[0:27] All

[1:50] right. It's 8.30. Let's go ahead and get started. Good morning, everybody. Today is August 12th, 2026. This is our regular meeting. Show for the record.

[2:02] that all three commissioners are here along with our attorney Jason Kelly our

[2:06] administrator Ronnie Wisdom and our deputy county clerk Jamie Grieman.

[2:11] Commissioner Van Rai would you please start us out with an invocation awesome

[2:19] father I thank you for this meeting and I thank you for every like mind and

[2:23] individual who's here to fulfill the task of your kingdom I pray that you bless

[2:27] us as we do not walk in the steps of the wicked but we delight in your law I

[2:31] I pray that we meditate on your law day and night so that we can be blessed in our meeting.

[2:38] Let your law be evident in our meetings also so that we can prosper.

[2:43] Amen.

[2:44] Amen.

[2:45] Please join me in the pledge.

[2:46] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

[2:53] which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[2:59] Well,

[3:10] we have the agenda before us, if anybody in the audience would like, when I believe there's some on the stand over there.

[3:18] Is there any additions or deletions to the agenda?

[3:24] Chairman, I make a motion to approve the agenda as presented.

[3:28] Second.

[3:30] Roll call, Jamie.

[3:31] Last key? Yes, Ben, right?

[3:32] Yes.

[3:33] Here, sink?

[3:34] Yes.

[3:37] We have minutes from July 22nd, the regular commissioner meeting minutes to approve.

[3:43] Any concerns with those?

[3:46] Chairman, I make motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

[3:50] I second.

[3:51] Roll call, Jamie.

[3:52] Last key.

[3:53] Yes, Ben Ryan.

[3:54] Yes.

[3:54] Here's sink.

[3:55] Yes.

[3:58] For the financials, we reviewed general check numbers 173-137 through 173-441.

[4:11] Public Health, check numbers, 372-65 through 372-97.

[4:21] Any concerns with the bills and obligations?

[4:25] Chairman, I make a motion to approve the bills and obligations.

[4:29] Second, roll call, Jamie.

[4:32] Last key.

[4:32] Yes, Ben, right?

[4:34] Yes.

[4:34] Here, sink.

[4:35] Yes.

[4:36] Thank you.

[4:37] That brings us to presentation from the public.

[4:40] This time slot is for information from the public, except as otherwise provided by law no action or discussion shall be taken or conducted on any items not appearing on the agenda.

[4:52] You will be allowed three minutes for your presentation.

[4:55] So this is a time if you have something you would like to address the board about that is not on the agenda, this is your opportunity.

[5:03] Is there anybody in the room that would like to make public comment? Yes, come on up, Terry.

[5:17] Good morning.

[5:18] Good morning.

[5:18] I'm Terry Hammond. I live in Moscow. And what I would like to address this morning is

[5:25] data centers. It seems as though every place else in the valley is putting a moratorium on those.

[5:34] So watch County, Hostia County, Rio Grande County, the city of Alamosa.

[5:40] And I think that the county of Alamosa needs to do the same.

[5:48] These things are, they suck up power, they suck up water, they are huge monstrosities that

[6:00] contribute to noise pollution.

[6:04] And I just think that county needs to not only put a moratorium on, ban the darn things.

[6:13] We don't need them in this valley.

[6:15] And if you all do decide to approve one, I suggest that you put it in your own backyard, and not mine.

[6:25] Thank you.

[6:26] Thank you, Terry.

[6:28] Is there anybody else in the room that would like to make public comment?

[6:34] Seeing none, is there anybody online that would like to address the board?

[6:43] Okay. I have asked our attorney to make a short statement kind of about our strategy as far as

[6:52] data center go data centers go and if you would kind of lay that out for us a little bit Jason I

[6:58] would appreciate that. Yeah. So I mean data centers can mean a lot of different things. I think the

[7:03] big concern that a lot of the people have at least our community is is hyper scale data centers.

[7:11] So

[7:11] We don't have anything currently in our land use code that would directly apply to a

[7:17] hyper-scaled data center.

[7:20] If we were to get an application for a hyper-scaled data center, then my recommendation would

[7:26] be that we did 90 applications because it's not in our code and that we don't have anything

[7:32] even remotely like it.

[7:34] At that point, then, we would put a moratorium on, and I would recommend that you put a moratorium

[7:38] I mean, so we could develop regulations within our land use code.

[7:43] There's been some discussion about whether or not you can regulate these under 1041 regulations.

[7:48] I know the opinion at least at this point that you can't.

[7:51] I don't think it fits within any of the criteria.

[7:54] Unless there was specific energy generation tied to that data center,

[7:59] then you could maybe kind of bootstrap it to that.

[8:04] But I think the better way to go would be just to make it clear

[8:07] is that you just develop a whole new chapter in our land use code in regards to data centers

[8:13] unless the legislature changes that 1041 statute to include that, which may be something

[8:18] that the commissioners or CTSI wants to push. They say, hey, these are becoming such a big issue,

[8:25] and let's make it clear that we can, in fact, regulate these under 1041 just by adding that as an

[8:30] area of state interest. That might be something to think about. But at least for the time being,

[8:34] we don't have any applications. Also, an application came in for a data center that was

[8:42] similar in scope, maybe to a small solar generation. It's a one container. It's two containers.

[8:48] I think that's a little different. But the hyper scale ones, we just really don't have anything to

[8:54] to regulate them. So is it safe to say that we're keeping our moratorium

[9:00] in our back pocket for now?

[9:01] Yeah, for now.

[9:02] I mean, and just to see if it even comes up,

[9:04] because they do use a lot of water,

[9:06] and they take a lot of energy,

[9:08] and I think that, you know, when people look at this area,

[9:11] we may have the open space,

[9:12] but water would be a problem in terms of doing that.

[9:18] But so would the transmission and the energy end,

[9:20] and they'd have to generate their own.

[9:22] And so I think for right now,

[9:24] we just keep that moratorium just available to us

[9:29] any event that something happens and they and we get a hyperscale one.

[9:33] If a hyperscale one would apply, would they even be able to get water for that?

[9:38] I don't know. I mean, I've got something.

[9:40] Certainly, they'd have to be, you know, they'd have to buy water from somebody.

[9:44] I guess if enough people or if the people that they bought water from,

[9:49] if they had enough water shares or whatever the case may be,

[9:53] generally if it's use, I'd begin. I think that's a water question for

[9:58] Rio Grande Water or whoever owns the water rights, whether or not they could do it.

[10:03] I think it would be tough.

[10:04] I mean, we say they use a lot of water they do, but in an agricultural sense, I mean we,

[10:11] we talk a lot about acre feet, how many acre feet it takes, ag takes a lot of acre feet

[10:18] to run it.

[10:20] And I don't remember when I was looking up the other day like how many acre feet it takes

[10:24] to run a data center for a year. I don't know if it was on the ground with maybe 15,000 acre feet

[10:30] for a year or so.

[10:35] I'm not a water expert so yeah. Go ahead, commission. Jason so

[10:42] I have seen I heard this is a rumor so it's not that people are putting extended moratoriums.

[10:49] And my understanding is moratoriums are tied to a specific act like creating

[10:54] the regulations or a comp plan and they have an expiration date. You can't put one just long term to

[11:04] is that correct or I think you run a foul if you're if you're trying to do it just as an

[11:10] indefinite moratorium outside of any other so when we did the 1041 regulations for the regional water

[11:18] projects. That was tied under the 1040 run regulations. We could have a moratorium

[11:24] until we develop those regulations and there was no time frame on that and that

[11:28] just that takes a lot of time. So after you know it was 18 months or whatever it

[11:32] took us. You can also have a moratorium if you're developing a master plan. So at

[11:37] that one of those things is we were in the middle of our master plan and so you

[11:41] can have a moratorium until you complete that master plan. That took us 18

[11:45] two months or two years. The general statute is a six months, a moratorium on things to

[11:50] develop regulations, just like on a land use code. Now you can extend that moratorium,

[11:55] but I think that each time you do that, you weaken your argument that this is not just

[12:01] an indefinite moratorium to postpone a project or an industry that you don't like. And so

[12:08] I think the challenge becomes a little stronger on the other end if you renew that five times

[12:13] in a row without actually developing regulations.

[12:17] And I think that could be a problem.

[12:18] So that's why you wait, if it's a hyper scale one, then we wait, we do not, because we have

[12:24] nothing even similar.

[12:26] And then at that point, we enact the moratorium and that buys us it, at least six months basically

[12:31] to really develop some good, good regulations.

[12:35] And then what we do is at least initially, I think is we would look at our 1041 regulations

[12:40] All the criteria that we require on some project like that and move them over basically to a chapter in our land use code that says, okay, you're going to have to meet all of these things as well.

[12:50] Rather than outright deny them for some reason, but.

[12:54] Thank you.

[12:55] Sure. There was one county in Colorado that put a five year moratorium on it.

[13:01] I don't work for that county, so I don't know what I don't know what.

[13:04] Just say they didn't get a one or six. Yeah, I just saw that and I thought well, that's not what I

[13:11] Read it because I looked at it and I

[13:14] Maybe you could argue that you're doing a comp plan just around that particular thing

[13:18] And so that so how long do you think it's gonna take you?

[13:21] I just I've never read anything in the statutes in terms that I found and

[13:26] Certainly I could be missing something that would allow you to do a more time for that long just out the gate

[13:31] All right. Thank you Jason. Okay, let's move on with our agenda.

[13:41] Our consent agenda is next.

[13:43] The following consent agenda items are expected to be routine and non-controversial.

[13:48] They may be acted upon by the board at one time without discussion. Any board member, staff member,

[13:54] or interested person may request that an item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion and consideration.

[14:00] We have the AFSAR General Volunteer MOU, Cooper's Likker License Renewal Treasures July Fund Report,

[14:09] the local impact accelerator grant and the IGA with RGWCD for the Revegetation Project.

[14:18] Chairman, I'd like to request to pull the local impact accelerator grant, please.

