a limited number of exceptions
[6:58:40] that were provided that would have
allowed that license to transfer with
[6:58:43] the sale of a property.
[6:58:47] Uh fire enforcement and operational
standards um
[6:58:52] fire and wildfire issues appeared in 42.
The written responses and enforcements
[6:58:57] appeared in 27. They were raised by
licensed and non-licensed holders. um
[6:59:04] individuals were seeking consistent
action against unlicensed STRs, clear
[6:59:08] complaint handling and responsible agent
expectations for these um areas.
[6:59:13] Consistency enforcement consistency
enforcement of occupy occupancy, parking
[6:59:20] noise and safety rules and greater
transparency about complaints, fines and
[6:59:24] enforcement outcomes. Um,
[6:59:34] so of our complaints and our ask
questions, we've really ranked them here
[6:59:39] in item seven.
[6:59:44] Uh, the insurance um language had the
most concerns, most responses. Housing
[6:59:51] and community impacts. uh fees and costs
were the next um and then we go on down
[6:59:57] to the transferable sale. Um a lot of
these are going to be prioritized in the
[7:00:02] proposed redline changes of the
short-term rental ordinance.
[7:00:15] Um non-licensed respondents emphasized
housing supply and neighboring charact
[7:00:19] neighborhood characteristics, traffic,
wildfire risk, and unlicensed rentals
[7:00:23] and primary residency enforcements. Um
they felt that there was a number of uh
[7:00:28] primary resident standard primary
residence license types that may not
[7:00:32] have been um actual primary residence.
Uh there's oftentimes complaints where
[7:00:38] individuals believe that a property
might be a short-term rental or somebody
[7:00:43] might be acting as a standard license
holder who's not. And those are really
[7:00:47] kind of like shared home types of
situations. We go and we check listings
[7:00:52] and uh we're not seeing any active
listings for that property, but then
[7:00:55] they'll report that they see different
individuals rolling in and out of that
[7:00:59] property every weekend, etc., etc. But
we don't have regulations for home share
[7:01:03] type situations. Um
>> we don't even have the authority to
[7:01:08] regulate home share situ like the real
estate transfer tax, right? 10 people
[7:01:12] own a house together. We don't have any
authority to regulate that, do we?
[7:01:16] » Uh not in the short-term rental
ordinance. Otherwise, we would need to
[7:01:19] refer that to the AO. Do we have any
authority to regulate um
[7:01:25] » occupancy?
>> Not occupancy. Uh home share situations.
[7:01:29] » That's basically what it amounts to.
like short term or long term?
[7:01:32] » Uh like uh
um you know four individuals go in to
[7:01:38] buy a house, everybody gets one week at
a time at the house. What are those?
[7:01:43] » Real real estate investment trusts,
right? So you end up with these 20
[7:01:46] people on home and they're kind of in
and out and it looks like a short-term
[7:01:49] rental.
>> Yeah. No, we can't.
[7:01:50] » Yeah,
>> that would I mean we'd have to go back
[7:01:52] to our land use code and try to go back
to like and I don't even think this is
[7:01:55] legal anymore, right? Like make them be
members of the same family or something.
[7:01:58] can't yeah we can't base it on fam
familial status.
[7:02:02] » So
in conclusion the um short-term rental
[7:02:06] survey didn't show any one unified
position in any direction for any of the
[7:02:11] proposed changes or any of the areas
where we've served surveyed them. Um the
[7:02:16] strongest opportunities for review is
the insurance le uh language spacing and
[7:02:20] trans uh parent of fees um fire
standards and then primary residency
[7:02:25] verifications. We do have those internal
processes that we can integrate into the
[7:02:29] short-term rental ordinance to improve
uh that primary residency verification.
[7:02:34] Um and then transparency on the weight
list. Currently, we maintain the weight
[7:02:38] list outside of the short-term rental
regulations and we do not uh we don't
[7:02:44] have that posted anywhere.
Overall,
[7:02:49] the feedback indicates uh support for
the short-term rental regulation still
[7:02:53] um even though there is substantial
individ uh disagreement about individual
[7:02:58] requirements and how we should balance
that.
[7:03:08] So, what staff would like to know from
the board? Um we have a series of
[7:03:12] questions here and where we're going to
be seeking the direction from the board.
[7:03:16] Um first one up is are the provisions of
the existing ordinance um are there any
[7:03:22] provisions of the existing ordinance
that the board believes are unclear,
[7:03:25] difficult to administer or produce
produces unintended results?
[7:03:33] » Well, I I have heard um the complaints
about the uh difficulty in obtaining the
[7:03:40] insurance
um pursuant to our regulations.
[7:03:44] So I think that's definitely something
we need to simplify.
[7:03:49] » Same.
>> Agree. All right.
[7:03:57] » Anything regarding the primary residency
license types? We have multiple primary
[7:04:02] residency license types. Specifically,
um there was a request for residency
[7:04:06] verification process and um to
strengthen that.
[7:04:12] Um, yeah, I I guess I'll start this one,
colleagues.
[7:04:16] I I think that our our proven approach,
our verification approach is adequate to
[7:04:22] go back to what we had before ordinance
19, and that was uh just a a primary
[7:04:28] residence license. Right now, you either
have to show that you're only renting a
[7:04:34] portion of the house or you're limited
to your number of days. And I think we
[7:04:38] can basically scrap all of that and
either have them prove on the front end
[7:04:43] while they're applying via this
verification process that they actually
[7:04:46] live here or treat it on a complaint
basis. I have a less strong opinion on
[7:04:50] whether we would sort of prove it first
or or enforce on complaints. But I do
[7:04:55] think that we should eliminate counting
days and eliminate making people show
[7:05:00] that they're only renting a portion of
the house and just if you're a resident,
[7:05:03] you're not subject to the cap and you
are subject to all the rest of the rules
[7:05:07] and that's it.
>> Um are you uh you had discussed earlier
[7:05:13] uh part of the proof would be showing
like grocery store receipts, gas station
[7:05:18] receipts. um because it's way too easy
just to say you live here and you don't
[7:05:24] really
>> Yeah, I think that's
[7:05:26] I think that's something e I mean we've
only seen a couple of these go through.
[7:05:33] Um
I'm sure we'll run into problems with
[7:05:38] them at some point, but I think this is
more fair than putting staff in a
[7:05:43] position of trying to figure out if
someone lives here or not, you know. Um
[7:05:48] because on paper you can live anywhere
>> mean to do it up front.
[7:05:52] » I mean I don't have
uh [clears throat]
[7:05:56] that one I actually would like to talk
to staff about. I haven't talked to them
[7:05:59] about doing it upfront before. Usually
we use this as a complaint base which I
[7:06:02] think this isn't this is a little bit of
an easier way for us to do that than the
[7:06:07] accounting days which runs into equity
issues runs into our it's very
[7:06:12] burdensome for us to do that. Mhm.
>> Um,
[7:06:16] » and it's really easy to duck.
>> It's really easy to duck. It's really
[7:06:19] easy and and it so I
[7:06:26] think
I don't know. I I would I want to defer
[7:06:30] the conversation on whether or not we
require it up front because it could be
[7:06:33] that
it's a little bit of showing our hand
[7:06:37] like, "Oh, make sure you get all this
make sure you're doing all this stuff
[7:06:40] before."
>> Yeah. I'm trying to just a way to avoid
[7:06:43] Obviously, the people are lying when
they apply and they say they're living
[7:06:47] in four different houses permanently and
they're not
[7:06:51] » and so the burden some of our staff is
to have to go out and figure this out.
[7:06:57] » Um,
>> we could do it up front. I mean, I I I
[7:07:02] think we would need to solidify this
process and I would love to get Dave's
[7:07:06] honest opinion here on
um because it is a little bit of a rock
[7:07:10] and a hard place for staff regardless,
right? like we want the we want to make
[7:07:15] we want to use this the STR business
model to make living up here affordable
[7:07:19] for people who don't make $180,000 a
year right um having said that it is a
[7:07:28] very huge massive loophole to walk
through because you can live anywhere
[7:07:33] right on paper right I mean people live
in the Cayman's
[7:07:37] you know um and so
I think this is the best solution I've
[7:07:43] seen.
Um
[7:07:45] » would filing your taxes be part of their
requirement. Um
[7:07:49] » we asked for their
>> We do currently ask for for tax. Um I I
[7:07:54] don't think there's going to be any one
I I didn't I don't want to go too much
[7:07:58] into specifics here, but I don't think
there's going to be any one particular
[7:08:01] um smoking gun that's going to solve the
primary residency requirements. We can
[7:08:05] require the receipts up front um
demonstrating that they're in the area
[7:08:09] and we can do another verification later
and if at some point down the road
[7:08:14] they're still not purchasing things in
the area um then we would have an
[7:08:18] indication that they relocated to Texas
or they went off somewhere else.
