[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Accessed valuation for this year, for property tax collections next year is up 13.3%. And that's because this was a re-valuation year. Every two years, the assessor re-values property to, in this case, June of 2014 is what these market values represent.
[0:27] value of property at that time and so that's up 13.3% over the two-year period from June
[0:38] of 2012 and that's the first increase since the recession. In your memo, we dropped 24.5%
[0:50] in the valuations through 2010 and then another 6.1% in valuations through 2012.
[1:03] So now we're coming back up 13.3%. The total taxes to be property taxes to be collected next year
[1:14] are $114 million approximately, which is a 9.3% increase.
[1:26] The reason that approximates the 13.3% is that we have several districts with fixed
[1:35] no levies. So as valuation goes out by 13.3%, their property tax collections go up by 13.3%.
[1:46] For example, the hospital, CMC, and the county's open space program all have fixed
[1:56] no levies that would be increasing taxes. There are also some fire protection districts that have
[2:02] portion of their note levy is fixed as well. So, and we had several elections for increases
[2:12] to both the school districts, the hospital re-upping their note levy. And so some of
[2:28] is the very small print page with colors on it.
[2:33] The county as a whole, including the open space fund, is increasing 1.7 million.
[2:42] CMC has seen a 1.3 million dollar increase.
[2:46] the two school districts, Aspen and our portion of the Roaring Fork school district are up in total
[2:56] $4 million to the school districts, two and a half of that is Aspen, one and a half Roaring Fork,
[3:05] and then Aspen Valley Hospital by re-uping their Mill Levy and leaving it constant has a one
[3:12] million dollar increase as well. So those are the biggies and with that you don't have
[3:20] any questions. We need is a motion to approve the certification in the lunch.
[3:29] My question
[3:30] was, and I sort of know part of the answer, but what are the title 32 districts?
[3:44] Those are
[3:44] You have municipalities, Aspen, Basalt, Stomass.
[3:48] You have the school districts, and then we have everybody else.
[3:54] It was called the Title 32 district.
[3:57] That includes the fire protection districts, water and sanitation districts,
[4:05] metropolitan districts, metro districts.
[4:09] Those are all the special districts that are Title 32.
[4:12] And the title 32 refers to the Colorado Statues that enables them, right?
[4:20] That's their formation or statute, right?
[4:27] Great, so we're just looking up the mill evidence right now.
[4:33] No questions?
[4:34] Do you have any questions on it?
[4:35] We have been through this before.
[4:37] Thank you.
[4:38] And my apologies.
[4:39] I don't know what happened.
[4:40] and the alarm just didn't even go off.
[4:42] Oh my god.
[4:43] Late because I'm looking at bangles.
[4:48] But I brought cookies.
[4:50] Then that makes it OK.
[4:53] That might be a surprise for me so to share your phone while.
[4:57] So just for the public.
[5:00] This benefit, this is a statutory requirement before to approve these mill levies. This is like our last official act of this calendar year. Remember, we take our holiday break. So I would entertain a motion to.
[5:21] I have another question first. So what we're approving, there's no rezo or anything before us. It's just we're approving. You're approving.
[5:31] This document is entitled the Budget Year of 2016 Certification of Ladies and Revenue.
[5:42] I'll make a motion to approve certification of levies and revenues for the Budget Year of 2016.
[5:51] Okay, it's moved and seconded to approve the certification any further discussion.
[5:57] All in favor say aye.
[5:58] All right. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
[6:01] I found the law that money.
[6:03] Well, right in the checks to other people.
[6:05] Thank you.
[6:07] Thank you.
[6:12] Okay. Next, do we?
[6:13] Oh, I did entertain a motion to adjourn the special meeting.
[6:18] So moved.
[6:20] Is there a second?
[6:21] Second.
[6:22] All in favor of adjourning the special meeting. Say aye.
[6:25] Aye.
[6:29] Okay. Next we have.
[6:30] Janet, you can go on vacation now.
[6:35] She's not there yet, right, Janet?
[6:41] Next, we have appointments to various boards and permissions.
[6:47] Okay, thanks, Steve.
[6:50] Every year at your first regular meeting, the board adopts a resolution appointing commissioners
[6:58] to different boards and commissions that board members are asked to serve on as well as
[7:06] appointing the chair and vice chair for the board.
[7:11] What we have in front of you today is a request just to seek guidance for preparation of that
[7:18] resolution for the first regular meeting.
[7:21] in your packet is really two things, one for the various commissions and such that the board members serve on.
[7:31] We have the 2015 appointments, and so if there's any discussion to be had about change on those appointments, we'd be seeking that guidance today.
[7:45] Additionally, for the chair and vice chair, what the board has been doing really for almost
[7:55] about the last, since 2009, we've been rotating the chair and vice chairmanship by Commissioner
[8:05] District.
[8:06] This isn't a perfect system because there's five of you and there's four year terms and
[8:13] And so we, from time to time, run into cycles like we will run into in 2017 where we would
[8:22] have a first-year commissioner in the loop to be chair.
[8:26] And typically we do some changing there.
[8:29] The way the rotation works for 2016, we do not have that issue.
[8:35] the the rotation would have Rachel who is currently the vice chair as the the
[8:42] district two commissioner stepping into the chair position and Michael
[8:47] housing from district three stepping into the vice chair position you'll see in
[8:52] 2017 both chairs at both both districts and the rotation are up for for
[9:02] election. Well, we will have a new district three commissioner who would be set to rotate
[9:09] into the chair position. And we have our district five commissioner, George and George,
[9:16] I'm not going to put you on the spot and ask if you're going to run again and that sort
[9:20] of thing. But a lot of to be determined. A lot of to be determined. But I think we need
[9:28] to see the outcome of that process and have the discussion again next year. Obviously,
[9:33] if George came in, we would probably want to flip that and rotate George into the chair
[9:38] position, let the new commissioner have a year of experience gain before they did that.