[14:25] Okay. Anything else we'd like to look at specifically?

[14:29] please. Then I'd like to make a motion to approve the remaining consent agenda item.

[14:35] Let's see. Okay. Roll call, Jamie.

[14:38] Last key. Yes. Ben Ryan. Yes. Here's the. Yes. Commissioner Lasky. Yes. I wanted to just get some information from Richard on this one.

[14:49] It looks like we have the grant in there, but we're still missing one step that I think can probably be taken care of between now and the next meeting.

[14:57] but wanted an update on that.

[15:00] Also, how it connected with the other vegetation project? Revegetation project. Absolutely. So those two things are tied together. The local impact accelerator grant is actually the grant that we're getting from the state of Colorado, the energy office, they're passing through a fund that they got from EPA. Five million dollars or so in projects overall. We're getting about half a million dollars of that money altogether. The majority of that is going to fund the Revegetation Pilot Project. That's the IGA Rio Grande Water Conservation District is going to be performing that on our behalf.

[15:29] And then we're going to spend the remainder of the money on policy consultants.

[15:33] So, this grant, the information that you guys have is the final scope of work.

[15:38] And the final budget that was sent to the state's contracting office.

[15:42] The state kind of has been not paying us the attention that we need over the last month.

[15:47] And we need to try and keep this moving forward.

[15:48] They've promised the actual contract documents any day now.

[15:51] I was hoping we'd have them by today, but we don't.

[15:53] So I think that once we get those, if you're okay with accepting the grant as an in principle,

[15:57] We can have Jason review the contract language and make sure it's good before a good sign, so that would be my request.

[16:03] So, Richard, just to make sure how much of Alamosa County funding is going into this.

[16:11] This is 100% grant, so no match.

[16:14] Thank you.

[16:19] Chairman, if there's no other comments, I would like to make a motion to approve the local impact accelerator grant.

[16:29] and the contract after our legal reviews it.

[16:33] I'll second that.

[16:34] Roll call, Jamie.

[16:35] Lasky.

[16:36] Yes.

[16:36] Ben Rye.

[16:37] Yes.

[16:37] Here's Sink.

[16:38] Yes.

[16:39] Richard, how involved are you going to be with the nuts and bolts of that project?

[16:43] Is it more just shepherding the grant or will you be involved with kind of what happens?

[16:47] It depends on the phase of the project.

[16:49] So I am paid out of the grant for an expected scope of work as part of that.

[16:55] and that you can see that in the budget.

[16:57] And it changes a little bit over the years

[16:58] because this is a three-year project basically.

[17:01] And that's why I'm trying to get it started

[17:02] as we really want to try and get some stuff,

[17:03] especially on the Revegetation Project happening this October.

[17:08] So we're going to hire a consultant

[17:09] to help with the policy work.

[17:10] So I'll oversee and manage that aspect.

[17:12] Rio Grande Water Conservancy District

[17:13] is really doing all the work on the Revegetation thing.

[17:16] So just kind of overseeing and managing that.

[17:18] And then a little bit of oversight and management

[17:19] with the CWOP, which is a quality assurance deal

[17:22] required by APA.

[17:23] Okay, okay.

[17:24] The reason I ask is I'm interested in the project, it would be good to maybe get a to schedule

[17:30] amber at some point, maybe six months or maybe a year out or something and just to get an

[17:37] update on how it's going.

[17:39] Absolutely.

[17:41] All right, thank you.

[17:42] Quick.

[17:43] Richard is Madeline taking on the regeneration or?

[17:47] So Madeline has been contracted separate from our negotiation with RGWCD.

[17:51] We have an IGA with them to manage the project in that scope that's in the packet for that and then it's up to them how they perform that

[17:57] So they have hired Madeleine as a consultant to assist with that process. I just wondered because she had been working on it historically here writing Q

[18:08] Okay

[18:09] That brings us to our next section of the agenda, which is public hearings. We have one public hearing this morning

[18:16] And I believe we have J on line. Yes, correct

[18:21] Okay, thank you

[18:23] Here on my web, Major Site Plan Revocation, Mr. Hubler.

[18:28] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[18:29] So this is before you guys to consider the revocation of a Major Site Plan that was

[18:34] approved for Mr. Web several years ago.

[18:38] We've done this for a couple other projects for where for a variety of reasons that the

[18:42] project couldn't move forward.

[18:43] The applicant was unable to meet the conditions of approval.

[18:46] This is one of those later cases.

[18:48] So, in this particular case, one of the requirements of Mr. Webb, because of his frontage along the highway, was to get an access permit from C.Dot, and he has basically failed to do that.

[18:58] I've been working with him off and on over several years, including pretty extensively since earlier this year, and feel like this is just something that we can't resolve.

[19:07] Can't figure out a solution for.

[19:09] It's on proposing that we actually revoke the approval and basically close down the operation.

[19:20] Okay. Mr. Webb, do you have any comments you would like to make?

[19:25] Yeah, I definitely do. When we purchased the land in our due diligence process,

[19:30] we went through- Are you- You did? I'm not hearing anything.

[19:35] I'm not muted. Can you not hear me? Are you there?

[19:44] Hello.

[19:44] Okay, can you- Are you talking, Mr. Webb? We're not hearing anything if you are.

[19:50] I am and I it's not muted. We're having an issue. Hold on a second, please.

[19:56] Okay.

[20:07] Can you guys hear me now? Now we got you. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.

[20:12] Yeah, so there's definitely a problem. When we purchased the property, we confirmed

[20:19] multiple times through the due diligence process that we did have access to that

[20:24] property there. And then we were told we weren't. Joe Heinlein, Stephanie Balsy, both told my

[20:31] relative, Preston Porter was also informed when selling the property from Floyd Cruth that there

[20:38] was an access point there and that it would be usable and we would not have a problem. During that

[20:44] point in time we had a number of resignations, people leaving from Seedod and we lost you again,

[20:50] Hold on.

[20:54] Okay,

[21:02] everything's shown good on my hand guys.

[21:10] Okay, we heard you up to the sale of the

[21:13] property and the access was there at that time. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay,

[21:19] so we had access. We were confirmed that it wouldn't be a problem after multiple resignations and

[21:26] people leaving post at C.DOT, we had to start all over.

[21:32] New engineering had conversation with a number of different people saying, yeah, it's probably

[21:38] going to go into like a phase two, phase three study because of the ACDC lanes, turn lanes

[21:43] and so forth and how the highway merges there.

[21:46] Pretty disappointing after we spent the money to try to start the business.

[21:50] It's been an ongoing embarrassment for my company and myself personally trying to explain

[21:55] why we can't be open, why we can't actually finish up the product.

[22:02] Then come about the, as you guys won't know, with the write-in write-out, I think that's

[22:07] the access control plan, the ACP or whatever, from CDOT, and how that's been going throughout

[22:13] Alamosa and the affecting surrounding area.

[22:17] I think that the CDOT situation needed to be resolved by them going back through previous

[22:23] record emails and so forth of their employees. I was informed that they destroy records after two

[22:30] years, which is pretty disappointing. Talk to legal counsel, legal counsel says, well, the best

[22:36] thing we can do is put in a core request and have C.DOT get back to us with all reports on that

[22:43] property where it's not just one employee's take from it. Mr. Gallegos over at C.DOT and I had

[22:53] A number of discussions, very, very disappointed in the response that he says he's overwhelmed

[22:58] in his position, and he can only do so much and that he gets hundreds of emails every day

[23:03] and so they have to destroy those records.

[23:07] That's pretty much where I'm at, we're trying to figure out a way forward without having

[23:12] to spend a bunch more money on this operation because this is something that I already paid

[23:18] before once that was already purchased and that Floyd

[23:22] Kruth also had paid for it and that he had access. So I just

[23:27] feel as if we're being bullied a little bit by C dot. And I

[23:30] think that the whole area of Alamosa gets bullied a little bit

[23:33] and thus the advent of the ASBC. So the Alamosa Small Business

[23:38] Council, I'm not one out of a thousand voices here. There's a

[23:43] bunch of us. So Mr. Chair, if I could just ask a clear

[23:48] Frank question. Jeremiah, did you ever perform a traffic study to level one or level two?

[23:54] Sorry, let me reject these calls you guys sorry for the interruptions.

[23:59] No, we did not.

[24:01] It was our understanding that we would not have to do that during the due diligence process of the

[24:04] land purchase. Okay, so and then just to clarify for the board, this matter about the access

[24:11] permit is specifically to the access that was proposed and accepted as part of the site plan for

[24:16] for Mr. Webb's development of roughly two acres on the highway frontage of this property

[24:21] as illustrated in the site plan that's attached in the packet.

[24:25] The property itself does have access from the north and there's about 46 feet of that

[24:30] existing county road 5.6 that overlaps it and it was certainly the staff preference in the

[24:35] county's support of Mr. Webb's proposal to access this for the commercial development

[24:39] off the highway.

[24:41] It's my understanding that he began that conversation with an application to CDOT for an access

[24:46] permit in 2021, which is prior to submitting the application to us.

[24:50] And then the notes that I got from CDOT was that that application was never a complete

[24:55] application that was received and so they couldn't process it.

[24:58] And so I believe that they have been telling him since very early on in the process, the

[25:03] county approvals that he would need to perform a traffic study and the question is to whether

[25:07] there was a level or one or level two

[25:09] and back and forth a little bit.

[25:11] And so that's the staff contention

[25:13] is that what's required to move forward with this

[25:16] from CDOT and to meet the condition of the county

[25:19] is to complete the traffic study that CDOT requires

[25:22] and to submit the complete application.

[25:24] And it's my understanding as of yesterday

[25:26] that neither of those things have taken place.

[25:29] That is correct.

[25:30] None of those have taken place.

[25:32] We're still waiting to find out what they say

[25:35] about our first and initial legal access

[25:37] access to that property of 116.

[25:39] And I can just provide a little bit of background for those folks that are listening in on the

[25:43] meeting.