[7:08:22] » The other thing is somebody could be
very local and they could claim primary
[7:08:25] residency in this house over here be
living full-time in another residence
[7:08:29] and then still hold another standard
license type I mean if they really
[7:08:32] wanted to leverage it they could
potentially go that far about it and
[7:08:35] then the residency verification wouldn't
quite be perfect. It's going to be very
[7:08:39] difficult to completely close down any
opportunity to take advantage of the
[7:08:44] primary residence license, but we can
definitely choke it down a lot.
[7:08:48] » I mean, colleagues, if we can reduce the
number of people that can successfully
[7:08:53] exploit that loophole from 330 million
to 9,000, I think we've
[7:08:59] » Yeah, I think it's a I think it's a type
one or a type two error. So, the type
[7:09:02] two error is the one that you want to
prevent at all cost, right? I don't know
[7:09:07] what you mean by
>> so like it's like the jury trial, right?
[7:09:10] You know, um you have to have a complete
100% of people have to agree this
[7:09:15] person's guilty, which means that you're
you're you're basically taking a
[7:09:19] position that someone
putting an innocent person in jail is
[7:09:23] worse than letting a guilty person go
free, right? You're setting up the
[7:09:26] position so that what the error that can
happen is the one that you're okay, you
[7:09:31] will live with to prevent the other one,
right? And so um so in this case I think
[7:09:41] I think the I I think the the receipt
and consumption information that we're
[7:09:46] going to request will catch the majority
of the problem which is people who live
[7:09:51] nowhere near here. They live in New
York. Mhm.
[7:09:54] » If someone figures out how to do it who
lives in the county
[7:09:58] or like maybe lives on the Jeff Co side
of Evergreen, that's a much smaller
[7:10:02] population and we might just have to
live with that, right? That risk because
[7:10:06] there's there's no way to solve it 100%.
And I think that was largely George's
[7:10:10] point. I think this this way solves
the the other person the other thing is
[7:10:15] that person is close regardless, right?
>> It's not a true absentee person, right?
[7:10:21] Um, so I think that's the error that we
could live with. Um, and I'm a little
[7:10:28] bit more comfortable with this than
relying on the days restriction.
[7:10:34] » It's the counting days. There's a
commissioner in Uray County that really
[7:10:40] really deeply rabbit hole.
You can use
[7:10:44] different listing platforms and you can
have different profiles on the same
[7:10:48] listing platforms and basically
completely sidestep those rules and it
[7:10:52] takes a ton of effort to catch someone
doing that.
[7:10:54] » Mhm.
>> Yeah. And it
[7:10:56] » it's a bigger loophole than what we
have.
[7:10:57] » It's also like you get into the issue of
line drawing with the board. How many
[7:11:01] days are the right or the fair amount of
days? Right. It's this like arbitrary
[7:11:06] line that moves. Some people think
>> number of days
[7:11:08] » that you're allowed to rent before
Exactary. Exactly. So then it's like is
[7:11:13] it half the time? Is it twothirds of the
time? Is it you know what I mean? And
[7:11:16] that feels very um
you know it's just a hard thing to kind
[7:11:22] of factually base on anything other than
kind of a perception of what should be
[7:11:26] happening. Whereas this is look the
residency thing is about you being here
[7:11:31] right and everything else is kind of
secondary to that. Ju just to clarify,
[7:11:35] it's it's not about
the the number of days that a person has
[7:11:40] to live in a home for it to be their
primary residence is already established
[7:11:43] in statute. This is about the number of
days we would allow them to rent or or
[7:11:47] rent.
>> And that's [clears throat] where there's
[7:11:49] just it's it's really difficult to
arrive at a number that is based in
[7:11:53] logic.
>> Um 365 is clearly, you know, that's the
[7:11:58] only number that like one and 365 you
can make strong arguments for, but
[7:12:01] everything else in between.
Yeah.
[7:12:05] » And there are only 58 primary residence
license types out there. How many?
[7:12:10] » 58
>> out of how many?
[7:12:12] » Out of uh 100 plus an additional 163
standard license types.
[7:12:17] » So we're talking 25%.
>> Yeah. 20 25ish%
[7:12:21] are primary residence license types. Uh
I would say that uh probably 95% of
[7:12:27] those individuals are always doing the
correct thing and they're probably in
[7:12:30] compliance with our regulations. there
there might be 5% out there that we
[7:12:34] should be worried about of those 58. So
3 to fiveish
[7:12:38] in that range. Um and that's kind of the
point about the primary residency is
[7:12:43] generally if someone is a primary
resident of an STR they're generally
[7:12:46] taking better care of it and it's not an
investment vehicle. It's their home,
[7:12:50] » right? Like they're around, you know, we
>> they care what their neighbors think.
[7:12:54] » They care what their neighbors think.
Neighbors can find them.
[7:12:56] » They don't want their house to burn
down.
[7:12:57] » There's peer pressure. There's things
that happen in that situation that
[7:13:01] that's different than someone who just
lives in South Carolina, right?
[7:13:06] » So, are we good on that one? On the
primary residence one, do we agree that
[7:13:09] we're going to we're asking to shift to
sort of one I think the right way to say
[7:13:15] it is a single resident license type.
>> Okay.
[7:13:19] » It's not based on days or or or
partitioning the home. It's just based
[7:13:23] on residency.
>> Okay.
[7:13:25] We will work on red lines and verbiage
to reduce to a single primary residence
[7:13:31] license type then. Um
>> well I did are you are both I if you
[7:13:38] nodded I missed that. I'm sorry.
>> Yeah I'm good with that. I just was in
[7:13:41] my mind thinking about this one
complaint that I constantly get up at
[7:13:45] St. Mary's that somebody has four per
licenses.
[7:13:51] » Oh
>> no owner. No, we we audit for that. I
[7:13:55] would that would be unlikely.
>> Yeah, we're only issuing one per
[7:13:59] individual. If they did, it would have
to be held in different names. And we
[7:14:03] would like to know about that
>> when So, can someone form an LLC, buy a
[7:14:07] house without LLC? You still ultimately
require the owner of that LLC to be the
[7:14:13] applicant. Is that correct? You don't
let LLC's apply,
[7:14:16] » right? Correct. Yeah,
>> that exact reason through land owners
[7:14:18] authorization. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay.
[7:14:22] because otherwise you're looking at S
corps, BC corps, LLC's, all sorts of tax
[7:14:26] vehicles that can hide people's
identity. We need a we need a person.
[7:14:30] » Now, I guess you could run into a
situation where there's four people in a
[7:14:33] household and four different homes and
four different names, but that's going
[7:14:35] to be really hard to police,
>> you know, but
[7:14:39] » like what if it's your wife, one is your
spouse?
[7:14:42] » I'm always and Jenny have different last
names. You'd never know.
[7:14:45] » Yeah. If you could like give me the
evidence. Well, I don't want to r out my
[7:14:48] neighbors. And I'm like,
>> yeah. Well, my hands are tied then.
[7:14:52] » Yeah. Yeah. Um, are there any subjects
or areas of the ordinance that the ord
[7:14:59] is completely satisfied with and they
know they absolutely do not want to
[7:15:03] change?
>> I I took a different approach when I was
[7:15:07] preparing, which is what are the things
I do want to change?
[7:15:09] » Okay. Yeah.
>> But, um, I don't have to be the first
[7:15:13] one to answer your question.
>> The transfer of sale, when you talked
[7:15:16] about that, were those people
grandfathered in?
[7:15:19] No, there's a few or
>> no, nobody's grandfathered in on the
[7:15:23] transfer of sale. Uh, so license types
go away. The those permits, those
[7:15:29] special use permits are all expired. So,
nobody's operating underneath the old
[7:15:33] zoning regulations. That's
>> so what what about if you know parents,
[7:15:39] you know, sell their house to their son
or something?
[7:15:42] » That could potentially be in the list of
exemptions. I don't have them memorized,
[7:15:45] but there's there's a list of about
seven or eight different exemptions.
[7:15:49] Okay.
>> Um, one of those is a transfer of from
[7:15:52] an individual's name to a trust or an
LLC or to potentially minor children.
[7:15:58] Um, but I don't have it memorized.
That's
[7:16:00] » we can reference the ordinance if we did
want to look at it. We do have it
[7:16:02] available in the U,
>> but no, I I absolutely agree that people
[7:16:06] off the wait list should have priority
over somebody who's selling their house
[7:16:10] to somebody else. Yeah, it really
complicates things because they're now
[7:16:14] saying their house isn't worth as much
because they can't sell it as
[7:16:21] » and that's kind of been the economic
case about why unregulated STR markets
[7:16:26] drive house prices crazy because you're
bringing a business plan into something
[7:16:30] that traditionally people had to pay
with with their wages,
[7:16:33] » right? Now it's like, oh, I can get my
entire vacation home paid for by someone
[7:16:38] else or I can potentially make money or
I can even get 80% of the cost deferred
[7:16:42] and then owning a second home cost me
20% of what it would 10 years ago. And
[7:16:47] so that what they're complaining about
is kind of the case and point of why
[7:16:55] » you know really hyperactive STR markets
can drive houses up so much that workers
[7:17:00] can no longer afford them.