[9:45] But I think that's a discussion better to have next year.
[9:49] And so what we're looking for today is guidance one that we want to stick with this chair and
[9:57] device chair rotation so we can prepare a resolution.
[10:00] And then any discussion about changes that, if any, that we want to make to the 2015 appointment's gone forward.
[10:11] Well, I appreciate this because I think it looks like you've reelected me in 2019.
[10:17] Oh, I guess I should. Yeah, maybe should have had it. I'm sorry, okay, we should have had a TBD there.
[10:24] I mean, it looks pretty good to me right here.
[10:29] We tried to capture those, but we got it over a year off.
[10:33] I'm going to get a cap and 1, 2, 3, 4, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
[10:40] So with that, I turn it back over to the board, perhaps it would be easiest to start with the
[10:45] chair and vice chair discussion and work our way backward since that's been a pretty standard
[10:50] rotation.
[10:52] Rachel?
[10:53] Yeah.
[10:53] I truly look forward to my last opportunity to be chair before I'm term limited out.
[11:01] So my name's not under those TBDs at all, and I will, as I did when I was chair before,
[11:08] be very diligent about getting that alarm earlier than ever, meeting with John and
[11:14] being here on time to start the meeting.
[11:15] So I do apologize for this morning, especially I really don't know what happened.
[11:19] the sugar coma. We got sugar out to about 20 departments yesterday. I got a lot more to do today
[11:26] after we're done. But the one thing I would like to you know put out there to you know
[11:32] and I'm sure Michael would be interested and be a good chair vice chair in my absence is that because
[11:38] we have a rotating chairmanship and you know you become chair whether you're good at chair or you're
[11:47] Not a competition in the classic sense where other boards try to keep somebody or decide who does it the best for their board.
[11:55] And so it's not that situation.
[11:57] I do have other obligations that at times I'm going to miss these meetings here for the public lands, particularly or CCI.
[12:05] I do never, I've never missed these meetings in order to go to club 20 or those, but that one would kind of supersede.
[12:15] So there may be times that I will have to miss a Wednesday meeting and Michael have to chair
[12:21] So if that you know, and I know Michael you travel a little bit
[12:24] So we'd have to talk to the board in advance and see if anybody
[12:27] Would need to step in if by chance the two of us being away fell on the same same Wednesday
[12:35] But that's all am I only comment?
[12:39] Is that okay with you Michael?
[12:41] Yeah, okay, so what we do it right? Yeah, that's what we do. I just again want to let you know
[12:45] other maybe some times when there's direct conflicts,
[12:48] but those positions do take time
[12:50] and senority to work your way into.
[12:52] I just wanna let them go for one year.
[12:54] Okay, thank you.
[12:55] Rachel, I appreciate your comments about, you know,
[12:59] we take turns being chair.
[13:02] And I think my experience this year being chair,
[13:06] I think it makes you a better board member
[13:09] to be the chair in the rotation
[13:12] because you understand more
[13:13] the way the whole process works and I agree with that Steve and it's been a
[13:21] good experience for me I've enjoyed it and it's sometimes it's stressful but
[13:26] definitely gives me a different view of how the Board of Commissioners works.
[13:33] Yeah okay so we'll prepare we'll take those guidance to prepare the resolution
[13:40] for Chair and Vice Chair per this rotation.
[13:43] So the official changing a guard
[13:45] will happen at the first regular meeting in January.
[13:50] The other items we were seeking guidance on
[13:55] is the appointments to the various boards, committees,
[14:00] and other areas where the counties represented.
[14:06] If there are any changes or discussion there,
[14:09] where if we should leave those appointments as they stand.
[14:15] Steve?
[14:16] I just want to say that I'm still really confused about the workforce boards and I think most
[14:22] of people who attend those meetings are still really confused because we really don't
[14:26] have a word resort region as we had in the past.
[14:29] So I mean I go to the meeting, they actually, Karn Stegmar from Summit County asked me to
[14:34] be the CLEO, which is the chief elected official for this for next year, but I'm not going
[14:42] to do that because it's most of the meetings are phone meetings, but they all really meet
[14:47] on the I-70 corridor, and then she travels around the front range sometimes, and I don't
[14:54] really know enough about what the workforce does other than it's required by state statute.
[15:00] So, that being said, I am going to be participating again in the Colorado Bark Beetle Cooperative. So, those meetings are once, they have four meetings a year and they are held over in Breckenridge at CMC. I'm getting back involved in that because of some of the issues we have going on with our forest here, the prescribed burn. We're going to do it 100 Creek. There's some funding opportunities through CBBC that I'm working on.
[15:30] working with Gary Tannibum about to see what we might be able to bring out of that.
[15:35] And the other one is with Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, actually they have
[15:39] the economic development district which is kind of a sub-entity of that.
[15:44] And I'm Vice Chairman of that, I think Rob was chairing that, and we have arranged for
[15:49] the meetings this last year.
[15:50] The meetings were all on our regular Wednesday, so I couldn't go.
[15:53] So they have switched that so that I'll be able to participate.
[15:56] some of the meetings actually follow Northwest Cog and other meetings, there's a work board
[16:01] part of it that's going to be on Wednesdays, so I'm going to be attending those as part
[16:06] of Northwest Cog, so it's really the economic development district, and that will keep me
[16:12] busy.