[25:44] We expect, and we see this consistently with access as along the highway, especially

[25:48] historic accesses, that if there's a change in use and increase in traffic, a new development

[25:54] on a vacant land, that they will require an updated access permit.

[25:58] Basically, the access permit that they have is for a particular use, for a particular area

[26:02] and a particular location, and if any of those things change, then you basically refresh or resubmit a new application.

[26:10] We've had to repermit first street, for instance, as part of the loves development.

[26:13] In an interim time during which we've been trying to get this done, we've received probably close to a dozen access permits

[26:21] that were issued for other projects in the county.

[26:23] So this is absolutely a doable thing.

[26:26] and I think that it's rather than figure out why it is that the things have changed on the C dot side.

[26:34] My recommendation to Mr. Webb has always been just submit the application and do the work in that way.

[26:39] We can keep things moving forward.

[26:41] I understand the point. The amount of work that's done, the cost that's going to go into it,

[26:46] we've requested numerous times that C dot do that because we do have lots of different proof that we've had access,

[26:53] that it's not a change of use that there won't be an increase to traffic.

[26:58] Their their contention was is a I believe it is a 48-hour vacation of the

[27:04] property made at Nolan Void and because we're a new owner that they just have

[27:09] to go through this whole process all over whereas in the purchase this was part

[27:13] of the agreement that we did have highway access. So that's who we're fighting for.

[27:22] So well I certainly understand that I guess I would say like that's not a

[27:25] fight that he has with the county. That's the fight that he has with C-DOT.

[27:29] Correct.

[27:32] Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody in the room that would like to comment on this application we're looking at?

[27:50] It's indeed from Moscow. I was just curious.

[27:53] So anybody who puts is wanting to put in a new business? Are they all going to have to have some kind of a traffic that he did?

[28:01] So, yeah, we typically see that for businesses that are located along the highway corridor,

[28:08] where there has been a change in use for an increased or an expected increase in traffic,

[28:13] that they'll oftentimes have to do at least a level one study,

[28:16] which is basically documenting what you should have,

[28:18] and sometimes a level two study, which is considering your impact to the highway system

[28:22] in relation to the neighborhood.

[28:23] So most recently in the mosque area, for instance,

[28:27] as we worked with the Cooper's liquor store

[28:30] that you just renewed earlier today.

[28:32] We had conversation with the CDOT as to what was going to be required

[28:35] related to their access.

[28:37] We do this for, like I said, every single development

[28:39] that's along the highway corridor,

[28:41] and it's kind of CDOT's decision

[28:42] because they do regulate all access to their facilities

[28:45] as to exactly what's required based on the type of development

[28:48] and the store pattern and any permits that they've already issued.

[28:51] So it does kind of vary a little bit between,

[28:54] In case the case is to what's ultimately required, sometimes a level one is sufficient, sometimes

[28:59] a review of the situation is sufficient, sometimes a level two is required.

[29:03] We're seeing more level one and two traffic studies required in the past three years probably

[29:08] than we did in the two years, but that was your part of that.

[29:13] Thank you, Cindy.

[29:15] Anybody else in the room that would like to make public comment?

[29:21] Seeing none, is there anybody online that would like to comment?

[29:27] Okay.

[29:28] Okay, we'll go to clarifications, questions from the board.

[29:33] Commissioner Lasky.

[29:39] So looking at the documents that were in there, we did require, let's see, before approval,

[29:49] that the applicant shall submit a new access permit application to CIDOT and comply with any

[29:56] of the conditions that are required.

[29:58] So that

[30:00] Was one of the five things that we required in the permit, correct, Richard, and that was back in 2024? That is correct. And that's why we're here today, because that condition was not applied. What is our standard on the timelines for those? When do we follow up on, on, is this a special, you special, or a site plan? Yeah, and it's, it's varied a little bit, depending upon

[30:29] on the type of application.

[30:31] Special uses are ones where generally we've got

[30:35] some kind of trigger that has to be done within a year.

[30:38] The site plans oftentimes are less triggering,

[30:41] like they may be for a development that's already there

[30:44] that's, you know, that will be built out in that year.

[30:47] But generally speaking some of the other language

[30:49] we have in our code and what a reference

[30:50] and sort of the email to them, you know,

[30:52] request that applicants respond within 90 days

[30:54] if we ask them to do something

[30:56] from the administrative perspective.

[30:57] And that's why I gave that 90-day deadline earlier this year.

[31:02] Ultimately, this is one of the things C.Axis permits can take a while, traffic studies can take a while.

[31:08] Processing on air and can take a while as long as the applicant is moving forward with that.

[31:12] You know, it was our assumption that he was meeting that first condition.

[31:15] I certainly talked with him after the meeting about doing that.

[31:18] The reason we had that condition worded as such was that the prior application from 21 had already been determined to be incomplete and discarded.

[31:24] right? So that's why we said he needed to submit a new application. And so when it became

[31:29] apparent earlier this year that this had just never gotten accomplished and he'd not

[31:32] in fact submitted an application. That's when I gave him the timeframe to get working

[31:37] on that. At which point I was told it would be done. So here we are and it still hasn't

[31:42] been submitted.

[31:48] Thank you. That's my, actually I do have one. Mr. Webb, when did you, did

[31:56] Did you submit an application after the 21 application?

[32:03] Yeah, we actually did.

[32:04] We submitted two different applications to three different parties at C.DOT.

[32:09] Those were not completed.

[32:10] We were calling for some clarification on how to proceed forward, how to get some information

[32:16] for them to complete that application.

[32:18] It didn't happen.

[32:20] We don't get response multiple phone calls, the email exchange is back and forth.

[32:24] It's always just a pass off. Here's a link to the website, and then I don't know if any of you guys have tried to utilize that website.

[32:32] Very difficult to do. I can hire somebody to do it. And in our opinion, we wanted to use what we had already had for that information rather than doing all the rework because we felt we were owed an explanation.

[32:46] C.Dot definitely does not feel that they owe us any explanation whatsoever why they don't

[32:51] have any of our previous records or our applications or documents for parties that we talked

[32:56] to.

[32:56] So we spoke with I think it was four total different applications starts with six different

[33:03] employees.

[33:05] Did you ever get verification from any of them that those applications were complete?

[33:11] No, they were not completed.

[33:13] That's the issue.

[33:14] When we'd catch a stag and we'd ask for help and assistance, nothing would come forward.

[33:19] They just kind of pass it off while you need to hire this person.

[33:22] You need to do this and that.

[33:23] And we continue to push back and said, well, we would like to ask you guys to help us with this.

[33:28] Because of the previous stuff that was told by Joe Heinlein, Stephanie Balsey,

[33:34] and a couple of their predecessors that moved on.

[33:38] Thank you.

[33:41] Commissioner Van right.

[33:45] It's it's I mean you have highway

[33:48] frontage and that's the reason you buy property along the highway is so that you

[33:51] can have a business open so by making someone go down a dirt road and then you

[33:58] know to a back part makes the property less valuable. That property was used as a

[34:05] showroom for the other modulars that were there. So to me the access really

[34:11] hasn't changed. They're still selling housing units at that same location. So why would

[34:18] C.DOT require a new access? I mean, I understand that they want to. I think my feeling is that

[34:23] C.DOT's only goal is to shut down businesses along the highway. I mean, to go through all this,

[34:31] these hoops to make something that's already there inaccessible.

[34:37] So to answer our comment on your first point, we absolutely agree with not wanting the commercial traffic to go through the neighborhood to access it from the north.

[34:44] That was the reason that staff has documented and strongly suggested the CDOT that they consider allowing access to the front of the property.

[34:53] It's my understanding from extensive conversations with CDOT that they are required to provide reasonable access.

[34:58] They're not required to provide direct access to every single property.

[35:01] And so we frequently see applications that rely on, you know, backage roads or easements,

[35:06] those kinds of things, or alternative accesses off of county or city streets.

[35:12] The historic accesses, the other thing that I understand is that historic accesses, those

[35:16] that existed basically prior to the change in the access code, the state highway access code

[35:22] in the late 90s, those kind of grandfathered accesses, you know, are due persist basically.

[35:28] the state's not going through on a wide-scale basis looking at every single one, those do persist

[35:33] until there is a change, and that changes oftentimes new development or redevelopment.

[35:38] And I think Mr. Webb mentioned it, but there is some component in our code, and most other

[35:42] codes, that if use is abandoned for a period of time, then that new use, even if it's exactly

[35:47] the same, has to go through whatever the current regulations are. So that's what I understood

[35:51] would see dots requirement to basically repurmit that existing historic access that had

[35:58] been used by the trailer sales lot, but that had not been used for a number of years.

[36:04] And so that was the need to get the access permit, but ultimately that's a see dot decision.

[36:09] One of the things that I've endeavored to do on every case since I've been here is to sort

[36:13] of prevent the county from approving things that the state won't approve, because I think

[36:18] And the K way is a perfect example of that, like where what we said we were okay with

[36:23] and with the states that they're okay with were very, very different.

[36:27] And so the applicant in that case has not been able to realize the permission that they

[36:31] got from the county.

[36:32] So we always try and make sure that we have these conversations up front so that an applicant

[36:35] knows what they have to do and we try and mirror what the state is going to allow with what

[36:40] we want to be approving.

[36:41] And so that's what we're doing here, that's what's prompted that condition.

[36:45] and I think that's whether we agree with it or not,

[36:49] you know, the state has basically said,

[36:50] you have to reprimand that access point

[36:53] if you want to be able to keep using it.

[36:54] Now, Mr. Webb, like I said,

[36:56] could utilize the property on the, you know,

[36:58] access it from the north.

[36:59] We don't think that's a great idea in my office,

[37:01] but that is a possibility he would have to amend the site plan

[37:04] when we need to re-approve an amended site plan

[37:07] if he's going to utilize that access.

[37:12] Mr. Rewesky.

[37:13] So Richard, the most recent case where we asked somebody to get a access plan for C. How long did that take?

[37:29] The case or the access point? The approval of the application.