>> Right. Well, and technically, if
[7:17:02] somebody is really still wanting to do
that, they're going to have to purchase
[7:17:06] the home and possibly sit on it for a
while before
[7:17:10] » they could get that license.
>> That's the way it's set up now. Yes.
[7:17:13] » Yeah.
>> No, that makes sense.
[7:17:15] » So, that's one that
I'm not, you know, I don't want to
[7:17:21] change that, I guess.
>> Okay. So, the the no transfer upon sale,
[7:17:24] we will make sure that we do not make
any changes. I think the other reason
[7:17:29] the transfer on sale is a valuable thing
to keep the way it is is because if you
[7:17:32] do allow transfers on sale, some of
these adjacency problems become really
[7:17:36] difficult because now
that one STR permanently locks out
[7:17:42] forever
>> essentially anything around it and
[7:17:44] that's like a very diff whereas with the
sale and non-transferable
[7:17:50] we have a little bit more fluidity to
how we can manage and things can change
[7:17:53] over time because if if you made them
transferable those people on the weight
[7:17:57] this might be there forever.
>> Right. And there would be no, you know,
[7:18:02] » I I agree. I just as a heads up, I know
I got an email from a person and that he
[7:18:07] told me he emailed both of you as well.
Um I've been telling everybody that
[7:18:12] reaches out to me that I will I will
reserve judgment until they get to make
[7:18:16] their argument to me. Right. Um and
there is a short-term rental operator
[7:18:20] that says he has a great argument for
why we need to allow transfer.
[7:18:23] » Well, and there are exemptions. I don't
I don't think I'm I'm I'm not likely to
[7:18:27] be persuaded, but I just want you to
know. Otherwise, as of right now, I
[7:18:30] agree. Transferability, I'm happy with
the policy. Another one I would add to
[7:18:34] that list is I don't think I'm
interested in changing the cap and
[7:18:37] unless we can come up with
>> I mean, I see there are nine people on
[7:18:40] the wait list
>> if there's
[7:18:44] » Well, we'll have the new the new housing
some of the new housing units come
[7:18:48] online. We'll move the cap unless is the
cap unincorporated only?
[7:18:51] » The cap is unincorporated areas the
county only. So, we're only counting our
[7:18:55] our house our housing stock. It's 4.5%.
Uh we currently have three 3,620
[7:19:03] units identified. Um we'll make that
adjustment next month in October from
[7:19:08] all the houses that received their
certificates of occupancy and that'll be
[7:19:12] counted. Um that will go up a unit or
two. We're currently at 163 standard
[7:19:17] license types. [laughter]
>> So, here's my my sense. There's there's
[7:19:22] a case I could come up with where I
could talk myself into a change to the
[7:19:26] cap, which is if we look at that, we had
a a couple of years after we implemented
[7:19:30] Ordinance 19 where a number of people
weren't able to get licenses for one
[7:19:34] reason or another that maybe
there's no policy reason that they
[7:19:40] shouldn't have a license, right? Um,
can we can we just ask that you kind of
[7:19:45] take a look at who's on the wait list
and give us a sense of it doesn't matter
[7:19:49] who they are, but just give us a sense
of are there people who are on the
[7:19:52] waiting list that if not for something
like not getting an insurance
[7:19:55] requirement would have ultimately been
approved. Like like is is this an
[7:20:00] opportunity for us to make good with
people who got caught up in in this
[7:20:04] transition to ordinance 19 and
potentially expand the cap by like 10
[7:20:08] homes or something or five homes? No,
because um
[7:20:13] with all this new housing going in, it's
going to up the number anyway that's
[7:20:20] allowed to do it. And I think that can
be a natural progression. We don't need
[7:20:24] to up it right now because at least my
community is very much against it. I do
[7:20:29] have a question. um up Mel Crate there
was conversation of the HOA
[7:20:35] not allowing that did that did that that
happen or is that conversation still
[7:20:39] happening?
>> That did not happen. Um it was a
[7:20:42] conversation for a little bit in our
short-term rental regulations. Um, if an
[7:20:48] individual community decided to that
they were going to not allow short-term
[7:20:52] rentals in their community, that board
or that president of that HOA would need
[7:20:58] to communicate that to staff and we
would honor that, meaning that we
[7:21:01] wouldn't issue those licenses. Now, if
it came to taking away licenses that
[7:21:06] already existed, we were going to stay
out of that decision-making process
[7:21:09] because there was a potential for a
different cap for that neighborhood and
[7:21:13] say, "Hey, we don't like four and a
half%, but we would like to allow two
[7:21:16] STR licenses or something like this."
Then we would leave it up to the HOA to
[7:21:20] determine whose licenses were going to
be revoked and whose um whose were going
[7:21:25] to be maintained or how and when they
were going to not be renewed or
[7:21:29] something like that. So the the process
of
[7:21:30] » they can make their own ordinances and
they could allow
[7:21:35] I mean transfers of the new to new
>> no our ordinance would still but they
[7:21:41] could have their local bylaws their HOA
or their community could have their own
[7:21:44] local bylaws that further restricted the
short-term rentals in there.
[7:21:49] » It would only be more strict.
>> It would only Yeah. They can't they
[7:21:52] can't say hey we're going to allow our
entire neighborhood to be short-term
[7:21:56] rentals. So, they could potentially say,
"We're not going to allow any at all,"
[7:21:59] or, "We're going to allow one house to
be a short-term rental or something like
[7:22:03] that." Um, and then we would honor their
changes.
[7:22:07] » Okay.
>> I think, um, one thing on the on the
[7:22:12] potential cap issue, that's an
opportunity though is new builds.
[7:22:17] Somebody builds a house
kind of be which is kind of a cap
[7:22:22] exemption, which isn't currently in the
ordinance, right, David?
[7:22:26] There's not currently a cap exemption.
So, I can explain a little bit. Um,
[7:22:31] previously when we were doing ordinance
19, there was a proposal when we're
[7:22:36] migrating from the zoning regs to the
short-term rental ordinance that we
[7:22:39] would do a cap exemption for anybody
that would be willing to build a new
[7:22:43] single family type house or a new
dwelling unit um in the county and they
[7:22:48] would be exempt from limits and
adjoining property restrictions. So, we
[7:22:51] would encourage housing stock. The the
caveat to that would be that upon sale
[7:22:57] of that residence, it would be subject
to STR limits. So, whoever initially
[7:23:03] built it, if somebody was willing to
build a house solely for the purpose of
[7:23:06] getting a short-term rental license
because our cap was full, the uh
[7:23:10] proposal was to have that exemption for
that new construction. And then upon the
[7:23:15] sale of that home or the transfer to
that sale, it would that home, it would
[7:23:18] then be subject to short-term rental
cap. So, somebody could come into Clear
[7:23:23] Creek County and build a house dedicated
to short-term rental even though it's
[7:23:29] outside the cap.
>> Not currently. It was a proposal. Never.
[7:23:32] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. No, I agree with that.
[7:23:35] » But that was that was just a discussion
um at one point in time was for an
[7:23:40] exemption to the cap for that new
construction. And that's something we
[7:23:44] could explore again or not explore
again.
[7:23:46] » Yeah, we were looking for ways to
incentivize people to build homes here.
[7:23:50] any any home because part of the
affordability problem here is both the P
[7:23:55] but the Q. We don't have enough
quantity. So any way we any any way that
[7:23:59] we can just have someone build it
because they can't transfer.
[7:24:02] » I thought we had all of these vacant new
developments now.
[7:24:07] » No,
>> no. We have a lot of unbuilt parcels. If
[7:24:09] you're particularly in
>> I heard that the field ball field
[7:24:14] apartments aren't being filled up
>> in areas where people have utilities. It
[7:24:19] is true like we don't have enough we we
we do see um we're running out of square
[7:24:25] footage in places that are served by
like water and sewer but in the
[7:24:29] unincorporated particularly places like
St. Mary's only a third of those lots
[7:24:33] are built and they're just sitting up
there.
[7:24:35] » Oh. Oh, I see. I I I see what you're
saying. It's like lots
[7:24:40] » and
>> built [clears throat] but people who
[7:24:42] would buy those lots at St. Mary's
wouldn't necessarily buy an apartment in
[7:24:48] the
>> B. We're trying to encourage there's a
[7:24:50] couple of issues particularly in well
St. Mary's not to make it the test case
[7:24:54] here but it is it is a unique case in
the county because it has its own
[7:24:57] sanitation district that was designed
for a community that was built out and
[7:25:02] as a result but because it's not they
don't have enough revenue to operate
[7:25:06] that thing. So
>> any way that we can incentivize them to
[7:25:09] anyone to just build homes up there,
>> huh,
[7:25:12] » I think is a good idea. And if an STR is
a mechanism to help finance that growth
[7:25:17] in Q because it's not a transferable
license, they get tired and they sell
[7:25:22] it. Now it's back under the cap and this
is a way for us to grow our housing
[7:25:26] stock and because right now it's just
they're just not getting built and they
[7:25:28] haven't been built for 40 years.
something's not working up there and
[7:25:34] this is a way to hopefully try to
correct that. Um whereas places like
[7:25:39] Evergreen, most lots already built,
>> right? And it's full. This is this is
[7:25:43] very much a
[7:25:47] this is like these are pocketed issues
where we have tons of vacant parcels
[7:25:50] where we're not really seeing a lot of
investment in homes and because we have
[7:25:54] so few places where we can build homes.