[16:13] And Patty, I think we didn't have the economic development district on this list because
[16:18] it was a separate point that that's an appointment made by Northwest Cog independent of the
[16:24] board. Is that, is that how you understand that? Well, I don't know. They have
[16:31] represented, and the representatives are different than people that you
[16:36] normally see at the cog meeting. So I just wanted to make sure that that was
[16:40] because we can check that out before the actual January meeting. And the meetings
[16:43] will be separate. The meetings are held on separate days in Northwest
[16:47] Cogs. And then the Colorado bark beetle cooperative? Is that an independent?
[16:53] is that so is that something that we want to add it's 13 counties and and
[17:00] there are I think it's 13 counties that are involved so it's Rocky Mountain
[17:04] region then you got Park County Lake County going up that way up the
[17:08] San Luis Valley somewhat and they they just have an elected official from each
[17:15] jurisdiction it might be an appropriate one yeah yeah there
[17:23] are two other
[17:24] or Northwest Cog Committees that I've been attending one regularly, and they're
[17:31] like subcommittees of the whole big picture.
[17:34] Seeing your council.
[17:35] Well, one is the RAC, which is the Regional Advisory Council on the Alpine Agency on
[17:46] age and and pay the gabbick is the main representative and she was I guess
[17:57] appointed by by Marty Ames but then your my name and your name were also on
[18:05] there kind of like that's alternates we could go to those and I've only attended
[18:10] of that like following what once or twice before.
[18:14] And then the other committee is the regional transportation coordinating committee, which
[18:22] has to do with the transportation for Medicaid,
[18:28] Medicaid,
[18:31] non-emergent, Medicaid cases, and
[18:36] transportation of veterans is involved in it.
[18:39] So that's like a little subgroup of Northwest Cog that they meet separately.
[18:46] So I've attended that a few times, and they always meet in gypsum at the E.C.O.
[18:51] Transit or by phone.
[18:54] So Stephen, on either of those are they asking you to represent the county's position or
[19:01] in the boardy position relative to me.
[19:04] Well, the one, the rack one, is like,
[19:07] it was Marty who has,
[19:10] Pegma Gavic has been doing it for quite a few years.
[19:13] And so she's like the regular representative
[19:15] for Pitkin County.
[19:17] But I would say that would be an official representation
[19:24] at that committee.
[19:25] And I would see Patty and me as being alternates on that,
[19:30] not as the main, because peg is definitely the main person on that.
[19:35] Didn't we approve makes appointment to that? Seems like it came back through a seat.
[19:39] At a separate, yeah. Yeah. Because that's a citizen. Yeah, yeah.
[19:44] And the RTCC, I've just been going to it because I know a lot about transportation.
[19:50] And it was just my interest. And some of the enemies do have an official like
[19:58] John, half of them are always going to-
[20:03] So, I don't know. We maybe want to check into the exact, the official part of that and see if it needs to be in an actual appointment.
[20:20] The other thing I notice that on the CCI, there is a new legislative committee called justice and public safety that we need to add to that list.
[20:33] It was kind of a sub-heading of general government, wasn't it Rachel?
[20:39] Yeah, and then they created it as its own.
[20:41] And it had so many items on it, they made it separate.
[20:44] And it's called justice and justice and public safety.
[20:48] It's dealing a lot, currently, with issues such as mental illness and the jails
[20:55] and how to try to get treatment instead of jail.
[20:59] and other issues such as whenever anyone is incarcerated,
[21:03] they lose whatever Medicaid insurance or things like that they may have had.
[21:10] And so for those who are mentally ill, it means losing your medications.
[21:14] And then when you get back out, it takes six months to get back on the system.
[21:18] And you end up back in jail before your illness is taken care of again.
[21:21] So those are some of the types.
[21:23] There's also certainly a program that I think
[21:26] it should be proud of Dan Bird's involvement in the prevention of prison rape as a national
[21:35] program that's been evolving and he's really taking a lead on that and so issues along
[21:40] those lines. So would you see there's an extension of CCI appointments?
[21:47] Well, I think it's mostly about the voting things that will send us later who is the first
[21:53] So we just need to decide if it's Rachel or me you can be the first vote and I'll be the alternative to not the meeting
[21:59] Yeah, no way we've always worked and one of us is not there the other one is the alternate is the alternate and is there to vote?
[22:07] Yeah, so we try to add it to that list
[22:08] Also
[22:10] John's also
[22:11] Proxy for all of the committees if neither one of us could be their
[22:15] Um, but always vote with exception of the health and human services
[22:20] is now put you now as the proxy which is going to be my last question for you.
[22:25] Anyone who can understand this five pages of background needs to be around top of that.
[22:32] All right.
[22:33] So, I think what I'm hearing right now is not any changing in positions on the list.
[22:42] I'm hearing that we are looking to add the Colorado Barcladle Cooperative with Patty as the
[22:49] a pointy that we'll add a CCI legislative committee for justice and public safety.
[22:58] Again with Steve and Rachel listed probably with myself as a proxy.
[23:05] Then we have Steve and
[23:12] Patty as alternates for the regional advisory committee for the
[23:21] And then we have Steve as an appointment to the regional transportation coordinating
[23:29] committee as an addition, otherwise no other changes, as that seemed to capture it.
[23:39] We will get that prepared for January that.
[23:46] This is all going quicker than we just made it.
[23:52] And then the last thing, which I think we already addressed, we'll just call it out
[23:58] that CCI does request for 2016 the designation of CCI Steering Committee proxies.