[37:37] Okay. So just look for a ballpark because I know C dot is difficult to work with. But what are we

[37:47] finding? I can't go back historically as we noted those people are gods. So what if I went in

[37:55] today and asked to do something similar to this, what is a ballpark estimate of how long it would

[38:01] take. If I did my due diligence on time. And I think that depends a little bit on the applicant.

[38:07] But what I have seen in the past, you guys most recently we finally approved the the CYA

[38:12] Richards and subdivision off Adams Lane. One of the conditions of that at the Planning Commission

[38:16] was that you're going to have to sort out this access piece for Adams Lane with C dot. And so

[38:22] the Planning Commission approved that in December of I think it was 23. She had gotten an access

[38:28] has planned submitted to C.Dot with comments back by February.

[38:32] Now that held, like that hasn't been issued yet because of the whole case held.

[38:37] But I think that it's reasonable that this could be done in a couple of months.

[38:41] Mr. Johnson, working on his subdivision in this vicinity, he's running to a snack because

[38:46] his traffic engineer just died, but he had managed to get a traffic study and an access application

[38:53] to C.Dot within about a month of us telling him he needed to do it.

[38:56] So it's a very doable thing, other people are doing it.

[39:00] Thank you.

[39:02] Thank you, Commissioner Lasky.

[39:03] That was also my question.

[39:06] Okay, if there's nothing else for clarification, we will exit our public hearing.

[39:12] Okay, we'll exit our public hearing after our list of exhibits.

[39:17] A list of exhibits, staff letter to Jeremiah and Bobby Webb,

[39:20] We have to approve Site Plan 3 resolution 24 SP1 or 4, 20, 20, 20, 20, 26, emails with applicant and CDOT, 5, 20, 23, 20, 24, emails with applicant to CDOT, and 6, the public notice.

[39:33] Thank you. That ends our public hearing. We'll move into discussion amongst the board and staff, and come to a decision.

[39:42] Questions, commissioners? Commissioner Nulaski?

[39:43] Well more mine is a thought. I see all the issue. We did indicate that this needed to

[39:51] be done and tabit disappointed that it isn't but I know working with CDOT is. So I am somewhat

[40:01] leaning as opposed to revoking it to give an extension of to me six months would be doable

[40:07] with a final date. I don't think we have addressed this. I know it's difficult. I feel

[40:14] bad for Mr. Webb having to deal with C-DOT, but that is the process and that's what you

[40:21] have to do. So that's what I was kind of looking at. And that was my question on there realizing

[40:29] though at that time my vote then would be revoking, but giving just a little extra time to work

[40:35] with C-DOT on it. It seems to be doable. However, that needs to be done. That is on the land owner.

[40:44] You know, we can't tell him how to do their process. We can just say that we do require an access permit

[40:54] to C-DOT and have to comply with all the conditions they require. So that's kind of what I wanted

[41:00] to put out there for commissioners the way I was leaning.

[41:04] Thank you.

[41:05] Mr. Veneray?

[41:06] I'm definitely in that way too, that we give extensions for everything.

[41:10] I think it's fair to do the same on this one.

[41:15] So that's where I'm sitting at, yeah.

[41:19] Mish, are you going to make just realizing, though, as I have another one after an extension,

[41:27] that's the one forgiveness that we give.

[41:31] So realizing it's a hard deadline.

[41:35] Appreciate that.

[41:36] I was thinking the same way my comment would be that recognize the difficulty and the struggle

[41:43] that you're having, Mr. Webb, but it is a requirement that we require of other folks.

[41:49] So we need to remain consistent.

[41:52] That said, a consistent thing we have done where we feel that it's justified.

[41:56] We have had extension.

[41:59] So I would certainly entertain that.

[42:02] The six-month deadline that you recommended sounds like it should be sufficient.

[42:12] Chair, may I make a recommendation just in that regard?

[42:16] So I think one of the things you have to look at in terms of these applications is, and

[42:20] if you look at the emails from 23 and 24, there was an email correspondence between Mr.

[42:25] web and CDOT was very clear in terms of what he needed to do in terms of that level 1 or level 2

[42:30] traffic study. So there was communication back even prior to the resolution being adopted

[42:34] on the site plan in 2024. So if you're going to grant extension, which is certainly with

[42:40] in your preview due, I would recommend that you grant extensions and increments to make sure that

[42:44] you stay on top of this so that we don't have this issue again. Six months down the road, eight

[42:49] months down the road saying why I've tried to reach out. It shouldn't take that long to do an

[42:54] application. So he has 30 days to file an application and get the application at

[42:59] least in to see that when you when you look at that, it was pretty clear. All of

[43:04] the new emails are all from 2026. So I don't know what happens. All of 2024, because

[43:09] we issued this in January of 2024. No, no, no, what'll happen? What in 2025? And so I

[43:16] think that the. It would be wise of the board to kind of set a shorter extension. At

[43:24] least in terms of filing the application to get the ball rolling and get started and

[43:27] do what needs to be done versus waiting six months to see what happens and come back

[43:31] revoke it. He has an established business and I think the board wants to see that thrive

[43:36] and do that. But also, I think that the applicant needs to stay on top of what he needs to do

[43:44] with SIDA in order to meet what this board already approved. And so it's kind of one of those

[43:50] where lack of preparation on your part doesn't justify an emergency on mine.

[43:55] It's been two years now since he's known about this and yes, I know that the applicant has had some issues with C-DOT

[44:02] but even back in 2023 before it seemed pretty clear what was going to need to happen.

[44:08] And I'm assuming that's also why that condition is on that resolution.

[44:11] And I appreciate that time frame that I put out was for completion, but I do agree with that that maybe we need to have more shorter deadlines at shorter steps instead of me looking at because obviously that hasn't worked well in the past the extended dead, you know, so I guess based on that.

[44:41] comment I'd be looking more of I'm going to look at Richard is a 60-day to get an application in

[44:49] and I don't understand the process of what is attainable to get done and what are those.

[45:01] Benchmark steps that we need to look at. So I think- Okay, I know it's conversation with us, but- Yeah, that's all right. I think specific to this, he would need to perform a traffic study to submit with the application. So I think 30 days maybe a little too soon. And I don't know this is a question for the attorney. Maybe rather than making a decision today. Could they just table this until like the second meeting in October the 22nd or whatever that one is? Just table the decision and have the condition that-

[45:29] between now and then that the application gets submitted in that way they could touch base

[45:33] at that meeting as to whether or not that had been done. Is that 60 days? That'd be a little

[45:37] more, more than 60 days actually. Second meeting in October. Second meeting in October.

[45:41] Yeah, that's fine. You could table a decision. I mean it by, by cabling it, you don't necessarily give

[45:46] him any enforcement because you haven't made a decision, but you can always come back and then make

[45:50] the decision on that, on that day. So that, okay. That would be fine if you wanted to proceed.

[45:54] That's what I was leaning to is no action today for a bit, but realizing that action will take place in the near future.

[46:06] Yeah, I think the discussion though has been as what action needs to take place by that second meeting in October for you to continue basically to not revoke it.

[46:22] do you know what I mean? And so giving the app, I think it's fair to the applicant as well to know exactly what does he need to do or what does he need to accomplish by that second meeting in October in order to not revoke his, his cycling ladies and gentlemen, can I step in for a quick question?

[46:40] Mr. Webb, we would have to exit our, our go back into the public hearing if, if you want to make more comments and we can do that if that's your, your desire.

[46:50] I think it's important to make a point.

[46:55] Okay, we will go back into our public hearing then.

[46:59] Sorry about that.

[47:00] That's all right.

[47:01] We'll go back into our public hearing at this time.

[47:03] Mr. Webb.

[47:06] We do have a Quora request,

[47:08] and we're awaiting information from that request.

[47:12] That's going to take up to 30 days to get that back.

[47:15] So Mr. Chair, if I can address that?

[47:17] I think the core request is not relevant to what is being required of the applicant, and I can

[47:24] understand your frustration, Mr. Webb, in terms of waiting for that back. Well, one of core

[47:29] requests shouldn't take 30 days. It should take three at the outset, if the longest it should take seven,

[47:34] because they're subject to the same core laws that we are. That being said, whether or not the

[47:40] information or what will happen, this goes back to it, and Mr. Webb acknowledged as much as that no

[47:46] traffic study was ever done. And that was a requirement as part of that application process

[47:51] when it was issued. So I can understand the frustration and you're dealing with different

[47:56] people but the reality is now is that the application needs to be made because that 2021 application

[48:03] does not valid anymore. And so the core request or that information while it may be frustrating

[48:10] is just don't think it's remained this particular issue that we're dealing with now whether

[48:14] or not, the application is going to move forward.

[48:18] Thank you, Mr. Webb.

[48:20] I need some clarification myself here.

[48:23] I were talking about initially the six month

[48:26] was a possibility, and in my mind,

[48:31] if we were to allow six months

[48:34] and allow Mr. Webb to seek resolution

[48:39] at whatever way he sees fit,

[48:41] whether that's fighting with C-DOT

[48:42] through legal counsel or restarting the application process, that would be his decision.

[48:50] The other option was having kind of some set goals at certain timelines.

[48:56] And then that kind of puts the county on the hook for keeping track of what he's doing

[49:02] type thing.

[49:03] Am I following?

[49:05] Well, I think-

[49:05] You guys are suggesting-

[49:07] I like Richard's idea at least, tabling it because tabling it puts us already back on

[49:12] on the agenda to address the issue in terms of whether—so, Richard doesn't have to

[49:16] necessarily keep track.

[49:17] It's up to Mr. Webb to make sure that he's filed the application that he's communicated

[49:22] with C-DOT.

[49:23] That, you know, if he comes back in October and says, I file the application, I have a traffic

[49:27] study scheduled.