>> If this is a way for us to build homes
[7:25:59] then I think it's something the board
should consider.
[7:26:01] » Interesting. Yeah.
>> And is it legal one more question is it
[7:26:05] legal to give an area an exemption but
not the whole
[7:26:10] » Not yet. Now, that's something we can
come to down the road when that course
[7:26:13] case is settled at a summit. But for
now, we can say knowing where we where
[7:26:17] this development will likely end up is
places that have a lot of vacant parcels
[7:26:23] that don't have houses on them.
>> Um, we know kind of where the effect of
[7:26:28] this policy will likely end up and it's
like Saddleback on Floyd Hill, which has
[7:26:32] a lot of empty parcels that have not
been built for 30 years and St.
[7:26:37] in a very similar situation with a metro
district that was created that didn't
[7:26:41] get enough I don't know if it's a metro
whatever whatever the district is it
[7:26:45] they didn't get enough housing
construction to actually have the
[7:26:47] revenue to take care of their roads up
there
[7:26:49] » right this would be a way to fix flip
that economics right to say hey look if
[7:26:54] an STR helps you pay for an investment
that helps bring the cost down for all
[7:26:59] the other homes on that sanitation
district or on that road or whatever
[7:27:02] else they're paying for because it's
spreading the you know the cost out
[7:27:06] among more payers than currently exists.
>> Okay.
[7:27:09] » Um the other other thing that I've been
thinking about this one for a while.
[7:27:15] » We have a cap because we're trying to
prevent our existing housing stock from
[7:27:18] being bought up and and not have
residents in it.
[7:27:23] » Does that logic apply to a vacant
parcel? I'm just not sure it does.
[7:27:26] » I don't think so. They've been parcels
they've been vacant for so long. We
[7:27:30] haven't had When's the last time we've
had an subdivision? I mean, 20 years
[7:27:34] ago, I think was the last big one, and
that one still hasn't built its parcels
[7:27:39] out. So, there's something like
fundamentally flawed with the economics
[7:27:42] of what's going on here, and this could
be a way to like
[7:27:46] just get more quantity.
>> No,
[7:27:48] » my guess is you you wouldn't see I I I I
don't think you'd see a ton of new
[7:27:52] housing construction. I I kind of just
view it as a fairness issue. Mhm.
[7:27:56] [clears throat]
>> The cap has a really really solid logic
[7:27:58] behind it when you're talking about
existing homes and and less solid logic
[7:28:03] when you're talking about vacant lots
from my perspective.
[7:28:06] » H I hadn't thought of it that way
>> because it's not a true opportunity cost
[7:28:10] to another buyer, right? If someone had
the money to go buy a lot and build a
[7:28:14] house,
>> they would be doing it anyway, right?
[7:28:18] Then the part of the reason why those
parcels are vacant is because there's
[7:28:21] something
misaligned
[7:28:24] with the market that's just having them
sit for so long like that. And so we're
[7:28:28] not really costing another traditional
home buyer an opportunity by allowing
[7:28:32] that to be an STR.
>> What's not getting built anyway? So, is
[7:28:37] it safe is it safe to say that
we're open to that language
[7:28:43] » based on this conversation
>> if we can limit it uh geographically,
[7:28:49] but but maybe I'm thinking about my
neighborhood where
[7:28:52] » that might just naturally happen. I
think
[7:28:57] » but I I don't want some builder coming
into my neighborhood and
[7:29:01] » yeah,
>> I mean there there are plenty of houses
[7:29:05] going up like on witter that nobody
really thought could be built before and
[7:29:10] now they can do catalyvered houses. Um
>> well that's what I'm wondering too is
[7:29:14] like a second home on a property. How
does that work currently? You mean like
[7:29:18] an owned acre and you decided to help
the housing market, you'd build another
[7:29:23] home on your property
>> because you permanently live there on
[7:29:27] that property, but not in that home. If
it was a separate home,
[7:29:30] » an ADU,
>> if it's part Yeah. If it's an ADU and
[7:29:32] it's part of that parcel, they can still
get their primary residence license type
[7:29:36] that way.
>> Um, that's an extension of that home.
[7:29:39] It's accessory to that home. Even though
they're two separate buildings, they're
[7:29:42] on the same parcel. That's the same
house essentially is how it's viewed.
[7:29:46] until the parcels separated.
>> On if they get subdivided, then it's no
[7:29:51] longer an ADU, but if it's on the same
parcel,
[7:29:54] » there's some requirements in the
development that require the ADU to be
[7:29:58] on the same infrastructure as the main
house. So, they would share
[7:30:02] » Oh my gosh.
>> Same water, same gas.
[7:30:06] » So, they'll build an ADU and then
subdivide.
[7:30:09] » You could, but it would come with
additional costs. It just wouldn't be
[7:30:12] like a separate fingers and we're going
to put a line in here. built a separate
[7:30:15] home on a separate or sorry on the same
water and the same sewer. Is that
[7:30:23] allowed?
>> It depends on
[7:30:25] » have to be under our regulations. So
>> but but uh we have so many regulations
[7:30:30] about how um how many rooms you can have
in a home to have a current septic
[7:30:36] system.
>> Yeah, that's related to the size of the
[7:30:38] OWTS system. So those OWTS systems,
they'll they'll state how many bedrooms
[7:30:43] that that could support. So we size it
off the number of bedrooms as well as
[7:30:47] the permit, right?
>> So if if you're maxed out a number of
[7:30:51] bedrooms for your septic system, you
couldn't build an ADU.
[7:30:55] » No, you'd have Yeah, you'd have to
upgrade your your OWTS system to support
[7:30:59] that.
>> What does OTTS mean? [laughter]
[7:31:02] » On-site wastewater treatment system
septic, sorry.
[7:31:05] » Um
>> and the water has the same issue, right?
[7:31:07] your your well is permitted for X amount
as well. Bedrooms.
[7:31:12] » Two bedrooms. Okay.
>> That's where strateus and that's between
[7:31:15] them and the state. Yep.
>> The state engineer.
[7:31:18] » Yeah. Because
>> so to you know to build an ADU, you may
[7:31:23] have an existing home that there three
bedrooms that has a OWTS that serves
[7:31:28] three bedrooms. If you're going to build
an ADU, whether or not you have to share
[7:31:33] infrastructure, you're probably going to
need to upgrade septic either whether
[7:31:37] it's individually for that ADU or
expanding the one you've got to share.
[7:31:42] » In the DLD, we have a sanitation
district. It's water that's the issue.
[7:31:47] » Yeah.
>> And on the water side, you either have
[7:31:50] to buy property rights or I've heard of
some folks that got the state to say,
[7:31:55] "Okay, you know what? Fine. If you meter
your water usage and keep your water
[7:31:58] usage below a certain amount, we'll let
you have water in this ADU.
[7:32:03] [clears throat]
>> Water is definitely the the problem with
[7:32:06] ADUs here. Um,
one suggestion I would have if you guys
[7:32:10] are open to the language about um the
new builds exempting from the cap, let
[7:32:16] us do an analysis of where our banket
parcels are
[7:32:19] » and figure out like on a heat map like
where is this really going to
[7:32:22] potentially bring units and we can bring
that back as part of the discuss. that
[7:32:25] look like the timelines to somebody that
just recently built a house, you would
[7:32:29] have to apply before you built the
house.
[7:32:31] » I think um one thing the board would
consider is because we had this weird
[7:32:35] transition period once the rules are
final if someone made that decision now
[7:32:39] with the way ordinance tit is written um
I I think kind of tough you know because
[7:32:45] it was already on the books. I think if
the board is open to a discussion about
[7:32:48] the people who are caught in the
transition between the old rules and the
[7:32:51] new ones potentially started
construction before ordinance 19 went
[7:32:55] into effect. I think that's an different
equity conversation, right? Because they
[7:32:59] started construction under one set of
rules and then by the time they were
[7:33:03] done a different set of rules said now
they can't do what they originally
[7:33:06] planned.
>> Possibly a new set of rules,
[7:33:09] » right?
>> We didn't change the cap when we did
[7:33:12] ordinance 19. So maybe the proximity
rule.
[7:33:14] » The proximity rule primarily. So, I
mean, in say saying this as generally as
[7:33:20] possible, if a rule change caused
someone who had already partially made
[7:33:24] an investment under a certain set of
rules caused them to not be able to get
[7:33:27] it, I think we should allow that.
>> But they still had not applied for that
[7:33:31] permit.
>> They weren't allowed to at that point
[7:33:33] because it used to be, I think, under
the old rules, it had to be after the
[7:33:36] building was completed.