[24:07] I've been the proxy for all committees except for the Health and Human Service committees,
[24:12] in which we've appointed NAN to, is the board comfortable continuing with that.
[24:16] Yeah, that's all I've got on the appointments then.
[24:23] Okay,
[24:27] moving on, review of future agenda calendar.
[24:32] Yeah, and really, we are coming to our last meeting of the year.
[24:38] Congratulations, this is actually the last meeting we had there and almost at the end of it.
[24:45] What I did want to talk about for next year, George, we are working on a
[24:51] January meeting with basalt's not on yet, but we'll get that headed hopefully over the next week or so.
[24:57] Um, the other thing.
[25:00] That we need to talk about is setting aside, I'd like to set aside two days for our retreat. We usually use about a day and a half, but I think at this point if we can block out two days and if we have to go to less, it's a bonus for you guys. But typically we're pretty solid and at least using a day and a half for our discussions.
[25:26] What I'd like to propose our
[25:29] dates and February to give staff some some time. We've had a pretty busy end of the year here
[25:35] and so frankly we need some time still to plan for the retreat and organize.
[25:44] In terms of weeks where
[25:47] we've been flexible in the past. Sometimes we've taken more accession dates and used those
[25:54] In addition to another date, we typically try and do our retreat on a week that does not have a regular meeting.
[26:06] The first week in February, any of those dates would work whether it be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, and 5th to block out.
[26:17] I think that would give us adequate time to plan.
[26:23] Yeah, I was just going to say the very first week of February is pretty much the only week
[26:27] for me unless we did it on Monday, Tuesday, and took that work session down.
[26:31] I didn't even look at your book.
[26:32] I know.
[26:33] It's the same thing for me.
[26:35] I mean, yeah, the very first week that Thursday and Friday would be ideal.
[26:40] But the following weekend is CCI Thursday Friday.
[26:43] We have a regular on the 10th.
[26:44] And the following week would be NATO if I'm fortunate enough to be reelected on public lands.
[26:48] and then the last two days are the Club 20 Ag Water and Public Lands meetings.
[26:55] So the first week works great, or Monday and Tuesday in that same zone.
[27:00] George?
[27:01] Yeah, for me, right now, the Friday, the fifth probably won't work, there's supposed to be a regional
[27:06] transportation forum that day, but, you know, the Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd.
[27:14] Groundhogs day.
[27:15] Perfect.
[27:17] 2nd and 3rd work for me.
[27:18] Yeah, okay, we've got three of you for the second and third calendar is upstairs
[27:23] But I know the second week in February it doesn't work. Yeah, as well the first week. I as I recall there's no
[27:31] conflicts and
[27:33] I'll just have to double check this is amazing
[27:35] Because we're doing it early
[27:37] Michael is a second and third work fee on February. Why don't we go ahead and block out? Yeah, the second and third
[27:47] We can, you know, if the board wants to engage in some discussion now about the nature of the retreat or we can schedule that for, you know, in our first work sessions and in the new year to talk about what you guys would like out of your retreat this year.
[28:04] That was easy.
[28:06] I know this is all going way too easy.
[28:08] We're waiting for it.
[28:09] We're waiting for it.
[28:10] We're not giving Rick anything to Rick.
[28:20] I'm really outside of schedule trying to work to schedule joint meeting with basalt
[28:27] in January and nailing down those retreat dates at this point.
[28:30] I really don't have anything else for future agendas for you.
[28:33] I have one heads up.
[28:41] We can put a we can certainly reach out and set up a joint meeting.
[28:47] Did we ever been meeting with Gunnison?
[28:50] We used to meet with Gunny.
[28:52] Gunnison really
[28:56] prefers to meet when there's a specific burning issue for both boards.
[29:01] We like counties been very active with us.
[29:05] I think Garfield County would be open.
[29:07] But I think it's a good time to me with Garfield County now that I've had a turnover.
[29:12] And I think they're starting to settle down on some of their administrative changes and
[29:16] such at the manager level and was on their senior staff with the attorney and manager.
[29:22] So they've certainly had a lot going on and it's probably a good time to get together
[29:27] with them.
[29:29] Let me tell you what, I've started meeting with Carbondale.
[29:32] It's been quite a while meeting with Carbondale.
[29:34] Yeah, we'll have to work on the scheduling of that this year.
[29:37] Yeah, yeah.
[29:37] Currently, Carm Dau and Garfield, that's coming up.
[29:42] Okay.
[29:46] Ready?
[29:46] The one thing that I have, I will not be here.
[29:51] This is planning way ahead on March 1st for the regular or for the work session.
[29:56] I'm hoping to, put on and see my...
[30:02] I'm sorry. March first. March. Those birthdays are getting real. Yes. Those birthdays are getting real important when she's 90 so I'm not going to surprise her this time because she almost killed me when I did that.
[30:19] This is also further out, but I could go ahead and put this date out there for Michael in the Board. Should I be fortunate enough to be reelected on the public lands? I will be missing the Fed
[30:29] January 24th regular meeting and would not be available to chair that or the Tuesday work session so there's some my NACO dates.
[30:41] John, on February 2nd, we have a joint meeting with City Council right now.
[30:48] Part of that is just housing guidelines just for an hour but we may want to schedule some work session time ahead of that in terms of
[30:58] if you want to add anything else on to the agenda.
[31:00] Well, we might want to cancel if we're having our retreat that day.
[31:03] Yeah, actually I miss the February second.
[31:05] Oh, exactly.
[31:05] Yeah.
[31:07] That's the second.
[31:07] Okay, so.
[31:08] We'll have to see if we can reschedule that.