[49:28] You can decide at that point whether or not he's done exercise due diligence and whether

[49:31] or not you want to continue it and table it again so that he can finalize that, or if nothing

[49:37] has happened. For whatever reason, he's failed to even submit an application or to have

[49:43] any communication with CDOT. Because I understand he can't control CDOT any more than we can,

[49:48] right? But as explained by Mr. Hewbler, he's had a number of projects that have applied for

[49:53] and received CDOT permits from the time in between the time that we issued this resolution to today.

[50:01] So clearly that CDOT's still working and they're doing things,

[50:05] but that still gives some flexibility.

[50:08] So I like the idea of tabling it just in terms of,

[50:11] then Richard doesn't necessarily have to do too much.

[50:14] Mr. Heeler.

[50:15] I was just gonna suggest maybe we just table it

[50:17] to the Tuesday, November 10th meeting,

[50:20] because that would be more or less 90 days from now.

[50:23] So right around three months,

[50:24] so I won't be here for the October 22nd meeting.

[50:27] And yeah, okay, and I think that's fine.

[50:28] And again, the issue is what is it that Mr. Web,

[50:31] so that he knows and fairness to him,

[50:32] what is that he has to do by that date in order to comply with whatever it is, whatever extension

[50:39] you're granted in hand. And my recommendation there would be that he performed the level two

[50:43] traffic study and submit an application. And to whatever extent he's done either of those,

[50:48] you'd be able to evaluate it in November 10th and make a decision then.

[50:53] Okay, I was looking at October 14th. Is that unreasonable?

[50:59] available? I think giving them a full 90 days may make the traffic study more likely

[51:05] to occur. Okay. Okay. Any other clarifications before we exit our public hearing again?

[51:14] Do we have to do the list of exhibits again? Okay. Anything else? All right. We will exit

[51:22] that are public hearing again and we can continue discussion amongst the board and staff.

[51:29] So Chairman, with those discussions and that's what I'm thinking my opinion will be to

[51:37] table this, what is this called?

[51:43] The Permit Revocation.

[51:44] Okay.

[51:45] The Permit.

[51:47] What?

[51:48] Revocation?

[51:48] Revocation.

[51:51] Okay.

[51:52] to like November 10th and then not in the motion but understanding or does it

[51:59] need to be in the motion that at that point we would need to have proof of an

[52:04] application filed in the Level 2 traffic study. That would be part of the

[52:09] motion. That we are tabling it to that date. To allow for. To allow for. The

[52:15] applicant to submit an application to C dot and to perform a Level 2 traffic

[52:23] So we'll put that if we go this direction, the expectation would be included in the motion, so it's clear to us and to the applicant.

[52:33] Okay, that's the clarification I needed.

[52:36] Anything further, Commissioner Benry?

[52:38] I do have one more question.

[52:40] So Jason maybe Richard the application in the level two traffic study.

[52:48] what is next on that in those steps? What is next to be?

[52:56] So, Mr. Webber need to hire a traffic engineer to perform the little two study,

[53:02] and then he would submit the application with the little two study.

[53:05] So, the level two study has to be done before the application can be submitted.

[53:09] Yeah.

[53:11] Okay. Thank you.

[53:15] I don't have anything further either, so I will entertain a motion.

[53:19] I

[53:23] make a motion to, a

[53:30] motion to table the site plan 23003,

[53:36] re-batic, what's the word, revocation?

[53:40] Revocation, which is revocation.

[53:45] Revocation to November 10th meeting, and at that we will require or to allow for

[53:56] or proof of an application submitted to C.

[54:01] Any level to traffic study results.

[54:07] Second.

[54:12] I just have one, I have one question.

[54:14] Is it, do we have a meeting on,

[54:16] it's November 10th, not November, okay, that's all.

[54:19] It is November 10th, okay.

[54:21] Roll call, Jamie.

[54:22] Lesky, yes, Ben, right?

[54:24] Yes.

[54:24] Here's Sink.

[54:25] Yes.

[54:26] I'm sorry, did you get all of that, Jamie?

[54:28] Okay, thank you.

[54:29] All right.

[54:29] All right, thank you, Mr. Webb.

[54:32] Thank you, Mr. Heudler.

[54:38] Are you clear, Mr. Webb, on what we're expecting moving forward?

[54:44] Yes, I am clear.

[54:47] Okay, thank you for being with us today.

[54:49] Thank you.

[54:56] Okay, that's all the public hearings we have this morning.

[54:58] Did we end up having any appointments?

[55:02] Okay.

[55:04] Then we will move to board and staff updates.

[55:08] Jamie.

[55:10] I do have a few things this morning.

[55:13] I can't remember if we've met since we had a date change for the employee picnic or not.

[55:20] We did have to move that to October 1st, the last meeting.

[55:25] When we were here, it was in September, but we did move that to October 1st and we did

[55:29] have a committee planning meeting since then.

[55:33] So we got that kicked off and we've got some great ideas planned and we're really excited

[55:37] for that.

[55:37] So we are moving on that and Katie with CCI sent out an email asking for volunteers to the county

[55:48] PIOs asking for people that might be interested in helping to proofread the chapter in the

[55:56] handbook on county communications and public relations. So I volunteered for that. So it's kind of

[56:03] excited about maybe participating in that, so I'm waiting on more information on that, so that was kind of cool.

[56:12] And the last thing is Ronnie and I visited a little bit more following up on the SLV Commissioner budget meeting process.

[56:23] And we did talk to the other administrators, other county administrators about moving that September meeting up a week.

[56:30] And everybody wholeheartedly agreed about moving that up a week to September 22nd.

[56:38] So I did get the applications out to all of the nonprofits and move that data so we could

[56:46] get packets out and everything to help that process out a little bit.

[56:51] So that's a wrap with that.

[56:53] Yeah, Jamie. So September 22nd is the date their stuff has to be reviewed or is that the date the commissioners are going to meet?

[57:03] Yeah, that's the date of the commissioner meeting.

[57:05] It says Tuesday.

[57:06] Oh, I'm sorry, the 21st then.

[57:08] Okay. I'm sorry. I don't know.

[57:10] I had the.

[57:10] Yeah.

[57:12] Like, do you know, Castellan, can you just have their board meeting?

[57:15] Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't know.

[57:16] I had that date in my head, the 21st.

[57:19] Okay. Thank you.

[57:20] Thank you, Jamie.

[57:24] Richard, you want to give us an update.

[57:28] If you don't have anything, you can comment about yesterday.

[57:33] Yes, that's what I was going to do for my update.

[57:36] As I mentioned, or as you guys may be aware, the US Army Corps of Engineers,

[57:40] Albuquerque District Office, Division Commander, Lieutenant and Williams

[57:44] was up yesterday along with several of their staff, the Chief of Planning,

[57:48] the Chief of H&H and a whole bunch of other titles that at least track up.

[57:52] They've got so many people in that office and it's apparently a small one.

[57:55] So we spent about two hours yesterday, a little bit more on a guided tour at several kind of

[58:00] key points along the Levy, working from the riparian park down past the new pedestrian bridge

[58:04] and the state street, over to kind of the very tail end of the Levy out on the county side.

[58:10] And had a really good interaction. The Westside diversion was basically our last stop.

[58:14] had a really good interaction with him.

[58:16] This is to kind of give him some familiarity with our project.

[58:20] That's currently in the Army course process.

[58:22] The rapid, it's an acronym, I don't know what it stands for,

[58:25] but it's very descriptive.

[58:26] Rapid, three-year feasibility study,

[58:28] which we learned yesterday is really about a two-year feasibility study,

[58:32] because they plan in a whole year for all the one, two, and three-star generals

[58:35] that are not in the Albuquerque Office to review and approve these things.

[58:39] So that is moving forward.

[58:41] We're still having regular meetings with them,

[58:43] with the city staff, they're having three times as meeting meetings as they invite us to.

[58:48] And so a lot of work moving forward to kind of study the existing conditions of the levy.

[58:52] This is the first step that works us towards them deciding that it's a civil works project

[58:55] and they'll help us fix it.

[58:57] So that's our goal.

[58:58] So yeah, really good meeting with all those folks yesterday.

[59:01] And he seemed very, very engaged, had some good questions.

[59:05] Both of his staff and of us and Deacon really loved the tour, which is great because he has

[59:10] all the technical knowledge and details and everything as well, so I went really well.

[59:16] Did they reduce the price?

[59:18] No, they did stress that this is a three-year legally required to be completed in three years,

[59:24] so that's why they give a whole extra year at the end because if it doesn't get done it just drops and we have to start all over.

[59:30] So on the money piece, they have gotten the $500,000 or whatever that we got as that

[59:37] Congressional does need a spending that went to the court to authorize them to do this work.

[59:41] They've spent about $100,000 of it in the 30-day FID process, federal interest determination

[59:47] process that happened earlier this year. That got us into this next phase. They've got a decision

[59:53] point. One, they call it, that's the first step to keep things moving forward coming up September 22nd.

[59:58] So there's a lot of work going on between

[1:00:00] Here and there, and then Decision Point 2 will be next spring. Decision Point 3 is the final acceptance kind of thing. So the goal is that they actually work through this whole process. They're exploring, which is what we've asked, and expected that would need to be having exploring a physical project as opposed to a legal kind of project where they might buy out homes or that kind of thing to reduce the risk. And so as they get through this three year, they'll already kind of be at about a 35% design.

[1:00:29] engineering design kind of step so that really is what catapults into the next

[1:00:34] process. The city and county are cost sharing our half of the three potentially

[1:00:38] three million dollars are still working out what do we get credit for that might

[1:00:42] have been done before. What can we do as an in-kind contribution? I've got to

[1:00:45] fall with Ronnie about that a little bit and so we'll be spending some money over

[1:00:51] the next couple years basically to support our half which I think we calculated

[1:00:55] that it out was around about the $600,000 that we had in the budget previously for the

[1:01:00] living project with AECOM, so.

[1:01:03] Well, and we may look at, I don't know if we could get another, um, designated, congressional

[1:01:10] designated spending, but we should probably work on that since we have someone in the audience.

[1:01:20] Did you have comment, Ronnie?

[1:01:22] I saw you move your mic.