>> Yep. Once once you couldn't apply for
[7:33:38] your short-term rental license until you
had your certific certificate of
[7:33:42] occupancy in hand. Huge
>> risk. Yeah. And then um
[7:33:46] there was other individuals that didn't
necessarily construct that were in the
[7:33:50] purchase process during the transition
too. Um would would it be possible to
[7:33:56] just like put kind of like blanket no
harm language
[7:34:01] into the ordinance and and would you
support that like
[7:34:05] » to what end? [laughter]
>> To to the end of and and I don't mean
[7:34:10] blanket no harm like this like
>> do no harm is I get language that says
[7:34:15] that
>> if you can establish you started making
[7:34:18] investments before a rule change that
rendered you ineligible then you can be
[7:34:22] ex then then you can get a license.
>> How would you prove that?
[7:34:25] » Yeah, I can just see a lot of people go
oh no I I started the investment
[7:34:29] process.
>> They would still need to the proponents
[7:34:30] of announcements would be on them to
show that they did something. They can't
[7:34:34] just say it. They would need to show
investment show like building plans or
[7:34:38] something.
what
[7:34:41] » would they already have need need to be
have a license for this to
[7:34:47] » their building wasn't built so they
couldn't apply for the license
[7:34:50] » but they weren't insured that they would
have gotten one if they built it in the
[7:34:53] first place ever
>> because the because the neighbor could
[7:34:57] have been ahead of them on the wait list
and could have gotten it and then they
[7:35:01] would have built it.
>> The issue is that there was no even
[7:35:04] public contemplation of the adjacency
roles when they started.
[7:35:08] » So this is not it's not a legal
argument. Yeah, it really is a fairness
[7:35:12] argument.
>> Well, except I I think I I'm seeing all
[7:35:15] the problems with it. So, we might get
ourselves into trouble if we just have a
[7:35:18] blanket no harm
>> or maybe it's a put an appeal process to
[7:35:23] the board on this and they can make
their case
[7:35:26] » bas
I don't think that we would necessarily
[7:35:30] need the no harm language in there. Um
there were there are those arguments
[7:35:34] made that hey the regulations changed
and because of this I I don't have the
[7:35:38] adjoining parcel but on the old
regulations licenses weren't turning
[7:35:42] over because they were transferring with
ownership and we did have individuals on
[7:35:46] the wait list for multiple years. I mean
they knew it was multiple years long at
[7:35:51] that point in time. So I I don't know
that we actually
[7:35:55] » and they still can't apply till it's
done.
[7:35:57] » Right. Right. So, this is not the most
important policy problem for us to
[7:36:01] solve. Um, I I personally encourage
would encourage if staff thinks they can
[7:36:07] come up with a clean way to solve this,
we're probably talking about a couple
[7:36:10] instances.
>> Yeah, we can take a look for sure.
[7:36:13] » Um, I I I can't imagine we're talking
about more than a couple instances.
[7:36:16] » No, and it's really around that
transition period. I think going forward
[7:36:20] this has become a problem even less and
less of a time.
[7:36:22] » It's a change management conversation.
Um,
[7:36:26] » and it would just have to be the and the
proximity would have to be the issue.
[7:36:32] » This this gets close to um
another topic
[7:36:40] in my mind. I hear complaints about
people holding dormant licenses and I
[7:36:44] wonder if we should um not allow
renewals with licens or lose it.
[7:36:49] » Yeah.
[7:36:56] standard license types specifically.
Um,
[7:36:59] » yes, on a standard license.
>> Um, just to help administer the cat more
[7:37:03] fairly.
>> Yeah, I I've seen
[7:37:06] limited um
limited instances of this the with the
[7:37:13] adjustment in fees. some of those
individuals actually ended up giving
[7:37:17] away their licenses because it become
cost prohibitive to hold on to a license
[7:37:22] if you're not it's it's not that that
what was targeted through the fee
[7:37:26] schedule but that's kind of the result
that happened with those individuals
[7:37:29] that were just sitting on licenses. Um I
can think of a few isolated cases where
[7:37:35] individuals might be holding on to a
standard license type but they have the
[7:37:39] intention to restore it back to a
short-term rental license in the near
[7:37:42] future. So, I'm I'm not sure.
>> Well, maybe you must change it back to
[7:37:50] the standard.
>> They're willing to pay the fee for
[7:37:53] getting nothing.
>> They're they're paying the fees. They're
[7:37:57] going through the process.
>> But you were saying they had to upgrade
[7:38:01] it to a standard short-term license.
Were they getting a deal on having
[7:38:04] » No, they're not upgrading it. That's the
only one that has the weight list.
[7:38:07] That's the only one we'd really concern
ourselves with. So, primary residence
[7:38:10] license holders, there's no cap on they
can get they're living there. So really
[7:38:14] it would only be applicable to the
standard license type.
[7:38:17] » Um
>> and they are paying the fees. They went
[7:38:20] through the short-term rental safety
checklist and process and made it a
[7:38:24] compliant property.
>> But I agree that they shouldn't sit on
[7:38:29] it for a year when other people want to.
>> Right. There there is secondary
[7:38:35] consequences to this. Um, please stop me
if I shouldn't be speaking on this, but
[7:38:40] it could be the the use or not the use
tax, the taxable income from the
[7:38:45] transient lodging tax, right? Because
these short-term rentals are paying
[7:38:48] transient lodging taxes. So, if somebody
does have a license that they're not
[7:38:52] utilizing,
>> then you're not getting,
[7:38:55] » right, maximize the fiscal productivity
have. Yeah.
[7:39:00] » So, I guess there there's that argument
there for stagnant licenses.
[7:39:05] This one is also low on my priority
list, colleagues. The reason that it's
[7:39:08] on my list is because I think I think
because we have relative to other
[7:39:12] counties a very low cap. Um
we have a lot of scrutiny on how the cap
[7:39:18] is administered and
um when people make points about hey
[7:39:23] this doesn't seem quite fair even when
it's minor I'm like well maybe we could
[7:39:27] fix it. So that's but it's low on my
priority list. this isn't not like maybe
[7:39:32] the least important of the things that
we need to discuss,
[7:39:35] » right? Well, as my
I can't remember who said it, but you
[7:39:41] know, when we have 163 licenses now,
that could be 163 families that can't
[7:39:49] buy a home in Clare Creek.
[7:39:53] And maybe that's some information that
we could provide in a future meeting is
[7:39:57] is the really the types of homes that
are short-term rental license uh
[7:40:02] properties. Most most of the homes I
would venture I guess are over half a
[7:40:07] million dollars. I mean there's very few
homes in Clar Creek County that are
[7:40:10] already under half a million. But
>> um
[7:40:13] » we can provide that kind of study and
let you know. I do most of the
[7:40:16] short-term rental license properties are
three and fourbedroom homes. I do know
[7:40:19] that we have some of that u information.
We'll make sure we provide
[7:40:25] » I'm personally I'm a little less
interested in that. It's just because
[7:40:28] this this community has a these
communities have a whole lot of people
[7:40:31] that that have access to jobs that can
afford those homes,
[7:40:34] » right? They don't it may not be a local
workforce solution, but it might be a
[7:40:38] school population solution. It could be
just like a having a community solution.
[7:40:43] » Okay. So, we won't worry about bringing
in any Democrats. I don't I don't think
[7:40:46] like I I accept the argument and I don't
think I need to I just don't find it
[7:40:51] persuasive. So, I don't think we need to
chase it down personally.
[7:40:54] » Um
um yeah, I I think that that one's a
[7:40:57] little bit of a double-edged sword, too.
I think you could make that argument
[7:41:00] both directions a little bit. Um because
what we're talking about here is also
[7:41:06] trying to put a cap on like a runaway
home values
[7:41:10] » and not having a market that's
overexposed to STRs helps,
[7:41:13] » right?
that doesn't really matter what the
[7:41:15] house is worth initially.
>> When I was campaigning two years ago,
[7:41:18] people were bending my ear about
short-term rental,
[7:41:21] » but a lot of it is second homes, too.
>> There's a lot of second homes around
[7:41:25] here that there's nothing we can do
about.
[7:41:27] » No. And I think that's a that would be a
great legislative issue.
[7:41:31] » Yeah.
[laughter]
[7:41:33] the different rental people, you know,
are coming into the communities and
[7:41:38] shopping at the stores and going to the
restaurants, but that second home,
[7:41:41] » at least the ones in my neighborhood,
maybe once every other year they visit
[7:41:45] it. Otherwise, I do not see them.
>> The the customer base that treats the
[7:41:49] Georgetown market, at least when I was
managing it most consistently, like
[7:41:52] their primary grocery store, our
short-term rental guests in Georgetown.
[7:41:56] » Yep.
Um they're also
[7:41:59] second homes because when we had the um
the wind knock those trees down, nobody
[7:42:05] was looking at those homes like up at
Mil Creek and there were trees down on
[7:42:08] the lines at those homes for like a
month
[7:42:12] » before we figured because people weren't
visiting it,
[7:42:14] » right?