[31:10] Yeah.
[31:10] City Councilman.
[31:11] Okay.
[31:12] Yeah, and I think.
[31:13] Good heads up though.
[31:14] Good.
[31:15] Yeah.
[31:16] How did I miss that?
[31:20] I just saw that it was a work session.
[31:22] Not a work session.
[31:23] That's right.
[31:24] Yeah, right.
[31:25] Yeah.
[31:27] Okay.
[31:27] I don't have a, our next EOTC, is that in March?
[31:32] It's scheduled right now.
[31:35] We're not out that far, I'm just curious if that was.
[31:37] You know, I'm gonna have to look up the email from John.
[31:40] I don't know off the top, George.
[31:42] Okay.
[31:43] I believe it, I think I've went towards the end
[31:46] of the first quarter, which would have us in March.
[32:08] Okay, anything else on the future agendas?
[32:15] Open discussion items.
[32:18] Actually, I was just going to email John Ealy was going to come down.
[32:23] He had a letter he wanted to discuss with you.
[32:28] I wonder if we want to take maybe a five minute break unless the board has any open discussion items.
[32:33] I have a couple things.
[32:34] I have a couple things but I wouldn't mind paying him break first.
[32:38] So Rachel?
[32:39] So, yeah, I emailed John and Nan this last night.
[32:47] I got a call yesterday morning from Tom Jim Kowski with Garfield County.
[32:52] And they, as we all are, are continuing to be concerned about the cost of private and
[32:58] healthcare insurance in our region and their region.
[33:03] And they, he wanted to know what would our board like to try to do.
[33:08] You know, we're similar to other places not seeing the real problem with the group insurance rates as much as, again, the private and that's a very limited pool.
[33:18] And so they're thinking that perhaps a bill to make all Colorado one region for rating purposes with the IRS would assist with the problems in rural communities like ours.
[33:31] It's also affecting the front range in places like that, the rural communities there.
[33:37] Once you get out of the metropolitan area, you know, I don't know, and he was saying, you
[33:42] know, you don't really think a bill like that might have a ability to pass given that it
[33:49] would affect other people's rates and potentially bring them up as others come down.
[33:53] But that it would create the attention and the focus on the problem that the rural areas
[33:59] are having with this issue.
[34:02] And so he had said, you know, when we talked to your board about it, see what people think.
[34:07] And then I think that they're having a conference call with summit and eagle and Garfield tomorrow,
[34:16] because we're all in that same district now, but we all have the same issue.
[34:20] Later this afternoon, and so I had forwarded that information to John to potentially sit
[34:24] in.
[34:24] And I don't know if it is something that if you don't think it's really going to pass,
[34:30] it's going to hurt your credibility working on other issues, or asking some of our legislators
[34:35] like Millie or their Red Legislator Bob Rankin to co-sponsor, whether it takes one of their
[34:41] five bills that they really could accomplish something with.
[34:45] But that seems to be at least one course that people are thinking about of how to start to
[34:50] drive a little change on this.
[34:52] So I thought I'd bring that up for you guys to think about and I'm sorry
[34:57] You know, I got the call yesterday right before very last
[35:00] Well, wasn't that part of the discussion that, that, um, Cardonathan had in basalt. That was her, one of her focuses was this, maybe this proportionate thing with in the Rocky Mountain region versus front range, et cetera, the different. Yeah, so just to even to go back a little bit further, this is actually something that we did advocate for one time was for the division of insurance to combine rating areas. So I think,
[35:29] I think what we looked at originally this day was divided I believe into 11 different
[35:36] rating areas and that probably required for accuracy requires a level of discrete data
[35:47] about actual costs in those areas in order to set rates that I think we didn't have
[35:56] a lot of confidence actually existed, that the rates are being set on a pretty limited
[36:01] data set within each of those discrete districts, and so we did make the argument to division
[36:09] of insurance two years ago now, I think that was when we were over there, that the 11 rating
[36:15] areas should really be combined down into one, until we have better data collection capabilities
[36:23] and analytical capabilities maybe to break out.
[36:27] The result of that discussion to get to the bottom line was they went from 11 rating
[36:33] areas to 9 rating areas combining the western slope into one rating area.
[36:39] They took all the resort regions and such and combined them into one with the exception
[36:44] of Mesa County which sits as a highland as a more urban and as county in the western
[36:50] because of Rocky Mountain health care.
[36:52] And because of Rocky Mountain health points.
[36:55] And so it would be a continuation of that discussion,
[37:02] I think, questioning the information
[37:05] in that it's probably a more accurate representation
[37:10] to go across the whole state rather than to break
[37:13] into discrete regions.
[37:15] I think the argument on the flip side of that division
[37:19] of insurance was looking at or what they came back to us with is to say, well, we also want
[37:26] to be sure there are incentives because we do believe there are areas of the state that have
[37:31] higher healthcare costs and areas that have lower healthcare costs and we want to be sure that there's
[37:37] an appropriate incentive for communities to work, that are high costs to really work on lowering
[37:44] their cost to kind of feel that pressure in the reality of those costs rather than have them
[37:50] kind of watered down by being averaged out with these lower cost areas. And so I think that's
[37:57] why they wanted to keep the different rating areas alive. I think the level of transparency right now
[38:12] and healthcare funding, finance, and cost still remains fairly low in a lot of areas.
[38:22] And so it's very, very difficult for us, I think,
[38:25] to evaluate the accuracy of actual costs within these discrete 11 districts
[38:31] or rating areas that have been set up.
[38:35] So, I'm sorry, now nine rating areas have been set up.