[1:01:24] No, I just that will be one of the items that you'll see in the budget this year, so it's always a bit of a shocker when you see it, but it's there and we need to get it back in there and keep moving forward with it.

[1:01:39] All right. Thank you. The other thing I was just going to say was related to the data center.

[1:01:46] You guys are probably aware we actually have a pending case before us for micro data center.

[1:01:50] It's scheduled for our hearing before the planning commission this evening and it'll be here at

[1:01:55] this meeting and roughly a month. Thank you for that. I appreciate you highlighting that meeting

[1:02:01] yesterday. It gets over my head really quickly, but I did appreciate the new. What's this rank?

[1:02:06] Lieutenant commander he was asking questions that I felt the layman would like to know

[1:02:14] like what's the height of those houses over there and kind of why were they built there when

[1:02:19] we have this issue and recognize that there's limits to what can be done when money is the

[1:02:25] limiting factor so I really appreciated his comments and questions.

[1:02:30] Ronnie. All right several things are going on so we have a draft marketing study from

[1:02:36] Bolton and Mink and we'll have a conversation with them this afternoon at two o'clock just

[1:02:41] to start going over it and see what it's got in there.

[1:02:44] I've looked at it part of his boilerplate but part of it's got some really good information

[1:02:49] in it so we'll move forward with that.

[1:02:51] If you have not heard, we do have a mechanic on board over at the airport and in fact Sarah

[1:02:57] is trying to get a podcast with Chris Lopez to talk about having a mechanic on board.

[1:03:03] He's actually hired through deep oavionics.

[1:03:06] He is not hired through centrics, but it doesn't matter.

[1:03:10] Centrics cleared out space for him to have an office and, you know, storage space and

[1:03:15] everything.

[1:03:15] So they're working very well together and we're excited to have all of them on.

[1:03:20] The other thing that's going on is that October 10th they're going to have a fly-in and

[1:03:25] then Denver Air Connect is going to have their open house at that same time.

[1:03:30] October 10th is when they're going to do it and I think it's a Saturday and they're

[1:03:38] going to have goodie bags for the people who fly in for the pilots that fly in and burritos

[1:03:44] and stuff but they'll also have other things available for folks that just want to stop

[1:03:47] by.

[1:03:48] Then Rare Connect is talking about bringing in one of their airplanes and letting people

[1:03:53] go through them and I think we might have a commissioner that's going to jump out of an airplane

[1:03:58] or three, I don't know.

[1:04:04] Well, that's what I heard yesterday and I was like, isn't there a

[1:04:07] rule against all your leadership jumping out of airplanes at one time?

[1:04:14] I want everybody to know

[1:04:16] I would do anything for this county, and I've not even campaigning this year. But you wear

[1:04:24] depends or what do you do.

[1:04:30] I think it's going to be fun. That's exciting. Just to let you know

[1:04:35] the RFP has been let for the Stanley Bridge. So we should hopefully have some information about

[1:04:40] that by the end of September so we can get started on that one. I've been talking to Ron about it.

[1:04:46] He inspects it once a week or so and makes sure that it's still in good shape. But we've got it

[1:04:51] out there and we'll see what we get with that. So that'll be really good.

[1:04:55] I had a nice conversation with Dr. Tanberg and Jacob Rizzler from Adam's state the other

[1:05:01] day and looks like their enrollment is still up.

[1:05:06] It's not as good as it has been in the past but it's still up and it's doing well.

[1:05:11] They're appreciative and thank you for the interest in the COSI grant and how they're

[1:05:17] going to be working on it and so we'll be working with them as we move forward with it.

[1:05:22] One of the things that's a little bit on their radar but they're not sure about is

[1:05:25] possibly a staff housing, they're still kind of waiting to see now what's going on with that and

[1:05:31] I think we're part of the housing study with the city of Alamosa. So there's been conversation

[1:05:38] about should the college or should the university build staff housing and they're kind of waiting to see

[1:05:43] on that one. But they are moving forward with their master plan on the student union building

[1:05:49] and then they also which is kind of exciting the geothermal that they're going to be putting in.

[1:05:54] And they have figured out how to do it in two large, larger holes, the way that it's

[1:06:02] going to work for the geothermal instead of several.

[1:06:05] I think they had quite a few that they were going to work on, but they're going to

[1:06:09] heat that one.

[1:06:10] And you can't cool it, but they're going to heat it with geothermal and it looks like

[1:06:14] it could be really effective.

[1:06:16] I guess Mesa University and Grand Junction has done this and it's been a really great,

[1:06:21] it's been, it's worked out really well for them.

[1:06:24] So they're excited about doing that.

[1:06:28] I know I've said this before, but the employee handbook is just about ready for everybody to really review and take a look at.

[1:06:35] But one of the things that has been asked, and I wanted to bring it to you today, was that we've been asked if we would consider doing vacation payouts for people who have a lot of accrued vacation time.

[1:06:47] And there are several other counties around that offer that, and it's a limited amount.

[1:06:54] It's like you know and get 40 hours every year.

[1:06:58] But we have employees who just don't hardly ever take vacation.

[1:07:02] And they were wanting to know as if they could get paid for their vacation.

[1:07:05] Which limits our exposure at the end of, if they decide to leave.

[1:07:11] But there's some different items around it.

[1:07:13] But we want to make sure that they don't use all their vacation and they not have any

[1:07:18] when they need it and things like that.

[1:07:20] But that is something that's been requested and it's got some real interest in.

[1:07:25] So I'll be bringing some more information to you for that.

[1:07:32] And of course we're working on the budget and I will be visiting with you guys about your

[1:07:37] budget for the commissioners sometime this week and next week.

[1:07:41] And then also I will be working with the City of Alamosa for the economic developer interviews most of those are next week. So I'll be kind of in and out.

[1:07:52] Thank you, Ronnie. You're welcome.

[1:07:54] Mr. Kelly.

[1:07:56] It's a couple of things. So Commissioner Van Rijn, I went to the Security Task Force meeting. I'm sure you'll fill you in on that.

[1:08:01] So it was a good meeting both he and I are on the standards committee. There's that kind of subcommittees and so there's going to be a few more meetings between now and January to kind of develop those.

[1:08:10] and I was really pleased with the amount of rural representation on that task force,

[1:08:17] a lot of rural, you know, sheriffs and different things and so I think that's encouraging.

[1:08:23] I wanted to schedule an executive session for our next meeting. Maybe you can just put it down

[1:08:27] there for litigation update. Just a couple things I want to discuss with the board. I should have

[1:08:33] the trash ordinance on the agenda. The next meeting as well. With the city, it's the one with the

[1:08:38] the blight and that we were talking about with the deputies being able to write tickets in a city.

[1:08:44] Everything's pretty much done.

[1:08:46] I tend to dress before the city is still working on their penalty phase.

[1:08:50] But I think that what I can do is I can work it such that any any ticket that's written into the municipal will just follow their code however it's amended.

[1:08:59] And then we can set up just a general fee schedule on our end if it's written in a county court.

[1:09:04] and that way we're not waiting necessarily for the city to finalize that so we can get it done.

[1:09:09] That'll at least be the first reading.

[1:09:12] So when that requires is that we actually read the document and read it,

[1:09:15] we'll publish that version of it.

[1:09:17] And then once we've published it, we have to come back for a second reading.

[1:09:21] If there are changes in between the two, we have to re-publish.

[1:09:25] And then it takes the fact 30 dates from the original publication dates.

[1:09:28] So just kind of give you a time frame of kind of what that looks like.

[1:09:31] I'll run it by Sheriff as well, make sure he's okay and on board with it and if there's

[1:09:36] any issues that come up between now and then I'll certainly let you know.

[1:09:40] Speaking of policy updates, one of the updates too, so it was good timing.

[1:09:44] There's been some discussion and I don't think we have in our handbook and it came up as

[1:09:49] a result, probably a lot of AI note-taking or people are recording, so we're a one-consent

[1:09:55] state which means that I can record a conversation as long as I am part of that conversation.

[1:09:59] I don't know if we have anything in our policy about not recording employees, apparently

[1:10:04] that's become an issue, especially with AI and they're in meetings and people are being

[1:10:08] recorded without their consent.

[1:10:09] If nothing else than requiring employees to say if they're using AI note-taking, that they

[1:10:14] have to let everybody know that they're doing that.

[1:10:16] So there's so many more Zoom meetings now, WebEx meetings, whatever the case may be, where

[1:10:20] AI is taking notes.

[1:10:21] Some people aren't comfortable with that.

[1:10:23] We may just want to address that in our employee hemic.

[1:10:27] We can't necessarily say you can't do it.

[1:10:28] But I think we can control employees in the workplace.

[1:10:31] I think we can prohibit that and whether or not you want to do that or not, we can have

[1:10:35] that discussion.

[1:10:36] But it's just been a topic that's kind of come up of recent with issues with employees

[1:10:41] and recording elected officials and they're not knowing they're being recorded or department

[1:10:46] heads or various things.

[1:10:48] So just something to think about as we're adopting those.

[1:10:52] No, if you saw the email from Ryan Johnson yesterday or this morning in regards to the

[1:10:57] That's great news, so I'll kind of start working with him on the if that's the property they wanted to use out by Delmani Gun Club.

[1:11:06] I'm sure we can probably work something out.

[1:11:08] The concern with using that particular piece of properties is the same thing we have with Delmani in terms of 24 hour access to that location.

[1:11:18] And so, and then he was willing to talk to Ronnie. I don't think he had the right email address because it bounced back to me so a lot to follow up with Ronnie with Rodin bridge and just to see kind of what their work schedule is like that's exciting that they were awarded the grant might take a little bit of time in order to get that.

[1:11:33] But I think that'll be a great addition out there for for kids and for adults as well just to be able to have it available to him.

[1:11:42] So those are kind of some of the updates. What's going on right now?

[1:11:45] With the 24 hour access, I thought we kind of took care of that already.