>> Yeah. I think the secondary home thing
[7:42:17] is a um
[7:42:21] » I think the short-term rental gets a lot
of slack from that. you know, people
[7:42:26] don't understand there's two different
things going on.
[7:42:31] » Um,
[7:42:35] so what's the what's the answer on the
So the dormant licenses, do do we want
[7:42:39] to mess with language around that or are
we giving up?
[7:42:42] » I don't have a strong opinion.
>> We can we can definitely try to develop
[7:42:44] some language and then we'll have the
additional work sessions and we can
[7:42:48] discuss it later.
>> How many dormant licenses do you think
[7:42:52] we have?
>> Probably less than five.
[7:42:54] » Yeah. Oh, so it's not really a big
>> maybe medical reasons or all kinds of
[7:42:58] reasons why
>> yes um some individuals are hey I I
[7:43:04] lived here this year I'm not living here
this next year I'm going to come back
[7:43:08] » etc. And then
>> they're still paying their fees though.
[7:43:11] » They're still paying their fees. Yeah.
>> I mean that's that's almost a better
[7:43:14] barrier. That's almost a better
incentive to not hold a vacant like a
[7:43:17] dormant license is you got to pay your
fee every year.
[7:43:20] » Okay.
>> You know
[7:43:21] » I think we give up on it. It's not a
strong opinion if anybody has a strong
[7:43:24] opinion.
>> No.
[7:43:26] » Yeah, I know it's getting really late.
So, how are we doing on your list? Have
[7:43:30] we hit the highlights?
>> So, yeah. Basically, I just wanted to
[7:43:33] hear the specific items that the board
had and then I'll give a quick cap and
[7:43:38] then we can I do what needs to.
>> I've got a list with about six or seven
[7:43:43] more things on it.
>> Um, outdoor cooking.
[7:43:49] We heard in a town hall in St. Mary's
about how not allowing barbecues on site
[7:43:54] is causing people to go by those
temporary ones,
[7:43:58] » resulting in a much more dangerous
situation. I think I was I was persuaded
[7:44:02] and I think that we should allow outdoor
cooking. We can come up with some
[7:44:07] standards that say spaces need to be
cleared of combustible material or
[7:44:10] something. I don't know. A lot of people
do it on their wooden decks. I grew on
[7:44:12] my wooden deck. So I I don't know
exactly.
[7:44:15] » Something they propane like they just
shut it off.
[7:44:18] » I think propane only, right?
>> Yeah. No podcasts.
[7:44:21] » Um but I think that's a a change that
needs to happen.
[7:44:24] » We can develop something with for that
for um review at our next work session.
[7:44:29] » Yeah, that that was a convincing
argument to me too.
[7:44:31] » Yeah. Um I think we need to try to fix
the proximity rule. Um I think there's
[7:44:38] we just
um I've also heard stories that the
[7:44:43] proximity rule is a little too
restrictive. Right. one one property can
[7:44:46] adjoin a whole lot of properties
sometimes that are even trying to build
[7:44:49] on other roads, right, based on how
these mine claims work. [laughter] Um
[7:44:54] and and so I would like to invite staff
to try to come up with a better approach
[7:44:58] to the proximity rule.
>> Still desiring the proximity rule, just
[7:45:02] an alternate approach.
>> Yes.
[7:45:03] » Okay. Is that
>> Yeah, I think I think it's we do need to
[7:45:06] we need to work on controlling the
distance density issue where like
[7:45:09] someone's living on a street with no
neighbors,
[7:45:11] » but we need to have a rule that I think
is or a process potentially if if the
[7:45:17] board would be okay with staff trying to
work this out
[7:45:21] internally um about because for the
reality is any rule that we put in this
[7:45:28] ordinance that's completely defined is
going to leave someone out dry, right?
[7:45:34] In a place in a situation that's not
fair because of how weird our parcels
[7:45:39] are in the county in like the roads and
the mountains and all these things.
[7:45:42] » Can you do like also per acre or for how
far apart they are?
[7:45:48] » Yeah. So, I think what what I'm asking
is that you kind of give us a little bit
[7:45:51] of a like a wide lane to look at like
maybe some creative solutions because
[7:45:55] what works in St. Mary's might not work
in Evergreen and vice versa. and like
[7:46:00] our parcels are weird, our terrain is
different, you know. Um, and so maybe
[7:46:05] maybe it's what we come back to the
board with is a process of how to
[7:46:09] administrate that through planning or
something about what criteria do we look
[7:46:12] at and when we make the determination of
whether or not an adjacency is a
[7:46:16] » Okay. So, I had a complaint when I was
campaigning. Uh a woman, I believe it
[7:46:21] was Whit Gulch, said that um you know,
she moved into an area, six houses on
[7:46:26] the road and then uh when I was
campaigning a few years ago, five houses
[7:46:31] have become short-term rentals and that
was before we had a limitation on how
[7:46:37] close they can be together and such. Is
that still do you happen to know if
[7:46:43] that's still a problem?
>> I can take a glance. I know the spec the
[7:46:47] very specific situation,
>> okay,
[7:46:49] » that you're talking about.
>> Um,
[7:46:54] » but we know the goal.
>> While he's looking at that, I'll just
[7:46:58] plant a seed with you all with you both.
I've spent I've spent a couple years
[7:47:05] debating with staff about the right way
to come up with an objective metric that
[7:47:08] works everywhere. And I just don't know
if we can. It might be some kind of
[7:47:12] appeal process that makes more sense.
These situations are just inherently
[7:47:15] subjective. Um, and I know that makes
you nervous.
[7:47:19] » I don't like it. [laughter]
>> You'll need to set up criteria adopted
[7:47:24] criteria if you're going to do that. So,
>> not not entirely subjective. Maybe maybe
[7:47:28] with a little bit of discretion. Let's
put it that way.
[7:47:31] » Yes. Grant some discretion. That's what
I'm trying to say.
[7:47:33] » Is that because you don't like staff's
decision?
[7:47:37] » No. Because right now staff has no
nobody staff or the commissioners have
[7:47:41] any latitude to say, "Oh, wow. This
doesn't make sense right here
[7:47:45] » because for [clears throat] our
regulations to be supportable, they need
[7:47:47] to not be totally subjective,
>> right? And and I'm not trying to I'm not
[7:47:51] trying to suggest we make it.
>> No, we're not asking for arbitrary.
[7:47:55] We're just me come up with an appeal
process or something where we can look
[7:47:58] at some other criteria on the decision
because right now it's just straight
[7:48:01] adjacency. You can't touch another one,
right? And the situation is I think that
[7:48:06] works in some places, but in places that
are very dense like St. Mary's you can
[7:48:11] have one house in the middle of 12
>> and all [snorts] of those can't have an
[7:48:15] STR on it, right? So essentially that's
dead,
[7:48:17] » right?
>> But if we come up with something good
[7:48:19] enough hopefully won't have to have an
appeal
[7:48:23] » process.
Well,
[7:48:25] » if we can
>> Well, I think we need to determine also
[7:48:29] the relationship that this ordinance is
going to have with the zoning code
[7:48:32] » and whether or not that means a decision
here would necessarily go to the board
[7:48:37] of adjustment potentially. Would that
possibly happen?
[7:48:40] » It could happen, but not It depends on
how we structure it.
[7:48:44] » So, I would just want to make sure that
we don't create too cumbersome,
[7:48:48] » but I I think I hear some openness to
it. Um, right.
[7:48:54] Some some openness to innovative
proximity to what was talking about and
[7:48:58] I think we can come up with
>> Yeah, we'll figure something out. I just
[7:49:00] think we a little nuanced approach with
this one.
[7:49:03] » Yeah. Okay. So what did you find out
>> uh in that area that particular area um
[7:49:09] the number of STRs around that property
have reduced?
[7:49:12] » Okay. Down to what?
>> Um one standard and two primary.
[7:49:18] » Oh, much better.
>> Yep.
[7:49:21] » All right. Thank you.
>> Um
[7:49:24] I also just a quick comment on the
survey results from this. I think you
[7:49:28] have the reason that it's so negative is
because it takes a long time for for
[7:49:33] this rule to actually unwind like that
culde-sac situation. So if things
[7:49:38] haven't changed on the ground, residents
are still going to be saying the
[7:49:40] proximity rules don't work and obviously
the operators hate them and so obviously
[7:49:45] it's going to get you know the response
to that question is going to be we all
[7:49:48] think this isn't working.
>> But that also he just said two
[7:49:51] permanent.
>> Yeah. So that really wouldn't apply if
[7:49:53] there's permanent residents and you
could have four permanent in one
[7:49:57] » right
>> gone then
[7:49:59] » right you know her her problem was that
it was all STRs at one point and they
[7:50:05] weren't you know neighbors anymore.
>> Yeah. She was saying she had no place to
[7:50:08] get a cup of sugar. I remember she she
had a really [laughter]
[7:50:11] » Everybody needs to have a neighbor they
can knock on to make sure their
[7:50:14] chocolate chip cookies get done.