[38:40] So I do think there is an argument to, if not combined across the state, at least combined
[38:46] into larger regions.
[38:48] And as soon as you do divide into these rating areas, frankly, rural areas are always
[38:54] going to be more expensive.
[38:55] There is no way that rural areas, whether it be the eastern plains or the mountain, rural
[39:02] resort regions, are going to enjoy the economies of scale that urban areas are going to enjoy.
[39:09] And so if our goal is really to make health care more accessible, we should be leveraging
[39:16] that rural urban difference into a combined rating area.
[39:21] So all that is to say, I think there's a legitimate discussion to have about combining the
[39:26] rating area.
[39:27] Sorry.
[39:28] Kind of wound around that.
[39:29] I appreciate that.
[39:30] How should we back again?
[39:33] Michael?
[39:33] Is there a response to high cost to have the whole state work on or cost reductions?
[39:43] Yeah, and some areas of the state and fairness do have probably lower than national averages and some areas like ours, they probably have higher than the national averages.
[39:55] However, I think the solution needs to be a statewide solution.
[39:59] and you need to bring it in.
[40:04] And also, opportunity, you know, can create a more competitive environment if you can get out of your regions to get those services. Yeah, Tamaiko and John's point, I was just reading an article last night out of the New Yorker on healthcare, which I forwarded to John and Nan as well. But it's said that, you know, in areas where there are our towns or whatever, where there are four or more hot areas,
[40:29] hospital or providers, generally rates for services are about 15% less than areas that have less than four because of the competition.
[40:40] But the bigger example was the difference between, it was a great article, I'll try to forward it to everyone later if I can find it again, but even between Medicare payments for the same service versus private insurance payments for the same service, wildly different prices from town to town.
[40:59] for the exact same service because Medicare can negotiate a price for services with the hospitals and they have a set fee
[41:07] Where's private insurance companies can't do that and then on the flip side, private insurance companies can negotiate for lower drug costs
[41:15] But Medicare was forbidden from doing that and so it just talked about these wild swings between treatment costs for whether you're on Medicare, Medicaid, or
[41:25] private policy. The other item that we found two years ago
[41:29] in chasing this down was that we have so many employers who have group plans that their data
[41:34] doesn't go into the system the same way. That's part of that transparency that he's talking about.
[41:39] So when you look at a place like this, your major employers all have group policies.
[41:46] So their costs and benefits aren't in the dynamic. It's just this very small fraction of people with private policies.
[41:53] employees. And so even employers like City Market, depending on where they process their
[41:58] payroll, is where they consider all their employees to be employed. So they could get
[42:03] the lower rate, you know, for policies, for a group policy, because their office is in Denver
[42:08] or something like this. I mean, it just really was incredibly complex. I'm not sure it all
[42:12] made a lot of sense to me. The end of the article came down to, it really has a lot to
[42:17] do with the treatment paths. And that the type of things that we're working with with
[42:21] the Valley Health Alliance of two different towns compared in Texas, roughly similar poverty
[42:28] and illness ratios, roughly similar populations, and then one spending two times as much as
[42:36] the other gave the exact same results.
[42:38] But it's the overtreatment and it's the lack of follow-up and all sorts of things.
[42:42] So, you know, I was surprised to hear the Grand Junction actually had the highest single
[42:48] policy prices in the country, because we hear so much about Rocky Mountain Healthcare
[42:53] keeping their costs down, they also have the lowest Medicare costs in the country,
[42:58] because they do a great job following up.
[43:00] But the whole system is pretty crazy.
[43:03] So anyhow, it sounds like, to me, that it's a good conversation to have, it may be a good
[43:08] bill to support and to see what we can move forward from your analysis with that.
[43:13] At least I have the discussion.
[43:15] I think there's a, it provides a lot of pathways for us to discuss things that we would like
[43:20] to see even in our Valley Health Alliance efforts around information transparency and that.
[43:25] So I think Carrie Donovan, because she's had that meeting in, so that big meeting in
[43:29] basalt a couple of months ago.
[43:32] Okay.
[43:33] So one, one consideration people are traveling to where they can get the best procedure done
[43:41] for them most cost-effective. So, for instance, my daughter was sent from Alaska to Golden
[43:49] to have her shoulder operated on. Because it saved the insurance company a huge amount
[43:55] of money to pay her, airfare to go, had the surgery done in a place that they had, you
[44:03] know, had probably some sort of an arrangement worked out where it was low, their lowest
[44:08] costs they could get. And so people here, you don't go to have an organ transplant, that's
[44:15] from Valley Hospital, or when would you go somewhere else, where they have our experts
[44:21] at that. So that's just a trend in health care that you don't go to your local medical facilities
[44:32] for a lot of things, you've traveled somewhere else. So having it be a statewide thing to
[44:38] me makes a lot more sense than having it just be our region mind.
[44:45] Well, and one of the things that's been interesting when we did the look at the data two years ago
[44:50] is that can actually cut both ways that sometimes, you know, in a community that has a fluent
[44:57] members like like ours does.
[45:00] Does the travel costs, like if they're going from actually what might have been a lower cost service to a higher cost service area, where it's getting counted against our medical experience locally? That was another, so it's an interesting, it's so complicated once you get into it. Because you're right, there are centers of excellence that can reduce costs, there are centers of excellence that can actually increase costs the way that we understood as being counted.
[45:29] at least two years ago when we were looking at this.
[45:34] And the other kind of discussion that becomes important
[45:37] for the rural areas in particular is how do you provide enough
[45:41] support so that you can maintain services
[45:44] that you want to have in your community.