[1:11:51] Yeah, we did. It's just going to be extended. You know, I mean, like they have to understand that too, because so they'll go in that if that's going to be their interest into that gate, then they go there and they go all the way down, you know, because it's going to be on the east side, right, if they're going to have a different access and that's the whole of the issue again, the access would have to be open all the time too. And that may be a seed out problem anyway. So.

[1:12:12] If they do the walk through gate, like we have it Del Monte Club and then the regular

[1:12:19] gate, that provides 24 access where they could go down.

[1:12:23] It's just a parking like so if they do the, where are they going?

[1:12:26] Oh, there's no parking unless you go in the Del Monte gate.

[1:12:30] Yeah.

[1:12:31] So that's, we'll just have to work that out in terms of how we do that.

[1:12:35] I think it's doable.

[1:12:37] It's just we have to figure that out.

[1:12:38] I think the concern there is the C dot access.

[1:12:41] Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So they just go down and then we have road and bridge to basically a dirt road down all the way across in front of Delmonia in front of the tractor.

[1:12:54] And then create like a small parking lot. I shouldn't have to be that big. I think that's more appropriate anyway.

[1:12:59] Yeah. And then start having some discussion about.

[1:13:01] because we brought that up about do we have some capacity to have some sort of restroom type thing

[1:13:06] there whether it's about house whatever that start with Richard about what our options are right why

[1:13:14] is 24 hour access required because of the how we got the property in the first place from the state

[1:13:20] okay has the public use yeah and then there had to be access that we they came down on us was

[1:13:25] was it 10 years ago, about five years ago?

[1:13:28] Five years ago because we had a lot in every five years.

[1:13:30] And stuff that you can't do that because it was a grant

[1:13:33] that was given to you guys in order for basically a public

[1:13:35] trail type system that had to be open.

[1:13:39] Was it or go co funds?

[1:13:42] Is that how it was?

[1:13:43] No, it was it was CPW.

[1:13:46] Yeah, OK, because I mean, I know when I was on school board,

[1:13:50] we had a similar issue because we had go co funds for that

[1:13:55] area where we put the stadium at. And so we had to allow access for that. But we could

[1:14:01] set that. The access was for the public to walk on the track and stuff like that.

[1:14:05] Right. But we didn't have to give 24 hour notice. We could we had set hours that they approved

[1:14:11] to do that for it was like from 5 a.m. to 9 o'clock at night or whatever it was that we could do that.

[1:14:17] So because we didn't want people in there. Yeah. Yeah. Two o'clock in the morning doing whatever,

[1:14:22] or, you know, stuff that could happen there.

[1:14:25] So I was just wondering if that was something

[1:14:27] that we could do to that.

[1:14:28] I mean, it's blocked for certain hours.

[1:14:31] We can go back and look, but it seems like to me.

[1:14:33] Hey, go back and see how it's like an open trail system.

[1:14:37] That's exactly, I think that's the idea is

[1:14:40] that it's an open trail system

[1:14:41] that you can ride any, and we've developed differently

[1:14:44] than what initially it started as.

[1:14:48] Okay, so.

[1:14:51] Thank you, Ronnie.

[1:14:51] Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

[1:14:56] Commissioner Van Raen.

[1:14:57] Yes, I was on the Court Security Task Force.

[1:15:00] Meeting, me and Karen Warren-Gully were the only two commissioners and she had to get out. So we were represented as county commissioners with one of the largest counties, as far as population and one of the smaller ones, but we had a lot of, like you said, rural representation there. Most of the people there were sheriffs and judges. So like the only two other people that weren't involved in law enforcement,

[1:15:29] I'm some sort where as commissioners, there's a lot of stuff that could be coming down.

[1:15:34] It makes me kind of nervous because we can't be at the same level as what a core house

[1:15:40] in Arapo County can be.

[1:15:43] But the protection of our judges and our people that work there are the biggest concern.

[1:15:48] And I do respect that.

[1:15:51] We do the best that we possibly can with the funding that we have available.

[1:15:56] So looking back in here in some of the other smaller counties, I think we're leaps and

[1:16:04] bounds above a lot of the smaller counties when it comes time for our security.

[1:16:07] So I was happy about that one.

[1:16:09] Some of the things they were mentioning and we already accomplished those things.

[1:16:12] So we'll see what else comes down.

[1:16:14] We got several meetings they said between now and January 5th I think is when we had to report back to the state.

[1:16:20] Yeah, it's somewhere early January, but they want to report back.

[1:16:25] Commissioner, since these are being imposed on counties by the state, what's the funding mechanism from the state?

[1:16:33] That was the question that I asked, you know, I just want that in a public meeting.

[1:16:38] So we received a bunch of documentation of other states that have done this.

[1:16:44] And there's a lot of reading in there, and especially for someone like me, it's not a judge or anything like that.

[1:16:54] But the other states that have done this have set aside money, the states have set aside money for this particular thing to be able to get the courthouses up to the standard.

[1:17:04] So that was the question I asked of the state representative that was there. Is there going to be state funding?

[1:17:12] and the answer was another question. I was just curious because these are mandates. They're

[1:17:20] going to have to be their state statutes. They are coming down from the state and I'm just

[1:17:26] seeing a trend of expecting counties to pick up all of these additional things and that makes me

[1:17:34] I think unfunded mandate or underfunded?

[1:17:37] Well, it absolutely is because that was the question

[1:17:41] and that was a discussion about whether or not

[1:17:43] these were going to be suggestions

[1:17:45] and representative was very clear.

[1:17:47] No, these are standards.

[1:17:48] We're established to develop standards

[1:17:51] that everybody must follow and that's going to be the concern.

[1:17:56] We did talk about the scalability of those standards

[1:17:59] and that needs to be really important in our discussions

[1:18:02] about what's the threshold, whether it's based on population, whether it's based on assessed value as to what is an adequate facility based on the amount of resources that are available. But at least that they were at least thinking about the scalability portion and recognizing and just as Mark has pointed out to she recognized that every county is not financially in the same position.

[1:18:25] And so it's just going to, it's going to have to be different.

[1:18:28] So whether that results in an actual standard that is not uniform across the state is another

[1:18:35] question.

[1:18:36] Well, I assume there would be discussion on that.

[1:18:38] I just, you know, how I feel about our limited resources.

[1:18:43] Thank you.

[1:18:44] Well, and their response was that they doubled the fines or the fees that you have to pay when

[1:18:50] you go to court.

[1:18:50] Yeah, the problem is is a lot of the people that we

[1:18:55] That the judges see and stuff like that don't have the financial capability to pay in what it was before let alone pain double the amount

[1:19:01] So the the amount of money coming in is not going to be any greater in my opinion

[1:19:06] It's just pushing the financial burden on someone else right whether that be the county the individual

[1:19:14] Who knows the judicial system and we start looking at some of these other courthouses that are

[1:19:20] in rural areas, the towns have been built around them,

[1:19:24] you know, they're over a hundred years old,

[1:19:26] put and secured parking in across the street,

[1:19:29] doesn't do any good.

[1:19:30] You can park your car in a, in a fenced area,

[1:19:32] but then you walk across the street

[1:19:35] without any protection at all.

[1:19:37] So, you know, some of those things I was,

[1:19:39] I was thinking, they're unreasonable to even ask,

[1:19:42] where would you put secured parking at in Canaveras County?

[1:19:45] Where would you put secured parking at and swatch,

[1:19:47] where there's buildings all around it?

[1:19:50] It has to be across the street in an open space, I think, like to watch where there'd be in the park there, if they put secured parking, yeah, I mean, I think there's no way to, so you're secured when you park, but now you're open, so it defeats the purpose of doing it.

[1:20:06] So, there are some things that I think they have to work through and realize that it's going to be impossible in some cases to even build a new courthouse, because if you don't have a money, you can't build something anyway.

[1:20:20] No matter how much money the state throws at them, I mean unless they're going to put a billion dollars in there to help get everybody up to these standards, I don't see it happening.

[1:20:27] So there's some good ideas and the legislation that was put forth was thinking of the security of the judges.

[1:20:37] But there's a risk in every job that you do. It's like joining the military and not expecting to go to war.

[1:20:43] There's going to be risks when you're making decisions on people and their personal.

[1:20:48] You know, some of the things that were brought up is a divorce case where someone may be angry because they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

[1:20:54] In a small real area, we know everybody that walks in and they could be a threat at any time depending on their mental state at that time.

[1:21:02] So a lot of things to come forth in a short period of time.

[1:21:07] I feel like this needs to be extended a lot longer than given recommendations in everything by January.

[1:21:15] Seems our first meeting was last week.

[1:21:18] So more to come on that.

[1:21:23] I did go to the the fly-in in Del Nore a couple of Sundays ago, they had a really good

[1:21:30] turnout.

[1:21:31] This is the second one that I've been to up there and they probably had 20 aircraft

[1:21:35] at different aircraft that came in that day.

[1:21:37] So that was a real good time.

[1:21:39] I met with a gentleman who has just moved here recently from Texas and he has an airplane

[1:21:45] that we can parachute out of.

[1:21:47] It's all set up.

[1:21:47] it's got the door, he's, he owned his own drop zone, he has a certified instructor.

[1:21:52] So now that I have the exact date, we can start planning on doing a demo jump here

[1:21:57] to first thing in the morning, maybe to open up the, the open house in the fly end.

[1:22:04] He does have a flag, an American flag that he'll jump in so we can jump in with a couple

[1:22:10] of us.

[1:22:12] Probably I may get two of the guys that I normally jump with to come down and then if he jumps

[1:22:16] with that flag and I'll jump, there'll be four of us jumping, so it'll be a big

[1:22:21] good way to open up a fly-in and hopefully get some interest sparked back into

[1:22:25] our community in there. So I hope it's advertised well so that we get a lot of

[1:22:30] community members present to see how good our airport really is.

[1:22:37] We should, Ronnie, I'm sorry real quick, let's make sure visit Alamosa knows that and

[1:22:42] can really push that out. I know Cales on the thing but on the planning for it but I think that's

[1:22:51] a good avenue. Sorry.