>> Yeah.
[7:50:17] » Um okay. So then the next one that we've
gotten a lot of feedback on is fire
[7:50:20] mitigation. Um,
[7:50:26] my understanding is that staff has been
allowing
[7:50:31] because you've seen like $20,000 bills
to get into compliance with the fire
[7:50:38] mitigation in a long timeline to get a
property up to a standard that
[7:50:41] » Oh, yeah. Um
it
[7:50:45] » um staff has been saying we just need to
see like some meaningful progress
[7:50:49] towards these standards and you can get
a license. Is that correct?
[7:50:52] » Uh what staff has done is given an
allowance to get defensible space
[7:50:57] corrected um when we were transitioning
into those new additional requirements
[7:51:02] because we had a whole lot of existing
STR licenses that needed to come up to
[7:51:06] speed with the new defensible space
requirements. Um so in those instances
[7:51:10] we said hey okay we'll give you till the
end of the summer get get your property
[7:51:14] into compliance etc etc. Um before we
issue a new license to an unlicensed
[7:51:19] property it needs to be in compliance.
>> So that was for renewals and this could
[7:51:24] be maybe a change my my focus here is on
change management. Um,
[7:51:30] can we come up with something that
allows
[7:51:34] an operator to make progress,
you know, at a reasonable pace towards
[7:51:40] meeting the standards in these documents
that we refer to um, over a period of
[7:51:44] years rather than say
you're up for renewal. You've got to get
[7:51:50] $20,000 in six months worth of work
before you can get your license. I think
[7:51:53] this puts us in a hard place because
we've also talked about wouldn't it be
[7:51:56] nice if we could go and tell certain
neighbors and and neighborhoods that you
[7:52:01] need to have defensible space and these
are instances only instances where this
[7:52:05] can happen on new builds and this and so
people are sitting and and putting also
[7:52:11] their neighbors at risk by not having
defensible space. So if you want to get
[7:52:16] relaxed with that,
you could be potentially keeping
[7:52:21] neighborhoods in harm's way, I think. So
like I'm not saying not to do it, just
[7:52:26] we have to be very conscious of it um
because of the climate that we're we're
[7:52:30] living in now. some of the conversations
that we have with defensible space on
[7:52:35] because everybody that had a license has
already had to come into compliance and
[7:52:38] then we've gone through some renewals
already and they said, "Well, you told
[7:52:41] me about defensible space last year and
I spent $4,000 on it and now I have to
[7:52:45] spend $4,000 again." It's like, "Yes,
this is something that is a cost and it
[7:52:49] does have to be maintained annually
because we have so many areas where
[7:52:52] growth comes back so quickly." Um, and
just trying to manage that expectation
[7:52:57] that, you know, this is going to be a
continual maintenance cost associated
[7:53:00] with having a short-term rental license
is maintaining your defensible space.
[7:53:03] It's it's not free. And um,
>> insurance companies are requiring it,
[7:53:07] too.
>> Right. Yeah.
[7:53:09] » Yeah. And it's I mean, it's really
becoming a part of home ownership here.
[7:53:13] » Yeah. It
>> It's really some point you're gonna get
[7:53:16] forced into it either way.
>> Yeah. I I just the the point that I'm a
[7:53:21] little bit stuck on here is I want
David saw a compelling reason to
[7:53:30] um
change how the ordinance was enforced
[7:53:36] and I would like to have him be more
well positioned than that. I think that
[7:53:40] information is likely to be the same
next summer and and the ordinance may as
[7:53:45] well reflect what's actually happening
on the ground. I would prefer that, too.
[7:53:49] » So, we we're going to give them uh they
can have a gas grill,
[7:53:54] but we're going to say no, you have to
have defensible space.
[7:53:58] » All right. Um, we will
>> Is that what you were saying?
[7:54:03] » Oh, I I would just like to have a have
it written into the ordinance what the
[7:54:06] standards are and what we're going to
allow instead of have it become a an
[7:54:10] enforcement matter because that
comes with its own issues. Would you
[7:54:15] colleagues would you indulge
just asking if staff can come up with an
[7:54:21] approach to change management on this?
Just just come up with something in
[7:54:24] between zero to 100
>> like a grace period.
[7:54:28] » Something a grace period or like let's
say we quantify there's $30,000 worth of
[7:54:32] work that has to happen here. $10,000 a
year. You got to show that you've spent
[7:54:35] $10,000 every year. Within four years,
three years, whatever you're going to
[7:54:38] » No, it's not that you've spent it. It's
that okay. So you've gone out 10 ft,
[7:54:44] then you went out 20 feet, and now you
got the last
[7:54:47] » sure,
>> you know,
[7:54:48] » 10 ft, you know, total 30.
>> Whatever the specifics look like, just
[7:54:53] some kind of a graduated change approach
um rather than an all at once approach
[7:54:57] because I mean these
>> I would say how long have you been
[7:55:00] working on your property?
>> Uh since 2001.
[7:55:04] » Yeah. Holy moly.
>> I think that maybe this might be
[7:55:08] something
>> but this past year was the worst. hard
[7:55:10] to memorialize in the ordinance that's
going to apply broadly because we are so
[7:55:14] different and every parcel is going to
have different requirements and um
[7:55:19] things like that. I think it it could
just be uh an administrative process or
[7:55:24] understanding that staff can have that
we would um work through the defensible
[7:55:29] zones potentially or something like
that. I know you want it memorialized.
[7:55:33] We'll talk. Yeah.
>> Discretion. Yeah. Some discussion.
[7:55:36] » Discretion. But yeah, it needs to be
written.
[7:55:39] » I hope that everybody's in compliance
now. It's just the the the new ones that
[7:55:44] the defensible space.
>> So
[7:55:46] » went through all the people that
>> Yeah. On the renewals, right? So on the
[7:55:51] annual renewal, they initially came in,
we gave them grace to come into
[7:55:55] compliance with defensible space.
>> They've gotten that already.
[7:55:58] » Yeah. Upon upon renewal,
a maintenance issue with their space, we
[7:56:03] do afford them to continue operating
until they they get it corrected in a
[7:56:07] reasonable timeline. Um, and that's how
we've been handling it as staff on the
[7:56:12] renewals,
>> but now like those trees are growing
[7:56:14] back.
>> Yes.
[7:56:15] » It just continues. She's been working on
it since 2000.
[7:56:17] » They they grow back incredibly fast.
It's amazing. So, um, and then some
[7:56:23] people have grasses planted around their
house and they have to have their
[7:56:26] grasses knocked down under a certain
height. And you go one year and it's
[7:56:29] like, okay, hey, get your lawn mower
out, knock that down to less than 6 in,
[7:56:33] please, for this um, first 30 foot away
from your house and you give them a
[7:56:38] couple weeks to get it done. They
generally get it done. It's usually not
[7:56:41] um, as cumbersome the following years
financially once they have their
[7:56:46] defensible space established. And uh
when we met with our insurance agency,
[7:56:52] insurance agent two weeks ago, I said,
"So, do we get any discount for all of
[7:56:57] this work we've done?" Because she did
compliment us on all the trees we took
[7:57:01] down. And she said, "Yes, you get to
keep your insurance." So, it's like,
[7:57:06] "Oh, no."
>> Sounds like a conversation I had.
[7:57:08] » I said that. Yeah.
>> Um, do we want to move on to the next
[7:57:12] one? Just one other on fire. Um, do we
I'm looking through the ordinance right
[7:57:17] now. Do we require people to post egress
instructions? Like if if you get an
[7:57:24] evacuation notice like
>> guest guide book,
[7:57:28] » guest guide book has evacuation
instructions. Here's your evacuation
[7:57:31] route.
>> Yep.
[7:57:31] » Perfect.
>> Um and that's all none of that is
[7:57:35] written in the ordinance, right? The
ordinance just says you can build a
[7:57:37] guest guide book,
>> right?
[7:57:39] » Uh we have Let me pull up the ordinance.
>> We can we can get into that later.
[7:57:45] » Okay.
>> You're saying it's good. I'm saying it's
[7:57:47] good. It's 4:15. Um,
[7:57:53] we already talked about primary
residence. We already talked about
[7:57:56] insurance. We do think that that
shifting the insurance rules is is good.
[7:58:00] » I think we already agreed to that in
>> and we want to see this ordinance
[7:58:05] reflect that. Okay. Um, we talked about
transfer, we talked about the capac,
[7:58:16] but
That is it is what it is, right?
[7:58:20] » So, my last topic is just our process
from here.
[7:58:23] » Okay.
>> What do you mean enforcement like
[7:58:27] disinforcement or when we have to send
the sheriff out because
[7:58:32] they have a
storebought and grill whatever.
[7:58:38] » So, what I'm sorry, what's your the
question?
[7:58:40] » The uh it says enforcement. Just plain
enforcement. Oh, I mean I think there
[7:58:46] there are a lot of options for
enforcement. I mean there's we you know
[7:58:50] that we there's a straightforward path
to enforcement by removing listings.