[45:46] Because if we start sending it all out or cherry picking,
[45:52] then the question of sustainability of our local services
[45:56] comes into question, which has been a big discussion.
[45:59] and it is remarkably complicated and this kind of takes a lot, if you combine the rating
[46:11] areas, it does take a lot of that off the table, at least initially.
[46:17] Well Steve, a pretty example was the eye surgery that I had, I had to have it done in Denver
[46:21] by a retinal specialist, but the procedure that I had to stay in Denver because of altitude
[46:25] issues, but my insurance wouldn't cover my stay.
[46:28] I was required by the position to stay at altitude for seven days and that came out of my
[46:35] own pocket.
[46:36] I said, why am I sleeping in my car with my head down for a 4-day and that was a little
[46:41] frustrating.
[46:42] And the other example was the friend who went to get her husband's MRI after brain surgery
[46:47] and it was $500 with better equipment in Denver and $3,500 in the valley.
[46:53] And that, you know, those price discrepancies, you know, affect where you're going to go.
[46:58] I mean, they really do.
[46:59] Are people who are now shopping for the better deal for health care?
[47:02] Well, and frankly, it's supposed to encourage that, you know, it is just down to saying incredibly
[47:08] complex.
[47:09] I recall Dr. Mitchell saying pretty clearly, look, you know, if we were running this like
[47:14] a business, we wouldn't keep the emergency room open after midnight, you know, it's as we
[47:18] wouldn't do it.
[47:19] But people want in emergency room 24 hours a day, so we're all paying for that effectively through our rates.
[47:26] But I just want to say before we move on to any other subjects that this does mean that we may,
[47:32] it should reach a stage of being a viable bill or bill we're introducing.
[47:36] Coming down to give testimony, producing some picking county data, some information,
[47:41] having the point of view, and proceeding it seriously.
[47:45] So I just wanted to make sure we knew it was a little bit of a workload
[47:48] We're asking John and staff if we're pursuing that.
[47:53] That was my only open discussion item.
[47:56] Okay.
[47:57] We want to have John on the open discussion, John Ely.
[48:02] Are you ready for the open discussion item?
[48:05] I'm kind of took all your space.
[48:06] As you are here for.
[48:09] The board would know what I would like to do is offer for
[48:16] consideration of a letter that's proposed to be sent to the BLM in
[48:26] response to a new
[48:28] request for an extension of time.
[48:30] This has points on it, John.
[48:34] This is for the extension of the deadline for comment.
[48:42] Yes.
[48:46] All right, John, I'm here for you, but it's okay.
[48:52] There you go.
[48:53] That's a amazing kind of letter, it's a letter that's in response to you.
[48:59] We'll talk.
[49:03] You can call me.
[49:03] Oh, yeah.
[49:04] She's coming over for a second.
[49:14] Okay.
[49:14] That's okay.
[49:16] All right.
[49:17] Oh, right.
[49:20] I thought they'd already denied these.
[49:22] They did.
[49:23] It's been re-assured.
[49:25] Reiterated.
[49:25] That's correct.
[49:26] Okay.
[49:27] The first request for...
[49:28] was for 90 days and this is for 45.
[49:57] So the bottom line is John this.
[50:00] That our response is saying let's just move forward. Yes, denied the request, the renewed request. Because it's really not necessary to extend it. Absolutely.
[50:19] I mean, Mesa County made boycott. I mean to our meeting. You know,
[50:28] the only thing I get out of reading it is the final paragraph is to again kind of close with restating our position more formally. So, you know,
[50:39] So, delay would merely force all parties to continue to tread water waiting for a resolution.
[50:46] We therefore respectfully request that you deny the application to its step.
[50:52] Okay.
[50:52] Yeah, just so it's restated at the bottom.
[50:55] I agree.
[50:57] John, what's the downside of the extension?
[51:01] The downside of the extension is delay to the process and perhaps taking this out of 2016
[51:08] team, which would put us into a new administration, the objective, of course, is to have this
[51:16] process come to conclusion with the same players, so to speak, administrative officials
[51:22] who were there when the process was initiated.
[51:26] It allows for a degree of continuity and a greater understanding comprehension of the issues
[51:32] and the circumstances of what's going on
[51:36] and proposed to go on in Thompson Divide
[51:38] and makes for a smoother process.
[51:41] So that's the primary objective.
[51:44] Okay.
[51:49] I'm good with this, but can I ask something else?
[51:54] Mr. Neal and comments on this letter.
[51:57] John, are we going to be sending our own Picking County letter
[52:02] to the BLM supporting alternative four?
[52:06] Yes.
[52:09] When we do that, I'd like to refer to the joint letter that was sent, and make
[52:20] a sort of reference to, you know, let's see, with this in mind, we replace the C to BLN
[52:26] strap, the IS container for pose action. Of course, it never specifically said what was
[52:32] a proposed action. So I'd like to couch it that based on our joint letter, that proposed
[52:39] action that we support is alternative four. So it's very clear. I'm sorry that that's
[52:45] not getting this letter, politics to President, but I think we can refer to this letter and
[52:53] strengthen this joint letter by saying, and that proposed action is alternative four.
[52:58] Absolutely, absolutely. And the other jurisdictions may also be referring to the letter from their point of view as well, and that's fine.
[53:13] Yeah, so I think we should look at this letter.
[53:16] Okay.
[53:16] With the change.
[53:18] Is that all right to everyone?
[53:21] Yeah. Thanks.
[53:22] Thanks, John. Thanks, John.
[53:27] Let's see a light on the light that I had.
