[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.

Sept. 1st, 2026 Full BOCC meeting

Transcript