[7:58:55] There's straightforward path to
enforcement by revoking licenses or
[7:59:00] binding people um which we can do under
the ordinance there. There's also, you
[7:59:06] know, there are additional enforcement
options, but it would require putting
[7:59:11] language in um our zoning essentially in
our zoning regulations that that make it
[7:59:16] also a zoning violation to not comply
with the the licensing requirements.
[7:59:20] » Some of the stuff's like you get a
warning and then some of the stuff you
[7:59:22] do this, you're done.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Could do that.
[7:59:27] » So, you'd like to see like a more
itemized like what's the enforcement
[7:59:30] action based on which kind of
violations?
[7:59:31] » So, it's not confusing to them.
>> Yeah. Yeah,
[7:59:35] » I if you're talking about the survey
results, I interpreted that basically
[7:59:38] just as as
uh
[7:59:42] » the public wants to see us do a better
job.
[7:59:44] » Right. Well, that's why I was asking
what the enforcement exactly means on
[7:59:48] the
>> Let me go to the enforcement on the
[7:59:53] you're talking about in the engagement
survey on the on the written responses
[7:59:57] where they had concerns about
enforcement
[8:00:00] » like is enforcement happening?
enforcement.
[8:00:03] » Is this a real STR or are they faking
it?
[8:00:06] » Yes, enforcement is really happening.
Enforcement's going very well with how
[8:00:10] the ordinance is currently configured.
Um, we have developed some great
[8:00:15] relationships with the um listing
agencies about getting non-licensed
[8:00:19] properties taken down. almost eliminates
the need for anything to go through the
[8:00:23] AO's office on notice of violations and
regular um civil enforcement mechanisms
[8:00:29] um because of those great relationships
that we have developed. Um the when it
[8:00:34] comes to those licensed individuals who
are out of compliance when we receive
[8:00:39] those complaints that license is a lot
of motivation for those individuals to
[8:00:43] maintain compliance. um if they don't
maintain compliance with the short-term
[8:00:47] rental ordinance, um they lose their
license and then initially then we'll
[8:00:51] have them taken off the listing agencies
and they're just a regular resident
[8:00:55] again. So, um I think all of our
enforcement mechanisms that are
[8:00:59] currently in the ordinance are working
very well for the county. Um I think
[8:01:02] it's going pretty good. Um we could look
to
[8:01:07] potentially create an itemized list or
more clarity about when these come into
[8:01:13] place. It's not broken. Don't Don't fix
it.
[8:01:15] » Okay.
>> Jody, do you feel that way?
[8:01:19] » Depending on like what the people were
talking about in this is is is all
[8:01:24] » Yeah, I think our enforcement is going
well.
[8:01:28] » I think so too and it's really really
new and so I
[8:01:33] although I do Kathy mentioned I think
putting putting this in in whatever way
[8:01:37] they construct into the zoning code so
it's also a zoning violation is smart.
[8:01:43] Yeah. So, the the enforcement statutes
for zoning and building code enforcement
[8:01:48] recently changed and our fines are
significantly higher now than they were
[8:01:53] in the past and they're also
significantly higher than um CRS 3015. I
[8:01:59] think it's 402 since forth the ordinance
penalties. They're significantly higher
[8:02:05] than those. So there's a big um
just
[8:02:12] it's leverage I guess and motivation to
comply.
[8:02:14] » So if you're seeking direction on that
um my answer is yes.
[8:02:21] » I have confused though.
>> Yeah.
[8:02:23] » Look at that.
>> Um as far as the process colleagues, I
[8:02:27] looked at the in the document it says we
need two more work sessions and then a
[8:02:32] first reading and then a second.
I don't think we need four more meetings
[8:02:38] on this
>> because you won't
[8:02:43] » because you won't be here.
>> I would like to be part of passing this
[8:02:46] ordinance. Um [laughter]
>> also we run the potential of having more
[8:02:50] meetings on this than the budget,
>> right?
[8:02:53] » Um
>> whatever the legal part of this is, I'm
[8:02:55] good with. I think I what I would
recommend is based on some of the
[8:02:59] discussions that you've had today. I
don't know if that if I don't know if
[8:03:03] you've have enough information in front
of you for us to bring a bring red lines
[8:03:07] that you're going to be having.
>> I think I do.
[8:03:09] » Do you?
>> Yes.
[8:03:10] » I mean, I've heard some let's think of
ideas and let staff come up with with
[8:03:16] stuff. Do you want us to draft it? So, I
mean, I think
[8:03:19] » draft it as first reading and then if
y'all have any changes, we'll bring it
[8:03:22] to second.
>> Okay. I also I would I would also
[8:03:25] recommend just making some kind of
public engagement possible for people to
[8:03:30] comment on the draft before it actually
comes to you for a first reading so that
[8:03:34] you'll have the benefit at the first
reading of those public comments. That
[8:03:39] doesn't need to be any additional
meetings. It can just be some way for
[8:03:43] people to email their comments or on the
what the ordinance is going to look
[8:03:47] like. Could it be like uh
[8:03:53] outreach to the operators? Say, hey,
look, these are the things the board has
[8:03:56] directed us to look at. Here are the
options that we've developed. What do
[8:03:59] you think?
>> I I would suggest that we just did a
[8:04:03] standard press release and said, "Hey,
the countyy's updating its ordinance.
[8:04:08] Here's the website." And then put a link
to the draft and a link to an email and
[8:04:13] call it. I think that's better because
we don't just want the operator's
[8:04:17] comments.
>> We want everybody. I think that'll give
[8:04:19] you a more robust ordinance in general,
too. [laughter]
[8:04:23] » If it helps. The first survey was posted
on social media and we did get public
[8:04:27] comments from them.
>> A lot actually. Yeah. Really high a high
[8:04:31] level of engagement, which is great.
It's what you want.
[8:04:33] » Well, and this is potentially a big part
of that same group that wrote that
[8:04:37] letter that didn't feel like they had
engagement on the ballot. So,
[8:04:45] » um I I mean I for what it's worth, I
think our instructions from the public
[8:04:48] are very clear. People want to see
short-term rentals not take over
[8:04:52] neighborhoods, not burn down
neighborhoods, and not cause
[8:04:55] neighborhoods not [clears throat] to be
able to sleep,
[8:04:57] » and not price out neighborhoods.
>> Right.
[8:05:01] And on the flip side, we recognize how
important this is to individuals if
[8:05:06] we're not in the business of wanting to
shut them down because obviously we do
[8:05:11] need money off of them um for taxes. So,
>> oh it man, I might regret saying this,
[8:05:17] but it is a better solution than a
vacant second home,
[8:05:20] » right?
>> Is in a lot of ways. properly regulated,
[8:05:23] » properly regulated, like a home is
better than a vacant, unoccupied home
[8:05:29] that someone's in two weeks a year that
just sits there and isn't maintained and
[8:05:32] just, you know what I mean? No one's in
it,
[8:05:36] » you know, that kind of stuff. So,
>> maybe people come and visit us, then
[8:05:39] they want to move here.
>> Yeah.
[8:05:42] » Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh, real quick
[8:05:44] before we go, there's going to be
additional changes um to the short-term
[8:05:50] redline changes suggested that'll come
at you in that next word session that
[8:05:53] weren't specifically communicated today.
Those are administrative changes that
[8:05:57] don't really change policy direction and
uh intent um at all. It's just
[8:06:02] structural changes to the ordinance and
um staff recommended u things for
[8:06:07] clarity and different things like that.
Uh other than that,
[8:06:11] » great.
>> We'll wrap it up. Thank you very much.
[8:06:13] » Thank you.
>> All right. Uh the
[8:06:16] » board of county commissioners is now
moving back into executive session for
[8:06:21] the following purposes.
>> Um we did already read it into the
[8:06:24] record, but I'll read it.
>> You don't have to reread it if it's
[8:06:27] already in the record.
>> Yes, but I think we should go and do
[8:06:30] another motion just because it's been
since this morning.
[8:06:33] » All right. Go for it, Peter. So,
pursuant to CRS 2464024B
[8:06:38] with the county attorney to meet with
the board of county commissioners for
[8:06:40] the purposes of receiving legal advice
on specific legal questions pertaining
[8:06:44] to the intergovernmental agreement
between Gilpin County and Clear Creek
[8:06:47] County for the operation of an animal
shelter and determining positions
[8:06:51] relative to matters that may be subject
to negotiations, developing strategy for
[8:06:55] negotiations, and instructing
negotiators with regard to the IG.
[8:07:01] » Second.
>> Any discussion? Hearing none. All in
[8:07:06] favor? I. Motion passes. We're moving
into executive session. Thank you.
[8:07:13] » Thank you.
>> Oh. Oh, sorry.
[8:39:54] The Creek Board of County Commissioners
is back in session after executive
[8:39:58] session at which no decisions were made,
no minutes were kept, and we are back in
[8:40:04] session in order to adjourn. We are so
adjourned. Thank you.
[8:40:10] Oh, good news. You guys graduated.