[53:31] We'd like to collect that stuff and get rid of it for you or you can hang on to it if you want.
[53:43] Last night at a Solstice party, I had a conversation with Brent Gardner Smith and he was asking me where we are in our planning of the layout of our new
[53:58] a new commissioner's meeting room in the new building and he has real definite ideas
[54:03] about making sure that there's a good press table with electronic connections and monitor
[54:13] and different things and he said he would contact you John about that and then we had a larger
[54:23] conversation with several people who have been done presentations before, elected boards,
[54:31] not stars, but others, and in a variety of meeting rooms from Breckenridge to Garfield
[54:38] County, to Aspen City Council in various places, and one was Harry Teague was in on that conversation.
[54:49] and they really hope that we can do as close to the ideal setup for our new meeting room in
[54:56] in terms of the layout for it, and so...
[55:00] I don't think it's too early to start thinking about it but then I also thought when we're meeting in the library meeting room might be an opportunity to try different configurations of how we have our seats in relation to how the public's seats are and where the press table would be and all those different items could be. We could shift them around when we're in there and
[55:29] see if there's a certain way that works better for us and for the public and for the press
[55:36] while we're in there. So I thought it's not too soon to bring that subject up even
[55:42] though we're still kind of with the legal block part of the discussion on what is actually
[55:48] inside the building. So in January we're going to be we have a work session that we're scheduling
[55:56] really to look at two things. One, to bring back the exterior. You guys gave
[56:03] a lot of feedback on the exterior and so we're going to bring back what we
[56:07] understood that to be and how it translates into a proposal now for the
[56:14] building based on those discussions. And also sometimes I've particularly to
[56:20] talk about the meeting room and so we're going to have a work session on that
[56:23] coming up in January here, just so we could start to get some of those ideas. We have talked
[56:31] about the need for press workspace, you know, because right now the press will come in.
[56:38] Wait, press work? Yeah, it will be small, don't worry.
[56:45] But, you know, usually with laptops or
[56:49] recording devices and such, and if we can create a better space for the press, so they
[56:57] can accurately report on us, right?
[57:00] We can see the screens of their computers, so we know what they're actually doing.
[57:05] It's easy to watch it on the press.
[57:06] We like it when you come over and say yes.
[57:08] And then, you know, have clear areas for the public.
[57:12] We do not have that delineated yet, but we certainly, that's been part of our discussion.
[57:17] and then it'll be difficult to fit all that in,
[57:19] but I think we have the opportunity to right now.
[57:22] So, and we'll talk about that in January some more,
[57:26] and see what you guys think of what we're looking at, Rachel.
[57:30] Yeah, I really appreciated it,
[57:32] and thought it was a very collaborative work session
[57:34] on the building exterior.
[57:37] I didn't think to mention it at the time,
[57:39] but I'm hope that they're bringing back
[57:41] a couple of options for us to look at on things
[57:43] such as the entryway arch, you know, there were so many different designs shown and I hope
[57:49] it doesn't come back as just a one and then we start critiquing and going from there.
[57:53] So if you could talk to them, it would just be my hope that we see a couple different versions
[57:59] of what that entryway arch could look like or even what the new roof line for the overhang
[58:07] for this building would look like so it's not a single thing and then we start
[58:13] all designing at the table. Yeah and I think the entryway definitely that's a
[58:19] that's pretty interchangeable. The roof line will one be careful about it in
[58:24] sure. Well and again the entryway arch I think at least none of the existing ones
[58:31] were really it you know and so that's why you know we know in like the real
[58:35] modern metal entryway and the other one looked too large and I'd suggested a pillar perhaps
[58:41] is enough to demarcate the sidewalk. So they should just bring back some options.
[58:46] And we also have been talking to the veterans community who have some input to and try and incorporate
[58:52] that.
[58:52] Okay.
[58:53] Yeah.
[58:54] Good.
[58:55] I have one thing.
[58:57] I don't know.
[58:58] I don't see anybody else with the packet information we got, but the letter from Lenny Oates, did
[59:02] everybody get that?
[59:03] I got that.
[59:04] I did not bring that in.
[59:05] Okay, and you just need to decide how to address that if we want to.
[59:12] I don't know what you're talking about.
[59:13] Did you get a copy in your box?
[59:15] I have made up to see in my box.
[59:17] Yeah, well, when you guys read it, let's just make a decision on what we want to do.
[59:20] Yeah, is it something we might be able to add to the executive session at this point?
[59:25] It's a potential.
[59:28] I think we've discussed it once, but we didn't.
[59:31] And then it came back.
[59:31] So I don't know if John Ealy has already responded to that letter we got or what so maybe we could add it to executive if possible
[59:40] See if John
[59:48] That would be great just so we can yeah have it done so that's it
[59:54] for me
[1:00:02] If, you know, along those lines for
[1:00:09] the executive session, motion, it may be appropriate then to do for a acquisitions and for e negotiations. I think that'd be appropriate. Anyway, because the acquisitions discussion requires negotiations. Well, it would require both negotiations and add some lease components to it, which are probably more appropriate.
[1:00:33] it under negotiations and then if we had the discussion about the letter that we receive
[1:00:39] that would fall under negotiations.
[1:00:43] Okay, so I would entertain a motion to go into open a special meeting and entertain a
[1:00:52] motion to go into executive session for purposes of acquisitions, CRS 24-6, that's 4024A
[1:01:01] and negotiations CRS 24-6-402-4E so move second all in favor say hi hi thank you
[1:01:16] for joining us and have a good holiday we
[1:01:22] want to give a few minutes
[1:01:23] Yeah, we're doing research.