[1:22:54] All

[1:22:58] right, I community corrections screening. I went to the barbecue that

[1:23:03] they had up in Moscow for the fire department, attended the SLV County Board of Commissioners as

[1:23:09] well as everyone else here. We've had a work session. I did remotely. I attended the first Friday

[1:23:17] festivities or whatever last week and I did the night out that they had the law

[1:23:23] enforcement puts on and that was very well attended you know the kids really

[1:23:27] like that kind of stuff so coming

[1:23:32] up I've got a CTSI board of directors

[1:23:35] meeting on Friday so I'll be out coming up I was asked to be a speaker for the

[1:23:42] walk for life in Eastern Colorado on it's a walk for life suicide prevention type of a thing.

[1:23:50] So I guess they think I'm crazy and that I should talk about mental health.

[1:23:54] So I will be the speaker at that one so that's what I have coming up.

[1:23:59] Thank you commissioner and I just want to say thank you both for representing us and other

[1:24:04] small counties with the court security.

[1:24:06] I feel like if nothing else, the standards will be tempered that come out, so we can hope for that, though.

[1:24:15] More so at least if you guys would have not have been there, I guarantee that, so thank you both.

[1:24:20] Mr. Nulaski.

[1:24:22] Yes, so had the opportunity to meet the new regional director for Excel, which I guess is really the state.

[1:24:29] went and judged the 4-H indoor displays for the commissioners' award,

[1:24:36] attended a co-ac meeting, have had tomorrow, CEDA, the Colorado Electric Transmission Authority,

[1:24:43] is putting on a forum here over at the Rio Grande Water Conservation just across the road.

[1:24:51] And I'm involved in that, so I've been having some meetings on prepping for that,

[1:24:57] attended the work session, have met with some constituents, attended the National

[1:25:02] Night Out, but I was a little late. Some of the things were closed up, but I did get

[1:25:07] a hot dog and got to visit with a lot of the vendors. It's a neat thing.

[1:25:11] Attended the 4-H barbecue. As usual, it was wonderful and good, and Alamosa was

[1:25:18] really well represented in a lot of the displays. Tended the first Fridays, went

[1:25:25] into a presentation in regards to a program LA that works on cleaning up voter roll cleanups

[1:25:33] and I believe Commissioner Van Rai was there with me for that. It really needed to be targeted

[1:25:39] to our clerks but it was interesting the information that was provided and information's always good.

[1:25:47] Had a quick meeting with Skip from Rio Grande County yesterday and moving over some of the opioid

[1:25:52] settlement assets, and then I had a couple, I have upcoming the CEDA Forum on Thursday

[1:26:03] and that is co-sponsored by Senator Simpson.

[1:26:07] And then I will not be at the company picnic now that the data has changed.

[1:26:12] So you all get to do the drawings.

[1:26:16] And then I had a question, what is our next steps on the park, sunset park?

[1:26:22] I know we put the trees in last year and I went out there and they actually look really good.

[1:26:28] There's a few of them that didn't make it, but overall for the amount that we put in.

[1:26:34] And I was just wondering when the next meeting is and what's the next steps on that.

[1:26:38] I'd like it to keep going since that's our conservation funds.

[1:26:45] So just let me know. We don't have any funds. We used all of the 26 budget already.

[1:26:57] I think we didn't have a whole lot budgeted for it. Oh, okay.

[1:27:00] And it was kind of one of those things that let's get the trees growing and see how they're doing.

[1:27:03] Then we'll probably have to go back in and put some more.

[1:27:06] And then we needed to have the conversation about infrastructure, not infrastructure,

[1:27:11] But putting in some hardscaping like, you know, covers or something like that because people, it's hot there. So once, yeah, one step at a time there. But yeah, okay, we need to let me know when the next step is and I, I didn't, I forgot that we didn't budget much.

[1:27:30] But you did to keep the trees alive.

[1:27:32] Little steps, as long as we're taking steps forward.

[1:27:36] Yes, that's it. Thank you.

[1:27:38] Thank you Commissioner. Since our last meeting, aside from what has already been mentioned,

[1:27:45] I did attend the 4-H POP, and I don't remember what that stands for, but it's an organization or

[1:27:53] an arm of 4-H that allows kids with disabilities to come and show animals and it was, I think there

[1:28:03] There was probably about a dozen kids there that participated, that had disabilities

[1:28:09] and then a bunch of kids from 4-H that wanted to volunteer because they felt so strongly

[1:28:14] about it.

[1:28:15] And it was a pretty neat thing to go to, so let's see, did have the landfill meeting, Homeland

[1:28:26] Security Met, and as always with that group, it's wait and see what the state does and

[1:28:34] wait and see what the feds do. The state has approved the funds for the next three years, but now we're waiting for

[1:28:40] federal approval to see if all of our

[1:28:45] applications are approved.

[1:28:50] Went to that Excel thing. At a stack meeting went to the 4H barbecue

[1:28:57] and the levy tour yesterday.

[1:29:02] Coming up, I will be out Friday. We're taking Lily back.

[1:29:06] to school and standard meetings between here and next, B-O-C-C.

[1:29:13] Chairman, can I have a go back?

[1:29:15] Sure.

[1:29:16] Sorry.

[1:29:16] One of the things I just wanted to announce is I had mentioned it in the work session,

[1:29:22] but I wanted to bring it forward in our actual meeting.

[1:29:27] And Mesa County has reached out.

[1:29:31] I guess not as directly as just asking for volunteers of smaller counties that are

[1:29:38] interested in working on some legislative changes this year.

[1:29:43] And what it is is the Colorado Law requires counties to publish legal notices in a printed

[1:29:50] newspaper for general circulation and pay those newspaper rates.

[1:29:57] They fail that most residents are now.

[1:30:00] Finding this information online. And so they are proposing that all legal notices that the county is required to publish in those official publications designated by the county commissioners shall instead be published on the county's official website for the same duration currently required. It will require that posted notices remain continuously so that they can be served.

[1:30:29] It will require a certification of posting by the clerk or a designee and it will preserve

[1:30:38] a fallback for all local governments that do not maintain a suitable website.

[1:30:44] And so I just wanted to bring forward to all of you that we've been asked and unless there's objections,

[1:30:51] I'd like to be involved in maybe this initiative going forward, depending on how much it is.

[1:30:57] I don't think actually we're really going to do a lot, but having some of the smaller

[1:31:03] counties, especially in areas where our publications aren't the Denver Post and aren't the

[1:31:10] big ones that are every day, sometimes there's been struggles and they want to be able to

[1:31:16] share that story too.

[1:31:19] And I shared all of that with you and it came from CCI.

[1:31:24] Thank you.

[1:31:24] Thank you for bringing that up in the meeting.

[1:31:26] I had forgotten already so.

[1:31:30] Along that same lines, Jamie and I have talked about creating

[1:31:34] a public notice webpage on our webpage so that it could go on there. It would be identifiable.

[1:31:41] It would stay. You know, we wouldn't necessarily. They could just stay on there. So it's something

[1:31:47] that we're looking at. I think would make a lot of sense. A lot of what Richard does has

[1:31:51] to be public notices and so if it goes through and it might be something for us even just

[1:31:56] to look at right now and and put together on our web page so that citizens know exactly

[1:32:01] where to look when they when they go on the web page so we do it anyway but it's not really

[1:32:06] identified.

[1:32:07] Yeah, so I think it'd be better like that idea and we can always do more.

[1:32:11] This is just making sure that the bare minimum that we are addressing that we can still on

[1:32:19] a lot of our things. We may think it's the best service to also continue and we can do that.

[1:32:25] It just would take it away what they're finding is that people go to the county's website if they

[1:32:32] want to find out something about the county. They don't go back and research a paper that was printed

[1:32:39] last week because it's only printed once a week type of things. So anyway, it'll be interesting as it

[1:32:45] moves forward in what support that they have, but it does require a statutory change, or, yes.

[1:32:55] But wouldn't necessarily apply to this change, but I can give you an example of what the,

[1:32:58] and the problem is the part of rural communities is, so I have a court case down in Canales where there's

[1:33:03] a name change, and she's had, and I had an email Richard to find out who was the, who was our contact

[1:33:09] at the Valley Courier in order to get a public notice because she could never get a response

[1:33:13] from the Valley Courier even to put a public notice about a name change and it's taken her four weeks when it should have taken a week.

[1:33:23] And just to get someone to respond back to her and I think a lot of smaller communities are running into that issue with not even be able to contact anybody.

[1:33:32] So being able to post things on our website would certainly be beneficial.

[1:33:36] Well, and I think about it and there's always little caveats, but if we have to call an emergency

[1:33:43] meaning, we have to have the information into the newspaper seven days in advance.

[1:33:50] And I know emergency, we can post it locally, but I also think for our constituents, it would be good

[1:33:56] for them to be able to go to the website and know that everything about the county is there,

[1:34:03] whether it is Amy's stuff that she's doing, the foreclosures, the board meetings,

[1:34:11] emergency meetings that are on there. I mean, realistically, that's where people are

[1:34:18] driven to for information on the county. So I like the idea. I don't know how much it

[1:34:23] I'll save as it, like I said, we can, it just changes the minimum. We could do more.

[1:34:31] Yeah, practically speaking, it seems like that's where we're going to eventually end up landing, but it's how much pushback you get every year when trying to pass something like that.

[1:34:41] Thanks for bringing that up. I did want you to do it in a meeting. So it was more official, but I support that Commissioner Van Raid. Do you have any objections to supporting that?

[1:34:52] that? No, legislation. Okay, then we can support that. I think Richard had some good ideas

[1:35:00] about the website and Jamie and Ronnie have some good ideas and we should go ahead and

[1:35:05] get that up and running and if nothing else we can just put an ad in the paper that says

[1:35:10] if you're looking for public notice go to the county website and that will satisfy those

[1:35:15] folks I think.

[1:35:18] Anything else for the good of the county this morning?

[1:35:23] Seeing none we are

[1:35:23] adjourned.

Untitled meeting

Transcript